The Project Gutenberg Etext of Beyond Good and Evil, by Friedrich Nietzsche
(Helen Zimmern translation)

Copyright laws are changing all over the world. Be sure to check the
copyright laws for your country before distributing this or any other
Project Gutenberg file.

We encourage you to keep this file, exactly as it is, on your
own disk, thereby keeping an electronic path open for future
readers. Please do not remove this.

This header should be the first thing seen when anyone starts to
view the etext. Do not change or edit it without written permission.
The words are carefully chosen to provide users with the
information they need to understand what they may and may not
do with the etext.

**Welcome To The World of Free Plain Vanilla Electronic Texts**

**Etexts Readable By Both Humans and By Computers, Since 1971**

*****These Etexts Are Prepared By Thousands of Volunteers!*****

Information on contacting Project Gutenberg to get etexts, and
further information, is included below. We need your donations.

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a 501(c)(3)
organization with EIN [Employee Identification Number] 64-6221541

Title: Beyond Good and Evil

Author: Friedrich Nietzsche
(Translated by Helen Zimmern)

Release Date: August, 2003 [Etext #4363]
[Yes, we are more than one year ahead of schedule]
[This file was first posted on January 15, 2002]
[Date last updated: April 2, 2003]

Edition: 10

Language: English

Character set encoding: ASCII

The Project Gutenberg Etext of Beyond Good and Evil, by Friedrich Nietzsche
************This file should be named bygdv10.txt or***********

Corrected EDITIONS of our etexts get a new NUMBER, bygdv11.txt
VERSIONS based on separate sources get new LETTER, bygdv10a.txt

This etext was produced by John Mamoun (,
Charles Franks and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team.

Project Gutenberg Etexts are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the US
unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we usually do not
keep etexts in compliance with any particular paper edition.

We are now trying to release all our etexts one year in advance
of the official release dates, leaving time for better editing.
Please be encouraged to tell us about any error or corrections,
even years after the official publication date.

Please note neither this listing nor its contents are final til
midnight of the last day of the month of any such announcement.
The official release date of all Project Gutenberg Etexts is at
Midnight, Central Time, of the last day of the stated month. A
preliminary version may often be posted for suggestion, comment
and editing by those who wish to do so.

Most people start at our sites at: or

These Web sites include award-winning information about Project
Gutenberg, including how to donate, how to help produce our new
etexts, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter (free!).

Those of you who want to download any Etext before announcement
can get to them as follows, and just download by date. This is
also a good way to get them instantly upon announcement, as the
indexes our cataloguers produce obviously take a while after an
announcement goes out in the Project Gutenberg Newsletter. or

Or /etext02, 01, 00, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 92, 91 or 90

Just search by the first five letters of the filename you want,
as it appears in our Newsletters.

Information about Project Gutenberg (one page)

We produce about two million dollars for each hour we work. The
time it takes us, a rather conservative estimate, is fifty hours
to get any etext selected, entered, proofread, edited, copyright
searched and analyzed, the copyright letters written, etc. Our
projected audience is one hundred million readers. If the value
per text is nominally estimated at one dollar then we produce $2
million dollars per hour in 2001 as we release over 50 new Etext
files per month, or 500 more Etexts in 2000 for a total of 4000+
If they reach just 1-2% of the world's population then the total
should reach over 300 billion Etexts given away by year's end.

The Goal of Project Gutenberg is to Give Away One Trillion Etext
Files by December 31, 2001. [10,000 x 100,000,000 = 1 Trillion]
This is ten thousand titles each to one hundred million readers,
which is only about 4% of the present number of computer users.

At our revised rates of production, we will reach only one-third
of that goal by the end of 2001, or about 4,000 Etexts. We need
funding, as well as continued efforts by volunteers, to maintain
or increase our production and reach our goals.

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation has been created
to secure a future for Project Gutenberg into the next millennium.

We need your donations more than ever!

As of November, 2001, contributions are being solicited from people
and organizations in: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin,
and Wyoming.

*In Progress

We have filed in about 45 states now, but these are the only ones
that have responded.

As the requirements for other states are met, additions to this list
will be made and fund raising will begin in the additional states.
Please feel free to ask to check the status of your state.

In answer to various questions we have received on this:

We are constantly working on finishing the paperwork to legally
request donations in all 50 states. If your state is not listed and
you would like to know if we have added it since the list you have,
just ask.

While we cannot solicit donations from people in states where we are
not yet registered, we know of no prohibition against accepting
donations from donors in these states who approach us with an offer to

International donations are accepted, but we don't know ANYTHING about
how to make them tax-deductible, or even if they CAN be made
deductible, and don't have the staff to handle it even if there are

All donations should be made to:

Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
PMB 113
1739 University Ave.
Oxford, MS 38655-4109

Contact us if you want to arrange for a wire transfer or payment
method other than by check or money order.

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation has been approved by
the US Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) organization with EIN
[Employee Identification Number] 64-622154. Donations are
tax-deductible to the maximum extent permitted by law. As fundraising
requirements for other states are met, additions to this list will be
made and fundraising will begin in the additional states.

We need your donations more than ever!

You can get up to date donation information at:


If you can't reach Project Gutenberg,
you can always email directly to:

Michael S. Hart

Prof. Hart will answer or forward your message.

We would prefer to send you information by email.

**The Legal Small Print**

(Three Pages)

Why is this "Small Print!" statement here? You know: lawyers.
They tell us you might sue us if there is something wrong with
your copy of this etext, even if you got it for free from
someone other than us, and even if what's wrong is not our
fault. So, among other things, this "Small Print!" statement
disclaims most of our liability to you. It also tells you how
you may distribute copies of this etext if you want to.

By using or reading any part of this PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm
etext, you indicate that you understand, agree to and accept
this "Small Print!" statement. If you do not, you can receive
a refund of the money (if any) you paid for this etext by
sending a request within 30 days of receiving it to the person
you got it from. If you received this etext on a physical
medium (such as a disk), you must return it with your request.

This PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etext, like most PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etexts,
is a "public domain" work distributed by Professor Michael S. Hart
through the Project Gutenberg Association (the "Project").
Among other things, this means that no one owns a United States copyright
on or for this work, so the Project (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and
without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth
below, apply if you wish to copy and distribute this etext
under the "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark.

Please do not use the "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark to market
any commercial products without permission.

To create these etexts, the Project expends considerable
efforts to identify, transcribe and proofread public domain
works. Despite these efforts, the Project's etexts and any
medium they may be on may contain "Defects". Among other
things, Defects may take the form of incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged
disk or other etext medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

But for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described below,
[1] Michael Hart and the Foundation (and any other party you may
receive this etext from as a PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etext) disclaims
all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including

If you discover a Defect in this etext within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any)
you paid for it by sending an explanatory note within that
time to the person you received it from. If you received it
on a physical medium, you must return it with your note, and
such person may choose to alternatively give you a replacement
copy. If you received it electronically, such person may
choose to alternatively give you a second opportunity to
receive it electronically.


Some states do not allow disclaimers of implied warranties or
the exclusion or limitation of consequential damages, so the
above disclaimers and exclusions may not apply to you, and you
may have other legal rights.

You will indemnify and hold Michael Hart, the Foundation,
and its trustees and agents, and any volunteers associated
with the production and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm
texts harmless, from all liability, cost and expense, including
legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the
following that you do or cause: [1] distribution of this etext,
[2] alteration, modification, or addition to the etext,
or [3] any Defect.

You may distribute copies of this etext electronically, or by
disk, book or any other medium if you either delete this
"Small Print!" and all other references to Project Gutenberg,

[1] Only give exact copies of it. Among other things, this
requires that you do not remove, alter or modify the
etext or this "small print!" statement. You may however,
if you wish, distribute this etext in machine readable
binary, compressed, mark-up, or proprietary form,
including any form resulting from conversion by word
processing or hypertext software, but only so long as

[*] The etext, when displayed, is clearly readable, and
does *not* contain characters other than those
intended by the author of the work, although tilde
(~), asterisk (*) and underline (_) characters may
be used to convey punctuation intended by the
author, and additional characters may be used to
indicate hypertext links; OR

[*] The etext may be readily converted by the reader at
no expense into plain ASCII, EBCDIC or equivalent
form by the program that displays the etext (as is
the case, for instance, with most word processors);

[*] You provide, or agree to also provide on request at
no additional cost, fee or expense, a copy of the
etext in its original plain ASCII form (or in EBCDIC
or other equivalent proprietary form).

[2] Honor the etext refund and replacement provisions of this
"Small Print!" statement.

[3] Pay a trademark license fee to the Foundation of 20% of the
gross profits you derive calculated using the method you
already use to calculate your applicable taxes. If you
don't derive profits, no royalty is due. Royalties are
payable to "Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation"
the 60 days following each date you prepare (or were
legally required to prepare) your annual (or equivalent
periodic) tax return. Please contact us beforehand to
let us know your plans and to work out the details.

Project Gutenberg is dedicated to increasing the number of
public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed
in machine readable form.

The Project gratefully accepts contributions of money, time,
public domain materials, or royalty free copyright licenses.
Money should be paid to the:
"Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."

If you are interested in contributing scanning equipment or
software or other items, please contact Michael Hart at:

[Portions of this header are copyright (C) 2001 by Michael S. Hart
and may be reprinted only when these Etexts are free of all fees.]
[Project Gutenberg is a TradeMark and may not be used in any sales
of Project Gutenberg Etexts or other materials be they hardware or
software or any other related product without express permission.]


This etext was produced by John Mamoun (,
Charles Franks and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team.





The following is a reprint of the Helen Zimmern translation from
German into English of "Beyond Good and Evil," as published in
The Complete Works of Friedrich Nietzsche (1909-1913). Some
adaptations from the original text were made to format it into
an e-text. Italics in the original book are capitalized in this
e-text, except for most foreign language phrases that were
italicized. Original footnotes are put in brackets "[]" at the
points where they are cited in the text. Some spellings were
altered. "To-day" and "To-morrow" are spelled "today" and
"tomorrow." Some words containing the letters "ise" in the original
text, such as "idealise," had these letters changed to "ize," such
as "idealize." "Sceptic" was changed to "skeptic."






SUPPOSING that Truth is a woman--what then? Is there not ground
for suspecting that all philosophers, in so far as they have been
dogmatists, have failed to understand women--that the terrible
seriousness and clumsy importunity with which they have usually
paid their addresses to Truth, have been unskilled and unseemly
methods for winning a woman? Certainly she has never allowed
herself to be won; and at present every kind of dogma stands with
sad and discouraged mien--IF, indeed, it stands at all! For there
are scoffers who maintain that it has fallen, that all dogma lies
on the ground--nay more, that it is at its last gasp. But to
speak seriously, there are good grounds for hoping that all
dogmatizing in philosophy, whatever solemn, whatever conclusive
and decided airs it has assumed, may have been only a noble
puerilism and tyronism; and probably the time is at hand when it
will be once and again understood WHAT has actually sufficed for
the basis of such imposing and absolute philosophical edifices as
the dogmatists have hitherto reared: perhaps some popular
superstition of immemorial time (such as the soul-superstition,
which, in the form of subject- and ego-superstition, has not yet
ceased doing mischief): perhaps some play upon words, a deception
on the part of grammar, or an audacious generalization of very
restricted, very personal, very human--all-too-human facts. The
philosophy of the dogmatists, it is to be hoped, was only a
promise for thousands of years afterwards, as was astrology in
still earlier times, in the service of which probably more
labour, gold, acuteness, and patience have been spent than on any
actual science hitherto: we owe to it, and to its "super-
terrestrial" pretensions in Asia and Egypt, the grand style of
architecture. It seems that in order to inscribe themselves upon
the heart of humanity with everlasting claims, all great things
have first to wander about the earth as enormous and awe-
inspiring caricatures: dogmatic philosophy has been a caricature
of this kind--for instance, the Vedanta doctrine in Asia, and
Platonism in Europe. Let us not be ungrateful to it, although it
must certainly be confessed that the worst, the most tiresome,
and the most dangerous of errors hitherto has been a dogmatist
error--namely, Plato's invention of Pure Spirit and the Good in
Itself. But now when it has been surmounted, when Europe, rid of
this nightmare, can again draw breath freely and at least enjoy a
healthier--sleep, we, WHOSE DUTY IS WAKEFULNESS ITSELF, are the
heirs of all the strength which the struggle against this error
has fostered. It amounted to the very inversion of truth, and the
denial of the PERSPECTIVE--the fundamental condition--of life, to
speak of Spirit and the Good as Plato spoke of them; indeed one
might ask, as a physician: "How did such a malady attack that
finest product of antiquity, Plato? Had the wicked Socrates
really corrupted him? Was Socrates after all a corrupter of
youths, and deserved his hemlock?" But the struggle against
Plato, or--to speak plainer, and for the "people"--the struggle
against the ecclesiastical oppression of millenniums of
produced in Europe a magnificent tension of soul, such as had not
existed anywhere previously; with such a tensely strained bow one
can now aim at the furthest goals. As a matter of fact, the
European feels this tension as a state of distress, and twice
attempts have been made in grand style to unbend the bow: once by
means of Jesuitism, and the second time by means of democratic
enlightenment--which, with the aid of liberty of the press and
newspaper-reading, might, in fact, bring it about that the spirit
would not so easily find itself in "distress"! (The Germans
invented gunpowder-all credit to them! but they again made things
square--they invented printing.) But we, who are neither Jesuits,
nor democrats, nor even sufficiently Germans, we GOOD EUROPEANS,
and free, VERY free spirits--we have it still, all the distress
of spirit and all the tension of its bow! And perhaps also the
arrow, the duty, and, who knows? THE GOAL TO AIM AT. . . .

Sils Maria Upper Engadine, JUNE, 1885.



1. The Will to Truth, which is to tempt us to many a hazardous
enterprise, the famous Truthfulness of which all philosophers
have hitherto spoken with respect, what questions has this Will
to Truth not laid before us! What strange, perplexing,
questionable questions! It is already a long story; yet it seems
as if it were hardly commenced. Is it any wonder if we at last
grow distrustful, lose patience, and turn impatiently away? That
this Sphinx teaches us at last to ask questions ourselves? WHO is
it really that puts questions to us here? WHAT really is this
"Will to Truth" in us? In fact we made a long halt at the
question as to the origin of this Will--until at last we came to
an absolute standstill before a yet more fundamental question. We
inquired about the VALUE of this Will. Granted that we want the
truth: WHY NOT RATHER untruth? And uncertainty? Even ignorance?
The problem of the value of truth presented itself before us--or
was it we who presented ourselves before the problem? Which of us
is the Oedipus here? Which the Sphinx? It would seem to be a
rendezvous of questions and notes of interrogation. And could it
be believed that it at last seems to us as if the problem had
never been propounded before, as if we were the first to discern
it, get a sight of it, and RISK RAISING it? For there is risk in
raising it, perhaps there is no greater risk.

2. "HOW COULD anything originate out of its opposite? For
example, truth out of error? or the Will to Truth out of the will
to deception? or the generous deed out of selfishness? or the
pure sun-bright vision of the wise man out of covetousness? Such
genesis is impossible; whoever dreams of it is a fool, nay, worse
than a fool; things of the highest value must have a different
origin, an origin of THEIR own--in this transitory, seductive,
illusory, paltry world, in this turmoil of delusion and cupidity,
they cannot have their source. But rather in the lap of Being, in
the intransitory, in the concealed God, in the 'Thing-in-itself--
THERE must be their source, and nowhere else!"--This mode of
reasoning discloses the typical prejudice by which metaphysicians
of all times can be recognized, this mode of valuation is at the
back of all their logical procedure; through this "belief" of
theirs, they exert themselves for their "knowledge," for
something that is in the end solemnly christened "the Truth." The
fundamental belief of metaphysicians is THE BELIEF IN ANTITHESES
OF VALUES. It never occurred even to the wariest of them to doubt
here on the very threshold (where doubt, however, was most
necessary); though they had made a solemn vow, "DE OMNIBUS
DUBITANDUM." For it may be doubted, firstly, whether antitheses
exist at all; and secondly, whether the popular valuations and
antitheses of value upon which metaphysicians have set their
seal, are not perhaps merely superficial estimates, merely
provisional perspectives, besides being probably made from some
corner, perhaps from below--"frog perspectives," as it were, to
borrow an expression current among painters. In spite of all the
value which may belong to the true, the positive, and the
unselfish, it might be possible that a higher and more
fundamental value for life generally should be assigned to
pretence, to the will to delusion, to selfishness, and cupidity.
It might even be possible that WHAT constitutes the value of
those good and respected things, consists precisely in their
being insidiously related, knotted, and crocheted to these evil
and apparently opposed things--perhaps even in being essentially
identical with them. Perhaps! But who wishes to concern himself
with such dangerous "Perhapses"! For that investigation one must
await the advent of a new order of philosophers, such as will
have other tastes and inclinations, the reverse of those hitherto
prevalent--philosophers of the dangerous "Perhaps" in every sense
of the term. And to speak in all seriousness, I see such new
philosophers beginning to appear.

3. Having kept a sharp eye on philosophers, and having read
between their lines long enough, I now say to myself that the
greater part of conscious thinking must be counted among the
instinctive functions, and it is so even in the case of
philosophical thinking; one has here to learn anew, as one
learned anew about heredity and "innateness." As little as the
act of birth comes into consideration in the whole process and
procedure of heredity, just as little is "being-conscious"
OPPOSED to the instinctive in any decisive sense; the greater
part of the conscious thinking of a philosopher is secretly
influenced by his instincts, and forced into definite channels.
And behind all logic and its seeming sovereignty of movement,
there are valuations, or to speak more plainly, physiological
demands, for the maintenance of a definite mode of life For
example, that the certain is worth more than the uncertain, that
illusion is less valuable than "truth" such valuations, in spite
of their regulative importance for US, might notwithstanding be
only superficial valuations, special kinds of maiserie, such as
may be necessary for the maintenance of beings such as ourselves.
Supposing, in effect, that man is not just the "measure of

4. The falseness of an opinion is not for us any objection to it:
it is here, perhaps, that our new language sounds most strangely.
The question is, how far an opinion is life-furthering, life-
preserving, species-preserving, perhaps species-rearing, and we
are fundamentally inclined to maintain that the falsest opinions
(to which the synthetic judgments a priori belong), are the most
indispensable to us, that without a recognition of logical
fictions, without a comparison of reality with the purely
IMAGINED world of the absolute and immutable, without a constant
counterfeiting of the world by means of numbers, man could not
live--that the renunciation of false opinions would be a
renunciation of life, a negation of life. TO RECOGNISE UNTRUTH AS
A CONDITION OF LIFE; that is certainly to impugn the traditional
ideas of value in a dangerous manner, and a philosophy which
ventures to do so, has thereby alone placed itself beyond good
and evil.

5. That which causes philosophers to be regarded half-
distrustfully and half-mockingly, is not the oft-repeated
discovery how innocent they are--how often and easily they make
mistakes and lose their way, in short, how childish and childlike
they are,--but that there is not enough honest dealing with them,
whereas they all raise a loud and virtuous outcry when the
problem of truthfulness is even hinted at in the remotest manner.
They all pose as though their real opinions had been discovered
and attained through the self-evolving of a cold, pure, divinely
indifferent dialectic (in contrast to all sorts of mystics, who,
fairer and foolisher, talk of "inspiration"), whereas, in fact, a
prejudiced proposition, idea, or "suggestion," which is generally
their heart's desire abstracted and refined, is defended by them
with arguments sought out after the event. They are all advocates
who do not wish to be regarded as such, generally astute
defenders, also, of their prejudices, which they dub "truths,"--
and VERY far from having the conscience which bravely admits this
to itself, very far from having the good taste of the courage
which goes so far as to let this be understood, perhaps to warn
friend or foe, or in cheerful confidence and self-ridicule. The
spectacle of the Tartuffery of old Kant, equally stiff and
decent, with which he entices us into the dialectic by-ways that
lead (more correctly mislead) to his "categorical imperative"--
makes us fastidious ones smile, we who find no small amusement in
spying out the subtle tricks of old moralists and ethical
preachers. Or, still more so, the hocus-pocus in mathematical
form, by means of which Spinoza has, as it were, clad his
philosophy in mail and mask--in fact, the "love of HIS wisdom,"
to translate the term fairly and squarely--in order thereby to
strike terror at once into the heart of the assailant who should
dare to cast a glance on that invincible maiden, that Pallas
Athene:--how much of personal timidity and vulnerability does
this masquerade of a sickly recluse betray!

6. It has gradually become clear to me what every great
philosophy up till now has consisted of--namely, the confession
of its originator, and a species of involuntary and unconscious
auto-biography; and moreover that the moral (or immoral) purpose
in every philosophy has constituted the true vital germ out of
which the entire plant has always grown. Indeed, to understand
how the abstrusest metaphysical assertions of a philosopher have
been arrived at, it is always well (and wise) to first ask
oneself: "What morality do they (or does he) aim at?"
Accordingly, I do not believe that an "impulse to knowledge" is
the father of philosophy; but that another impulse, here as
elsewhere, has only made use of knowledge (and mistaken
knowledge!) as an instrument. But whoever considers the
fundamental impulses of man with a view to determining how far
they may have here acted as INSPIRING GENII (or as demons and
cobolds), will find that they have all practiced philosophy at
one time or another, and that each one of them would have been
only too glad to look upon itself as the ultimate end of
existence and the legitimate LORD over all the other impulses.
For every impulse is imperious, and as SUCH, attempts to
philosophize. To be sure, in the case of scholars, in the case of
really scientific men, it may be otherwise--"better," if you
will; there there may really be such a thing as an "impulse to
knowledge," some kind of small, independent clock-work, which,
when well wound up, works away industriously to that end, WITHOUT
the rest of the scholarly impulses taking any material part
therein. The actual "interests" of the scholar, therefore, are
generally in quite another direction--in the family, perhaps, or
in money-making, or in politics; it is, in fact, almost
indifferent at what point of research his little machine is
placed, and whether the hopeful young worker becomes a good
philologist, a mushroom specialist, or a chemist; he is not
CHARACTERISED by becoming this or that. In the philosopher, on
the contrary, there is absolutely nothing impersonal; and above
all, his morality furnishes a decided and decisive testimony as
to WHO HE IS,--that is to say, in what order the deepest impulses
of his nature stand to each other.

7. How malicious philosophers can be! I know of nothing more
stinging than the joke Epicurus took the liberty of making on
Plato and the Platonists; he called them Dionysiokolakes. In its
original sense, and on the face of it, the word signifies
"Flatterers of Dionysius"--consequently, tyrants' accessories and
lick-spittles; besides this, however, it is as much as to say,
"They are all ACTORS, there is nothing genuine about them" (for
Dionysiokolax was a popular name for an actor). And the latter is
really the malignant reproach that Epicurus cast upon Plato: he
was annoyed by the grandiose manner, the mise en scene style of
which Plato and his scholars were masters--of which Epicurus was
not a master! He, the old school-teacher of Samos, who sat
concealed in his little garden at Athens, and wrote three hundred
books, perhaps out of rage and ambitious envy of Plato, who
knows! Greece took a hundred years to find out who the garden-god
Epicurus really was. Did she ever find out?

8. There is a point in every philosophy at which the "conviction"
of the philosopher appears on the scene; or, to put it in the
words of an ancient mystery:

Adventavit asinus, Pulcher et fortissimus.

9. You desire to LIVE "according to Nature"? Oh, you noble
Stoics, what fraud of words! Imagine to yourselves a being like
Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without
purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once
fruitful and barren and uncertain: imagine to yourselves
INDIFFERENCE as a power--how COULD you live in accordance with
such indifference? To live--is not that just endeavouring to be
otherwise than this Nature? Is not living valuing, preferring,
being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different? And
granted that your imperative, "living according to Nature," means
actually the same as "living according to life"--how could you do
DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you
yourselves are, and must be? In reality, however, it is quite
otherwise with you: while you pretend to read with rapture the
canon of your law in Nature, you want something quite the
contrary, you extraordinary stage-players and self-deluders! In
your pride you wish to dictate your morals and ideals to Nature,
to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein; you insist
that it shall be Nature "according to the Stoa," and would like
everything to be made after your own image, as a vast, eternal
glorification and generalism of Stoicism! With all your love for
truth, you have forced yourselves so long, so persistently, and
with such hypnotic rigidity to see Nature FALSELY, that is to
say, Stoically, that you are no longer able to see it otherwise--
and to crown all, some unfathomable superciliousness gives you
the Bedlamite hope that BECAUSE you are able to tyrannize over
yourselves--Stoicism is self-tyranny--Nature will also allow
herself to be tyrannized over: is not the Stoic a PART of
Nature? . . . But this is an old and everlasting story: what
happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as
soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always
creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise;
philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the most spiritual
Will to Power, the will to "creation of the world," the will to
the causa prima.

10. The eagerness and subtlety, I should even say craftiness,
with which the problem of "the real and the apparent world" is
dealt with at present throughout Europe, furnishes food for
thought and attention; and he who hears only a "Will to Truth" in
the background, and nothing else, cannot certainly boast of the
sharpest ears. In rare and isolated cases, it may really have
happened that such a Will to Truth--a certain extravagant and
adventurous pluck, a metaphysician's ambition of the forlorn
hope--has participated therein: that which in the end always
prefers a handful of "certainty" to a whole cartload of beautiful
possibilities; there may even be puritanical fanatics of
conscience, who prefer to put their last trust in a sure nothing,
rather than in an uncertain something. But that is Nihilism, and
the sign of a despairing, mortally wearied soul, notwithstanding
the courageous bearing such a virtue may display. It seems,
however, to be otherwise with stronger and livelier thinkers who
are still eager for life. In that they side AGAINST appearance,
and speak superciliously of "perspective," in that they rank the
credibility of their own bodies about as low as the credibility
of the ocular evidence that "the earth stands still," and thus,
apparently, allowing with complacency their securest possession
to escape (for what does one at present believe in more firmly
than in one's body?),--who knows if they are not really trying to
win back something which was formerly an even securer possession,
something of the old domain of the faith of former times, perhaps
the "immortal soul," perhaps "the old God," in short, ideas by
which they could live better, that is to say, more vigorously and
more joyously, than by "modern ideas"? There is DISTRUST of these
modern ideas in this mode of looking at things, a disbelief in
all that has been constructed yesterday and today; there is
perhaps some slight admixture of satiety and scorn, which can no
longer endure the BRIC-A-BRAC of ideas of the most varied origin,
such as so-called Positivism at present throws on the market; a
disgust of the more refined taste at the village-fair motleyness
and patchiness of all these reality-philosophasters, in whom
there is nothing either new or true, except this motleyness.
Therein it seems to me that we should agree with those skeptical
anti-realists and knowledge-microscopists of the present day;
their instinct, which repels them from MODERN reality, is
unrefuted . . . what do their retrograde by-paths concern us!
The main thing about them is NOT that they wish to go "back,"
but that they wish to get AWAY therefrom. A little MORE strength,
swing, courage, and artistic power, and they would be OFF--and
not back!

11. It seems to me that there is everywhere an attempt at present
to divert attention from the actual influence which Kant
exercised on German philosophy, and especially to ignore
prudently the value which he set upon himself. Kant was first and
foremost proud of his Table of Categories; with it in his hand he
said: "This is the most difficult thing that could ever be
undertaken on behalf of metaphysics." Let us only understand this
"could be"! He was proud of having DISCOVERED a new faculty in
man, the faculty of synthetic judgment a priori. Granting that he
deceived himself in this matter; the development and rapid
flourishing of German philosophy depended nevertheless on his
pride, and on the eager rivalry of the younger generation to
discover if possible something--at all events "new faculties"--of
which to be still prouder!--But let us reflect for a moment--it
is high time to do so. "How are synthetic judgments a priori
POSSIBLE?" Kant asks himself--and what is really his answer? "BY
MEANS OF A MEANS (faculty)"--but unfortunately not in five words,
but so circumstantially, imposingly, and with such display of
German profundity and verbal flourishes, that one altogether
loses sight of the comical niaiserie allemande involved in such
an answer. People were beside themselves with delight over this
new faculty, and the jubilation reached its climax when Kant
further discovered a moral faculty in man--for at that time
Germans were still moral, not yet dabbling in the "Politics of
hard fact." Then came the honeymoon of German philosophy. All the
young theologians of the Tubingen institution went immediately
into the groves--all seeking for "faculties." And what did they
not find--in that innocent, rich, and still youthful period of
the German spirit, to which Romanticism, the malicious fairy,
piped and sang, when one could not yet distinguish between
"finding" and "inventing"! Above all a faculty for the
"transcendental"; Schelling christened it, intellectual
intuition, and thereby gratified the most earnest longings of the
naturally pious-inclined Germans. One can do no greater wrong to
the whole of this exuberant and eccentric movement (which was
really youthfulness, notwithstanding that it disguised itself so
boldly, in hoary and senile conceptions), than to take it
seriously, or even treat it with moral indignation. Enough,
however--the world grew older, and the dream vanished. A time
came when people rubbed their foreheads, and they still rub them
today. People had been dreaming, and first and foremost--old
Kant. "By means of a means (faculty)"--he had said, or at least
meant to say. But, is that--an answer? An explanation? Or is it
not rather merely a repetition of the question? How does opium
induce sleep? "By means of a means (faculty), "namely the virtus
dormitiva, replies the doctor in Moliere,

Quia est in eo virtus dormitiva,
Cujus est natura sensus assoupire.

But such replies belong to the realm of comedy, and it is high
time to replace the Kantian question, "How are synthetic
judgments a PRIORI possible?" by another question, "Why is belief
in such judgments necessary?"--in effect, it is high time that we
should understand that such judgments must be believed to be
true, for the sake of the preservation of creatures like
ourselves; though they still might naturally be false judgments!
Or, more plainly spoken, and roughly and readily--synthetic
judgments a priori should not "be possible" at all; we have no
right to them; in our mouths they are nothing but false
judgments. Only, of course, the belief in their truth is
necessary, as plausible belief and ocular evidence belonging to
the perspective view of life. And finally, to call to mind the
enormous influence which "German philosophy"--I hope you
understand its right to inverted commas (goosefeet)?--has
exercised throughout the whole of Europe, there is no doubt that
a certain VIRTUS DORMITIVA had a share in it; thanks to German
philosophy, it was a delight to the noble idlers, the virtuous,
the mystics, the artiste, the three-fourths Christians, and the
political obscurantists of all nations, to find an antidote to
the still overwhelming sensualism which overflowed from the last
century into this, in short--"sensus assoupire." . . .

12. As regards materialistic atomism, it is one of the best-
refuted theories that have been advanced, and in Europe there is
now perhaps no one in the learned world so unscholarly as to
attach serious signification to it, except for convenient
everyday use (as an abbreviation of the means of expression)--
thanks chiefly to the Pole Boscovich: he and the Pole Copernicus
have hitherto been the greatest and most successful opponents of
ocular evidence. For while Copernicus has persuaded us to
believe, contrary to all the senses, that the earth does NOT
stand fast, Boscovich has taught us to abjure the belief in the
last thing that "stood fast" of the earth--the belief in
"substance," in "matter," in the earth-residuum, and particle-
atom: it is the greatest triumph over the senses that has
hitherto been gained on earth. One must, however, go still
further, and also declare war, relentless war to the knife,
against the "atomistic requirements" which still lead a dangerous
after-life in places where no one suspects them, like the more
celebrated "metaphysical requirements": one must also above all
give the finishing stroke to that other and more portentous
atomism which Christianity has taught best and longest, the SOUL-
ATOMISM. Let it be permitted to designate by this expression the
belief which regards the soul as something indestructible,
eternal, indivisible, as a monad, as an atomon: this belief ought
to be expelled from science! Between ourselves, it is not at all
necessary to get rid of "the soul" thereby, and thus renounce one
of the oldest and most venerated hypotheses--as happens
frequently to the clumsiness of naturalists, who can hardly touch
on the soul without immediately losing it. But the way is open
for new acceptations and refinements of the soul-hypothesis; and
such conceptions as "mortal soul," and "soul of subjective
multiplicity," and "soul as social structure of the instincts and
passions," want henceforth to have legitimate rights in science.
In that the NEW psychologist is about to put an end to the
superstitions which have hitherto flourished with almost tropical
luxuriance around the idea of the soul, he is really, as it were,
thrusting himself into a new desert and a new distrust--it is
possible that the older psychologists had a merrier and more
comfortable time of it; eventually, however, he finds that
precisely thereby he is also condemned to INVENT--and, who knows?
perhaps to DISCOVER the new.

13. Psychologists should bethink themselves before putting down
the instinct of self-preservation as the cardinal instinct of an
organic being. A living thing seeks above all to DISCHARGE its
strength--life itself is WILL TO POWER; self-preservation is only
one of the indirect and most frequent RESULTS thereof. In short,
here, as everywhere else, let us beware of SUPERFLUOUS
teleological principles!--one of which is the instinct of self-
preservation (we owe it to Spinoza's inconsistency). It is thus,
in effect, that method ordains, which must be essentially economy
of principles.

14. It is perhaps just dawning on five or six minds that natural
philosophy is only a world-exposition and world-arrangement
(according to us, if I may say so!) and NOT a world-explanation;
but in so far as it is based on belief in the senses, it is
regarded as more, and for a long time to come must be regarded as
more--namely, as an explanation. It has eyes and fingers of its
own, it has ocular evidence and palpableness of its own: this
operates fascinatingly, persuasively, and CONVINCINGLY upon an
age with fundamentally plebeian tastes--in fact, it follows
instinctively the canon of truth of eternal popular sensualism.
What is clear, what is "explained"? Only that which can be seen
and felt--one must pursue every problem thus far. Obversely,
however, the charm of the Platonic mode of thought, which was an
ARISTOCRATIC mode, consisted precisely in RESISTANCE to obvious
sense-evidence--perhaps among men who enjoyed even stronger and
more fastidious senses than our contemporaries, but who knew how
to find a higher triumph in remaining masters of them: and this
by means of pale, cold, grey conceptional networks which they
threw over the motley whirl of the senses--the mob of the senses,
as Plato said. In this overcoming of the world, and interpreting
of the world in the manner of Plato, there was an ENJOYMENT
different from that which the physicists of today offer us--and
likewise the Darwinists and anti-teleologists among the
physiological workers, with their principle of the "smallest
possible effort," and the greatest possible blunder. "Where there
is nothing more to see or to grasp, there is also nothing more
for men to do"--that is certainly an imperative different from
the Platonic one, but it may notwithstanding be the right
imperative for a hardy, laborious race of machinists and bridge-
builders of the future, who have nothing but ROUGH work to

15. To study physiology with a clear conscience, one must insist
on the fact that the sense-organs are not phenomena in the sense
of the idealistic philosophy; as such they certainly could not be
causes! Sensualism, therefore, at least as regulative hypothesis,
if not as heuristic principle. What? And others say even that the
external world is the work of our organs? But then our body, as a
part of this external world, would be the work of our organs! But
then our organs themselves would be the work of our organs! It
seems to me that this is a complete REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM, if the
conception CAUSA SUI is something fundamentally absurd.
Consequently, the external world is NOT the work of our organs--?

16. There are still harmless self-observers who believe that
there are "immediate certainties"; for instance, "I think," or as
the superstition of Schopenhauer puts it, "I will"; as though
cognition here got hold of its object purely and simply as "the
thing in itself," without any falsification taking place either
on the part of the subject or the object. I would repeat it,
however, a hundred times, that "immediate certainty," as well as
"absolute knowledge" and the "thing in itself," involve a
CONTRADICTIO IN ADJECTO; we really ought to free ourselves from
the misleading significance of words! The people on their part
may think that cognition is knowing all about things, but the
philosopher must say to himself: "When I analyze the process that
is expressed in the sentence, 'I think,' I find a whole series of
daring assertions, the argumentative proof of which would be
difficult, perhaps impossible: for instance, that it is _I_ who
think, that there must necessarily be something that thinks, that
thinking is an activity and operation on the part of a being who
is thought of as a cause, that there is an 'ego,' and finally,
that it is already determined what is to be designated by
thinking--that I KNOW what thinking is. For if I had not already
decided within myself what it is, by what standard could I
determine whether that which is just happening is not perhaps
'willing' or 'feeling'? In short, the assertion 'I think,'
assumes that I COMPARE my state at the present moment with other
states of myself which I know, in order to determine what it is;
on account of this retrospective connection with further
'knowledge,' it has, at any rate, no immediate certainty for
me."--In place of the "immediate certainty" in which the people
may believe in the special case, the philosopher thus finds a
series of metaphysical questions presented to him, veritable
conscience questions of the intellect, to wit: "Whence did I get
the notion of 'thinking'? Why do I believe in cause and effect?
What gives me the right to speak of an 'ego,' and even of an
'ego' as cause, and finally of an 'ego' as cause of thought?" He
who ventures to answer these metaphysical questions at once by an
appeal to a sort of INTUITIVE perception, like the person who
says, "I think, and know that this, at least, is true, actual,
and certain"--will encounter a smile and two notes of
interrogation in a philosopher nowadays. "Sir," the philosopher
will perhaps give him to understand, "it is improbable that you
are not mistaken, but why should it be the truth?"

17. With regard to the superstitions of logicians, I shall never
tire of emphasizing a small, terse fact, which is unwillingly
recognized by these credulous minds--namely, that a thought comes
when "it" wishes, and not when "I" wish; so that it is a
PERVERSION of the facts of the case to say that the subject "I"
is the condition of the predicate "think." ONE thinks; but that
this "one" is precisely the famous old "ego," is, to put it
mildly, only a supposition, an assertion, and assuredly not an
"immediate certainty." After all, one has even gone too far with
this "one thinks"--even the "one" contains an INTERPRETATION of
the process, and does not belong to the process itself. One
infers here according to the usual grammatical formula--"To think
is an activity; every activity requires an agency that is active;
consequently" . . . It was pretty much on the same lines that the
older atomism sought, besides the operating "power," the material
particle wherein it resides and out of which it operates--the
atom. More rigorous minds, however, learnt at last to get along
without this "earth-residuum," and perhaps some day we shall
accustom ourselves, even from the logician's point of view, to
get along without the little "one" (to which the worthy old "ego"
has refined itself).

18. It is certainly not the least charm of a theory that it is
refutable; it is precisely thereby that it attracts the more
subtle minds. It seems that the hundred-times-refuted theory of
the "free will" owes its persistence to this charm alone; some
one is always appearing who feels himself strong enough to refute

19. Philosophers are accustomed to speak of the will as though it
were the best-known thing in the world; indeed, Schopenhauer has
given us to understand that the will alone is really known to us,
absolutely and completely known, without deduction or addition.
But it again and again seems to me that in this case Schopenhauer
also only did what philosophers are in the habit of doing-he
seems to have adopted a POPULAR PREJUDICE and exaggerated it.
Willing-seems to me to be above all something COMPLICATED,
something that is a unity only in name--and it is precisely in a
name that popular prejudice lurks, which has got the mastery over
the inadequate precautions of philosophers in all ages. So let us
for once be more cautious, let us be "unphilosophical": let us
say that in all willing there is firstly a plurality of
sensations, namely, the sensation of the condition "AWAY FROM
WHICH we go," the sensation of the condition "TOWARDS WHICH we
go," the sensation of this "FROM" and "TOWARDS" itself, and then
besides, an accompanying muscular sensation, which, even without
our putting in motion "arms and legs," commences its action by
force of habit, directly we "will" anything. Therefore, just as
sensations (and indeed many kinds of sensations) are to be
recognized as ingredients of the will, so, in the second place,
thinking is also to be recognized; in every act of the will there
is a ruling thought;--and let us not imagine it possible to sever
this thought from the "willing," as if the will would then remain
over! In the third place, the will is not only a complex of
sensation and thinking, but it is above all an EMOTION, and in
fact the emotion of the command. That which is termed "freedom of
the will" is essentially the emotion of supremacy in respect to
him who must obey: "I am free, 'he' must obey"--this
consciousness is inherent in every will; and equally so the
straining of the attention, the straight look which fixes itself
exclusively on one thing, the unconditional judgment that "this
and nothing else is necessary now," the inward certainty that
obedience will be rendered--and whatever else pertains to the
position of the commander. A man who WILLS commands something
within himself which renders obedience, or which he believes
renders obedience. But now let us notice what is the strangest
thing about the will,--this affair so extremely complex, for
which the people have only one name. Inasmuch as in the given
circumstances we are at the same time the commanding AND the
obeying parties, and as the obeying party we know the sensations
of constraint, impulsion, pressure, resistance, and motion, which
usually commence immediately after the act of will; inasmuch as,
on the other hand, we are accustomed to disregard this duality,
and to deceive ourselves about it by means of the synthetic term
"I": a whole series of erroneous conclusions, and consequently of
false judgments about the will itself, has become attached to the
act of willing--to such a degree that he who wills believes
firmly that willing SUFFICES for action. Since in the majority of
cases there has only been exercise of will when the effect of the
command--consequently obedience, and therefore action--was to be
EXPECTED, the APPEARANCE has translated itself into the
sentiment, as if there were a NECESSITY OF EFFECT; in a word, he
who wills believes with a fair amount of certainty that will and
action are somehow one; he ascribes the success, the carrying out
of the willing, to the will itself, and thereby enjoys an
increase of the sensation of power which accompanies all success.
"Freedom of Will"--that is the expression for the complex state
of delight of the person exercising volition, who commands and at
the same time identifies himself with the executor of the order--
who, as such, enjoys also the triumph over obstacles, but thinks
within himself that it was really his own will that overcame
them. In this way the person exercising volition adds the
feelings of delight of his successful executive instruments, the
useful "underwills" or under-souls--indeed, our body is but a
social structure composed of many souls--to his feelings of
delight as commander. L'EFFET C'EST MOI. what happens here is
what happens in every well-constructed and happy commonwealth,
namely, that the governing class identifies itself with the
successes of the commonwealth. In all willing it is absolutely a
question of commanding and obeying, on the basis, as already
said, of a social structure composed of many "souls", on which
account a philosopher should claim the right to include willing-
as-such within the sphere of morals--regarded as the doctrine of
the relations of supremacy under which the phenomenon of "life"
manifests itself.

20. That the separate philosophical ideas are not anything
optional or autonomously evolving, but grow up in connection and
relationship with each other, that, however suddenly and
arbitrarily they seem to appear in the history of thought, they
nevertheless belong just as much to a system as the collective
members of the fauna of a Continent--is betrayed in the end by
the circumstance: how unfailingly the most diverse philosophers
always fill in again a definite fundamental scheme of POSSIBLE
philosophies. Under an invisible spell, they always revolve once
more in the same orbit, however independent of each other they
may feel themselves with their critical or systematic wills,
something within them leads them, something impels them in
definite order the one after the other--to wit, the innate
methodology and relationship of their ideas. Their thinking is,
in fact, far less a discovery than a re-recognizing, a
remembering, a return and a home-coming to a far-off, ancient
common-household of the soul, out of which those ideas formerly
grew: philosophizing is so far a kind of atavism of the highest
order. The wonderful family resemblance of all Indian, Greek, and
German philosophizing is easily enough explained. In fact, where
there is affinity of language, owing to the common philosophy of
grammar--I mean owing to the unconscious domination and guidance
of similar grammatical functions--it cannot but be that
everything is prepared at the outset for a similar development
and succession of philosophical systems, just as the way seems
barred against certain other possibilities of world-
interpretation. It is highly probable that philosophers within
the domain of the Ural-Altaic languages (where the conception of
the subject is least developed) look otherwise "into the world,"
and will be found on paths of thought different from those of the
Indo-Germans and Mussulmans, the spell of certain grammatical
functions is ultimately also the spell of PHYSIOLOGICAL
valuations and racial conditions.--So much by way of rejecting
Locke's superficiality with regard to the origin of ideas.

21. The CAUSA SUI is the best self-contradiction that has yet
been conceived, it is a sort of logical violation and
unnaturalness; but the extravagant pride of man has managed to
entangle itself profoundly and frightfully with this very folly.
The desire for "freedom of will" in the superlative, metaphysical
sense, such as still holds sway, unfortunately, in the minds of
the half-educated, the desire to bear the entire and ultimate
responsibility for one's actions oneself, and to absolve God, the
world, ancestors, chance, and society therefrom, involves nothing
less than to be precisely this CAUSA SUI, and, with more than
Munchausen daring, to pull oneself up into existence by the hair,
out of the slough of nothingness. If any one should find out in
this manner the crass stupidity of the celebrated conception of
"free will" and put it out of his head altogether, I beg of him
to carry his "enlightenment" a step further, and also put out of
his head the contrary of this monstrous conception of "free
will": I mean "non-free will," which is tantamount to a misuse of
cause and effect. One should not wrongly MATERIALISE "cause" and
"effect," as the natural philosophers do (and whoever like them
naturalize in thinking at present), according to the prevailing
mechanical doltishness which makes the cause press and push until
it "effects" its end; one should use "cause" and "effect" only as
pure CONCEPTIONS, that is to say, as conventional fictions for
the purpose of designation and mutual understanding,--NOT for
explanation. In "being-in-itself" there is nothing of "casual-
connection," of "necessity," or of "psychological non-freedom";
there the effect does NOT follow the cause, there "law" does not
obtain. It is WE alone who have devised cause, sequence,
reciprocity, relativity, constraint, number, law, freedom,
motive, and purpose; and when we interpret and intermix this
symbol-world, as "being-in-itself," with things, we act once more
as we have always acted--MYTHOLOGICALLY. The "non-free will" is
mythology; in real life it is only a question of STRONG and WEAK
wills.--It is almost always a symptom of what is lacking in
himself, when a thinker, in every "causal-connection" and
"psychological necessity," manifests something of compulsion,
indigence, obsequiousness, oppression, and non-freedom; it is
suspicious to have such feelings--the person betrays himself. And
in general, if I have observed correctly, the "non-freedom of the
will" is regarded as a problem from two entirely opposite
standpoints, but always in a profoundly PERSONAL manner: some
will not give up their "responsibility," their belief in
THEMSELVES, the personal right to THEIR merits, at any price (the
vain races belong to this class); others on the contrary, do not
wish to be answerable for anything, or blamed for anything, and
owing to an inward self-contempt, seek to GET OUT OF THE
BUSINESS, no matter how. The latter, when they write books, are
in the habit at present of taking the side of criminals; a sort
of socialistic sympathy is their favourite disguise. And as a
matter of fact, the fatalism of the weak-willed embellishes
itself surprisingly when it can pose as "la religion de la
souffrance humaine"; that is ITS "good taste."

22. Let me be pardoned, as an old philologist who cannot desist
from the mischief of putting his finger on bad modes of
interpretation, but "Nature's conformity to law," of which you
physicists talk so proudly, as though--why, it exists only owing
to your interpretation and bad "philology." It is no matter of
fact, no "text," but rather just a naively humanitarian
adjustment and perversion of meaning, with which you make
abundant concessions to the democratic instincts of the modern
soul! "Everywhere equality before the law--Nature is not
different in that respect, nor better than we": a fine instance
of secret motive, in which the vulgar antagonism to everything
privileged and autocratic--likewise a second and more refined
atheism--is once more disguised. "Ni dieu, ni maitre"--that,
also, is what you want; and therefore "Cheers for natural law!"--
is it not so? But, as has been said, that is interpretation, not
text; and somebody might come along, who, with opposite
intentions and modes of interpretation, could read out of the
same "Nature," and with regard to the same phenomena, just the
tyrannically inconsiderate and relentless enforcement of the
claims of power--an interpreter who should so place the
unexceptionalness and unconditionalness of all "Will to Power"
before your eyes, that almost every word, and the word "tyranny"
itself, would eventually seem unsuitable, or like a weakening and
softening metaphor--as being too human; and who should,
nevertheless, end by asserting the same about this world as you
do, namely, that it has a "necessary" and "calculable" course,
NOT, however, because laws obtain in it, but because they are
absolutely LACKING, and every power effects its ultimate
consequences every moment. Granted that this also is only
interpretation--and you will be eager enough to make this
objection?--well, so much the better.

23. All psychology hitherto has run aground on moral prejudices
and timidities, it has not dared to launch out into the depths.
In so far as it is allowable to recognize in that which has
hitherto been written, evidence of that which has hitherto been
kept silent, it seems as if nobody had yet harboured the notion
of psychology as the Morphology and DEVELOPMENT-DOCTRINE OF THE
WILL TO POWER, as I conceive of it. The power of moral prejudices
has penetrated deeply into the most intellectual world, the world
apparently most indifferent and unprejudiced, and has obviously
operated in an injurious, obstructive, blinding, and distorting
manner. A proper physio-psychology has to contend with
unconscious antagonism in the heart of the investigator, it has
"the heart" against it even a doctrine of the reciprocal
conditionalness of the "good" and the "bad" impulses, causes (as
refined immorality) distress and aversion in a still strong and
manly conscience--still more so, a doctrine of the derivation of
all good impulses from bad ones. If, however, a person should
regard even the emotions of hatred, envy, covetousness, and
imperiousness as life-conditioning emotions, as factors which
must be present, fundamentally and essentially, in the general
economy of life (which must, therefore, be further developed if
life is to be further developed), he will suffer from such a view
of things as from sea-sickness. And yet this hypothesis is far
from being the strangest and most painful in this immense and
almost new domain of dangerous knowledge, and there are in fact a
hundred good reasons why every one should keep away from it who
CAN do so! On the other hand, if one has once drifted hither with
one's bark, well! very good! now let us set our teeth firmly! let
us open our eyes and keep our hand fast on the helm! We sail away
right OVER morality, we crush out, we destroy perhaps the remains
of our own morality by daring to make our voyage thither--but
what do WE matter. Never yet did a PROFOUNDER world of insight
reveal itself to daring travelers and adventurers, and the
psychologist who thus "makes a sacrifice"--it is not the
sacrifizio dell' intelletto, on the contrary!--will at least be
entitled to demand in return that psychology shall once more be
recognized as the queen of the sciences, for whose service and
equipment the other sciences exist. For psychology is once more
the path to the fundamental problems.



24. O sancta simplicitiatas! In what strange simplification and
falsification man lives! One can never cease wondering when once
one has got eyes for beholding this marvel! How we have made
everything around us clear and free and easy and simple! how we
have been able to give our senses a passport to everything
superficial, our thoughts a godlike desire for wanton pranks and
wrong inferences!--how from the beginning, we have contrived to
retain our ignorance in order to enjoy an almost inconceivable
freedom, thoughtlessness, imprudence, heartiness, and gaiety--in
order to enjoy life! And only on this solidified, granitelike
foundation of ignorance could knowledge rear itself hitherto, the
will to knowledge on the foundation of a far more powerful will,
the will to ignorance, to the uncertain, to the untrue! Not as
its opposite, but--as its refinement! It is to be hoped, indeed,
that LANGUAGE, here as elsewhere, will not get over its
awkwardness, and that it will continue to talk of opposites where
there are only degrees and many refinements of gradation; it is
equally to be hoped that the incarnated Tartuffery of morals,
which now belongs to our unconquerable "flesh and blood," will
turn the words round in the mouths of us discerning ones. Here
and there we understand it, and laugh at the way in which
precisely the best knowledge seeks most to retain us in this
SIMPLIFIED, thoroughly artificial, suitably imagined, and
suitably falsified world: at the way in which, whether it will or
not, it loves error, because, as living itself, it loves life!

25. After such a cheerful commencement, a serious word would fain
be heard; it appeals to the most serious minds. Take care, ye
philosophers and friends of knowledge, and beware of martyrdom!
Of suffering "for the truth's sake"! even in your own defense! It
spoils all the innocence and fine neutrality of your conscience;
it makes you headstrong against objections and red rags; it
stupefies, animalizes, and brutalizes, when in the struggle with
danger, slander, suspicion, expulsion, and even worse
consequences of enmity, ye have at last to play your last card as
protectors of truth upon earth--as though "the Truth" were such
an innocent and incompetent creature as to require protectors!
and you of all people, ye knights of the sorrowful countenance,
Messrs Loafers and Cobweb-spinners of the spirit! Finally, ye
know sufficiently well that it cannot be of any consequence if YE
just carry your point; ye know that hitherto no philosopher has
carried his point, and that there might be a more laudable
truthfulness in every little interrogative mark which you place
after your special words and favourite doctrines (and
occasionally after yourselves) than in all the solemn pantomime
and trumping games before accusers and law-courts! Rather go out
of the way! Flee into concealment! And have your masks and your
ruses, that ye may be mistaken for what you are, or somewhat
feared! And pray, don't forget the garden, the garden with golden
trellis-work! And have people around you who are as a garden--or
as music on the waters at eventide, when already the day becomes
a memory. Choose the GOOD solitude, the free, wanton, lightsome
solitude, which also gives you the right still to remain good in
any sense whatsoever! How poisonous, how crafty, how bad, does
every long war make one, which cannot be waged openly by means of
force! How PERSONAL does a long fear make one, a long watching of
enemies, of possible enemies! These pariahs of society, these
long-pursued, badly-persecuted ones--also the compulsory
recluses, the Spinozas or Giordano Brunos--always become in the
end, even under the most intellectual masquerade, and perhaps
without being themselves aware of it, refined vengeance-seekers
and poison-Brewers (just lay bare the foundation of Spinoza's
ethics and theology!), not to speak of the stupidity of moral
indignation, which is the unfailing sign in a philosopher that
the sense of philosophical humour has left him. The martyrdom of
the philosopher, his "sacrifice for the sake of truth," forces
into the light whatever of the agitator and actor lurks in him;
and if one has hitherto contemplated him only with artistic
curiosity, with regard to many a philosopher it is easy to
understand the dangerous desire to see him also in his
deterioration (deteriorated into a "martyr," into a stage-and-
tribune-bawler). Only, that it is necessary with such a desire to
be clear WHAT spectacle one will see in any case--merely a
satyric play, merely an epilogue farce, merely the continued
proof that the long, real tragedy IS AT AN END, supposing that
every philosophy has been a long tragedy in its origin.

26. Every select man strives instinctively for a citadel and a
privacy, where he is FREE from the crowd, the many, the majority--
where he may forget "men who are the rule," as their exception;--
exclusive only of the case in which he is pushed straight to
such men by a still stronger instinct, as a discerner in the
great and exceptional sense. Whoever, in intercourse with men,
does not occasionally glisten in all the green and grey colours
of distress, owing to disgust, satiety, sympathy, gloominess, and
solitariness, is assuredly not a man of elevated tastes;
supposing, however, that he does not voluntarily take all this
burden and disgust upon himself, that he persistently avoids it,
and remains, as I said, quietly and proudly hidden in his
citadel, one thing is then certain: he was not made, he was not
predestined for knowledge. For as such, he would one day have to
say to himself: "The devil take my good taste! but 'the rule' is
more interesting than the exception--than myself, the exception!"
And he would go DOWN, and above all, he would go "inside." The
long and serious study of the AVERAGE man--and consequently much
disguise, self-overcoming, familiarity, and bad intercourse (all
intercourse is bad intercourse except with one's equals):--that
constitutes a necessary part of the life-history of every
philosopher; perhaps the most disagreeable, odious, and
disappointing part. If he is fortunate, however, as a favourite
child of knowledge should be, he will meet with suitable
auxiliaries who will shorten and lighten his task; I mean so-
called cynics, those who simply recognize the animal, the
commonplace and "the rule" in themselves, and at the same time
have so much spirituality and ticklishness as to make them talk
of themselves and their like BEFORE WITNESSES--sometimes they
wallow, even in books, as on their own dung-hill. Cynicism is the
only form in which base souls approach what is called honesty;
and the higher man must open his ears to all the coarser or finer
cynicism, and congratulate himself when the clown becomes
shameless right before him, or the scientific satyr speaks out.
There are even cases where enchantment mixes with the disgust--
namely, where by a freak of nature, genius is bound to some such
indiscreet billy-goat and ape, as in the case of the Abbe
Galiani, the profoundest, acutest, and perhaps also filthiest man
of his century--he was far profounder than Voltaire, and
consequently also, a good deal more silent. It happens more
frequently, as has been hinted, that a scientific head is placed
on an ape's body, a fine exceptional understanding in a base
soul, an occurrence by no means rare, especially among doctors
and moral physiologists. And whenever anyone speaks without
bitterness, or rather quite innocently, of man as a belly with
two requirements, and a head with one; whenever any one sees,
seeks, and WANTS to see only hunger, sexual instinct, and vanity
as the real and only motives of human actions; in short, when any
one speaks "badly"--and not even "ill"--of man, then ought the
lover of knowledge to hearken attentively and diligently; he
ought, in general, to have an open ear wherever there is talk
without indignation. For the indignant man, and he who
perpetually tears and lacerates himself with his own teeth (or,
in place of himself, the world, God, or society), may indeed,
morally speaking, stand higher than the laughing and self-
satisfied satyr, but in every other sense he is the more
ordinary, more indifferent, and less instructive case. And no one
is such a LIAR as the indignant man.

27. It is difficult to be understood, especially when one thinks
and lives gangasrotogati [Footnote: Like the river Ganges:
presto.] among those only who think and live otherwise--namely,
kurmagati [Footnote: Like the tortoise: lento.], or at best
"froglike," mandeikagati [Footnote: Like the frog: staccato.] (I
do everything to be "difficultly understood" myself!)--and one
should be heartily grateful for the good will to some refinement
of interpretation. As regards "the good friends," however, who
are always too easy-going, and think that as friends they have a
right to ease, one does well at the very first to grant them a
play-ground and romping-place for misunderstanding--one can thus
laugh still; or get rid of them altogether, these good friends--
and laugh then also!

28. What is most difficult to render from one language into
another is the TEMPO of its style, which has its basis in the
character of the race, or to speak more physiologically, in the
average TEMPO of the assimilation of its nutriment. There are
honestly meant translations, which, as involuntary
vulgarizations, are almost falsifications of the original, merely
because its lively and merry TEMPO (which overleaps and obviates
all dangers in word and expression) could not also be rendered. A
German is almost incapacitated for PRESTO in his language;
consequently also, as may be reasonably inferred, for many of the
most delightful and daring NUANCES of free, free-spirited
thought. And just as the buffoon and satyr are foreign to him in
body and conscience, so Aristophanes and Petronius are
untranslatable for him. Everything ponderous, viscous, and
pompously clumsy, all long-winded and wearying species of style,
are developed in profuse variety among Germans--pardon me for
stating the fact that even Goethe's prose, in its mixture of
stiffness and elegance, is no exception, as a reflection of the
"good old time" to which it belongs, and as an expression of
German taste at a time when there was still a "German taste,"
which was a rococo-taste in moribus et artibus. Lessing is an
exception, owing to his histrionic nature, which understood much,
and was versed in many things; he who was not the translator of
Bayle to no purpose, who took refuge willingly in the shadow of
Diderot and Voltaire, and still more willingly among the Roman
comedy-writers--Lessing loved also free-spiritism in the TEMPO,
and flight out of Germany. But how could the German language,
even in the prose of Lessing, imitate the TEMPO of Machiavelli,
who in his "Principe" makes us breathe the dry, fine air of
Florence, and cannot help presenting the most serious events in a
boisterous allegrissimo, perhaps not without a malicious artistic
sense of the contrast he ventures to present--long, heavy,
difficult, dangerous thoughts, and a TEMPO of the gallop, and of
the best, wantonest humour? Finally, who would venture on a
German translation of Petronius, who, more than any great
musician hitherto, was a master of PRESTO in invention, ideas,
and words? What matter in the end about the swamps of the sick,
evil world, or of the "ancient world," when like him, one has the
feet of a wind, the rush, the breath, the emancipating scorn of a
wind, which makes everything healthy, by making everything RUN!
And with regard to Aristophanes--that transfiguring,
complementary genius, for whose sake one PARDONS all Hellenism
for having existed, provided one has understood in its full
profundity ALL that there requires pardon and transfiguration;
there is nothing that has caused me to meditate more on PLATO'S
secrecy and sphinx-like nature, than the happily preserved petit
fait that under the pillow of his death-bed there was found no
"Bible," nor anything Egyptian, Pythagorean, or Platonic--but a
book of Aristophanes. How could even Plato have endured life--a
Greek life which he repudiated--without an Aristophanes!

29. It is the business of the very few to be independent; it is a
privilege of the strong. And whoever attempts it, even with the
best right, but without being OBLIGED to do so, proves that he is
probably not only strong, but also daring beyond measure. He
enters into a labyrinth, he multiplies a thousandfold the dangers
which life in itself already brings with it; not the least of
which is that no one can see how and where he loses his way,
becomes isolated, and is torn piecemeal by some minotaur of
conscience. Supposing such a one comes to grief, it is so far
from the comprehension of men that they neither feel it, nor
sympathize with it. And he cannot any longer go back! He cannot
even go back again to the sympathy of men!

30. Our deepest insights must--and should--appear as follies, and
under certain circumstances as crimes, when they come
unauthorizedly to the ears of those who are not disposed and
predestined for them. The exoteric and the esoteric, as they were
formerly distinguished by philosophers--among the Indians, as
among the Greeks, Persians, and Mussulmans, in short, wherever
people believed in gradations of rank and NOT in equality and
equal rights--are not so much in contradistinction to one another
in respect to the exoteric class, standing without, and viewing,
estimating, measuring, and judging from the outside, and not from
the inside; the more essential distinction is that the class in
question views things from below upwards--while the esoteric
class views things FROM ABOVE DOWNWARDS. There are heights of the
soul from which tragedy itself no longer appears to operate
tragically; and if all the woe in the world were taken together,
who would dare to decide whether the sight of it would
NECESSARILY seduce and constrain to sympathy, and thus to a
doubling of the woe? . . . That which serves the higher class of
men for nourishment or refreshment, must be almost poison to an
entirely different and lower order of human beings. The virtues
of the common man would perhaps mean vice and weakness in a
philosopher; it might be possible for a highly developed man,
supposing him to degenerate and go to ruin, to acquire qualities
thereby alone, for the sake of which he would have to be honoured
as a saint in the lower world into which he had sunk. There are
books which have an inverse value for the soul and the health
according as the inferior soul and the lower vitality, or the
higher and more powerful, make use of them. In the former case
they are dangerous, disturbing, unsettling books, in the latter
case they are herald-calls which summon the bravest to THEIR
bravery. Books for the general reader are always ill-smelling
books, the odour of paltry people clings to them. Where the
populace eat and drink, and even where they reverence, it is
accustomed to stink. One should not go into churches if one
wishes to breathe PURE air.

31. In our youthful years we still venerate and despise without
the art of NUANCE, which is the best gain of life, and we have
rightly to do hard penance for having fallen upon men and things
with Yea and Nay. Everything is so arranged that the worst of all
tastes, THE TASTE FOR THE UNCONDITIONAL, is cruelly befooled and
abused, until a man learns to introduce a little art into his
sentiments, and prefers to try conclusions with the artificial,
as do the real artists of life. The angry and reverent spirit
peculiar to youth appears to allow itself no peace, until it has
suitably falsified men and things, to be able to vent its passion
upon them: youth in itself even, is something falsifying and
deceptive. Later on, when the young soul, tortured by continual
disillusions, finally turns suspiciously against itself--still
ardent and savage even in its suspicion and remorse of
conscience: how it upbraids itself, how impatiently it tears
itself, how it revenges itself for its long self-blinding, as
though it had been a voluntary blindness! In this transition one
punishes oneself by distrust of one's sentiments; one tortures
one's enthusiasm with doubt, one feels even the good conscience
to be a danger, as if it were the self-concealment and lassitude
of a more refined uprightness; and above all, one espouses upon
principle the cause AGAINST "youth."--A decade later, and one
comprehends that all this was also still--youth!

32. Throughout the longest period of human history--one calls it
the prehistoric period--the value or non-value of an action was
inferred from its CONSEQUENCES; the action in itself was not
taken into consideration, any more than its origin; but pretty
much as in China at present, where the distinction or disgrace of
a child redounds to its parents, the retro-operating power of
success or failure was what induced men to think well or ill of
an action. Let us call this period the PRE-MORAL period of
mankind; the imperative, "Know thyself!" was then still unknown.
--In the last ten thousand years, on the other hand, on certain
large portions of the earth, one has gradually got so far, that
one no longer lets the consequences of an action, but its origin,
decide with regard to its worth: a great achievement as a whole,
an important refinement of vision and of criterion, the
unconscious effect of the supremacy of aristocratic values and of
the belief in "origin," the mark of a period which may be
designated in the narrower sense as the MORAL one: the first
attempt at self-knowledge is thereby made. Instead of the
consequences, the origin--what an inversion of perspective! And
assuredly an inversion effected only after long struggle and
wavering! To be sure, an ominous new superstition, a peculiar
narrowness of interpretation, attained supremacy precisely
thereby: the origin of an action was interpreted in the most
definite sense possible, as origin out of an INTENTION; people
were agreed in the belief that the value of an action lay in the
value of its intention. The intention as the sole origin and
antecedent history of an action: under the influence of this
prejudice moral praise and blame have been bestowed, and men have
judged and even philosophized almost up to the present day.--Is
it not possible, however, that the necessity may now have arisen
of again making up our minds with regard to the reversing and
fundamental shifting of values, owing to a new self-consciousness
and acuteness in man--is it not possible that we may be standing
on the threshold of a period which to begin with, would be
distinguished negatively as ULTRA-MORAL: nowadays when, at least
among us immoralists, the suspicion arises that the decisive
value of an action lies precisely in that which is NOT
INTENTIONAL, and that all its intentionalness, all that is seen,
sensible, or "sensed" in it, belongs to its surface or skin--
which, like every skin, betrays something, but CONCEALS still
more? In short, we believe that the intention is only a sign or
symptom, which first requires an explanation--a sign, moreover,
which has too many interpretations, and consequently hardly any
meaning in itself alone: that morality, in the sense in which it
has been understood hitherto, as intention-morality, has been a
prejudice, perhaps a prematureness or preliminariness, probably
something of the same rank as astrology and alchemy, but in any
case something which must be surmounted. The surmounting of
morality, in a certain sense even the self-mounting of morality--
let that be the name for the long-secret labour which has been
reserved for the most refined, the most upright, and also the
most wicked consciences of today, as the living touchstones of
the soul.

33. It cannot be helped: the sentiment of surrender, of sacrifice
for one's neighbour, and all self-renunciation-morality, must be
mercilessly called to account, and brought to judgment; just as
the aesthetics of "disinterested contemplation," under which the
emasculation of art nowadays seeks insidiously enough to create
itself a good conscience. There is far too much witchery and
sugar in the sentiments "for others" and "NOT for myself," for
one not needing to be doubly distrustful here, and for one asking
promptly: "Are they not perhaps--DECEPTIONS?"--That they PLEASE--
him who has them, and him who enjoys their fruit, and also the
mere spectator--that is still no argument in their FAVOUR, but
just calls for caution. Let us therefore be cautious!

34. At whatever standpoint of philosophy one may place oneself
nowadays, seen from every position, the ERRONEOUSNESS of the
world in which we think we live is the surest and most certain
thing our eyes can light upon: we find proof after proof thereof,
which would fain allure us into surmises concerning a deceptive
principle in the "nature of things." He, however, who makes
thinking itself, and consequently "the spirit," responsible for
the falseness of the world--an honourable exit, which every
conscious or unconscious advocatus dei avails himself of--he who
regards this world, including space, time, form, and movement, as
falsely DEDUCED, would have at least good reason in the end to
become distrustful also of all thinking; has it not hitherto been
playing upon us the worst of scurvy tricks? and what guarantee
would it give that it would not continue to do what it has always
been doing? In all seriousness, the innocence of thinkers has
something touching and respect-inspiring in it, which even
nowadays permits them to wait upon consciousness with the request
that it will give them HONEST answers: for example, whether it be
"real" or not, and why it keeps the outer world so resolutely at
a distance, and other questions of the same description. The
belief in "immediate certainties" is a MORAL NAIVETE which does
honour to us philosophers; but--we have now to cease being
"MERELY moral" men! Apart from morality, such belief is a folly
which does little honour to us! If in middle-class life an ever-
ready distrust is regarded as the sign of a "bad character," and
consequently as an imprudence, here among us, beyond the middle-
class world and its Yeas and Nays, what should prevent our being
imprudent and saying: the philosopher has at length a RIGHT to
"bad character," as the being who has hitherto been most befooled
on earth--he is now under OBLIGATION to distrustfulness, to the
wickedest squinting out of every abyss of suspicion.--Forgive me
the joke of this gloomy grimace and turn of expression; for I
myself have long ago learned to think and estimate differently
with regard to deceiving and being deceived, and I keep at least
a couple of pokes in the ribs ready for the blind rage with which
philosophers struggle against being deceived. Why NOT? It is
nothing more than a moral prejudice that truth is worth more than
semblance; it is, in fact, the worst proved supposition in the
world. So much must be conceded: there could have been no life at
all except upon the basis of perspective estimates and
semblances; and if, with the virtuous enthusiasm and stupidity of
many philosophers, one wished to do away altogether with the
"seeming world"--well, granted that YOU could do that,--at least
nothing of your "truth" would thereby remain! Indeed, what is it
that forces us in general to the supposition that there is an
essential opposition of "true" and "false"? Is it not enough to
suppose degrees of seemingness, and as it were lighter and darker
shades and tones of semblance--different valeurs, as the painters
say? Why might not the world WHICH CONCERNS US--be a fiction? And
to any one who suggested: "But to a fiction belongs an
originator?"--might it not be bluntly replied: WHY? May not this
"belong" also belong to the fiction? Is it not at length
permitted to be a little ironical towards the subject, just as
towards the predicate and object? Might not the philosopher
elevate himself above faith in grammar? All respect to
governesses, but is it not time that philosophy should renounce

35. O Voltaire! O humanity! O idiocy! There is something ticklish
in "the truth," and in the SEARCH for the truth; and if man goes
about it too humanely--"il ne cherche le vrai que pour faire le
bien"--I wager he finds nothing!

36. Supposing that nothing else is "given" as real but our world
of desires and passions, that we cannot sink or rise to any other
"reality" but just that of our impulses--for thinking is only a
relation of these impulses to one another:--are we not permitted
to make the attempt and to ask the question whether this which is
"given" does not SUFFICE, by means of our counterparts, for the
understanding even of the so-called mechanical (or "material")
world? I do not mean as an illusion, a "semblance," a
"representation" (in the Berkeleyan and Schopenhauerian sense),
but as possessing the same degree of reality as our emotions
themselves--as a more primitive form of the world of emotions, in
which everything still lies locked in a mighty unity, which
afterwards branches off and develops itself in organic processes
(naturally also, refines and debilitates)--as a kind of
instinctive life in which all organic functions, including self-
regulation, assimilation, nutrition, secretion, and change of
matter, are still synthetically united with one another--as a
PRIMARY FORM of life?--In the end, it is not only permitted to
make this attempt, it is commanded by the conscience of LOGICAL
METHOD. Not to assume several kinds of causality, so long as the
attempt to get along with a single one has not been pushed to its
furthest extent (to absurdity, if I may be allowed to say so):
that is a morality of method which one may not repudiate
nowadays--it follows "from its definition," as mathematicians
say. The question is ultimately whether we really recognize the
will as OPERATING, whether we believe in the causality of the
will; if we do so--and fundamentally our belief IN THIS is just
our belief in causality itself--we MUST make the attempt to posit
hypothetically the causality of the will as the only causality.
"Will" can naturally only operate on "will"--and not on "matter"
(not on "nerves," for instance): in short, the hypothesis must be
hazarded, whether will does not operate on will wherever
"effects" are recognized--and whether all mechanical action,
inasmuch as a power operates therein, is not just the power of
will, the effect of will. Granted, finally, that we succeeded in
explaining our entire instinctive life as the development and
ramification of one fundamental form of will--namely, the Will to
Power, as my thesis puts it; granted that all organic functions
could be traced back to this Will to Power, and that the solution
of the problem of generation and nutrition--it is one problem--
could also be found therein: one would thus have acquired the
right to define ALL active force unequivocally as WILL TO POWER.
The world seen from within, the world defined and designated
according to its "intelligible character"--it would simply be
"Will to Power," and nothing else.

37. "What? Does not that mean in popular language: God is
disproved, but not the devil?"--On the contrary! On the contrary,
my friends! And who the devil also compels you to speak

38. As happened finally in all the enlightenment of modern times
with the French Revolution (that terrible farce, quite
superfluous when judged close at hand, into which, however, the
noble and visionary spectators of all Europe have interpreted
from a distance their own indignation and enthusiasm so long and
INTERPRETATION), so a noble posterity might once more
misunderstand the whole of the past, and perhaps only thereby
make ITS aspect endurable.--Or rather, has not this already
happened? Have not we ourselves been--that "noble posterity"?
And, in so far as we now comprehend this, is it not--thereby
already past?

39. Nobody will very readily regard a doctrine as true merely
because it makes people happy or virtuous--excepting, perhaps,
the amiable "Idealists," who are enthusiastic about the good,
true, and beautiful, and let all kinds of motley, coarse, and
good-natured desirabilities swim about promiscuously in their
pond. Happiness and virtue are no arguments. It is willingly
forgotten, however, even on the part of thoughtful minds, that to
make unhappy and to make bad are just as little counter-
arguments. A thing could be TRUE, although it were in the highest
degree injurious and dangerous; indeed, the fundamental
constitution of existence might be such that one succumbed by a
full knowledge of it--so that the strength of a mind might be
measured by the amount of "truth" it could endure--or to speak
more plainly, by the extent to which it REQUIRED truth
attenuated, veiled, sweetened, damped, and falsified. But there
is no doubt that for the discovery of certain PORTIONS of truth
the wicked and unfortunate are more favourably situated and have
a greater likelihood of success; not to speak of the wicked who
are happy--a species about whom moralists are silent. Perhaps
severity and craft are more favourable conditions for the
development of strong, independent spirits and philosophers than
the gentle, refined, yielding good-nature, and habit of taking
things easily, which are prized, and rightly prized in a learned
man. Presupposing always, to begin with, that the term
"philosopher" be not confined to the philosopher who writes
books, or even introduces HIS philosophy into books!--Stendhal
furnishes a last feature of the portrait of the free-spirited
philosopher, which for the sake of German taste I will not omit
to underline--for it is OPPOSED to German taste. "Pour etre bon
philosophe," says this last great psychologist, "il faut etre
sec, clair, sans illusion. Un banquier, qui a fait fortune, a une
partie du caractere requis pour faire des decouvertes en
philosophie, c'est-a-dire pour voir clair dans ce qui est."

40. Everything that is profound loves the mask: the profoundest
things have a hatred even of figure and likeness. Should not the
CONTRARY only be the right disguise for the shame of a God to go
about in? A question worth asking!--it would be strange if some
mystic has not already ventured on the same kind of thing. There
are proceedings of such a delicate nature that it is well to
overwhelm them with coarseness and make them unrecognizable;
there are actions of love and of an extravagant magnanimity after
which nothing can be wiser than to take a stick and thrash the
witness soundly: one thereby obscures his recollection. Many a
one is able to obscure and abuse his own memory, in order at
least to have vengeance on this sole party in the secret: shame
is inventive. They are not the worst things of which one is most
ashamed: there is not only deceit behind a mask--there is so much
goodness in craft. I could imagine that a man with something
costly and fragile to conceal, would roll through life clumsily
and rotundly like an old, green, heavily-hooped wine-cask: the
refinement of his shame requiring it to be so. A man who has
depths in his shame meets his destiny and his delicate decisions
upon paths which few ever reach, and with regard to the existence
of which his nearest and most intimate friends may be ignorant;
his mortal danger conceals itself from their eyes, and equally so
his regained security. Such a hidden nature, which instinctively
employs speech for silence and concealment, and is inexhaustible
in evasion of communication, DESIRES and insists that a mask of
himself shall occupy his place in the hearts and heads of his
friends; and supposing he does not desire it, his eyes will some
day be opened to the fact that there is nevertheless a mask of
him there--and that it is well to be so. Every profound spirit
needs a mask; nay, more, around every profound spirit there
continually grows a mask, owing to the constantly false, that is
to say, SUPERFICIAL interpretation of every word he utters, every
step he takes, every sign of life he manifests.

41. One must subject oneself to one's own tests that one is
destined for independence and command, and do so at the right
time. One must not avoid one's tests, although they constitute
perhaps the most dangerous game one can play, and are in the end
tests made only before ourselves and before no other judge. Not
to cleave to any person, be it even the dearest--every person is
a prison and also a recess. Not to cleave to a fatherland, be it
even the most suffering and necessitous--it is even less
difficult to detach one's heart from a victorious fatherland. Not
to cleave to a sympathy, be it even for higher men, into whose
peculiar torture and helplessness chance has given us an insight.
Not to cleave to a science, though it tempt one with the most
valuable discoveries, apparently specially reserved for us. Not
to cleave to one's own liberation, to the voluptuous distance and
remoteness of the bird, which always flies further aloft in order
always to see more under it--the danger of the flier. Not to
cleave to our own virtues, nor become as a whole a victim to any
of our specialties, to our "hospitality" for instance, which is
the danger of dangers for highly developed and wealthy souls, who
deal prodigally, almost indifferently with themselves, and push
the virtue of liberality so far that it becomes a vice. One must
know how TO CONSERVE ONESELF--the best test of independence.

42. A new order of philosophers is appearing; I shall venture to
baptize them by a name not without danger. As far as I understand
them, as far as they allow themselves to be understood--for it is
their nature to WISH to remain something of a puzzle--these
philosophers of the future might rightly, perhaps also wrongly,
claim to be designated as "tempters." This name itself is after
all only an attempt, or, if it be preferred, a temptation.

43. Will they be new friends of "truth," these coming
philosophers? Very probably, for all philosophers hitherto have
loved their truths. But assuredly they will not be dogmatists. It
must be contrary to their pride, and also contrary to their
taste, that their truth should still be truth for every one--that
which has hitherto been the secret wish and ultimate purpose of
all dogmatic efforts. "My opinion is MY opinion: another person
has not easily a right to it"--such a philosopher of the future
will say, perhaps. One must renounce the bad taste of wishing to
agree with many people. "Good" is no longer good when one's
neighbour takes it into his mouth. And how could there be a
"common good"! The expression contradicts itself; that which can
be common is always of small value. In the end things must be as
they are and have always been--the great things remain for the
great, the abysses for the profound, the delicacies and thrills
for the refined, and, to sum up shortly, everything rare for the

44. Need I say expressly after all this that they will be free,
VERY free spirits, these philosophers of the future--as certainly
also they will not be merely free spirits, but something more,
higher, greater, and fundamentally different, which does not wish
to be misunderstood and mistaken? But while I say this, I feel
under OBLIGATION almost as much to them as to ourselves (we free
spirits who are their heralds and forerunners), to sweep away
from ourselves altogether a stupid old prejudice and
misunderstanding, which, like a fog, has too long made the
conception of "free spirit" obscure. In every country of Europe,
and the same in America, there is at present something which
makes an abuse of this name a very narrow, prepossessed,
enchained class of spirits, who desire almost the opposite of
what our intentions and instincts prompt--not to mention that in
respect to the NEW philosophers who are appearing, they must
still more be closed windows and bolted doors. Briefly and
regrettably, they belong to the LEVELLERS, these wrongly named
"free spirits"--as glib-tongued and scribe-fingered slaves of the
democratic taste and its "modern ideas" all of them men without
solitude, without personal solitude, blunt honest fellows to whom
neither courage nor honourable conduct ought to be denied, only,
they are not free, and are ludicrously superficial, especially in
their innate partiality for seeing the cause of almost ALL human
misery and failure in the old forms in which society has hitherto
existed--a notion which happily inverts the truth entirely! What
they would fain attain with all their strength, is the universal,
green-meadow happiness of the herd, together with security,
safety, comfort, and alleviation of life for every one, their two
most frequently chanted songs and doctrines are called "Equality
of Rights" and "Sympathy with All Sufferers"--and suffering
itself is looked upon by them as something which must be DONE
AWAY WITH. We opposite ones, however, who have opened our eye and
conscience to the question how and where the plant "man" has
hitherto grown most vigorously, believe that this has always
taken place under the opposite conditions, that for this end the
dangerousness of his situation had to be increased enormously,
his inventive faculty and dissembling power (his "spirit") had to
develop into subtlety and daring under long oppression and
compulsion, and his Will to Life had to be increased to the
unconditioned Will to Power--we believe that severity, violence,
slavery, danger in the street and in the heart, secrecy,
stoicism, tempter's art and devilry of every kind,--that
everything wicked, terrible, tyrannical, predatory, and
serpentine in man, serves as well for the elevation of the human
species as its opposite--we do not even say enough when we only
say THIS MUCH, and in any case we find ourselves here, both with
our speech and our silence, at the OTHER extreme of all modern
ideology and gregarious desirability, as their anti-podes
perhaps? What wonder that we "free spirits" are not exactly the
most communicative spirits? that we do not wish to betray in
every respect WHAT a spirit can free itself from, and WHERE
perhaps it will then be driven? And as to the import of the
dangerous formula, "Beyond Good and Evil," with which we at least
avoid confusion, we ARE something else than "libres-penseurs,"
"liben pensatori" "free-thinkers," and whatever these honest
advocates of "modern ideas" like to call themselves. Having been
at home, or at least guests, in many realms of the spirit, having
escaped again and again from the gloomy, agreeable nooks in which
preferences and prejudices, youth, origin, the accident of men
and books, or even the weariness of travel seemed to confine us,
full of malice against the seductions of dependency which he
concealed in honours, money, positions, or exaltation of the
senses, grateful even for distress and the vicissitudes of
illness, because they always free us from some rule, and its
"prejudice," grateful to the God, devil, sheep, and worm in us,
inquisitive to a fault, investigators to the point of cruelty,
with unhesitating fingers for the intangible, with teeth and
stomachs for the most indigestible, ready for any business that
requires sagacity and acute senses, ready for every adventure,
owing to an excess of "free will", with anterior and posterior
souls, into the ultimate intentions of which it is difficult to
pry, with foregrounds and backgrounds to the end of which no foot
may run, hidden ones under the mantles of light, appropriators,
although we resemble heirs and spendthrifts, arrangers and
collectors from morning till night, misers of our wealth and our
full-crammed drawers, economical in learning and forgetting,
inventive in scheming, sometimes proud of tables of categories,
sometimes pedants, sometimes night-owls of work even in full day,
yea, if necessary, even scarecrows--and it is necessary nowadays,
that is to say, inasmuch as we are the born, sworn, jealous
friends of SOLITUDE, of our own profoundest midnight and midday
solitude--such kind of men are we, we free spirits! And perhaps
ye are also something of the same kind, ye coming ones? ye NEW



45. The human soul and its limits, the range of man's inner
experiences hitherto attained, the heights, depths, and distances
of these experiences, the entire history of the soul UP TO THE
PRESENT TIME, and its still unexhausted possibilities: this is
the preordained hunting-domain for a born psychologist and lover
of a "big hunt". But how often must he say despairingly to
himself: "A single individual! alas, only a single individual!
and this great forest, this virgin forest!" So he would like to
have some hundreds of hunting assistants, and fine trained
hounds, that he could send into the history of the human soul, to
drive HIS game together. In vain: again and again he experiences,
profoundly and bitterly, how difficult it is to find assistants
and dogs for all the things that directly excite his curiosity.
The evil of sending scholars into new and dangerous hunting-
domains, where courage, sagacity, and subtlety in every sense are
required, is that they are no longer serviceable just when the
"BIG hunt," and also the great danger commences,--it is precisely
then that they lose their keen eye and nose. In order, for
instance, to divine and determine what sort of history the
problem of KNOWLEDGE AND CONSCIENCE has hitherto had in the souls
of homines religiosi, a person would perhaps himself have to
possess as profound, as bruised, as immense an experience as the
intellectual conscience of Pascal; and then he would still
require that wide-spread heaven of clear, wicked spirituality,
which, from above, would be able to oversee, arrange, and
effectively formulize this mass of dangerous and painful
experiences.--But who could do me this service! And who would
have time to wait for such servants!--they evidently appear too
rarely, they are so improbable at all times! Eventually one must
do everything ONESELF in order to know something; which means
that one has MUCH to do!--But a curiosity like mine is once for
all the most agreeable of vices--pardon me! I mean to say that
the love of truth has its reward in heaven, and already upon

46. Faith, such as early Christianity desired, and not
infrequently achieved in the midst of a skeptical and southernly
free-spirited world, which had centuries of struggle between
philosophical schools behind it and in it, counting besides the
education in tolerance which the Imperium Romanum gave--this
faith is NOT that sincere, austere slave-faith by which perhaps a
Luther or a Cromwell, or some other northern barbarian of the
spirit remained attached to his God and Christianity, it is much
rather the faith of Pascal, which resembles in a terrible manner
a continuous suicide of reason--a tough, long-lived, worm-like
reason, which is not to be slain at once and with a single blow.
The Christian faith from the beginning, is sacrifice the
sacrifice of all freedom, all pride, all self-confidence of
spirit, it is at the same time subjection, self-derision, and
self-mutilation. There is cruelty and religious Phoenicianism in
this faith, which is adapted to a tender, many-sided, and very
fastidious conscience, it takes for granted that the subjection
of the spirit is indescribably PAINFUL, that all the past and all
the habits of such a spirit resist the absurdissimum, in the form
of which "faith" comes to it. Modern men, with their obtuseness
as regards all Christian nomenclature, have no longer the sense
for the terribly superlative conception which was implied to an
antique taste by the paradox of the formula, "God on the Cross".
Hitherto there had never and nowhere been such boldness in
inversion, nor anything at once so dreadful, questioning, and
questionable as this formula: it promised a transvaluation of all
ancient values--It was the Orient, the PROFOUND Orient, it was
the Oriental slave who thus took revenge on Rome and its noble,
light-minded toleration, on the Roman "Catholicism" of non-faith,
and it was always not the faith, but the freedom from the faith,
the half-stoical and smiling indifference to the seriousness of
the faith, which made the slaves indignant at their masters and
revolt against them. "Enlightenment" causes revolt, for the slave
desires the unconditioned, he understands nothing but the
tyrannous, even in morals, he loves as he hates, without NUANCE,
to the very depths, to the point of pain, to the point of
sickness--his many HIDDEN sufferings make him revolt against the
noble taste which seems to DENY suffering. The skepticism with
regard to suffering, fundamentally only an attitude of
aristocratic morality, was not the least of the causes, also, of
the last great slave-insurrection which began with the French

47. Wherever the religious neurosis has appeared on the earth so
far, we find it connected with three dangerous prescriptions as
to regimen: solitude, fasting, and sexual abstinence--but without
its being possible to determine with certainty which is cause and
which is effect, or IF any relation at all of cause and effect
exists there. This latter doubt is justified by the fact that one
of the most regular symptoms among savage as well as among
civilized peoples is the most sudden and excessive sensuality,
which then with equal suddenness transforms into penitential
paroxysms, world-renunciation, and will-renunciation, both
symptoms perhaps explainable as disguised epilepsy? But nowhere
is it MORE obligatory to put aside explanations around no other
type has there grown such a mass of absurdity and superstition,
no other type seems to have been more interesting to men and even
to philosophers--perhaps it is time to become just a little
indifferent here, to learn caution, or, better still, to look
AWAY, TO GO AWAY--Yet in the background of the most recent
philosophy, that of Schopenhauer, we find almost as the problem
in itself, this terrible note of interrogation of the religious
crisis and awakening. How is the negation of will POSSIBLE? how
is the saint possible?--that seems to have been the very question
with which Schopenhauer made a start and became a philosopher.
And thus it was a genuine Schopenhauerian consequence, that his
most convinced adherent (perhaps also his last, as far as Germany
is concerned), namely, Richard Wagner, should bring his own life-
work to an end just here, and should finally put that terrible
and eternal type upon the stage as Kundry, type vecu, and as it
loved and lived, at the very time that the mad-doctors in almost
all European countries had an opportunity to study the type close
at hand, wherever the religious neurosis--or as I call it, "the
religious mood"--made its latest epidemical outbreak and display
as the "Salvation Army"--If it be a question, however, as to what
has been so extremely interesting to men of all sorts in all
ages, and even to philosophers, in the whole phenomenon of the
saint, it is undoubtedly the appearance of the miraculous
therein--namely, the immediate SUCCESSION OF OPPOSITES, of states
of the soul regarded as morally antithetical: it was believed
here to be self-evident that a "bad man" was all at once turned
into a "saint," a good man. The hitherto existing psychology was
wrecked at this point, is it not possible it may have happened
principally because psychology had placed itself under the
dominion of morals, because it BELIEVED in oppositions of moral
values, and saw, read, and INTERPRETED these oppositions into the
text and facts of the case? What? "Miracle" only an error of
interpretation? A lack of philology?

48. It seems that the Latin races are far more deeply attached to
their Catholicism than we Northerners are to Christianity
generally, and that consequently unbelief in Catholic countries
means something quite different from what it does among
Protestants--namely, a sort of revolt against the spirit of the
race, while with us it is rather a return to the spirit (or non-
spirit) of the race.

We Northerners undoubtedly derive our origin from barbarous
races, even as regards our talents for religion--we have POOR
talents for it. One may make an exception in the case of the
Celts, who have theretofore furnished also the best soil for
Christian infection in the North: the Christian ideal blossomed
forth in France as much as ever the pale sun of the north would
allow it. How strangely pious for our taste are still these later
French skeptics, whenever there is any Celtic blood in their
origin! How Catholic, how un-German does Auguste Comte's
Sociology seem to us, with the Roman logic of its instincts! How
Jesuitical, that amiable and shrewd cicerone of Port Royal,
Sainte-Beuve, in spite of all his hostility to Jesuits! And even
Ernest Renan: how inaccessible to us Northerners does the
language of such a Renan appear, in whom every instant the merest
touch of religious thrill throws his refined voluptuous and
comfortably couching soul off its balance! Let us repeat after
him these fine sentences--and what wickedness and haughtiness is
immediately aroused by way of answer in our probably less
beautiful but harder souls, that is to say, in our more German
LE MIEUX?" . . . These sentences are so extremely ANTIPODAL to my
ears and habits of thought, that in my first impulse of rage on
finding them, I wrote on the margin, "LA NIAISERIE RELIGIEUSE PAR
EXCELLENCE!"--until in my later rage I even took a fancy to them,
these sentences with their truth absolutely inverted! It is so
nice and such a distinction to have one's own antipodes!

49. That which is so astonishing in the religious life of the
ancient Greeks is the irrestrainable stream of GRATITUDE which it
pours forth--it is a very superior kind of man who takes SUCH an
attitude towards nature and life.--Later on, when the populace
got the upper hand in Greece, FEAR became rampant also in
religion; and Christianity was preparing itself.

50. The passion for God: there are churlish, honest-hearted, and
importunate kinds of it, like that of Luther--the whole of
Protestantism lacks the southern DELICATEZZA. There is an
Oriental exaltation of the mind in it, like that of an
undeservedly favoured or elevated slave, as in the case of St.
Augustine, for instance, who lacks in an offensive manner, all
nobility in bearing and desires. There is a feminine tenderness
and sensuality in it, which modestly and unconsciously longs for
a UNIO MYSTICA ET PHYSICA, as in the case of Madame de Guyon. In
many cases it appears, curiously enough, as the disguise of a
girl's or youth's puberty; here and there even as the hysteria of
an old maid, also as her last ambition. The Church has frequently
canonized the woman in such a case.

51. The mightiest men have hitherto always bowed reverently
before the saint, as the enigma of self-subjugation and utter
voluntary privation--why did they thus bow? They divined in him--
and as it were behind the questionableness of his frail and
wretched appearance--the superior force which wished to test
itself by such a subjugation; the strength of will, in which they
recognized their own strength and love of power, and knew how to
honour it: they honoured something in themselves when they
honoured the saint. In addition to this, the contemplation of the
saint suggested to them a suspicion: such an enormity of self-
negation and anti-naturalness will not have been coveted for
nothing--they have said, inquiringly. There is perhaps a reason
for it, some very great danger, about which the ascetic might
wish to be more accurately informed through his secret
interlocutors and visitors? In a word, the mighty ones of the
world learned to have a new fear before him, they divined a new
power, a strange, still unconquered enemy:--it was the "Will to
Power" which obliged them to halt before the saint. They had to
question him.

52. In the Jewish "Old Testament," the book of divine justice,
there are men, things, and sayings on such an immense scale, that
Greek and Indian literature has nothing to compare with it. One
stands with fear and reverence before those stupendous remains of
what man was formerly, and one has sad thoughts about old Asia
and its little out-pushed peninsula Europe, which would like, by
all means, to figure before Asia as the "Progress of Mankind." To
be sure, he who is himself only a slender, tame house-animal, and
knows only the wants of a house-animal (like our cultured people
of today, including the Christians of "cultured" Christianity),
need neither be amazed nor even sad amid those ruins--the taste
for the Old Testament is a touchstone with respect to "great" and
"small": perhaps he will find that the New Testament, the book of
grace, still appeals more to his heart (there is much of the
odour of the genuine, tender, stupid beadsman and petty soul in
it). To have bound up this New Testament (a kind of ROCOCO of
taste in every respect) along with the Old Testament into one
book, as the "Bible," as "The Book in Itself," is perhaps the
greatest audacity and "sin against the Spirit" which literary
Europe has upon its conscience.

53. Why Atheism nowadays? "The father" in God is thoroughly
refuted; equally so "the judge," "the rewarder." Also his "free
will": he does not hear--and even if he did, he would not know
how to help. The worst is that he seems incapable of
communicating himself clearly; is he uncertain?--This is what I
have made out (by questioning and listening at a variety of
conversations) to be the cause of the decline of European theism;
it appears to me that though the religious instinct is in
vigorous growth,--it rejects the theistic satisfaction with
profound distrust.

54. What does all modern philosophy mainly do? Since Descartes--
and indeed more in defiance of him than on the basis of his
procedure--an ATTENTAT has been made on the part of all
philosophers on the old conception of the soul, under the guise
of a criticism of the subject and predicate conception--that is
to say, an ATTENTAT on the fundamental presupposition of
Christian doctrine. Modern philosophy, as epistemological
skepticism, is secretly or openly ANTI-CHRISTIAN, although (for
keener ears, be it said) by no means anti-religious. Formerly, in
effect, one believed in "the soul" as one believed in grammar and
the grammatical subject: one said, "I" is the condition, "think"
is the predicate and is conditioned--to think is an activity for
which one MUST suppose a subject as cause. The attempt was then
made, with marvelous tenacity and subtlety, to see if one could
not get out of this net,--to see if the opposite was not perhaps
true: "think" the condition, and "I" the conditioned; "I,"
therefore, only a synthesis which has been MADE by thinking
itself. KANT really wished to prove that, starting from the
subject, the subject could not be proved--nor the object either:
the possibility of an APPARENT EXISTENCE of the subject, and
therefore of "the soul," may not always have been strange to
him,--the thought which once had an immense power on earth as the
Vedanta philosophy.

55. There is a great ladder of religious cruelty, with many
rounds; but three of these are the most important. Once on a time
men sacrificed human beings to their God, and perhaps just those
they loved the best--to this category belong the firstling
sacrifices of all primitive religions, and also the sacrifice of
the Emperor Tiberius in the Mithra-Grotto on the Island of Capri,
that most terrible of all Roman anachronisms. Then, during the
moral epoch of mankind, they sacrificed to their God the
strongest instincts they possessed, their "nature"; THIS festal
joy shines in the cruel glances of ascetics and "anti-natural"
fanatics. Finally, what still remained to be sacrificed? Was it
not necessary in the end for men to sacrifice everything
comforting, holy, healing, all hope, all faith in hidden
harmonies, in future blessedness and justice? Was it not
necessary to sacrifice God himself, and out of cruelty to
themselves to worship stone, stupidity, gravity, fate,
nothingness? To sacrifice God for nothingness--this paradoxical
mystery of the ultimate cruelty has been reserved for the rising
generation; we all know something thereof already.

56. Whoever, like myself, prompted by some enigmatical desire,
has long endeavoured to go to the bottom of the question of
pessimism and free it from the half-Christian, half-German
narrowness and stupidity in which it has finally presented itself
to this century, namely, in the form of Schopenhauer's
philosophy; whoever, with an Asiatic and super-Asiatic eye, has
actually looked inside, and into the most world-renouncing of all
possible modes of thought--beyond good and evil, and no longer
like Buddha and Schopenhauer, under the dominion and delusion of
morality,--whoever has done this, has perhaps just thereby,
without really desiring it, opened his eyes to behold the
opposite ideal: the ideal of the most world-approving, exuberant,
and vivacious man, who has not only learnt to compromise and
arrange with that which was and is, but wishes to have it again
AS IT WAS AND IS, for all eternity, insatiably calling out de
capo, not only to himself, but to the whole piece and play; and
not only the play, but actually to him who requires the play--and
makes it necessary; because he always requires himself anew--and
makes himself necessary.--What? And this would not be--circulus
vitiosus deus?

57. The distance, and as it were the space around man, grows with
the strength of his intellectual vision and insight: his world
becomes profounder; new stars, new enigmas, and notions are ever
coming into view. Perhaps everything on which the intellectual
eye has exercised its acuteness and profundity has just been an
occasion for its exercise, something of a game, something for
children and childish minds. Perhaps the most solemn conceptions
that have caused the most fighting and suffering, the conceptions
"God" and "sin," will one day seem to us of no more importance
than a child's plaything or a child's pain seems to an old man;--
and perhaps another plaything and another pain will then be
necessary once more for "the old man"--always childish enough, an
eternal child!

58. Has it been observed to what extent outward idleness, or
semi-idleness, is necessary to a real religious life (alike for
its favourite microscopic labour of self-examination, and for its
soft placidity called "prayer," the state of perpetual readiness
for the "coming of God"), I mean the idleness with a good
conscience, the idleness of olden times and of blood, to which
the aristocratic sentiment that work is DISHONOURING--that it
vulgarizes body and soul--is not quite unfamiliar? And that
consequently the modern, noisy, time-engrossing, conceited,
foolishly proud laboriousness educates and prepares for
"unbelief" more than anything else? Among these, for instance,
who are at present living apart from religion in Germany, I find
"free-thinkers" of diversified species and origin, but above all
a majority of those in whom laboriousness from generation to
generation has dissolved the religious instincts; so that they no
longer know what purpose religions serve, and only note their
existence in the world with a kind of dull astonishment. They
feel themselves already fully occupied, these good people, be it
by their business or by their pleasures, not to mention the
"Fatherland," and the newspapers, and their "family duties"; it
seems that they have no time whatever left for religion; and
above all, it is not obvious to them whether it is a question of
a new business or a new pleasure--for it is impossible, they say
to themselves, that people should go to church merely to spoil
their tempers. They are by no means enemies of religious customs;
should certain circumstances, State affairs perhaps, require
their participation in such customs, they do what is required, as
so many things are done--with a patient and unassuming
seriousness, and without much curiosity or discomfort;--they live
too much apart and outside to feel even the necessity for a FOR
or AGAINST in such matters. Among those indifferent persons may
be reckoned nowadays the majority of German Protestants of the
middle classes, especially in the great laborious centres of
trade and commerce; also the majority of laborious scholars, and
the entire University personnel (with the exception of the
theologians, whose existence and possibility there always gives
psychologists new and more subtle puzzles to solve). On the part
of pious, or merely church-going people, there is seldom any idea
of HOW MUCH good-will, one might say arbitrary will, is now
necessary for a German scholar to take the problem of religion
seriously; his whole profession (and as I have said, his whole
workmanlike laboriousness, to which he is compelled by his modern
conscience) inclines him to a lofty and almost charitable
serenity as regards religion, with which is occasionally mingled
a slight disdain for the "uncleanliness" of spirit which he takes
for granted wherever any one still professes to belong to the
Church. It is only with the help of history (NOT through his own
personal experience, therefore) that the scholar succeeds in
bringing himself to a respectful seriousness, and to a certain
timid deference in presence of religions; but even when his
sentiments have reached the stage of gratitude towards them, he
has not personally advanced one step nearer to that which still
maintains itself as Church or as piety; perhaps even the
contrary. The practical indifference to religious matters in the
midst of which he has been born and brought up, usually
sublimates itself in his case into circumspection and
cleanliness, which shuns contact with religious men and things;
and it may be just the depth of his tolerance and humanity which
prompts him to avoid the delicate trouble which tolerance itself
brings with it.--Every age has its own divine type of naivete,
for the discovery of which other ages may envy it: and how much
naivete--adorable, childlike, and boundlessly foolish naivete is
involved in this belief of the scholar in his superiority, in the
good conscience of his tolerance, in the unsuspecting, simple
certainty with which his instinct treats the religious man as a
lower and less valuable type, beyond, before, and ABOVE which he
himself has developed--he, the little arrogant dwarf and mob-man,
the sedulously alert, head-and-hand drudge of "ideas," of "modern

59. Whoever has seen deeply into the world has doubtless divined
what wisdom there is in the fact that men are superficial. It is
their preservative instinct which teaches them to be flighty,
lightsome, and false. Here and there one finds a passionate and
exaggerated adoration of "pure forms" in philosophers as well as
in artists: it is not to be doubted that whoever has NEED of the
cult of the superficial to that extent, has at one time or
another made an unlucky dive BENEATH it. Perhaps there is even an
order of rank with respect to those burnt children, the born
artists who find the enjoyment of life only in trying to FALSIFY
its image (as if taking wearisome revenge on it), one might guess
to what degree life has disgusted them, by the extent to which
they wish to see its image falsified, attenuated, ultrified, and
deified,--one might reckon the homines religiosi among the
artists, as their HIGHEST rank. It is the profound, suspicious
fear of an incurable pessimism which compels whole centuries to
fasten their teeth into a religious interpretation of existence:
the fear of the instinct which divines that truth might be
attained TOO soon, before man has become strong enough, hard
enough, artist enough. . . . Piety, the "Life in God," regarded in
this light, would appear as the most elaborate and ultimate
product of the FEAR of truth, as artist-adoration and artist-
intoxication in presence of the most logical of all
falsifications, as the will to the inversion of truth, to untruth
at any price. Perhaps there has hitherto been no more effective
means of beautifying man than piety, by means of it man can
become so artful, so superficial, so iridescent, and so good,
that his appearance no longer offends.

60. To love mankind FOR GOD'S SAKE--this has so far been the
noblest and remotest sentiment to which mankind has attained.
That love to mankind, without any redeeming intention in the
background, is only an ADDITIONAL folly and brutishness, that the
inclination to this love has first to get its proportion, its
delicacy, its gram of salt and sprinkling of ambergris from a
higher inclination--whoever first perceived and "experienced"
this, however his tongue may have stammered as it attempted to
express such a delicate matter, let him for all time be holy and
respected, as the man who has so far flown highest and gone
astray in the finest fashion!

61. The philosopher, as WE free spirits understand him--as the
man of the greatest responsibility, who has the conscience for
the general development of mankind,--will use religion for his
disciplining and educating work, just as he will use the
contemporary political and economic conditions. The selecting and
disciplining influence--destructive, as well as creative and
fashioning--which can be exercised by means of religion is
manifold and varied, according to the sort of people placed under
its spell and protection. For those who are strong and
independent, destined and trained to command, in whom the
judgment and skill of a ruling race is incorporated, religion is
an additional means for overcoming resistance in the exercise of
authority--as a bond which binds rulers and subjects in common,
betraying and surrendering to the former the conscience of the
latter, their inmost heart, which would fain escape obedience.
And in the case of the unique natures of noble origin, if by
virtue of superior spirituality they should incline to a more
retired and contemplative life, reserving to themselves only the
more refined forms of government (over chosen disciples or
members of an order), religion itself may be used as a means for
obtaining peace from the noise and trouble of managing GROSSER
affairs, and for securing immunity from the UNAVOIDABLE filth of
all political agitation. The Brahmins, for instance, understood
this fact. With the help of a religious organization, they
secured to themselves the power of nominating kings for the
people, while their sentiments prompted them to keep apart and
outside, as men with a higher and super-regal mission. At the
same time religion gives inducement and opportunity to some of
the subjects to qualify themselves for future ruling and
commanding the slowly ascending ranks and classes, in which,
through fortunate marriage customs, volitional power and delight
in self-control are on the increase. To them religion offers
sufficient incentives and temptations to aspire to higher
intellectuality, and to experience the sentiments of
authoritative self-control, of silence, and of solitude.
Asceticism and Puritanism are almost indispensable means of
educating and ennobling a race which seeks to rise above its
hereditary baseness and work itself upwards to future supremacy.
And finally, to ordinary men, to the majority of the people, who
exist for service and general utility, and are only so far
entitled to exist, religion gives invaluable contentedness with
their lot and condition, peace of heart, ennoblement of
obedience, additional social happiness and sympathy, with
something of transfiguration and embellishment, something of
justification of all the commonplaceness, all the meanness, all
the semi-animal poverty of their souls. Religion, together with
the religious significance of life, sheds sunshine over such
perpetually harassed men, and makes even their own aspect
endurable to them, it operates upon them as the Epicurean
philosophy usually operates upon sufferers of a higher order, in
a refreshing and refining manner, almost TURNING suffering TO
ACCOUNT, and in the end even hallowing and vindicating it. There
is perhaps nothing so admirable in Christianity and Buddhism as
their art of teaching even the lowest to elevate themselves by
piety to a seemingly higher order of things, and thereby to
retain their satisfaction with the actual world in which they
find it difficult enough to live--this very difficulty being

62. To be sure--to make also the bad counter-reckoning against
such religions, and to bring to light their secret dangers--the
cost is always excessive and terrible when religions do NOT
operate as an educational and disciplinary medium in the hands of
the philosopher, but rule voluntarily and PARAMOUNTLY, when they
wish to be the final end, and not a means along with other means.
Among men, as among all other animals, there is a surplus of
defective, diseased, degenerating, infirm, and necessarily
suffering individuals; the successful cases, among men also, are
always the exception; and in view of the fact that man is THE
exception. But worse still. The higher the type a man represents,
the greater is the improbability that he will SUCCEED; the
accidental, the law of irrationality in the general constitution
of mankind, manifests itself most terribly in its destructive
effect on the higher orders of men, the conditions of whose lives
are delicate, diverse, and difficult to determine. What, then, is
the attitude of the two greatest religions above-mentioned to the
SURPLUS of failures in life? They endeavour to preserve and keep
alive whatever can be preserved; in fact, as the religions FOR
SUFFERERS, they take the part of these upon principle; they are
always in favour of those who suffer from life as from a disease,
and they would fain treat every other experience of life as false
and impossible. However highly we may esteem this indulgent and
preservative care (inasmuch as in applying to others, it has
applied, and applies also to the highest and usually the most
suffering type of man), the hitherto PARAMOUNT religions--to give
a general appreciation of them--are among the principal causes
which have kept the type of "man" upon a lower level--they have
preserved too much THAT WHICH SHOULD HAVE PERISHED. One has to
thank them for invaluable services; and who is sufficiently rich
in gratitude not to feel poor at the contemplation of all that
the "spiritual men" of Christianity have done for Europe
hitherto! But when they had given comfort to the sufferers,
courage to the oppressed and despairing, a staff and support to
the helpless, and when they had allured from society into
convents and spiritual penitentiaries the broken-hearted and
distracted: what else had they to do in order to work
systematically in that fashion, and with a good conscience, for
the preservation of all the sick and suffering, which means, in
deed and in truth, to work for the DETERIORATION OF THE EUROPEAN
RACE? To REVERSE all estimates of value--THAT is what they had to
do! And to shatter the strong, to spoil great hopes, to cast
suspicion on the delight in beauty, to break down everything
autonomous, manly, conquering, and imperious--all instincts which
are natural to the highest and most successful type of "man"--
into uncertainty, distress of conscience, and self-destruction;
forsooth, to invert all love of the earthly and of supremacy over
the earth, into hatred of the earth and earthly things--THAT is
the task the Church imposed on itself, and was obliged to impose,
until, according to its standard of value, "unworldliness,"
"unsensuousness," and "higher man" fused into one sentiment. If
one could observe the strangely painful, equally coarse and
refined comedy of European Christianity with the derisive and
impartial eye of an Epicurean god, I should think one would never
cease marvelling and laughing; does it not actually seem that
some single will has ruled over Europe for eighteen centuries in
order to make a SUBLIME ABORTION of man? He, however, who, with
opposite requirements (no longer Epicurean) and with some divine
hammer in his hand, could approach this almost voluntary
degeneration and stunting of mankind, as exemplified in the
European Christian (Pascal, for instance), would he not have to
cry aloud with rage, pity, and horror: "Oh, you bunglers,
presumptuous pitiful bunglers, what have you done! Was that a
work for your hands? How you have hacked and botched my finest
stone! What have you presumed to do!"--I should say that
Christianity has hitherto been the most portentous of
presumptions. Men, not great enough, nor hard enough, to be
entitled as artists to take part in fashioning MAN; men, not
sufficiently strong and far-sighted to ALLOW, with sublime self-
constraint, the obvious law of the thousandfold failures and
perishings to prevail; men, not sufficiently noble to see the
radically different grades of rank and intervals of rank that
separate man from man:--SUCH men, with their "equality before
God," have hitherto swayed the destiny of Europe; until at last a
dwarfed, almost ludicrous species has been produced, a gregarious
animal, something obliging, sickly, mediocre, the European of the
present day.



63. He who is a thorough teacher takes things seriously--and even
himself--only in relation to his pupils.

64. "Knowledge for its own sake"--that is the last snare laid by
morality: we are thereby completely entangled in morals once

65. The charm of knowledge would be small, were it not so much
shame has to be overcome on the way to it.

65A. We are most dishonourable towards our God: he is not

66. The tendency of a person to allow himself to be degraded,
robbed, deceived, and exploited might be the diffidence of a God
among men.

67. Love to one only is a barbarity, for it is exercised at the
expense of all others. Love to God also!

68. "I did that," says my memory. "I could not have done that,"
says my pride, and remains inexorable. Eventually--the memory

69. One has regarded life carelessly, if one has failed to see
the hand that--kills with leniency.

70. If a man has character, he has also his typical experience,
which always recurs.

71. THE SAGE AS ASTRONOMER.--So long as thou feelest the stars as
an "above thee," thou lackest the eye of the discerning one.

72. It is not the strength, but the duration of great sentiments
that makes great men.

73. He who attains his ideal, precisely thereby surpasses it.

73A. Many a peacock hides his tail from every eye--and calls it
his pride.

74. A man of genius is unbearable, unless he possess at least two
things besides: gratitude and purity.

75. The degree and nature of a man's sensuality extends to the
highest altitudes of his spirit.

76. Under peaceful conditions the militant man attacks himself.

77. With his principles a man seeks either to dominate, or
justify, or honour, or reproach, or conceal his habits: two men
with the same principles probably seek fundamentally different
ends therewith.

78. He who despises himself, nevertheless esteems himself
thereby, as a despiser.

79. A soul which knows that it is loved, but does not itself
love, betrays its sediment: its dregs come up.

80. A thing that is explained ceases to concern us--What did the
God mean who gave the advice, "Know thyself!" Did it perhaps
imply "Cease to be concerned about thyself! become objective!"--
And Socrates?--And the "scientific man"?

81. It is terrible to die of thirst at sea. Is it necessary that
you should so salt your truth that it will no longer--quench

82. "Sympathy for all"--would be harshness and tyranny for THEE,
my good neighbour.

83. INSTINCT--When the house is on fire one forgets even the
dinner--Yes, but one recovers it from among the ashes.

84. Woman learns how to hate in proportion as she--forgets how to

85. The same emotions are in man and woman, but in different
TEMPO, on that account man and woman never cease to misunderstand
each other.

86. In the background of all their personal vanity, women
themselves have still their impersonal scorn--for "woman".

87. FETTERED HEART, FREE SPIRIT--When one firmly fetters one's
heart and keeps it prisoner, one can allow one's spirit many
liberties: I said this once before But people do not believe it
when I say so, unless they know it already.

88. One begins to distrust very clever persons when they become

89. Dreadful experiences raise the question whether he who
experiences them is not something dreadful also.

90. Heavy, melancholy men turn lighter, and come temporarily to
their surface, precisely by that which makes others heavy--by
hatred and love.

91. So cold, so icy, that one burns one's finger at the touch of
him! Every hand that lays hold of him shrinks back!--And for that
very reason many think him red-hot.

92. Who has not, at one time or another--sacrificed himself for
the sake of his good name?

93. In affability there is no hatred of men, but precisely on
that account a great deal too much contempt of men.

94. The maturity of man--that means, to have reacquired the
seriousness that one had as a child at play.

95. To be ashamed of one's immorality is a step on the ladder at
the end of which one is ashamed also of one's morality.

96. One should part from life as Ulysses parted from Nausicaa--
blessing it rather than in love with it.

97. What? A great man? I always see merely the play-actor of his
own ideal.

98. When one trains one's conscience, it kisses one while it

99. THE DISAPPOINTED ONE SPEAKS--"I listened for the echo and I
heard only praise".

100. We all feign to ourselves that we are simpler than we are,
we thus relax ourselves away from our fellows.

101. A discerning one might easily regard himself at present as
the animalization of God.

102. Discovering reciprocal love should really disenchant the
lover with regard to the beloved. "What! She is modest enough to
love even you? Or stupid enough? Or--or---"

103. THE DANGER IN HAPPINESS.--"Everything now turns out best for
me, I now love every fate:--who would like to be my fate?"

104. Not their love of humanity, but the impotence of their love,
prevents the Christians of today--burning us.

105. The pia fraus is still more repugnant to the taste (the
"piety") of the free spirit (the "pious man of knowledge") than
the impia fraus. Hence the profound lack of judgment, in
comparison with the Church, characteristic of the type "free
spirit"--as ITS non-freedom.

106. By means of music the very passions enjoy themselves.

107. A sign of strong character, when once the resolution has
been taken, to shut the ear even to the best counter-arguments.
Occasionally, therefore, a will to stupidity.

108. There is no such thing as moral phenomena, but only a moral
interpretation of phenomena.

109. The criminal is often enough not equal to his deed: he
extenuates and maligns it.

110. The advocates of a criminal are seldom artists enough to
turn the beautiful terribleness of the deed to the advantage of
the doer.

111. Our vanity is most difficult to wound just when our pride
has been wounded.

112. To him who feels himself preordained to contemplation and
not to belief, all believers are too noisy and obtrusive; he
guards against them.

113. "You want to prepossess him in your favour? Then you must be
embarrassed before him."

114. The immense expectation with regard to sexual love, and the
coyness in this expectation, spoils all the perspectives of women
at the outset.

115. Where there is neither love nor hatred in the game, woman's
play is mediocre.

116. The great epochs of our life are at the points when we gain
courage to rebaptize our badness as the best in us.

117. The will to overcome an emotion, is ultimately only the will
of another, or of several other, emotions.

118. There is an innocence of admiration: it is possessed by him
to whom it has not yet occurred that he himself may be admired
some day.

119. Our loathing of dirt may be so great as to prevent our
cleaning ourselves--"justifying" ourselves.

120. Sensuality often forces the growth of love too much, so that
its root remains weak, and is easily torn up.

121. It is a curious thing that God learned Greek when he wished
to turn author--and that he did not learn it better.

122. To rejoice on account of praise is in many cases merely
politeness of heart--and the very opposite of vanity of spirit.

123. Even concubinage has been corrupted--by marriage.

124. He who exults at the stake, does not triumph over pain, but
because of the fact that he does not feel pain where he expected
it. A parable.

125. When we have to change an opinion about any one, we charge
heavily to his account the inconvenience he thereby causes us.

126. A nation is a detour of nature to arrive at six or seven
great men.--Yes, and then to get round them.

127. In the eyes of all true women science is hostile to the
sense of shame. They feel as if one wished to peep under their
skin with it--or worse still! under their dress and finery.

128. The more abstract the truth you wish to teach, the more must
you allure the senses to it.

129. The devil has the most extensive perspectives for God; on
that account he keeps so far away from him:--the devil, in
effect, as the oldest friend of knowledge.

130. What a person IS begins to betray itself when his talent
decreases,--when he ceases to show what he CAN do. Talent is also
an adornment; an adornment is also a concealment.

131. The sexes deceive themselves about each other: the reason is
that in reality they honour and love only themselves (or their
own ideal, to express it more agreeably). Thus man wishes woman
to be peaceable: but in fact woman is ESSENTIALLY unpeaceable,
like the cat, however well she may have assumed the peaceable

132. One is punished best for one's virtues.

133. He who cannot find the way to HIS ideal, lives more
frivolously and shamelessly than the man without an ideal.

134. From the senses originate all trustworthiness, all good
conscience, all evidence of truth.

135. Pharisaism is not a deterioration of the good man; a
considerable part of it is rather an essential condition of being

136. The one seeks an accoucheur for his thoughts, the other
seeks some one whom he can assist: a good conversation thus

137. In intercourse with scholars and artists one readily makes
mistakes of opposite kinds: in a remarkable scholar one not
infrequently finds a mediocre man; and often, even in a mediocre
artist, one finds a very remarkable man.

138. We do the same when awake as when dreaming: we only invent
and imagine him with whom we have intercourse--and forget it

139. In revenge and in love woman is more barbarous than man.

140. ADVICE AS A RIDDLE.--"If the band is not to break, bite it
first--secure to make!"

141. The belly is the reason why man does not so readily take
himself for a God.

142. The chastest utterance I ever heard: "Dans le veritable
amour c'est I l'ame qui enveloppe le corps."

143. Our vanity would like what we do best to pass precisely for
what is most difficult to us.--Concerning the origin of many
systems of morals.

144. When a woman has scholarly inclinations there is generally
something wrong with her sexual nature. Barrenness itself
conduces to a certain virility of taste; man, indeed, if I may
say so, is "the barren animal."

145. Comparing man and woman generally, one may say that woman
would not have the genius for adornment, if she had not the
instinct for the SECONDARY role.

146. He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he
thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss,
the abyss will also gaze into thee.

147. From old Florentine novels--moreover, from life: Buona
femmina e mala femmina vuol bastone.--Sacchetti, Nov. 86.

148. To seduce their neighbour to a favourable opinion, and
afterwards to believe implicitly in this opinion of their
neighbour--who can do this conjuring trick so well as women?

149. That which an age considers evil is usually an unseasonable
echo of what was formerly considered good--the atavism of an old

150. Around the hero everything becomes a tragedy; around the
demigod everything becomes a satyr-play; and around God
everything becomes--what? perhaps a "world"?

151. It is not enough to possess a talent: one must also have
your permission to possess it;--eh, my friends?

152. "Where there is the tree of knowledge, there is always
Paradise": so say the most ancient and the most modern serpents.

153. What is done out of love always takes place beyond good and

154. Objection, evasion, joyous distrust, and love of irony are
signs of health; everything absolute belongs to pathology.

155. The sense of the tragic increases and declines with

156. Insanity in individuals is something rare--but in groups,
parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule.

157. The thought of suicide is a great consolation: by means of
it one gets successfully through many a bad night.

158. Not only our reason, but also our conscience, truckles to
our strongest impulse--the tyrant in us.

159. One MUST repay good and ill; but why just to the person who
did us good or ill?

160. One no longer loves one's knowledge sufficiently after one
has communicated it.

161. Poets act shamelessly towards their experiences: they
exploit them.

162. "Our fellow-creature is not our neighbour, but our
neighbour's neighbour":--so thinks every nation.

163. Love brings to light the noble and hidden qualities of a
lover--his rare and exceptional traits: it is thus liable to be
deceptive as to his normal character.

164. Jesus said to his Jews: "The law was for servants;--love God
as I love him, as his Son! What have we Sons of God to do with

165. IN SIGHT OF EVERY PARTY.--A shepherd has always need of a
bell-wether--or he has himself to be a wether occasionally.

166. One may indeed lie with the mouth; but with the accompanying
grimace one nevertheless tells the truth.

167. To vigorous men intimacy is a matter of shame--and something

168. Christianity gave Eros poison to drink; he did not die of
it, certainly, but degenerated to Vice.

169. To talk much about oneself may also be a means of concealing

170. In praise there is more obtrusiveness than in blame.

171. Pity has an almost ludicrous effect on a man of knowledge,
like tender hands on a Cyclops.

172. One occasionally embraces some one or other, out of love to
mankind (because one cannot embrace all); but this is what one
must never confess to the individual.

173. One does not hate as long as one disesteems, but only when
one esteems equal or superior.

174. Ye Utilitarians--ye, too, love the UTILE only as a VEHICLE
for your inclinations,--ye, too, really find the noise of its
wheels insupportable!

175. One loves ultimately one's desires, not the thing desired.

176. The vanity of others is only counter to our taste when it is
counter to our vanity.

177. With regard to what "truthfulness" is, perhaps nobody has
ever been sufficiently truthful.

178. One does not believe in the follies of clever men: what a
forfeiture of the rights of man!

179. The consequences of our actions seize us by the forelock,
very indifferent to the fact that we have meanwhile "reformed."

180. There is an innocence in lying which is the sign of good
faith in a cause.

181. It is inhuman to bless when one is being cursed.

182. The familiarity of superiors embitters one, because it may
not be returned.

183. "I am affected, not because you have deceived me, but
because I can no longer believe in you."

184. There is a haughtiness of kindness which has the appearance
of wickedness.

185. "I dislike him."--Why?--"I am not a match for him."--Did any
one ever answer so?



186. The moral sentiment in Europe at present is perhaps as
subtle, belated, diverse, sensitive, and refined, as the "Science
of Morals" belonging thereto is recent, initial, awkward, and
coarse-fingered:--an interesting contrast, which sometimes
becomes incarnate and obvious in the very person of a moralist.
Indeed, the expression, "Science of Morals" is, in respect to
what is designated thereby, far too presumptuous and counter to
GOOD taste,--which is always a foretaste of more modest
expressions. One ought to avow with the utmost fairness WHAT is
still necessary here for a long time, WHAT is alone proper for
the present: namely, the collection of material, the
comprehensive survey and classification of an immense domain of
delicate sentiments of worth, and distinctions of worth, which
live, grow, propagate, and perish--and perhaps attempts to give a
clear idea of the recurring and more common forms of these living
crystallizations--as preparation for a THEORY OF TYPES of
morality. To be sure, people have not hitherto been so modest.
All the philosophers, with a pedantic and ridiculous seriousness,
demanded of themselves something very much higher, more
pretentious, and ceremonious, when they concerned themselves with
morality as a science: they wanted to GIVE A BASIC to morality--
and every philosopher hitherto has believed that he has given it
a basis; morality itself, however, has been regarded as something
"given." How far from their awkward pride was the seemingly
insignificant problem--left in dust and decay--of a description
of forms of morality, notwithstanding that the finest hands and
senses could hardly be fine enough for it! It was precisely owing
to moral philosophers' knowing the moral facts imperfectly, in an
arbitrary epitome, or an accidental abridgement--perhaps as the
morality of their environment, their position, their church,
their Zeitgeist, their climate and zone--it was precisely because
they were badly instructed with regard to nations, eras, and past
ages, and were by no means eager to know about these matters,
that they did not even come in sight of the real problems of
morals--problems which only disclose themselves by a comparison
of MANY kinds of morality. In every "Science of Morals" hitherto,
strange as it may sound, the problem of morality itself has been
OMITTED: there has been no suspicion that there was anything
problematic there! That which philosophers called "giving a basis
to morality," and endeavoured to realize, has, when seen in a
right light, proved merely a learned form of good FAITH in
prevailing morality, a new means of its EXPRESSION, consequently
just a matter-of-fact within the sphere of a definite morality,
yea, in its ultimate motive, a sort of denial that it is LAWFUL
for this morality to be called in question--and in any case the
reverse of the testing, analyzing, doubting, and vivisecting of
this very faith. Hear, for instance, with what innocence--almost
worthy of honour--Schopenhauer represents his own task, and draw
your conclusions concerning the scientificness of a "Science"
whose latest master still talks in the strain of children and old
wives: "The principle," he says (page 136 of the Grundprobleme
der Ethik), [Footnote: Pages 54-55 of Schopenhauer's Basis of
Morality, translated by Arthur B. Bullock, M.A. (1903).] "the
axiom about the purport of which all moralists are PRACTICALLY
agreed: neminem laede, immo omnes quantum potes juva--is REALLY
the proposition which all moral teachers strive to establish,
. . . the REAL basis of ethics which has been sought, like
the philosopher's stone, for centuries."--The difficulty of
establishing the proposition referred to may indeed be great--it
is well known that Schopenhauer also was unsuccessful in his
efforts; and whoever has thoroughly realized how absurdly false
and sentimental this proposition is, in a world whose essence is
Will to Power, may be reminded that Schopenhauer, although a
pessimist, ACTUALLY--played the flute . . . daily after dinner:
one may read about the matter in his biography. A question by the
way: a pessimist, a repudiator of God and of the world, who MAKES
A HALT at morality--who assents to morality, and plays the flute
to laede-neminem morals, what? Is that really--a pessimist?

187. Apart from the value of such assertions as "there is a
categorical imperative in us," one can always ask: What does such
an assertion indicate about him who makes it? There are systems
of morals which are meant to justify their author in the eyes of
other people; other systems of morals are meant to tranquilize
him, and make him self-satisfied; with other systems he wants to
crucify and humble himself, with others he wishes to take revenge,
with others to conceal himself, with others to glorify himself and
gave superiority and distinction,--this system of morals helps its
author to forget, that system makes him, or something of him,
forgotten, many a moralist would like to exercise power and
creative arbitrariness over mankind, many another, perhaps, Kant
especially, gives us to understand by his morals that "what is
estimable in me, is that I know how to obey--and with you it SHALL
not be otherwise than with me!" In short, systems of morals are

188. In contrast to laisser-aller, every system of morals is a
sort of tyranny against "nature" and also against "reason", that
is, however, no objection, unless one should again decree by some
system of morals, that all kinds of tyranny and unreasonableness
are unlawful What is essential and invaluable in every system of
morals, is that it is a long constraint. In order to understand
Stoicism, or Port Royal, or Puritanism, one should remember the
constraint under which every language has attained to strength
and freedom--the metrical constraint, the tyranny of rhyme and
rhythm. How much trouble have the poets and orators of every
nation given themselves!--not excepting some of the prose writers
of today, in whose ear dwells an inexorable conscientiousness--
"for the sake of a folly," as utilitarian bunglers say, and
thereby deem themselves wise--"from submission to arbitrary
laws," as the anarchists say, and thereby fancy themselves
"free," even free-spirited. The singular fact remains, however,
that everything of the nature of freedom, elegance, boldness,
dance, and masterly certainty, which exists or has existed,
whether it be in thought itself, or in administration, or in
speaking and persuading, in art just as in conduct, has only
developed by means of the tyranny of such arbitrary law, and in
all seriousness, it is not at all improbable that precisely this
is "nature" and "natural"--and not laisser-aller! Every artist
knows how different from the state of letting himself go, is his
"most natural" condition, the free arranging, locating,
disposing, and constructing in the moments of "inspiration"--and
how strictly and delicately he then obeys a thousand laws, which,
by their very rigidness and precision, defy all formulation by
means of ideas (even the most stable idea has, in comparison
therewith, something floating, manifold, and ambiguous in it).
The essential thing "in heaven and in earth" is, apparently (to
repeat it once more), that there should be long OBEDIENCE in the
same direction, there thereby results, and has always resulted in
the long run, something which has made life worth living; for
instance, virtue, art, music, dancing, reason, spirituality--
anything whatever that is transfiguring, refined, foolish, or
divine. The long bondage of the spirit, the distrustful
constraint in the communicability of ideas, the discipline which
the thinker imposed on himself to think in accordance with the
rules of a church or a court, or conformable to Aristotelian
premises, the persistent spiritual will to interpret everything
that happened according to a Christian scheme, and in every
occurrence to rediscover and justify the Christian God:--all this
violence, arbitrariness, severity, dreadfulness, and
unreasonableness, has proved itself the disciplinary means
whereby the European spirit has attained its strength, its
remorseless curiosity and subtle mobility; granted also that much
irrecoverable strength and spirit had to be stifled, suffocated,
and spoilt in the process (for here, as everywhere, "nature"
shows herself as she is, in all her extravagant and INDIFFERENT
magnificence, which is shocking, but nevertheless noble). That
for centuries European thinkers only thought in order to prove
something-nowadays, on the contrary, we are suspicious of every
thinker who "wishes to prove something"--that it was always
settled beforehand what WAS TO BE the result of their strictest
thinking, as it was perhaps in the Asiatic astrology of former
times, or as it is still at the present day in the innocent,
Christian-moral explanation of immediate personal events "for the
glory of God," or "for the good of the soul":--this tyranny, this
arbitrariness, this severe and magnificent stupidity, has
EDUCATED the spirit; slavery, both in the coarser and the finer
sense, is apparently an indispensable means even of spiritual
education and discipline. One may look at every system of morals
in this light: it is "nature" therein which teaches to hate the
laisser-aller, the too great freedom, and implants the need for
limited horizons, for immediate duties--it teaches the NARROWING
OF PERSPECTIVES, and thus, in a certain sense, that stupidity is
a condition of life and development. "Thou must obey some one,
and for a long time; OTHERWISE thou wilt come to grief, and lose
all respect for thyself"--this seems to me to be the moral
imperative of nature, which is certainly neither "categorical,"
as old Kant wished (consequently the "otherwise"), nor does it
address itself to the individual (what does nature care for the
individual!), but to nations, races, ages, and ranks; above all,
however, to the animal "man" generally, to MANKIND.

189. Industrious races find it a great hardship to be idle: it
was a master stroke of ENGLISH instinct to hallow and begloom
Sunday to such an extent that the Englishman unconsciously
hankers for his week--and work-day again:--as a kind of cleverly
devised, cleverly intercalated FAST, such as is also frequently
found in the ancient world (although, as is appropriate in
southern nations, not precisely with respect to work). Many kinds
of fasts are necessary; and wherever powerful influences and
habits prevail, legislators have to see that intercalary days are
appointed, on which such impulses are fettered, and learn to
hunger anew. Viewed from a higher standpoint, whole generations
and epochs, when they show themselves infected with any moral
fanaticism, seem like those intercalated periods of restraint and
fasting, during which an impulse learns to humble and submit
itself--at the same time also to PURIFY and SHARPEN itself;
certain philosophical sects likewise admit of a similar
interpretation (for instance, the Stoa, in the midst of Hellenic
culture, with the atmosphere rank and overcharged with
Aphrodisiacal odours).--Here also is a hint for the explanation
of the paradox, why it was precisely in the most Christian period
of European history, and in general only under the pressure of
Christian sentiments, that the sexual impulse sublimated into
love (amour-passion).

190. There is something in the morality of Plato which does not
really belong to Plato, but which only appears in his philosophy,
one might say, in spite of him: namely, Socratism, for which he
himself was too noble. "No one desires to injure himself, hence
all evil is done unwittingly. The evil man inflicts injury on
himself; he would not do so, however, if he knew that evil is
evil. The evil man, therefore, is only evil through error; if one
free him from error one will necessarily make him--good."--This
mode of reasoning savours of the POPULACE, who perceive only the
unpleasant consequences of evil-doing, and practically judge that
"it is STUPID to do wrong"; while they accept "good" as identical
with "useful and pleasant," without further thought. As regards
every system of utilitarianism, one may at once assume that it
has the same origin, and follow the scent: one will seldom err.--
Plato did all he could to interpret something refined and noble
into the tenets of his teacher, and above all to interpret
himself into them--he, the most daring of all interpreters, who
lifted the entire Socrates out of the street, as a popular theme
and song, to exhibit him in endless and impossible modifications
--namely, in all his own disguises and multiplicities. In jest,
and in Homeric language as well, what is the Platonic Socrates,
if not-- [Greek words inserted here.]

191. The old theological problem of "Faith" and "Knowledge," or
more plainly, of instinct and reason--the question whether, in
respect to the valuation of things, instinct deserves more
authority than rationality, which wants to appreciate and act
according to motives, according to a "Why," that is to say, in
conformity to purpose and utility--it is always the old moral
problem that first appeared in the person of Socrates, and had
divided men's minds long before Christianity. Socrates himself,
following, of course, the taste of his talent--that of a
surpassing dialectician--took first the side of reason; and, in
fact, what did he do all his life but laugh at the awkward
incapacity of the noble Athenians, who were men of instinct, like
all noble men, and could never give satisfactory answers
concerning the motives of their actions? In the end, however,
though silently and secretly, he laughed also at himself: with
his finer conscience and introspection, he found in himself the
same difficulty and incapacity. "But why"--he said to himself--
"should one on that account separate oneself from the instincts!
One must set them right, and the reason ALSO--one must follow the
instincts, but at the same time persuade the reason to support
them with good arguments." This was the real FALSENESS of that
great and mysterious ironist; he brought his conscience up to the
point that he was satisfied with a kind of self-outwitting: in
fact, he perceived the irrationality in the moral judgment.--
Plato, more innocent in such matters, and without the craftiness
of the plebeian, wished to prove to himself, at the expenditure
of all his strength--the greatest strength a philosopher had ever
expended--that reason and instinct lead spontaneously to one
goal, to the good, to "God"; and since Plato, all theologians and
philosophers have followed the same path--which means that in
matters of morality, instinct (or as Christians call it, "Faith,"
or as I call it, "the herd") has hitherto triumphed. Unless one
should make an exception in the case of Descartes, the father of
rationalism (and consequently the grandfather of the Revolution),
who recognized only the authority of reason: but reason is only a
tool, and Descartes was superficial.

192. Whoever has followed the history of a single science, finds
in its development a clue to the understanding of the oldest and
commonest processes of all "knowledge and cognizance": there, as
here, the premature hypotheses, the fictions, the good stupid
will to "belief," and the lack of distrust and patience are first
developed--our senses learn late, and never learn completely, to
be subtle, reliable, and cautious organs of knowledge. Our eyes
find it easier on a given occasion to produce a picture already
often produced, than to seize upon the divergence and novelty of
an impression: the latter requires more force, more "morality."
It is difficult and painful for the ear to listen to anything
new; we hear strange music badly. When we hear another language
spoken, we involuntarily attempt to form the sounds into words
with which we are more familiar and conversant--it was thus, for
example, that the Germans modified the spoken word ARCUBALISTA
into ARMBRUST (cross-bow). Our senses are also hostile and averse
to the new; and generally, even in the "simplest" processes of
sensation, the emotions DOMINATE--such as fear, love, hatred, and
the passive emotion of indolence.--As little as a reader nowadays
reads all the single words (not to speak of syllables) of a page
--he rather takes about five out of every twenty words at random,
and "guesses" the probably appropriate sense to them--just as
little do we see a tree correctly and completely in respect to
its leaves, branches, colour, and shape; we find it so much
easier to fancy the chance of a tree. Even in the midst of the
most remarkable experiences, we still do just the same; we
fabricate the greater part of the experience, and can hardly be
made to contemplate any event, EXCEPT as "inventors" thereof. All
this goes to prove that from our fundamental nature and from
remote ages we have been--ACCUSTOMED TO LYING. Or, to express it
more politely and hypocritically, in short, more pleasantly--one
is much more of an artist than one is aware of.--In an animated
conversation, I often see the face of the person with whom I am
speaking so clearly and sharply defined before me, according to
the thought he expresses, or which I believe to be evoked in his
mind, that the degree of distinctness far exceeds the STRENGTH of
my visual faculty--the delicacy of the play of the muscles and of
the expression of the eyes MUST therefore be imagined by me.
Probably the person put on quite a different expression, or none
at all.

193. Quidquid luce fuit, tenebris agit: but also contrariwise.
What we experience in dreams, provided we experience it often,
pertains at last just as much to the general belongings of our
soul as anything "actually" experienced; by virtue thereof we are
richer or poorer, we have a requirement more or less, and
finally, in broad daylight, and even in the brightest moments of
our waking life, we are ruled to some extent by the nature of our
dreams. Supposing that someone has often flown in his dreams, and
that at last, as soon as he dreams, he is conscious of the power
and art of flying as his privilege and his peculiarly enviable
happiness; such a person, who believes that on the slightest
impulse, he can actualize all sorts of curves and angles, who
knows the sensation of a certain divine levity, an "upwards"
without effort or constraint, a "downwards" without descending or
lowering--without TROUBLE!--how could the man with such dream-
experiences and dream-habits fail to find "happiness" differently
coloured and defined, even in his waking hours! How could he
fail--to long DIFFERENTLY for happiness? "Flight," such as is
described by poets, must, when compared with his own "flying," be
far too earthly, muscular, violent, far too "troublesome" for

194. The difference among men does not manifest itself only in
the difference of their lists of desirable things--in their
regarding different good things as worth striving for, and being
disagreed as to the greater or less value, the order of rank, of
the commonly recognized desirable things:--it manifests itself
much more in what they regard as actually HAVING and POSSESSING a
desirable thing. As regards a woman, for instance, the control
over her body and her sexual gratification serves as an amply
sufficient sign of ownership and possession to the more modest
man; another with a more suspicious and ambitious thirst for
possession, sees the "questionableness," the mere apparentness of
such ownership, and wishes to have finer tests in order to know
especially whether the woman not only gives herself to him, but
also gives up for his sake what she has or would like to have--
only THEN does he look upon her as "possessed." A third, however,
has not even here got to the limit of his distrust and his desire
for possession: he asks himself whether the woman, when she gives
up everything for him, does not perhaps do so for a phantom of
him; he wishes first to be thoroughly, indeed, profoundly well
known; in order to be loved at all he ventures to let himself be
found out. Only then does he feel the beloved one fully in his
possession, when she no longer deceives herself about him, when
she loves him just as much for the sake of his devilry and
concealed insatiability, as for his goodness, patience, and
spirituality. One man would like to possess a nation, and he
finds all the higher arts of Cagliostro and Catalina suitable for
his purpose. Another, with a more refined thirst for possession,
says to himself: "One may not deceive where one desires to
possess"--he is irritated and impatient at the idea that a mask
of him should rule in the hearts of the people: "I must,
therefore, MAKE myself known, and first of all learn to know
myself!" Among helpful and charitable people, one almost always
finds the awkward craftiness which first gets up suitably him who
has to be helped, as though, for instance, he should "merit"
help, seek just THEIR help, and would show himself deeply
grateful, attached, and subservient to them for all help. With
these conceits, they take control of the needy as a property,
just as in general they are charitable and helpful out of a
desire for property. One finds them jealous when they are crossed
or forestalled in their charity. Parents involuntarily make
something like themselves out of their children--they call that
"education"; no mother doubts at the bottom of her heart that the
child she has borne is thereby her property, no father hesitates
about his right to HIS OWN ideas and notions of worth. Indeed, in
former times fathers deemed it right to use their discretion
concerning the life or death of the newly born (as among the
ancient Germans). And like the father, so also do the teacher,
the class, the priest, and the prince still see in every new
individual an unobjectionable opportunity for a new possession.
The consequence is . . .

195. The Jews--a people "born for slavery," as Tacitus and the
whole ancient world say of them; "the chosen people among the
nations," as they themselves say and believe--the Jews performed
the miracle of the inversion of valuations, by means of which
life on earth obtained a new and dangerous charm for a couple of
millenniums. Their prophets fused into one the expressions
"rich," "godless," "wicked," "violent," "sensual," and for the
first time coined the word "world" as a term of reproach. In this
inversion of valuations (in which is also included the use of the
word "poor" as synonymous with "saint" and "friend") the
significance of the Jewish people is to be found; it is with THEM

196. It is to be INFERRED that there are countless dark bodies
near the sun--such as we shall never see. Among ourselves, this
is an allegory; and the psychologist of morals reads the whole
star-writing merely as an allegorical and symbolic language in
which much may be unexpressed.

197. The beast of prey and the man of prey (for instance, Caesar
Borgia) are fundamentally misunderstood, "nature" is
misunderstood, so long as one seeks a "morbidness" in the
constitution of these healthiest of all tropical monsters and
growths, or even an innate "hell" in them--as almost all
moralists have done hitherto. Does it not seem that there is a
hatred of the virgin forest and of the tropics among moralists?
And that the "tropical man" must be discredited at all costs,
whether as disease and deterioration of mankind, or as his own
hell and self-torture? And why? In favour of the "temperate
zones"? In favour of the temperate men? The "moral"? The
mediocre?--This for the chapter: "Morals as Timidity."

198. All the systems of morals which address themselves with a
view to their "happiness," as it is called--what else are they
but suggestions for behaviour adapted to the degree of DANGER
from themselves in which the individuals live; recipes for their
passions, their good and bad propensities, insofar as such have
the Will to Power and would like to play the master; small and
great expediencies and elaborations, permeated with the musty
odour of old family medicines and old-wife wisdom; all of them
grotesque and absurd in their form--because they address
themselves to "all," because they generalize where generalization
is not authorized; all of them speaking unconditionally, and
taking themselves unconditionally; all of them flavoured not
merely with one grain of salt, but rather endurable only, and
sometimes even seductive, when they are over-spiced and begin to
smell dangerously, especially of "the other world." That is all
of little value when estimated intellectually, and is far from
being "science," much less "wisdom"; but, repeated once more, and
three times repeated, it is expediency, expediency, expediency,
mixed with stupidity, stupidity, stupidity--whether it be the
indifference and statuesque coldness towards the heated folly of
the emotions, which the Stoics advised and fostered; or the no-
more-laughing and no-more-weeping of Spinoza, the destruction of
the emotions by their analysis and vivisection, which he
recommended so naively; or the lowering of the emotions to an
innocent mean at which they may be satisfied, the Aristotelianism
of morals; or even morality as the enjoyment of the emotions in a
voluntary attenuation and spiritualization by the symbolism of
art, perhaps as music, or as love of God, and of mankind for
God's sake--for in religion the passions are once more
enfranchised, provided that . . . ; or, finally, even the complaisant
and wanton surrender to the emotions, as has been taught by Hafis
and Goethe, the bold letting-go of the reins, the spiritual and
corporeal licentia morum in the exceptional cases of wise old
codgers and drunkards, with whom it "no longer has much danger."
--This also for the chapter: "Morals as Timidity."

199. Inasmuch as in all ages, as long as mankind has existed,
there have also been human herds (family alliances, communities,
tribes, peoples, states, churches), and always a great number who
obey in proportion to the small number who command--in view,
therefore, of the fact that obedience has been most practiced and
fostered among mankind hitherto, one may reasonably suppose that,
generally speaking, the need thereof is now innate in every one,
as a kind of FORMAL CONSCIENCE which gives the command "Thou
shalt unconditionally do something, unconditionally refrain from
something", in short, "Thou shalt". This need tries to satisfy
itself and to fill its form with a content, according to its
strength, impatience, and eagerness, it at once seizes as an
omnivorous appetite with little selection, and accepts whatever
is shouted into its ear by all sorts of commanders--parents,
teachers, laws, class prejudices, or public opinion. The
extraordinary limitation of human development, the hesitation,
protractedness, frequent retrogression, and turning thereof, is
attributable to the fact that the herd-instinct of obedience is
transmitted best, and at the cost of the art of command. If one
imagine this instinct increasing to its greatest extent,
commanders and independent individuals will finally be lacking
altogether, or they will suffer inwardly from a bad conscience,
and will have to impose a deception on themselves in the first
place in order to be able to command just as if they also were
only obeying. This condition of things actually exists in Europe
at present--I call it the moral hypocrisy of the commanding
class. They know no other way of protecting themselves from their
bad conscience than by playing the role of executors of older and
higher orders (of predecessors, of the constitution, of justice,
of the law, or of God himself), or they even justify themselves
by maxims from the current opinions of the herd, as "first
servants of their people," or "instruments of the public weal".
On the other hand, the gregarious European man nowadays assumes
an air as if he were the only kind of man that is allowable, he
glorifies his qualities, such as public spirit, kindness,
deference, industry, temperance, modesty, indulgence, sympathy,
by virtue of which he is gentle, endurable, and useful to the
herd, as the peculiarly human virtues. In cases, however, where
it is believed that the leader and bell-wether cannot be
dispensed with, attempt after attempt is made nowadays to replace
commanders by the summing together of clever gregarious men all
representative constitutions, for example, are of this origin. In
spite of all, what a blessing, what a deliverance from a weight
becoming unendurable, is the appearance of an absolute ruler for
these gregarious Europeans--of this fact the effect of the
appearance of Napoleon was the last great proof the history of
the influence of Napoleon is almost the history of the higher
happiness to which the entire century has attained in its
worthiest individuals and periods.

200. The man of an age of dissolution which mixes the races with
one another, who has the inheritance of a diversified descent in
his body--that is to say, contrary, and often not only contrary,
instincts and standards of value, which struggle with one another
and are seldom at peace--such a man of late culture and broken
lights, will, on an average, be a weak man. His fundamental
desire is that the war which is IN HIM should come to an end;
happiness appears to him in the character of a soothing medicine
and mode of thought (for instance, Epicurean or Christian); it is
above all things the happiness of repose, of undisturbedness, of
repletion, of final unity--it is the "Sabbath of Sabbaths," to
use the expression of the holy rhetorician, St. Augustine, who
was himself such a man.--Should, however, the contrariety and
conflict in such natures operate as an ADDITIONAL incentive and
stimulus to life--and if, on the other hand, in addition to their
powerful and irreconcilable instincts, they have also inherited
and indoctrinated into them a proper mastery and subtlety for
carrying on the conflict with themselves (that is to say, the
faculty of self-control and self-deception), there then arise
those marvelously incomprehensible and inexplicable beings, those
enigmatical men, predestined for conquering and circumventing
others, the finest examples of which are Alcibiades and Caesar
(with whom I should like to associate the FIRST of Europeans
according to my taste, the Hohenstaufen, Frederick the Second),
and among artists, perhaps Leonardo da Vinci. They appear
precisely in the same periods when that weaker type, with its
longing for repose, comes to the front; the two types are
complementary to each other, and spring from the same causes.

201. As long as the utility which determines moral estimates is
only gregarious utility, as long as the preservation of the
community is only kept in view, and the immoral is sought
precisely and exclusively in what seems dangerous to the
maintenance of the community, there can be no "morality of love
to one's neighbour." Granted even that there is already a little
constant exercise of consideration, sympathy, fairness,
gentleness, and mutual assistance, granted that even in this
condition of society all those instincts are already active which
are latterly distinguished by honourable names as "virtues," and
eventually almost coincide with the conception "morality": in
that period they do not as yet belong to the domain of moral
valuations--they are still ULTRA-MORAL. A sympathetic action, for
instance, is neither called good nor bad, moral nor immoral, in
the best period of the Romans; and should it be praised, a sort
of resentful disdain is compatible with this praise, even at the
best, directly the sympathetic action is compared with one which
contributes to the welfare of the whole, to the RES PUBLICA.
After all, "love to our neighbour" is always a secondary matter,
partly conventional and arbitrarily manifested in relation to our
FEAR OF OUR NEIGHBOUR. After the fabric of society seems on the
whole established and secured against external dangers, it is
this fear of our neighbour which again creates new perspectives
of moral valuation. Certain strong and dangerous instincts, such
as the love of enterprise, foolhardiness, revengefulness,
astuteness, rapacity, and love of power, which up till then had
not only to be honoured from the point of view of general
utility--under other names, of course, than those here given--but
had to be fostered and cultivated (because they were perpetually
required in the common danger against the common enemies), are
now felt in their dangerousness to be doubly strong--when the
outlets for them are lacking--and are gradually branded as
immoral and given over to calumny. The contrary instincts and
inclinations now attain to moral honour, the gregarious instinct
gradually draws its conclusions. How much or how little
dangerousness to the community or to equality is contained in an
opinion, a condition, an emotion, a disposition, or an endowment--
that is now the moral perspective, here again fear is the mother
of morals. It is by the loftiest and strongest instincts, when
they break out passionately and carry the individual far above
and beyond the average, and the low level of the gregarious
conscience, that the self-reliance of the community is destroyed,
its belief in itself, its backbone, as it were, breaks,
consequently these very instincts will be most branded and
defamed. The lofty independent spirituality, the will to stand
alone, and even the cogent reason, are felt to be dangers,
everything that elevates the individual above the herd, and is a
source of fear to the neighbour, is henceforth called EVIL, the
tolerant, unassuming, self-adapting, self-equalizing disposition,
the MEDIOCRITY of desires, attains to moral distinction and
honour. Finally, under very peaceful circumstances, there is
always less opportunity and necessity for training the feelings
to severity and rigour, and now every form of severity, even in
justice, begins to disturb the conscience, a lofty and rigorous
nobleness and self-responsibility almost offends, and awakens
distrust, "the lamb," and still more "the sheep," wins respect.
There is a point of diseased mellowness and effeminacy in the
history of society, at which society itself takes the part of him
who injures it, the part of the CRIMINAL, and does so, in fact,
seriously and honestly. To punish, appears to it to be somehow
unfair--it is certain that the idea of "punishment" and "the
obligation to punish" are then painful and alarming to people.
"Is it not sufficient if the criminal be rendered HARMLESS? Why
should we still punish? Punishment itself is terrible!"--with
these questions gregarious morality, the morality of fear, draws
its ultimate conclusion. If one could at all do away with danger,
the cause of fear, one would have done away with this morality at
the same time, it would no longer be necessary, it WOULD NOT
CONSIDER ITSELF any longer necessary!--Whoever examines the
conscience of the present-day European, will always elicit the
same imperative from its thousand moral folds and hidden
recesses, the imperative of the timidity of the herd "we wish
that some time or other there may be NOTHING MORE TO FEAR!" Some
time or other--the will and the way THERETO is nowadays called
"progress" all over Europe.

202. Let us at once say again what we have already said a hundred
times, for people's ears nowadays are unwilling to hear such
truths--OUR truths. We know well enough how offensive it sounds
when any one plainly, and without metaphor, counts man among the
animals, but it will be accounted to us almost a CRIME, that it
is precisely in respect to men of "modern ideas" that we have
constantly applied the terms "herd," "herd-instincts," and such
like expressions. What avail is it? We cannot do otherwise, for
it is precisely here that our new insight is. We have found that
in all the principal moral judgments, Europe has become
unanimous, including likewise the countries where European
influence prevails in Europe people evidently KNOW what Socrates
thought he did not know, and what the famous serpent of old once
promised to teach--they "know" today what is good and evil. It
must then sound hard and be distasteful to the ear, when we
always insist that that which here thinks it knows, that which
here glorifies itself with praise and blame, and calls itself
good, is the instinct of the herding human animal, the instinct
which has come and is ever coming more and more to the front, to
preponderance and supremacy over other instincts, according to
the increasing physiological approximation and resemblance of
which it is the symptom. MORALITY IN EUROPE AT PRESENT IS
HERDING-ANIMAL MORALITY, and therefore, as we understand the
matter, only one kind of human morality, beside which, before
which, and after which many other moralities, and above all
HIGHER moralities, are or should be possible. Against such a
"possibility," against such a "should be," however, this morality
defends itself with all its strength, it says obstinately and
inexorably "I am morality itself and nothing else is morality!"
Indeed, with the help of a religion which has humoured and
flattered the sublimest desires of the herding-animal, things
have reached such a point that we always find a more visible
expression of this morality even in political and social
arrangements: the DEMOCRATIC movement is the inheritance of the
Christian movement. That its TEMPO, however, is much too slow and
sleepy for the more impatient ones, for those who are sick and
distracted by the herding-instinct, is indicated by the
increasingly furious howling, and always less disguised teeth-
gnashing of the anarchist dogs, who are now roving through the
highways of European culture. Apparently in opposition to the
peacefully industrious democrats and Revolution-ideologues, and
still more so to the awkward philosophasters and fraternity-
visionaries who call themselves Socialists and want a "free
society," those are really at one with them all in their thorough
and instinctive hostility to every form of society other than
that of the AUTONOMOUS herd (to the extent even of repudiating
the notions "master" and "servant"--ni dieu ni maitre, says a
socialist formula); at one in their tenacious opposition to every
special claim, every special right and privilege (this means
ultimately opposition to EVERY right, for when all are equal, no
one needs "rights" any longer); at one in their distrust of
punitive justice (as though it were a violation of the weak,
unfair to the NECESSARY consequences of all former society); but
equally at one in their religion of sympathy, in their compassion
for all that feels, lives, and suffers (down to the very animals,
up even to "God"--the extravagance of "sympathy for God" belongs
to a democratic age); altogether at one in the cry and impatience
of their sympathy, in their deadly hatred of suffering generally,
in their almost feminine incapacity for witnessing it or ALLOWING
it; at one in their involuntary beglooming and heart-softening,
under the spell of which Europe seems to be threatened with a new
Buddhism; at one in their belief in the morality of MUTUAL
sympathy, as though it were morality in itself, the climax, the
ATTAINED climax of mankind, the sole hope of the future, the
consolation of the present, the great discharge from all the
obligations of the past; altogether at one in their belief in the
community as the DELIVERER, in the herd, and therefore in

203. We, who hold a different belief--we, who regard the
democratic movement, not only as a degenerating form of political
organization, but as equivalent to a degenerating, a waning type
of man, as involving his mediocrising and depreciation: where
have WE to fix our hopes? In NEW PHILOSOPHERS--there is no other
alternative: in minds strong and original enough to initiate
opposite estimates of value, to transvalue and invert "eternal
valuations"; in forerunners, in men of the future, who in the
present shall fix the constraints and fasten the knots which will
compel millenniums to take NEW paths. To teach man the future of
humanity as his WILL, as depending on human will, and to make
preparation for vast hazardous enterprises and collective
attempts in rearing and educating, in order thereby to put an end
to the frightful rule of folly and chance which has hitherto gone
by the name of "history" (the folly of the "greatest number" is
only its last form)--for that purpose a new type of philosopher
and commander will some time or other be needed, at the very idea
of which everything that has existed in the way of occult,
terrible, and benevolent beings might look pale and dwarfed. The
image of such leaders hovers before OUR eyes:--is it lawful for
me to say it aloud, ye free spirits? The conditions which one
would partly have to create and partly utilize for their genesis;
the presumptive methods and tests by virtue of which a soul
should grow up to such an elevation and power as to feel a
CONSTRAINT to these tasks; a transvaluation of values, under the
new pressure and hammer of which a conscience should be steeled
and a heart transformed into brass, so as to bear the weight of
such responsibility; and on the other hand the necessity for such
leaders, the dreadful danger that they might be lacking, or
miscarry and degenerate:--these are OUR real anxieties and
glooms, ye know it well, ye free spirits! these are the heavy
distant thoughts and storms which sweep across the heaven of OUR
life. There are few pains so grievous as to have seen, divined,
or experienced how an exceptional man has missed his way and
deteriorated; but he who has the rare eye for the universal
danger of "man" himself DETERIORATING, he who like us has
recognized the extraordinary fortuitousness which has hitherto
played its game in respect to the future of mankind--a game in
which neither the hand, nor even a "finger of God" has
participated!--he who divines the fate that is hidden under the
idiotic unwariness and blind confidence of "modern ideas," and
still more under the whole of Christo-European morality-suffers
from an anguish with which no other is to be compared. He sees at
a glance all that could still BE MADE OUT OF MAN through a
favourable accumulation and augmentation of human powers and
arrangements; he knows with all the knowledge of his conviction
how unexhausted man still is for the greatest possibilities, and
how often in the past the type man has stood in presence of
mysterious decisions and new paths:--he knows still better from
his painfulest recollections on what wretched obstacles promising
developments of the highest rank have hitherto usually gone to
pieces, broken down, sunk, and become contemptible. The UNIVERSAL
DEGENERACY OF MANKIND to the level of the "man of the future"--as
idealized by the socialistic fools and shallow-pates--this
degeneracy and dwarfing of man to an absolutely gregarious animal
(or as they call it, to a man of "free society"), this
brutalizing of man into a pigmy with equal rights and claims, is
undoubtedly POSSIBLE! He who has thought out this possibility to
its ultimate conclusion knows ANOTHER loathing unknown to the
rest of mankind--and perhaps also a new MISSION!



204. At the risk that moralizing may also reveal itself here as
that which it has always been--namely, resolutely MONTRER SES
PLAIES, according to Balzac--I would venture to protest against
an improper and injurious alteration of rank, which quite
unnoticed, and as if with the best conscience, threatens nowadays
to establish itself in the relations of science and philosophy. I
mean to say that one must have the right out of one's own
EXPERIENCE--experience, as it seems to me, always implies
unfortunate experience?--to treat of such an important question
of rank, so as not to speak of colour like the blind, or AGAINST
science like women and artists ("Ah! this dreadful science!" sigh
their instinct and their shame, "it always FINDS THINGS OUT!").
The declaration of independence of the scientific man, his
emancipation from philosophy, is one of the subtler after-effects
of democratic organization and disorganization: the self-
glorification and self-conceitedness of the learned man is now
everywhere in full bloom, and in its best springtime--which does
not mean to imply that in this case self-praise smells sweet.
Here also the instinct of the populace cries, "Freedom from all
masters!" and after science has, with the happiest results,
resisted theology, whose "hand-maid" it had been too long, it now
proposes in its wantonness and indiscretion to lay down laws for
philosophy, and in its turn to play the "master"--what am I
saying! to play the PHILOSOPHER on its own account. My memory--
the memory of a scientific man, if you please!--teems with the
naivetes of insolence which I have heard about philosophy and
philosophers from young naturalists and old physicians (not to
mention the most cultured and most conceited of all learned men,
the philologists and schoolmasters, who are both the one and the
other by profession). On one occasion it was the specialist and
the Jack Horner who instinctively stood on the defensive against
all synthetic tasks and capabilities; at another time it was the
industrious worker who had got a scent of OTIUM and refined
luxuriousness in the internal economy of the philosopher, and
felt himself aggrieved and belittled thereby. On another occasion
it was the colour-blindness of the utilitarian, who sees nothing
in philosophy but a series of REFUTED systems, and an extravagant
expenditure which "does nobody any good". At another time the
fear of disguised mysticism and of the boundary-adjustment of
knowledge became conspicuous, at another time the disregard of
individual philosophers, which had involuntarily extended to
disregard of philosophy generally. In fine, I found most
frequently, behind the proud disdain of philosophy in young
scholars, the evil after-effect of some particular philosopher,
to whom on the whole obedience had been foresworn, without,
however, the spell of his scornful estimates of other
philosophers having been got rid of--the result being a general
ill-will to all philosophy. (Such seems to me, for instance, the
after-effect of Schopenhauer on the most modern Germany: by his
unintelligent rage against Hegel, he has succeeded in severing
the whole of the last generation of Germans from its connection
with German culture, which culture, all things considered, has
been an elevation and a divining refinement of the HISTORICAL
SENSE, but precisely at this point Schopenhauer himself was poor,
irreceptive, and un-German to the extent of ingeniousness.) On
the whole, speaking generally, it may just have been the
humanness, all-too-humanness of the modern philosophers
themselves, in short, their contemptibleness, which has injured
most radically the reverence for philosophy and opened the doors
to the instinct of the populace. Let it but be acknowledged to
what an extent our modern world diverges from the whole style of
the world of Heraclitus, Plato, Empedocles, and whatever else all
the royal and magnificent anchorites of the spirit were called,
and with what justice an honest man of science MAY feel himself
of a better family and origin, in view of such representatives of
philosophy, who, owing to the fashion of the present day, are
just as much aloft as they are down below--in Germany, for
instance, the two lions of Berlin, the anarchist Eugen Duhring
and the amalgamist Eduard von Hartmann. It is especially the
sight of those hotch-potch philosophers, who call themselves
"realists," or "positivists," which is calculated to implant a
dangerous distrust in the soul of a young and ambitious scholar
those philosophers, at the best, are themselves but scholars and
specialists, that is very evident! All of them are persons who
have been vanquished and BROUGHT BACK AGAIN under the dominion of
science, who at one time or another claimed more from themselves,
without having a right to the "more" and its responsibility--and
who now, creditably, rancorously, and vindictively, represent in
word and deed, DISBELIEF in the master-task and supremacy of
philosophy After all, how could it be otherwise? Science
flourishes nowadays and has the good conscience clearly visible
on its countenance, while that to which the entire modern
philosophy has gradually sunk, the remnant of philosophy of the
present day, excites distrust and displeasure, if not scorn and
pity Philosophy reduced to a "theory of knowledge," no more in
fact than a diffident science of epochs and doctrine of
forbearance a philosophy that never even gets beyond the
threshold, and rigorously DENIES itself the right to enter--that
is philosophy in its last throes, an end, an agony, something
that awakens pity. How could such a philosophy--RULE!

205. The dangers that beset the evolution of the philosopher are,
in fact, so manifold nowadays, that one might doubt whether this
fruit could still come to maturity. The extent and towering
structure of the sciences have increased enormously, and
therewith also the probability that the philosopher will grow
tired even as a learner, or will attach himself somewhere and
"specialize" so that he will no longer attain to his elevation,
that is to say, to his superspection, his circumspection, and his
DESPECTION. Or he gets aloft too late, when the best of his
maturity and strength is past, or when he is impaired, coarsened,
and deteriorated, so that his view, his general estimate of
things, is no longer of much importance. It is perhaps just the
refinement of his intellectual conscience that makes him hesitate
and linger on the way, he dreads the temptation to become a
dilettante, a millepede, a milleantenna, he knows too well that
as a discerner, one who has lost his self-respect no longer
commands, no longer LEADS, unless he should aspire to become a
great play-actor, a philosophical Cagliostro and spiritual rat-
catcher--in short, a misleader. This is in the last instance a
question of taste, if it has not really been a question of
conscience. To double once more the philosopher's difficulties,
there is also the fact that he demands from himself a verdict, a
Yea or Nay, not concerning science, but concerning life and the
worth of life--he learns unwillingly to believe that it is his
right and even his duty to obtain this verdict, and he has to
seek his way to the right and the belief only through the most
extensive (perhaps disturbing and destroying) experiences, often
hesitating, doubting, and dumbfounded. In fact, the philosopher
has long been mistaken and confused by the multitude, either with
the scientific man and ideal scholar, or with the religiously
elevated, desensualized, desecularized visionary and God-
intoxicated man; and even yet when one hears anybody praised,
because he lives "wisely," or "as a philosopher," it hardly means
anything more than "prudently and apart." Wisdom: that seems to
the populace to be a kind of flight, a means and artifice for
withdrawing successfully from a bad game; but the GENUINE
philosopher--does it not seem so to US, my friends?--lives
"unphilosophically" and "unwisely," above all, IMPRUDENTLY, and
feels the obligation and burden of a hundred attempts and
temptations of life--he risks HIMSELF constantly, he plays THIS
bad game.

206. In relation to the genius, that is to say, a being who
either ENGENDERS or PRODUCES--both words understood in their
fullest sense--the man of learning, the scientific average man,
has always something of the old maid about him; for, like her, he
is not conversant with the two principal functions of man. To
both, of course, to the scholar and to the old maid, one concedes
respectability, as if by way of indemnification--in these cases
one emphasizes the respectability--and yet, in the compulsion of
this concession, one has the same admixture of vexation. Let us
examine more closely: what is the scientific man? Firstly, a
commonplace type of man, with commonplace virtues: that is to
say, a non-ruling, non-authoritative, and non-self-sufficient
type of man; he possesses industry, patient adaptableness to rank
and file, equability and moderation in capacity and requirement;
he has the instinct for people like himself, and for that which
they require--for instance: the portion of independence and green
meadow without which there is no rest from labour, the claim to
honour and consideration (which first and foremost presupposes
recognition and recognisability), the sunshine of a good name,
the perpetual ratification of his value and usefulness, with
which the inward DISTRUST which lies at the bottom of the heart
of all dependent men and gregarious animals, has again and again
to be overcome. The learned man, as is appropriate, has also
maladies and faults of an ignoble kind: he is full of petty envy,
and has a lynx-eye for the weak points in those natures to whose
elevations he cannot attain. He is confiding, yet only as one who
lets himself go, but does not FLOW; and precisely before the man
of the great current he stands all the colder and more reserved--
his eye is then like a smooth and irresponsive lake, which is no
longer moved by rapture or sympathy. The worst and most dangerous
thing of which a scholar is capable results from the instinct of
mediocrity of his type, from the Jesuitism of mediocrity, which
labours instinctively for the destruction of the exceptional man,
and endeavours to break--or still better, to relax--every bent
bow To relax, of course, with consideration, and naturally with
an indulgent hand--to RELAX with confiding sympathy that is the
real art of Jesuitism, which has always understood how to
introduce itself as the religion of sympathy.

207. However gratefully one may welcome the OBJECTIVE spirit--and
who has not been sick to death of all subjectivity and its
confounded IPSISIMOSITY!--in the end, however, one must learn
caution even with regard to one's gratitude, and put a stop to
the exaggeration with which the unselfing and depersonalizing of
the spirit has recently been celebrated, as if it were the goal
in itself, as if it were salvation and glorification--as is
especially accustomed to happen in the pessimist school, which
has also in its turn good reasons for paying the highest honours
to "disinterested knowledge" The objective man, who no longer
curses and scolds like the pessimist, the IDEAL man of learning
in whom the scientific instinct blossoms forth fully after a
thousand complete and partial failures, is assuredly one of the
most costly instruments that exist, but his place is in the hand
of one who is more powerful He is only an instrument, we may say,
he is a MIRROR--he is no "purpose in himself" The objective man
is in truth a mirror accustomed to prostration before everything
that wants to be known, with such desires only as knowing or
"reflecting" implies--he waits until something comes, and then
expands himself sensitively, so that even the light footsteps and
gliding-past of spiritual beings may not be lost on his surface
and film Whatever "personality" he still possesses seems to him
accidental, arbitrary, or still oftener, disturbing, so much has
he come to regard himself as the passage and reflection of
outside forms and events He calls up the recollection of
"himself" with an effort, and not infrequently wrongly, he
readily confounds himself with other persons, he makes mistakes
with regard to his own needs, and here only is he unrefined and
negligent Perhaps he is troubled about the health, or the
pettiness and confined atmosphere of wife and friend, or the lack
of companions and society--indeed, he sets himself to reflect on
his suffering, but in vain! His thoughts already rove away to the
MORE GENERAL case, and tomorrow he knows as little as he knew
yesterday how to help himself He does not now take himself
seriously and devote time to himself he is serene, NOT from lack
of trouble, but from lack of capacity for grasping and dealing
with HIS trouble The habitual complaisance with respect to all
objects and experiences, the radiant and impartial hospitality
with which he receives everything that comes his way, his habit
of inconsiderate good-nature, of dangerous indifference as to Yea
and Nay: alas! there are enough of cases in which he has to atone
for these virtues of his!--and as man generally, he becomes far
too easily the CAPUT MORTUUM of such virtues. Should one wish
love or hatred from him--I mean love and hatred as God, woman,
and animal understand them--he will do what he can, and furnish
what he can. But one must not be surprised if it should not be
much--if he should show himself just at this point to be false,
fragile, questionable, and deteriorated. His love is constrained,
his hatred is artificial, and rather UNN TOUR DE FORCE, a slight
ostentation and exaggeration. He is only genuine so far as he can
be objective; only in his serene totality is he still "nature"
and "natural." His mirroring and eternally self-polishing soul no
longer knows how to affirm, no longer how to deny; he does not
command; neither does he destroy. "JE NE MEPRISE PRESQUE RIEN"--
he says, with Leibniz: let us not overlook nor undervalue the
PRESQUE! Neither is he a model man; he does not go in advance of
any one, nor after, either; he places himself generally too far
off to have any reason for espousing the cause of either good or
evil. If he has been so long confounded with the PHILOSOPHER,
with the Caesarian trainer and dictator of civilization, he has
had far too much honour, and what is more essential in him has
been overlooked--he is an instrument, something of a slave,
though certainly the sublimest sort of slave, but nothing in
himself--PRESQUE RIEN! The objective man is an instrument, a
costly, easily injured, easily tarnished measuring instrument and
mirroring apparatus, which is to be taken care of and respected;
but he is no goal, not outgoing nor upgoing, no complementary man
in whom the REST of existence justifies itself, no termination--
and still less a commencement, an engendering, or primary cause,
nothing hardy, powerful, self-centred, that wants to be master;
but rather only a soft, inflated, delicate, movable potter's-
form, that must wait for some kind of content and frame to
"shape" itself thereto--for the most part a man without frame and
content, a "selfless" man. Consequently, also, nothing for women,

208. When a philosopher nowadays makes known that he is not a
skeptic--I hope that has been gathered from the foregoing
description of the objective spirit?--people all hear it
impatiently; they regard him on that account with some
apprehension, they would like to ask so many, many questions . . .
indeed among timid hearers, of whom there are now so many, he is
henceforth said to be dangerous. With his repudiation of
skepticism, it seems to them as if they heard some evil-
threatening sound in the distance, as if a new kind of explosive
were being tried somewhere, a dynamite of the spirit, perhaps a
newly discovered Russian NIHILINE, a pessimism BONAE VOLUNTATIS,
that not only denies, means denial, but-dreadful thought!
PRACTISES denial. Against this kind of "good-will"--a will to the
veritable, actual negation of life--there is, as is generally
acknowledged nowadays, no better soporific and sedative than
skepticism, the mild, pleasing, lulling poppy of skepticism; and
Hamlet himself is now prescribed by the doctors of the day as an
antidote to the "spirit," and its underground noises. "Are not
our ears already full of bad sounds?" say the skeptics, as lovers
of repose, and almost as a kind of safety police; "this
subterranean Nay is terrible! Be still, ye pessimistic moles!"
The skeptic, in effect, that delicate creature, is far too easily
frightened; his conscience is schooled so as to start at every
Nay, and even at that sharp, decided Yea, and feels something
like a bite thereby. Yea! and Nay!--they seem to him opposed to
morality; he loves, on the contrary, to make a festival to his
virtue by a noble aloofness, while perhaps he says with
Montaigne: "What do I know?" Or with Socrates: "I know that I
know nothing." Or: "Here I do not trust myself, no door is open
to me." Or: "Even if the door were open, why should I enter
immediately?" Or: "What is the use of any hasty hypotheses? It
might quite well be in good taste to make no hypotheses at all.
Are you absolutely obliged to straighten at once what is crooked?
to stuff every hole with some kind of oakum? Is there not time
enough for that? Has not the time leisure? Oh, ye demons, can ye
not at all WAIT? The uncertain also has its charms, the Sphinx,
too, is a Circe, and Circe, too, was a philosopher."--Thus does a
skeptic console himself; and in truth he needs some consolation.
For skepticism is the most spiritual expression of a certain
many-sided physiological temperament, which in ordinary language
is called nervous debility and sickliness; it arises whenever
races or classes which have been long separated, decisively and
suddenly blend with one another. In the new generation, which has
inherited as it were different standards and valuations in its
blood, everything is disquiet, derangement, doubt, and
tentativeness; the best powers operate restrictively, the very
virtues prevent each other growing and becoming strong,
equilibrium, ballast, and perpendicular stability are lacking in
body and soul. That, however, which is most diseased and
degenerated in such nondescripts is the WILL; they are no longer
familiar with independence of decision, or the courageous feeling
of pleasure in willing--they are doubtful of the "freedom of the
will" even in their dreams Our present-day Europe, the scene of a
senseless, precipitate attempt at a radical blending of classes,
and CONSEQUENTLY of races, is therefore skeptical in all its
heights and depths, sometimes exhibiting the mobile skepticism
which springs impatiently and wantonly from branch to branch,
sometimes with gloomy aspect, like a cloud over-charged with
interrogative signs--and often sick unto death of its will!
Paralysis of will, where do we not find this cripple sitting
nowadays! And yet how bedecked oftentimes' How seductively
ornamented! There are the finest gala dresses and disguises for
this disease, and that, for instance, most of what places itself
nowadays in the show-cases as "objectiveness," "the scientific
spirit," "L'ART POUR L'ART," and "pure voluntary knowledge," is
only decked-out skepticism and paralysis of will--I am ready to
answer for this diagnosis of the European disease--The disease of
the will is diffused unequally over Europe, it is worst and most
varied where civilization has longest prevailed, it decreases
according as "the barbarian" still--or again--asserts his claims
under the loose drapery of Western culture It is therefore in the
France of today, as can be readily disclosed and comprehended,
that the will is most infirm, and France, which has always had a
masterly aptitude for converting even the portentous crises of
its spirit into something charming and seductive, now manifests
emphatically its intellectual ascendancy over Europe, by being
the school and exhibition of all the charms of skepticism The
power to will and to persist, moreover, in a resolution, is
already somewhat stronger in Germany, and again in the North of
Germany it is stronger than in Central Germany, it is
considerably stronger in England, Spain, and Corsica, associated
with phlegm in the former and with hard skulls in the latter--not
to mention Italy, which is too young yet to know what it wants,
and must first show whether it can exercise will, but it is
strongest and most surprising of all in that immense middle
empire where Europe as it were flows back to Asia--namely, in
Russia There the power to will has been long stored up and
accumulated, there the will--uncertain whether to be negative or
affirmative--waits threateningly to be discharged (to borrow
their pet phrase from our physicists) Perhaps not only Indian
wars and complications in Asia would be necessary to free Europe
from its greatest danger, but also internal subversion, the
shattering of the empire into small states, and above all the
introduction of parliamentary imbecility, together with the
obligation of every one to read his newspaper at breakfast I do
not say this as one who desires it, in my heart I should rather
prefer the contrary--I mean such an increase in the threatening
attitude of Russia, that Europe would have to make up its mind to
become equally threatening--namely, TO ACQUIRE ONE WILL, by means
of a new caste to rule over the Continent, a persistent, dreadful
will of its own, that can set its aims thousands of years ahead;
so that the long spun-out comedy of its petty-statism, and its
dynastic as well as its democratic many-willed-ness, might
finally be brought to a close. The time for petty politics is
past; the next century will bring the struggle for the dominion
of the world--the COMPULSION to great politics.

209. As to how far the new warlike age on which we Europeans have
evidently entered may perhaps favour the growth of another and
stronger kind of skepticism, I should like to express myself
preliminarily merely by a parable, which the lovers of German
history will already understand. That unscrupulous enthusiast for
big, handsome grenadiers (who, as King of Prussia, brought into
being a military and skeptical genius--and therewith, in reality,
the new and now triumphantly emerged type of German), the
problematic, crazy father of Frederick the Great, had on one
point the very knack and lucky grasp of the genius: he knew what
was then lacking in Germany, the want of which was a hundred
times more alarming and serious than any lack of culture and
social form--his ill-will to the young Frederick resulted from
the anxiety of a profound instinct. MEN WERE LACKING; and he
suspected, to his bitterest regret, that his own son was not man
enough. There, however, he deceived himself; but who would not
have deceived himself in his place? He saw his son lapsed to
atheism, to the ESPRIT, to the pleasant frivolity of clever
Frenchmen--he saw in the background the great bloodsucker, the
spider skepticism; he suspected the incurable wretchedness of a
heart no longer hard enough either for evil or good, and of a
broken will that no longer commands, is no longer ABLE to
command. Meanwhile, however, there grew up in his son that new
kind of harder and more dangerous skepticism--who knows TO WHAT
EXTENT it was encouraged just by his father's hatred and the icy
melancholy of a will condemned to solitude?--the skepticism of
daring manliness, which is closely related to the genius for war
and conquest, and made its first entrance into Germany in the
person of the great Frederick. This skepticism despises and
nevertheless grasps; it undermines and takes possession; it does
not believe, but it does not thereby lose itself; it gives the
spirit a dangerous liberty, but it keeps strict guard over the
heart. It is the GERMAN form of skepticism, which, as a continued
Fredericianism, risen to the highest spirituality, has kept
Europe for a considerable time under the dominion of the German
spirit and its critical and historical distrust Owing to the
insuperably strong and tough masculine character of the great
German philologists and historical critics (who, rightly
estimated, were also all of them artists of destruction and
dissolution), a NEW conception of the German spirit gradually
established itself--in spite of all Romanticism in music and
philosophy--in which the leaning towards masculine skepticism was
decidedly prominent whether, for instance, as fearlessness of
gaze, as courage and sternness of the dissecting hand, or as
resolute will to dangerous voyages of discovery, to spiritualized
North Pole expeditions under barren and dangerous skies. There
may be good grounds for it when warm-blooded and superficial
humanitarians cross themselves before this spirit, CET ESPRIT
without a shudder. But if one would realize how characteristic is
this fear of the "man" in the German spirit which awakened Europe
out of its "dogmatic slumber," let us call to mind the former
conception which had to be overcome by this new one--and that it
is not so very long ago that a masculinized woman could dare,
with unbridled presumption, to recommend the Germans to the
interest of Europe as gentle, goodhearted, weak-willed, and
poetical fools. Finally, let us only understand profoundly enough
Napoleon's astonishment when he saw Goethe it reveals what had
been regarded for centuries as the "German spirit" "VOILA UN
HOMME!"--that was as much as to say "But this is a MAN! And I
only expected to see a German!"

Supposing, then, that in the picture of the philosophers of the
future, some trait suggests the question whether they must not
perhaps be skeptics in the last-mentioned sense, something in
them would only be designated thereby--and not they themselves.
With equal right they might call themselves critics, and
assuredly they will be men of experiments. By the name with which
I ventured to baptize them, I have already expressly emphasized
their attempting and their love of attempting is this because, as
critics in body and soul, they will love to make use of
experiments in a new, and perhaps wider and more dangerous sense?
In their passion for knowledge, will they have to go further in
daring and painful attempts than the sensitive and pampered taste
of a democratic century can approve of?--There is no doubt these
coming ones will be least able to dispense with the serious and
not unscrupulous qualities which distinguish the critic from the
skeptic I mean the certainty as to standards of worth, the
conscious employment of a unity of method, the wary courage, the
standing-alone, and the capacity for self-responsibility, indeed,
they will avow among themselves a DELIGHT in denial and
dissection, and a certain considerate cruelty, which knows how to
handle the knife surely and deftly, even when the heart bleeds
They will be STERNER (and perhaps not always towards themselves
only) than humane people may desire, they will not deal with the
"truth" in order that it may "please" them, or "elevate" and
"inspire" them--they will rather have little faith in "TRUTH"
bringing with it such revels for the feelings. They will smile,
those rigourous spirits, when any one says in their presence
"That thought elevates me, why should it not be true?" or "That
work enchants me, why should it not be beautiful?" or "That
artist enlarges me, why should he not be great?" Perhaps they
will not only have a smile, but a genuine disgust for all that is
thus rapturous, idealistic, feminine, and hermaphroditic, and if
any one could look into their inmost hearts, he would not easily
find therein the intention to reconcile "Christian sentiments"
with "antique taste," or even with "modern parliamentarism" (the
kind of reconciliation necessarily found even among philosophers
in our very uncertain and consequently very conciliatory
century). Critical discipline, and every habit that conduces to
purity and rigour in intellectual matters, will not only be
demanded from themselves by these philosophers of the future,
they may even make a display thereof as their special adornment--
nevertheless they will not want to be called critics on that
account. It will seem to them no small indignity to philosophy to
have it decreed, as is so welcome nowadays, that "philosophy
itself is criticism and critical science--and nothing else
whatever!" Though this estimate of philosophy may enjoy the
approval of all the Positivists of France and Germany (and
possibly it even flattered the heart and taste of KANT: let us
call to mind the titles of his principal works), our new
philosophers will say, notwithstanding, that critics are
instruments of the philosopher, and just on that account, as
instruments, they are far from being philosophers themselves!
Even the great Chinaman of Konigsberg was only a great critic.

211. I insist upon it that people finally cease confounding
philosophical workers, and in general scientific men, with
philosophers--that precisely here one should strictly give "each
his own," and not give those far too much, these far too little.
It may be necessary for the education of the real philosopher
that he himself should have once stood upon all those steps upon
which his servants, the scientific workers of philosophy, remain
standing, and MUST remain standing he himself must perhaps have
been critic, and dogmatist, and historian, and besides, poet, and
collector, and traveler, and riddle-reader, and moralist, and
seer, and "free spirit," and almost everything, in order to
traverse the whole range of human values and estimations, and
that he may BE ABLE with a variety of eyes and consciences to
look from a height to any distance, from a depth up to any
height, from a nook into any expanse. But all these are only
preliminary conditions for his task; this task itself demands
something else--it requires him TO CREATE VALUES. The
philosophical workers, after the excellent pattern of Kant and
Hegel, have to fix and formalize some great existing body of
valuations--that is to say, former DETERMINATIONS OF VALUE,
creations of value, which have become prevalent, and are for a
time called "truths"--whether in the domain of the LOGICAL, the
POLITICAL (moral), or the ARTISTIC. It is for these investigators
to make whatever has happened and been esteemed hitherto,
conspicuous, conceivable, intelligible, and manageable, to
shorten everything long, even "time" itself, and to SUBJUGATE the
entire past: an immense and wonderful task, in the carrying out
of which all refined pride, all tenacious will, can surely find
LAW-GIVERS; they say: "Thus SHALL it be!" They determine first
the Whither and the Why of mankind, and thereby set aside the
previous labour of all philosophical workers, and all subjugators
of the past--they grasp at the future with a creative hand, and
whatever is and was, becomes for them thereby a means, an
instrument, and a hammer. Their "knowing" is CREATING, their
creating is a law-giving, their will to truth is--WILL TO POWER.
--Are there at present such philosophers? Have there ever been
such philosophers? MUST there not be such philosophers some day?
. . .

212. It is always more obvious to me that the philosopher, as a
man INDISPENSABLE for the morrow and the day after the morrow,
has ever found himself, and HAS BEEN OBLIGED to find himself, in
contradiction to the day in which he lives; his enemy has always
been the ideal of his day. Hitherto all those extraordinary
furtherers of humanity whom one calls philosophers--who rarely
regarded themselves as lovers of wisdom, but rather as
disagreeable fools and dangerous interrogators--have found their
mission, their hard, involuntary, imperative mission (in the end,
however, the greatness of their mission), in being the bad
conscience of their age. In putting the vivisector's knife to the
breast of the very VIRTUES OF THEIR AGE, they have betrayed their
own secret; it has been for the sake of a NEW greatness of man, a
new untrodden path to his aggrandizement. They have always
disclosed how much hypocrisy, indolence, self-indulgence, and
self-neglect, how much falsehood was concealed under the most
venerated types of contemporary morality, how much virtue was
OUTLIVED, they have always said "We must remove hence to where
YOU are least at home" In the face of a world of "modern ideas,"
which would like to confine every one in a corner, in a
"specialty," a philosopher, if there could be philosophers
nowadays, would be compelled to place the greatness of man, the
conception of "greatness," precisely in his comprehensiveness and
multifariousness, in his all-roundness, he would even determine
worth and rank according to the amount and variety of that which
a man could bear and take upon himself, according to the EXTENT
to which a man could stretch his responsibility Nowadays the
taste and virtue of the age weaken and attenuate the will,
nothing is so adapted to the spirit of the age as weakness of
will consequently, in the ideal of the philosopher, strength of
will, sternness, and capacity for prolonged resolution, must
specially be included in the conception of "greatness", with as
good a right as the opposite doctrine, with its ideal of a silly,
renouncing, humble, selfless humanity, was suited to an opposite
age--such as the sixteenth century, which suffered from its
accumulated energy of will, and from the wildest torrents and
floods of selfishness In the time of Socrates, among men only of
worn-out instincts, old conservative Athenians who let themselves
go--"for the sake of happiness," as they said, for the sake of
pleasure, as their conduct indicated--and who had continually on
their lips the old pompous words to which they had long forfeited
the right by the life they led, IRONY was perhaps necessary for
greatness of soul, the wicked Socratic assurance of the old
physician and plebeian, who cut ruthlessly into his own flesh, as
into the flesh and heart of the "noble," with a look that said
plainly enough "Do not dissemble before me! here--we are equal!"
At present, on the contrary, when throughout Europe the herding-
animal alone attains to honours, and dispenses honours, when
"equality of right" can too readily be transformed into equality
in wrong--I mean to say into general war against everything rare,
strange, and privileged, against the higher man, the higher soul,
the higher duty, the higher responsibility, the creative
plenipotence and lordliness--at present it belongs to the
conception of "greatness" to be noble, to wish to be apart, to be
capable of being different, to stand alone, to have to live by
personal initiative, and the philosopher will betray something of
his own ideal when he asserts "He shall be the greatest who can
be the most solitary, the most concealed, the most divergent, the
man beyond good and evil, the master of his virtues, and of
super-abundance of will; precisely this shall be called
GREATNESS: as diversified as can be entire, as ample as can be
full." And to ask once more the question: Is greatness POSSIBLE--

213. It is difficult to learn what a philosopher is, because it
cannot be taught: one must "know" it by experience--or one should
have the pride NOT to know it. The fact that at present people
all talk of things of which they CANNOT have any experience, is
true more especially and unfortunately as concerns the
philosopher and philosophical matters:--the very few know them,
are permitted to know them, and all popular ideas about them are
false. Thus, for instance, the truly philosophical combination of
a bold, exuberant spirituality which runs at presto pace, and a
dialectic rigour and necessity which makes no false step, is
unknown to most thinkers and scholars from their own experience,
and therefore, should any one speak of it in their presence, it
is incredible to them. They conceive of every necessity as
troublesome, as a painful compulsory obedience and state of
constraint; thinking itself is regarded by them as something slow
and hesitating, almost as a trouble, and often enough as "worthy
of the SWEAT of the noble"--but not at all as something easy and
divine, closely related to dancing and exuberance! "To think" and
to take a matter "seriously," "arduously"--that is one and the
same thing to them; such only has been their "experience."--
Artists have here perhaps a finer intuition; they who know only
too well that precisely when they no longer do anything
"arbitrarily," and everything of necessity, their feeling of
freedom, of subtlety, of power, of creatively fixing, disposing,
and shaping, reaches its climax--in short, that necessity and
"freedom of will" are then the same thing with them. There is, in
fine, a gradation of rank in psychical states, to which the
gradation of rank in the problems corresponds; and the highest
problems repel ruthlessly every one who ventures too near them,
without being predestined for their solution by the loftiness and
power of his spirituality. Of what use is it for nimble, everyday
intellects, or clumsy, honest mechanics and empiricists to press,
in their plebeian ambition, close to such problems, and as it
were into this "holy of holies"--as so often happens nowadays!
But coarse feet must never tread upon such carpets: this is
provided for in the primary law of things; the doors remain
closed to those intruders, though they may dash and break their
heads thereon. People have always to be born to a high station,
or, more definitely, they have to be BRED for it: a person has
only a right to philosophy--taking the word in its higher
significance--in virtue of his descent; the ancestors, the
"blood," decide here also. Many generations must have prepared
the way for the coming of the philosopher; each of his virtues
must have been separately acquired, nurtured, transmitted, and
embodied; not only the bold, easy, delicate course and current of
his thoughts, but above all the readiness for great
responsibilities, the majesty of ruling glance and contemning
look, the feeling of separation from the multitude with their
duties and virtues, the kindly patronage and defense of whatever
is misunderstood and calumniated, be it God or devil, the delight
and practice of supreme justice, the art of commanding, the
amplitude of will, the lingering eye which rarely admires, rarely
looks up, rarely loves. . . .



214. OUR Virtues?--It is probable that we, too, have still our
virtues, althoughnaturally they are not those sincere and massive
virtues on account of which we hold our grandfathers in esteem
and also at a little distance from us. We Europeans of the day
after tomorrow, we firstlings of the twentieth century--with all
our dangerous curiosity, our multifariousness and art of
disguising, our mellow and seemingly sweetened cruelty in sense
and spirit--we shall presumably, IF we must have virtues, have
those only which have come to agreement with our most secret and
heartfelt inclinations, with our most ardent requirements: well,
then, let us look for them in our labyrinths!--where, as we know,
so many things lose themselves, so many things get quite lost!
And is there anything finer than to SEARCH for one's own virtues?
Is it not almost to BELIEVE in one's own virtues? But this
"believing in one's own virtues"--is it not practically the same
as what was formerly called one's "good conscience," that long,
respectable pigtail of an idea, which our grandfathers used to
hang behind their heads, and often enough also behind their
understandings? It seems, therefore, that however little we may
imagine ourselves to be old-fashioned and grandfatherly
respectable in other respects, in one thing we are nevertheless
the worthy grandchildren of our grandfathers, we last Europeans
with good consciences: we also still wear their pigtail.--Ah! if
you only knew how soon, so very soon--it will be different!

215. As in the stellar firmament there are sometimes two suns
which determine the path of one planet, and in certain cases suns
of different colours shine around a single planet, now with red
light, now with green, and then simultaneously illumine and flood
it with motley colours: so we modern men, owing to the
complicated mechanism of our "firmament," are determined by
DIFFERENT moralities; our actions shine alternately in different
colours, and are seldom unequivocal--and there are often cases,
also, in which our actions are MOTLEY-COLOURED.

216. To love one's enemies? I think that has been well learnt: it
takes place thousands of times at present on a large and small
scale; indeed, at times the higher and sublimer thing takes
place:--we learn to DESPISE when we love, and precisely when we
love best; all of it, however, unconsciously, without noise,
without ostentation, with the shame and secrecy of goodness,
which forbids the utterance of the pompous word and the formula
of virtue. Morality as attitude--is opposed to our taste
nowadays. This is ALSO an advance, as it was an advance in our
fathers that religion as an attitude finally became opposed to
their taste, including the enmity and Voltairean bitterness
against religion (and all that formerly belonged to freethinker-
pantomime). It is the music in our conscience, the dance in our
spirit, to which Puritan litanies, moral sermons, and goody-
goodness won't chime.

217. Let us be careful in dealing with those who attach great
importance to being credited with moral tact and subtlety in
moral discernment! They never forgive us if they have once made a
mistake BEFORE us (or even with REGARD to us)--they inevitably
become our instinctive calumniators and detractors, even when
they still remain our "friends."--Blessed are the forgetful: for
they "get the better" even of their blunders.

218. The psychologists of France--and where else are there still
psychologists nowadays?--have never yet exhausted their bitter
and manifold enjoyment of the betise bourgeoise, just as
though . . . in short, they betray something thereby. Flaubert,
for instance, the honest citizen of Rouen, neither saw, heard, nor
tasted anything else in the end; it was his mode of self-torment
and refined cruelty. As this is growing wearisome, I would now
recommend for a change something else for a pleasure--namely, the
unconscious astuteness with which good, fat, honest mediocrity
always behaves towards loftier spirits and the tasks they have to
perform, the subtle, barbed, Jesuitical astuteness, which is a
thousand times subtler than the taste and understanding of the
middle-class in its best moments--subtler even than the
understanding of its victims:--a repeated proof that "instinct" is
the most intelligent of all kinds of intelligence which have
hitherto been discovered. In short, you psychologists, study the
philosophy of the "rule" in its struggle with the "exception":
there you have a spectacle fit for Gods and godlike malignity! Or,
in plainer words, practise vivisection on "good people," on the
"homo bonae voluntatis," ON YOURSELVES!

219. The practice of judging and condemning morally, is the
favourite revenge of the intellectually shallow on those who are
less so, it is also a kind of indemnity for their being badly
endowed by nature, and finally, it is an opportunity for
acquiring spirit and BECOMING subtle--malice spiritualises. They
are glad in their inmost heart that there is a standard according
to which those who are over-endowed with intellectual goods and
privileges, are equal to them, they contend for the "equality of
all before God," and almost NEED the belief in God for this
purpose. It is among them that the most powerful antagonists of
atheism are found. If any one were to say to them "A lofty
spirituality is beyond all comparison with the honesty and
respectability of a merely moral man"--it would make them
furious, I shall take care not to say so. I would rather flatter
them with my theory that lofty spirituality itself exists only as
the ultimate product of moral qualities, that it is a synthesis
of all qualities attributed to the "merely moral" man, after they
have been acquired singly through long training and practice,
perhaps during a whole series of generations, that lofty
spirituality is precisely the spiritualising of justice, and the
beneficent severity which knows that it is authorized to maintain
GRADATIONS OF RANK in the world, even among things--and not only
among men.

220. Now that the praise of the "disinterested person" is so
popular one must--probably not without some danger--get an idea
of WHAT people actually take an interest in, and what are the
things generally which fundamentally and profoundly concern
ordinary men--including the cultured, even the learned, and
perhaps philosophers also, if appearances do not deceive. The
fact thereby becomes obvious that the greater part of what
interests and charms higher natures, and more refined and
fastidious tastes, seems absolutely "uninteresting" to the
average man--if, notwithstanding, he perceive devotion to these
interests, he calls it desinteresse, and wonders how it is
possible to act "disinterestedly." There have been philosophers
who could give this popular astonishment a seductive and
mystical, other-worldly expression (perhaps because they did not
know the higher nature by experience?), instead of stating the
naked and candidly reasonable truth that "disinterested" action
is very interesting and "interested" action, provided that. . .
"And love?"--What! Even an action for love's sake shall be
"unegoistic"? But you fools--! "And the praise of the self-
sacrificer?"--But whoever has really offered sacrifice knows that
he wanted and obtained something for it--perhaps something from
himself for something from himself; that he relinquished here in
order to have more there, perhaps in general to be more, or even
feel himself "more." But this is a realm of questions and answers
in which a more fastidious spirit does not like to stay: for here
truth has to stifle her yawns so much when she is obliged to
answer. And after all, truth is a woman; one must not use force
with her.

221. "It sometimes happens," said a moralistic pedant and trifle-
retailer, "that I honour and respect an unselfish man: not,
however, because he is unselfish, but because I think he has a
right to be useful to another man at his own expense. In short,
the question is always who HE is, and who THE OTHER is. For
instance, in a person created and destined for command, self-
denial and modest retirement, instead of being virtues, would be
the waste of virtues: so it seems to me. Every system of
unegoistic morality which takes itself unconditionally and
appeals to every one, not only sins against good taste, but is
also an incentive to sins of omission, an ADDITIONAL seduction
under the mask of philanthropy--and precisely a seduction and
injury to the higher, rarer, and more privileged types of men.
Moral systems must be compelled first of all to bow before the
GRADATIONS OF RANK; their presumption must be driven home to
their conscience--until they thoroughly understand at last that
it is IMMORAL to say that 'what is right for one is proper for
another.'"--So said my moralistic pedant and bonhomme. Did he
perhaps deserve to be laughed at when he thus exhorted systems of
morals to practise morality? But one should not be too much in
the right if one wishes to have the laughers on ONE'S OWN side; a
grain of wrong pertains even to good taste.

222. Wherever sympathy (fellow-suffering) is preached nowadays--
and, if I gather rightly, no other religion is any longer
preached--let the psychologist have his ears open through all the
vanity, through all the noise which is natural to these preachers
(as to all preachers), he will hear a hoarse, groaning, genuine
note of SELF-CONTEMPT. It belongs to the overshadowing and
uglifying of Europe, which has been on the increase for a century
(the first symptoms of which are already specified documentarily
in a thoughtful letter of Galiani to Madame d'Epinay)--IF IT IS
NOT REALLY THE CAUSE THEREOF! The man of "modern ideas," the
conceited ape, is excessively dissatisfied with himself-this is
perfectly certain. He suffers, and his vanity wants him only "to
suffer with his fellows."

223. The hybrid European--a tolerably ugly plebeian, taken all in
all--absolutely requires a costume: he needs history as a
storeroom of costumes. To be sure, he notices that none of the
costumes fit him properly--he changes and changes. Let us look at
the nineteenth century with respect to these hasty preferences
and changes in its masquerades of style, and also with respect to
its moments of desperation on account of "nothing suiting" us. It
is in vain to get ourselves up as romantic, or classical, or
Christian, or Florentine, or barocco, or "national," in moribus
et artibus: it does not "clothe us"! But the "spirit," especially
the "historical spirit," profits even by this desperation: once
and again a new sample of the past or of the foreign is tested,
put on, taken off, packed up, and above all studied--we are the
first studious age in puncto of "costumes," I mean as concerns
morals, articles of belief, artistic tastes, and religions; we
are prepared as no other age has ever been for a carnival in the
grand style, for the most spiritual festival--laughter and
arrogance, for the transcendental height of supreme folly and
Aristophanic ridicule of the world. Perhaps we are still
discovering the domain of our invention just here, the domain
where even we can still be original, probably as parodists of the
world's history and as God's Merry-Andrews,--perhaps, though
nothing else of the present have a future, our laughter itself
may have a future!

224. The historical sense (or the capacity for divining quickly
the order of rank of the valuations according to which a people,
a community, or an individual has lived, the "divining instinct"
for the relationships of these valuations, for the relation of
the authority of the valuations to the authority of the operating
forces),--this historical sense, which we Europeans claim as our
specialty, has come to us in the train of the enchanting and mad
semi-barbarity into which Europe has been plunged by the
democratic mingling of classes and races--it is only the
nineteenth century that has recognized this faculty as its sixth
sense. Owing to this mingling, the past of every form and mode of
life, and of cultures which were formerly closely contiguous and
superimposed on one another, flows forth into us "modern souls";
our instincts now run back in all directions, we ourselves are a
kind of chaos: in the end, as we have said, the spirit perceives
its advantage therein. By means of our semi-barbarity in body and
in desire, we have secret access everywhere, such as a noble age
never had; we have access above all to the labyrinth of imperfect
civilizations, and to every form of semi-barbarity that has at
any time existed on earth; and in so far as the most considerable
part of human civilization hitherto has just been semi-barbarity,
the "historical sense" implies almost the sense and instinct for
everything, the taste and tongue for everything: whereby it
immediately proves itself to be an IGNOBLE sense. For instance,
we enjoy Homer once more: it is perhaps our happiest acquisition
that we know how to appreciate Homer, whom men of distinguished
culture (as the French of the seventeenth century, like Saint-
Evremond, who reproached him for his ESPRIT VASTE, and even
Voltaire, the last echo of the century) cannot and could not so
easily appropriate--whom they scarcely permitted themselves to
enjoy. The very decided Yea and Nay of their palate, their
promptly ready disgust, their hesitating reluctance with regard
to everything strange, their horror of the bad taste even of
lively curiosity, and in general the averseness of every
distinguished and self-sufficing culture to avow a new desire, a
dissatisfaction with its own condition, or an admiration of what
is strange: all this determines and disposes them unfavourably
even towards the best things of the world which are not their
property or could not become their prey--and no faculty is more
unintelligible to such men than just this historical sense, with
its truckling, plebeian curiosity. The case is not different with
Shakespeare, that marvelous Spanish-Moorish-Saxon synthesis of
taste, over whom an ancient Athenian of the circle of Eschylus
would have half-killed himself with laughter or irritation: but
we--accept precisely this wild motleyness, this medley of the
most delicate, the most coarse, and the most artificial, with a
secret confidence and cordiality; we enjoy it as a refinement of
art reserved expressly for us, and allow ourselves to be as
little disturbed by the repulsive fumes and the proximity of the
English populace in which Shakespeare's art and taste lives, as
perhaps on the Chiaja of Naples, where, with all our senses
awake, we go our way, enchanted and voluntarily, in spite of the
drain-odour of the lower quarters of the town. That as men of the
"historical sense" we have our virtues, is not to be disputed:--
we are unpretentious, unselfish, modest, brave, habituated to
self-control and self-renunciation, very grateful, very patient,
very complaisant--but with all this we are perhaps not very
"tasteful." Let us finally confess it, that what is most
difficult for us men of the "historical sense" to grasp, feel,
taste, and love, what finds us fundamentally prejudiced and
almost hostile, is precisely the perfection and ultimate maturity
in every culture and art, the essentially noble in works and men,
their moment of smooth sea and halcyon self-sufficiency, the
goldenness and coldness which all things show that have perfected
themselves. Perhaps our great virtue of the historical sense is
in necessary contrast to GOOD taste, at least to the very bad
taste; and we can only evoke in ourselves imperfectly,
hesitatingly, and with compulsion the small, short, and happy
godsends and glorifications of human life as they shine here and
there: those moments and marvelous experiences when a great power
has voluntarily come to a halt before the boundless and
infinite,--when a super-abundance of refined delight has been
enjoyed by a sudden checking and petrifying, by standing firmly
and planting oneself fixedly on still trembling ground.
PROPORTIONATENESS is strange to us, let us confess it to
ourselves; our itching is really the itching for the infinite,
the immeasurable. Like the rider on his forward panting horse, we
let the reins fall before the infinite, we modern men, we semi-
barbarians--and are only in OUR highest bliss when we--ARE IN

225. Whether it be hedonism, pessimism, utilitarianism, or
eudaemonism, all those modes of thinking which measure the worth
of things according to PLEASURE and PAIN, that is, according to
accompanying circumstances and secondary considerations, are
plausible modes of thought and naivetes, which every one
conscious of CREATIVE powers and an artist's conscience will look
down upon with scorn, though not without sympathy. Sympathy for
you!--to be sure, that is not sympathy as you understand it: it
is not sympathy for social "distress," for "society" with its
sick and misfortuned, for the hereditarily vicious and defective
who lie on the ground around us; still less is it sympathy for
the grumbling, vexed, revolutionary slave-classes who strive
after power--they call it "freedom." OUR sympathy is a loftier
and further-sighted sympathy:--we see how MAN dwarfs himself, how
YOU dwarf him! and there are moments when we view YOUR sympathy
with an indescribable anguish, when we resist it,--when we regard
your seriousness as more dangerous than any kind of levity. You
want, if possible--and there is not a more foolish "if possible"
--TO DO AWAY WITH SUFFERING; and we?--it really seems that WE
would rather have it increased and made worse than it has ever
been! Well-being, as you understand it--is certainly not a goal;
it seems to us an END; a condition which at once renders man
ludicrous and contemptible--and makes his destruction DESIRABLE!
The discipline of suffering, of GREAT suffering--know ye not that
it is only THIS discipline that has produced all the elevations
of humanity hitherto? The tension of soul in misfortune which
communicates to it its energy, its shuddering in view of rack and
ruin, its inventiveness and bravery in undergoing, enduring,
interpreting, and exploiting misfortune, and whatever depth,
mystery, disguise, spirit, artifice, or greatness has been
bestowed upon the soul--has it not been bestowed through
suffering, through the discipline of great suffering? In man
CREATURE and CREATOR are united: in man there is not only matter,
shred, excess, clay, mire, folly, chaos; but there is also the
creator, the sculptor, the hardness of the hammer, the divinity
of the spectator, and the seventh day--do ye understand this
contrast? And that YOUR sympathy for the "creature in man"
applies to that which has to be fashioned, bruised, forged,
stretched, roasted, annealed, refined--to that which must
necessarily SUFFER, and IS MEANT to suffer? And our sympathy--do
ye not understand what our REVERSE sympathy applies to, when it
resists your sympathy as the worst of all pampering and
enervation?--So it is sympathy AGAINST sympathy!--But to repeat
it once more, there are higher problems than the problems of
pleasure and pain and sympathy; and all systems of philosophy
which deal only with these are naivetes.

226. WE IMMORALISTS.-This world with which WE are concerned, in
which we have to fear and love, this almost invisible, inaudible
world of delicate command and delicate obedience, a world of
"almost" in every respect, captious, insidious, sharp, and
tender--yes, it is well protected from clumsy spectators and
familiar curiosity! We are woven into a strong net and garment of
duties, and CANNOT disengage ourselves--precisely here, we are
"men of duty," even we! Occasionally, it is true, we dance in our
"chains" and betwixt our "swords"; it is none the less true that
more often we gnash our teeth under the circumstances, and are
impatient at the secret hardship of our lot. But do what we will,
fools and appearances say of us: "These are men WITHOUT duty,"--
we have always fools and appearances against us!

227. Honesty, granting that it is the virtue of which we cannot
rid ourselves, we free spirits--well, we will labour at it with
all our perversity and love, and not tire of "perfecting"
ourselves in OUR virtue, which alone remains: may its glance some
day overspread like a gilded, blue, mocking twilight this aging
civilization with its dull gloomy seriousness! And if,
nevertheless, our honesty should one day grow weary, and sigh,
and stretch its limbs, and find us too hard, and would fain have
it pleasanter, easier, and gentler, like an agreeable vice, let
us remain HARD, we latest Stoics, and let us send to its help
whatever devilry we have in us:--our disgust at the clumsy and
undefined, our "NITIMUR IN VETITUM," our love of adventure, our
sharpened and fastidious curiosity, our most subtle, disguised,
intellectual Will to Power and universal conquest, which rambles
and roves avidiously around all the realms of the future--let us
go with all our "devils" to the help of our "God"! It is probable
that people will misunderstand and mistake us on that account:
what does it matter! They will say: "Their 'honesty'--that is
their devilry, and nothing else!" What does it matter! And even
if they were right--have not all Gods hitherto been such
sanctified, re-baptized devils? And after all, what do we know of
ourselves? And what the spirit that leads us wants TO BE CALLED?
(It is a question of names.) And how many spirits we harbour? Our
honesty, we free spirits--let us be careful lest it become our
vanity, our ornament and ostentation, our limitation, our
stupidity! Every virtue inclines to stupidity, every stupidity to
virtue; "stupid to the point of sanctity," they say in Russia,--
let us be careful lest out of pure honesty we eventually become
saints and bores! Is not life a hundred times too short for us--
to bore ourselves? One would have to believe in eternal life in
order to . . .

228. I hope to be forgiven for discovering that all moral
philosophy hitherto has been tedious and has belonged to the
soporific appliances--and that "virtue," in my opinion, has been
MORE injured by the TEDIOUSNESS of its advocates than by anything
else; at the same time, however, I would not wish to overlook
their general usefulness. It is desirable that as few people as
possible should reflect upon morals, and consequently it is very
desirable that morals should not some day become interesting! But
let us not be afraid! Things still remain today as they have
always been: I see no one in Europe who has (or DISCLOSES) an
idea of the fact that philosophizing concerning morals might be
conducted in a dangerous, captious, and ensnaring manner--that
CALAMITY might be involved therein. Observe, for example, the
indefatigable, inevitable English utilitarians: how ponderously
and respectably they stalk on, stalk along (a Homeric metaphor
expresses it better) in the footsteps of Bentham, just as he had
already stalked in the footsteps of the respectable Helvetius!
(no, he was not a dangerous man, Helvetius, CE SENATEUR
POCOCURANTE, to use an expression of Galiani). No new thought,
nothing of the nature of a finer turning or better expression of
an old thought, not even a proper history of what has been
previously thought on the subject: an IMPOSSIBLE literature,
taking it all in all, unless one knows how to leaven it with some
mischief. In effect, the old English vice called CANT, which is
MORAL TARTUFFISM, has insinuated itself also into these moralists
(whom one must certainly read with an eye to their motives if one
MUST read them), concealed this time under the new form of the
scientific spirit; moreover, there is not absent from them a
secret struggle with the pangs of conscience, from which a race
of former Puritans must naturally suffer, in all their scientific
tinkering with morals. (Is not a moralist the opposite of a
Puritan? That is to say, as a thinker who regards morality as
questionable, as worthy of interrogation, in short, as a problem?
Is moralizing not-immoral?) In the end, they all want English
morality to be recognized as authoritative, inasmuch as mankind,
or the "general utility," or "the happiness of the greatest
number,"--no! the happiness of ENGLAND, will be best served
thereby. They would like, by all means, to convince themselves
that the striving after English happiness, I mean after COMFORT
and FASHION (and in the highest instance, a seat in Parliament),
is at the same time the true path of virtue; in fact, that in so
far as there has been virtue in the world hitherto, it has just
consisted in such striving. Not one of those ponderous,
conscience-stricken herding-animals (who undertake to advocate
the cause of egoism as conducive to the general welfare) wants to
have any knowledge or inkling of the facts that the "general
welfare" is no ideal, no goal, no notion that can be at all
grasped, but is only a nostrum,--that what is fair to one MAY NOT
at all be fair to another, that the requirement of one morality
for all is really a detriment to higher men, in short, that there
is a DISTINCTION OF RANK between man and man, and consequently
between morality and morality. They are an unassuming and
fundamentally mediocre species of men, these utilitarian
Englishmen, and, as already remarked, in so far as they are
tedious, one cannot think highly enough of their utility. One
ought even to ENCOURAGE them, as has been partially attempted in
the following rhymes:--

Hail, ye worthies, barrow-wheeling,
"Longer--better," aye revealing,

Stiffer aye in head and knee;
Unenraptured, never jesting,
Mediocre everlasting,


229. In these later ages, which may be proud of their humanity,
there still remains so much fear, so much SUPERSTITION of the
fear, of the "cruel wild beast," the mastering of which
constitutes the very pride of these humaner ages--that even
obvious truths, as if by the agreement of centuries, have long
remained unuttered, because they have the appearance of helping
the finally slain wild beast back to life again. I perhaps risk
something when I allow such a truth to escape; let others capture
it again and give it so much "milk of pious sentiment"
[FOOTNOTE: An expression from Schiller's William Tell, Act IV,
Scene 3.] to drink, that it will lie down quiet and forgotten, in
its old corner.--One ought to learn anew about cruelty, and open
one's eyes; one ought at last to learn impatience, in order that
such immodest gross errors--as, for instance, have been fostered
by ancient and modern philosophers with regard to tragedy--may no
longer wander about virtuously and boldly. Almost everything that
we call "higher culture" is based upon the spiritualising and
intensifying of CRUELTY--this is my thesis; the "wild beast" has
not been slain at all, it lives, it flourishes, it has only been--
transfigured. That which constitutes the painful delight of
tragedy is cruelty; that which operates agreeably in so-called
tragic sympathy, and at the basis even of everything sublime, up
to the highest and most delicate thrills of metaphysics, obtains
its sweetness solely from the intermingled ingredient of cruelty.
What the Roman enjoys in the arena, the Christian in the
ecstasies of the cross, the Spaniard at the sight of the faggot
and stake, or of the bull-fight, the present-day Japanese who
presses his way to the tragedy, the workman of the Parisian
suburbs who has a homesickness for bloody revolutions, the
Wagnerienne who, with unhinged will, "undergoes" the performance
of "Tristan and Isolde"--what all these enjoy, and strive with
mysterious ardour to drink in, is the philtre of the great Circe
"cruelty." Here, to be sure, we must put aside entirely the
blundering psychology of former times, which could only teach
with regard to cruelty that it originated at the sight of the
suffering of OTHERS: there is an abundant, super-abundant
enjoyment even in one's own suffering, in causing one's own
suffering--and wherever man has allowed himself to be persuaded
to self-denial in the RELIGIOUS sense, or to self-mutilation, as
among the Phoenicians and ascetics, or in general, to
desensualisation, decarnalisation, and contrition, to Puritanical
repentance-spasms, to vivisection of conscience and to Pascal-
like SACRIFIZIA DELL' INTELLETO, he is secretly allured and
impelled forwards by his cruelty, by the dangerous thrill of
cruelty TOWARDS HIMSELF.--Finally, let us consider that even the
seeker of knowledge operates as an artist and glorifier of
cruelty, in that he compels his spirit to perceive AGAINST its
own inclination, and often enough against the wishes of his
heart:--he forces it to say Nay, where he would like to affirm,
love, and adore; indeed, every instance of taking a thing
profoundly and fundamentally, is a violation, an intentional
injuring of the fundamental will of the spirit, which
instinctively aims at appearance and superficiality,--even in
every desire for knowledge there is a drop of cruelty.

230. Perhaps what I have said here about a "fundamental will of
the spirit" may not be understood without further details; I may
be allowed a word of explanation.--That imperious something which
is popularly called "the spirit," wishes to be master internally
and externally, and to feel itself master; it has the will of a
multiplicity for a simplicity, a binding, taming, imperious, and
essentially ruling will. Its requirements and capacities here,
are the same as those assigned by physiologists to everything
that lives, grows, and multiplies. The power of the spirit to
appropriate foreign elements reveals itself in a strong tendency
to assimilate the new to the old, to simplify the manifold, to
overlook or repudiate the absolutely contradictory; just as it
arbitrarily re-underlines, makes prominent, and falsifies for
itself certain traits and lines in the foreign elements, in every
portion of the "outside world." Its object thereby is the
incorporation of new "experiences," the assortment of new things
in the old arrangements--in short, growth; or more properly, the
FEELING of growth, the feeling of increased power--is its object.
This same will has at its service an apparently opposed impulse
of the spirit, a suddenly adopted preference of ignorance, of
arbitrary shutting out, a closing of windows, an inner denial of
this or that, a prohibition to approach, a sort of defensive
attitude against much that is knowable, a contentment with
obscurity, with the shutting-in horizon, an acceptance and
approval of ignorance: as that which is all necessary according
to the degree of its appropriating power, its "digestive power,"
to speak figuratively (and in fact "the spirit" resembles a
stomach more than anything else). Here also belong an occasional
propensity of the spirit to let itself be deceived (perhaps with
a waggish suspicion that it is NOT so and so, but is only allowed
to pass as such), a delight in uncertainty and ambiguity, an
exulting enjoyment of arbitrary, out-of-the-way narrowness and
mystery, of the too-near, of the foreground, of the magnified,
the diminished, the misshapen, the beautified--an enjoyment of
the arbitrariness of all these manifestations of power. Finally,
in this connection, there is the not unscrupulous readiness of
the spirit to deceive other spirits and dissemble before them--
the constant pressing and straining of a creating, shaping,
changeable power: the spirit enjoys therein its craftiness and
its variety of disguises, it enjoys also its feeling of security
therein--it is precisely by its Protean arts that it is best
protected and concealed!--COUNTER TO this propensity for
appearance, for simplification, for a disguise, for a cloak, in
short, for an outside--for every outside is a cloak--there
operates the sublime tendency of the man of knowledge, which
takes, and INSISTS on taking things profoundly, variously, and
thoroughly; as a kind of cruelty of the intellectual conscience
and taste, which every courageous thinker will acknowledge in
himself, provided, as it ought to be, that he has sharpened and
hardened his eye sufficiently long for introspection, and is
accustomed to severe discipline and even severe words. He will
say: "There is something cruel in the tendency of my spirit": let
the virtuous and amiable try to convince him that it is not so!
In fact, it would sound nicer, if, instead of our cruelty,
perhaps our "extravagant honesty" were talked about, whispered
about, and glorified--we free, VERY free spirits--and some day
perhaps SUCH will actually be our--posthumous glory! Meanwhile--
for there is plenty of time until then--we should be least
inclined to deck ourselves out in such florid and fringed moral
verbiage; our whole former work has just made us sick of this
taste and its sprightly exuberance. They are beautiful,
glistening, jingling, festive words: honesty, love of truth, love
of wisdom, sacrifice for knowledge, heroism of the truthful--
there is something in them that makes one's heart swell with
pride. But we anchorites and marmots have long ago persuaded
ourselves in all the secrecy of an anchorite's conscience, that
this worthy parade of verbiage also belongs to the old false
adornment, frippery, and gold-dust of unconscious human vanity,
and that even under such flattering colour and repainting, the
terrible original text HOMO NATURA must again be recognized. In
effect, to translate man back again into nature; to master the
many vain and visionary interpretations and subordinate meanings
which have hitherto been scratched and daubed over the eternal
original text, HOMO NATURA; to bring it about that man shall
henceforth stand before man as he now, hardened by the discipline
of science, stands before the OTHER forms of nature, with
fearless Oedipus-eyes, and stopped Ulysses-ears, deaf to the
enticements of old metaphysical bird-catchers, who have piped to
him far too long: "Thou art more! thou art higher! thou hast a
different origin!"--this may be a strange and foolish task, but
that it is a TASK, who can deny! Why did we choose it, this
foolish task? Or, to put the question differently: "Why knowledge
at all?" Every one will ask us about this. And thus pressed, we,
who have asked ourselves the question a hundred times, have not
found and cannot find any better answer. . . .

231. Learning alters us, it does what all nourishment does that
does not merely "conserve"--as the physiologist knows. But at the
bottom of our souls, quite "down below," there is certainly
something unteachable, a granite of spiritual fate, of
predetermined decision and answer to predetermined, chosen
questions. In each cardinal problem there speaks an unchangeable
"I am this"; a thinker cannot learn anew about man and woman, for
instance, but can only learn fully--he can only follow to the end
what is "fixed" about them in himself. Occasionally we find
certain solutions of problems which make strong beliefs for us;
perhaps they are henceforth called "convictions." Later on--one
sees in them only footsteps to self-knowledge, guide-posts to the
problem which we ourselves ARE--or more correctly to the great
stupidity which we embody, our spiritual fate, the UNTEACHABLE in
us, quite "down below."--In view of this liberal compliment which
I have just paid myself, permission will perhaps be more readily
allowed me to utter some truths about "woman as she is," provided
that it is known at the outset how literally they are merely--MY

232. Woman wishes to be independent, and therefore she begins to
enlighten men about "woman as she is"--THIS is one of the worst
developments of the general UGLIFYING of Europe. For what must
these clumsy attempts of feminine scientificality and self-
exposure bring to light! Woman has so much cause for shame; in
woman there is so much pedantry, superficiality,
schoolmasterliness, petty presumption, unbridledness, and
indiscretion concealed--study only woman's behaviour towards
children!--which has really been best restrained and dominated
hitherto by the FEAR of man. Alas, if ever the "eternally tedious
in woman"--she has plenty of it!--is allowed to venture forth! if
she begins radically and on principle to unlearn her wisdom and
art-of charming, of playing, of frightening away sorrow, of
alleviating and taking easily; if she forgets her delicate
aptitude for agreeable desires! Female voices are already raised,
which, by Saint Aristophanes! make one afraid:--with medical
explicitness it is stated in a threatening manner what woman
first and last REQUIRES from man. Is it not in the very worst
taste that woman thus sets herself up to be scientific?
Enlightenment hitherto has fortunately been men's affair, men's
gift-we remained therewith "among ourselves"; and in the end, in
view of all that women write about "woman," we may well have
considerable doubt as to whether woman really DESIRES
enlightenment about herself--and CAN desire it. If woman does not
thereby seek a new ORNAMENT for herself--I believe ornamentation
belongs to the eternally feminine?--why, then, she wishes to make
herself feared: perhaps she thereby wishes to get the mastery.
But she does not want truth--what does woman care for truth? From
the very first, nothing is more foreign, more repugnant, or more
hostile to woman than truth--her great art is falsehood, her
chief concern is appearance and beauty. Let us confess it, we
men: we honour and love this very art and this very instinct in
woman: we who have the hard task, and for our recreation gladly
seek the company of beings under whose hands, glances, and
delicate follies, our seriousness, our gravity, and profundity
appear almost like follies to us. Finally, I ask the question:
Did a woman herself ever acknowledge profundity in a woman's
mind, or justice in a woman's heart? And is it not true that on
the whole "woman" has hitherto been most despised by woman
herself, and not at all by us?--We men desire that woman should
not continue to compromise herself by enlightening us; just as it
was man's care and the consideration for woman, when the church
decreed: mulier taceat in ecclesia. It was to the benefit of
woman when Napoleon gave the too eloquent Madame de Stael to
understand: mulier taceat in politicis!--and in my opinion, he is
a true friend of woman who calls out to women today: mulier
taceat de mulierel.

233. It betrays corruption of the instincts--apart from the fact
that it betrays bad taste--when a woman refers to Madame Roland,
or Madame de Stael, or Monsieur George Sand, as though something
were proved thereby in favour of "woman as she is." Among men,
these are the three comical women as they are--nothing more!--and
just the best involuntary counter-arguments against feminine
emancipation and autonomy.

234. Stupidity in the kitchen; woman as cook; the terrible
thoughtlessness with which the feeding of the family and the
master of the house is managed! Woman does not understand what
food means, and she insists on being cook! If woman had been a
thinking creature, she should certainly, as cook for thousands of
years, have discovered the most important physiological facts,
and should likewise have got possession of the healing art!
Through bad female cooks--through the entire lack of reason in
the kitchen--the development of mankind has been longest retarded
and most interfered with: even today matters are very little
better. A word to High School girls.

235. There are turns and casts of fancy, there are sentences,
little handfuls of words, in which a whole culture, a whole
society suddenly crystallises itself. Among these is the
incidental remark of Madame de Lambert to her son: "MON AMI, NE
PLAISIR"--the motherliest and wisest remark, by the way, that was
ever addressed to a son.

236. I have no doubt that every noble woman will oppose what
Dante and Goethe believed about woman--the former when he sang,
"ELLA GUARDAVA SUSO, ED IO IN LEI," and the latter when he
interpreted it, "the eternally feminine draws us ALOFT"; for THIS
is just what she believes of the eternally masculine.



How the longest ennui flees, When a man comes to our knees!

Age, alas! and science staid, Furnish even weak virtue aid.

Sombre garb and silence meet: Dress for every dame--discreet.

Whom I thank when in my bliss? God!--and my good tailoress!

Young, a flower-decked cavern home; Old, a dragon thence doth

Noble title, leg that's fine, Man as well: Oh, were HE mine!

Speech in brief and sense in mass--Slippery for the jenny-ass!

237A. Woman has hitherto been treated by men like birds, which,
losing their way, have come down among them from an elevation: as
something delicate, fragile, wild, strange, sweet, and animating-
-but as something also which must be cooped up to prevent it
flying away.

238. To be mistaken in the fundamental problem of "man and
woman," to deny here the profoundest antagonism and the necessity
for an eternally hostile tension, to dream here perhaps of equal
rights, equal training, equal claims and obligations: that is a
TYPICAL sign of shallow-mindedness; and a thinker who has proved
himself shallow at this dangerous spot--shallow in instinct!--may
generally be regarded as suspicious, nay more, as betrayed, as
discovered; he will probably prove too "short" for all
fundamental questions of life, future as well as present, and
will be unable to descend into ANY of the depths. On the other
hand, a man who has depth of spirit as well as of desires, and
has also the depth of benevolence which is capable of severity
and harshness, and easily confounded with them, can only think of
woman as ORIENTALS do: he must conceive of her as a possession,
as confinable property, as a being predestined for service and
accomplishing her mission therein--he must take his stand in this
matter upon the immense rationality of Asia, upon the superiority
of the instinct of Asia, as the Greeks did formerly; those best
heirs and scholars of Asia--who, as is well known, with their
INCREASING culture and amplitude of power, from Homer to the time
of Pericles, became gradually STRICTER towards woman, in short,
more Oriental. HOW necessary, HOW logical, even HOW humanely
desirable this was, let us consider for ourselves!

239. The weaker sex has in no previous age been treated with so
much respect by men as at present--this belongs to the tendency
and fundamental taste of democracy, in the same way as
disrespectfulness to old age--what wonder is it that abuse should
be immediately made of this respect? They want more, they learn
to make claims, the tribute of respect is at last felt to be
well-nigh galling; rivalry for rights, indeed actual strife
itself, would be preferred: in a word, woman is losing modesty.
And let us immediately add that she is also losing taste. She is
unlearning to FEAR man: but the woman who "unlearns to fear"
sacrifices her most womanly instincts. That woman should venture
forward when the fear-inspiring quality in man--or more
definitely, the MAN in man--is no longer either desired or fully
developed, is reasonable enough and also intelligible enough;
what is more difficult to understand is that precisely thereby--
woman deteriorates. This is what is happening nowadays: let us
not deceive ourselves about it! Wherever the industrial spirit
has triumphed over the military and aristocratic spirit, woman
strives for the economic and legal independence of a clerk:
"woman as clerkess" is inscribed on the portal of the modern
society which is in course of formation. While she thus
appropriates new rights, aspires to be "master," and inscribes
"progress" of woman on her flags and banners, the very opposite
realises itself with terrible obviousness: WOMAN RETROGRADES.
Since the French Revolution the influence of woman in Europe has
DECLINED in proportion as she has increased her rights and
claims; and the "emancipation of woman," insofar as it is desired
and demanded by women themselves (and not only by masculine
shallow-pates), thus proves to be a remarkable symptom of the
increased weakening and deadening of the most womanly instincts.
There is STUPIDITY in this movement, an almost masculine
stupidity, of which a well-reared woman--who is always a sensible
woman--might be heartily ashamed. To lose the intuition as to the
ground upon which she can most surely achieve victory; to neglect
exercise in the use of her proper weapons; to let-herself-go
before man, perhaps even "to the book," where formerly she kept
herself in control and in refined, artful humility; to neutralize
with her virtuous audacity man's faith in a VEILED, fundamentally
different ideal in woman, something eternally, necessarily
feminine; to emphatically and loquaciously dissuade man from the
idea that woman must be preserved, cared for, protected, and
indulged, like some delicate, strangely wild, and often pleasant
domestic animal; the clumsy and indignant collection of
everything of the nature of servitude and bondage which the
position of woman in the hitherto existing order of society has
entailed and still entails (as though slavery were a counter-
argument, and not rather a condition of every higher culture, of
every elevation of culture):--what does all this betoken, if not
a disintegration of womanly instincts, a defeminising? Certainly,
there are enough of idiotic friends and corrupters of woman among
the learned asses of the masculine sex, who advise woman to
defeminize herself in this manner, and to imitate all the
stupidities from which "man" in Europe, European "manliness,"
suffers,--who would like to lower woman to "general culture,"
indeed even to newspaper reading and meddling with politics. Here
and there they wish even to make women into free spirits and
literary workers: as though a woman without piety would not be
something perfectly obnoxious or ludicrous to a profound and
godless man;--almost everywhere her nerves are being ruined by
the most morbid and dangerous kind of music (our latest German
music), and she is daily being made more hysterical and more
incapable of fulfilling her first and last function, that of
bearing robust children. They wish to "cultivate" her in general
still more, and intend, as they say, to make the "weaker sex"
STRONG by culture: as if history did not teach in the most
emphatic manner that the "cultivating" of mankind and his
weakening--that is to say, the weakening, dissipating, and
languishing of his FORCE OF WILL--have always kept pace with one
another, and that the most powerful and influential women in the
world (and lastly, the mother of Napoleon) had just to thank
their force of will--and not their schoolmasters--for their
power and ascendancy over men. That which inspires respect in
woman, and often enough fear also, is her NATURE, which is more
"natural" than that of man, her genuine, carnivora-like, cunning
flexibility, her tiger-claws beneath the glove, her NAIVETE in
egoism, her untrainableness and innate wildness, the
incomprehensibleness, extent, and deviation of her desires and
virtues. That which, in spite of fear, excites one's sympathy for
the dangerous and beautiful cat, "woman," is that she seems more
afflicted, more vulnerable, more necessitous of love, and more
condemned to disillusionment than any other creature. Fear and
sympathy it is with these feelings that man has hitherto stood in
the presence of woman, always with one foot already in tragedy,
which rends while it delights--What? And all that is now to be at
an end? And the DISENCHANTMENT of woman is in progress? The
tediousness of woman is slowly evolving? Oh Europe! Europe! We
know the horned animal which was always most attractive to thee,
from which danger is ever again threatening thee! Thy old fable
might once more become "history"--an immense stupidity might once
again overmaster thee and carry thee away! And no God concealed
beneath it--no! only an "idea," a "modern idea"!



240. I HEARD, once again for the first time, Richard Wagner's
overture to the Mastersinger: it is a piece of magnificent,
gorgeous, heavy, latter-day art, which has the pride to
presuppose two centuries of music as still living, in order that
it may be understood:--it is an honour to Germans that such a
pride did not miscalculate! What flavours and forces, what
seasons and climes do we not find mingled in it! It impresses us
at one time as ancient, at another time as foreign, bitter, and
too modern, it is as arbitrary as it is pompously traditional, it
is not infrequently roguish, still oftener rough and coarse--it
has fire and courage, and at the same time the loose, dun-
coloured skin of fruits which ripen too late. It flows broad and
full: and suddenly there is a moment of inexplicable hesitation,
like a gap that opens between cause and effect, an oppression
that makes us dream, almost a nightmare; but already it broadens
and widens anew, the old stream of delight-the most manifold
delight,--of old and new happiness; including ESPECIALLY the joy
of the artist in himself, which he refuses to conceal, his
astonished, happy cognizance of his mastery of the expedients
here employed, the new, newly acquired, imperfectly tested
expedients of art which he apparently betrays to us. All in all,
however, no beauty, no South, nothing of the delicate southern
clearness of the sky, nothing of grace, no dance, hardly a will
to logic; a certain clumsiness even, which is also emphasized, as
though the artist wished to say to us: "It is part of my
intention"; a cumbersome drapery, something arbitrarily barbaric
and ceremonious, a flirring of learned and venerable conceits and
witticisms; something German in the best and worst sense of the
word, something in the German style, manifold, formless, and
inexhaustible; a certain German potency and super-plenitude of
soul, which is not afraid to hide itself under the RAFFINEMENTS
of decadence--which, perhaps, feels itself most at ease there; a
real, genuine token of the German soul, which is at the same time
young and aged, too ripe and yet still too rich in futurity. This
kind of music expresses best what I think of the Germans: they
belong to the day before yesterday and the day after tomorrow--

241. We "good Europeans," we also have hours when we allow
ourselves a warm-hearted patriotism, a plunge and relapse into
old loves and narrow views--I have just given an example of it--
hours of national excitement, of patriotic anguish, and all other
sorts of old-fashioned floods of sentiment. Duller spirits may
perhaps only get done with what confines its operations in us to
hours and plays itself out in hours--in a considerable time: some
in half a year, others in half a lifetime, according to the speed
and strength with which they digest and "change their material."
Indeed, I could think of sluggish, hesitating races, which even
in our rapidly moving Europe, would require half a century ere
they could surmount such atavistic attacks of patriotism and
soil-attachment, and return once more to reason, that is to say,
to "good Europeanism." And while digressing on this possibility,
I happen to become an ear-witness of a conversation between two
old patriots--they were evidently both hard of hearing and
consequently spoke all the louder. "HE has as much, and knows as
much, philosophy as a peasant or a corps-student," said the one--
"he is still innocent. But what does that matter nowadays! It is
the age of the masses: they lie on their belly before everything
that is massive. And so also in politicis. A statesman who rears
up for them a new Tower of Babel, some monstrosity of empire and
power, they call 'great'--what does it matter that we more
prudent and conservative ones do not meanwhile give up the old
belief that it is only the great thought that gives greatness to
an action or affair. Supposing a statesman were to bring his
people into the position of being obliged henceforth to practise
'high politics,' for which they were by nature badly endowed and
prepared, so that they would have to sacrifice their old and
reliable virtues, out of love to a new and doubtful mediocrity;--
supposing a statesman were to condemn his people generally to
'practise politics,' when they have hitherto had something better
to do and think about, and when in the depths of their souls they
have been unable to free themselves from a prudent loathing of
the restlessness, emptiness, and noisy wranglings of the
essentially politics-practising nations;--supposing such a
statesman were to stimulate the slumbering passions and avidities
of his people, were to make a stigma out of their former
diffidence and delight in aloofness, an offence out of their
exoticism and hidden permanency, were to depreciate their most
radical proclivities, subvert their consciences, make their minds
narrow, and their tastes 'national'--what! a statesman who should
do all this, which his people would have to do penance for
throughout their whole future, if they had a future, such a
statesman would be GREAT, would he?"--"Undoubtedly!" replied the
other old patriot vehemently, "otherwise he COULD NOT have done
it! It was mad perhaps to wish such a thing! But perhaps
everything great has been just as mad at its commencement!"--
"Misuse of words!" cried his interlocutor, contradictorily--
"strong! strong! Strong and mad! NOT great!"--The old men had
obviously become heated as they thus shouted their "truths" in
each other's faces, but I, in my happiness and apartness,
considered how soon a stronger one may become master of the
strong, and also that there is a compensation for the
intellectual superficialising of a nation--namely, in the
deepening of another.

242. Whether we call it "civilization," or "humanising," or
"progress," which now distinguishes the European, whether we call
it simply, without praise or blame, by the political formula the
DEMOCRATIC movement in Europe--behind all the moral and political
foregrounds pointed to by such formulas, an immense PHYSIOLOGICAL
PROCESS goes on, which is ever extending the process of the
assimilation of Europeans, their increasing detachment from the
conditions under which, climatically and hereditarily, united
races originate, their increasing independence of every definite
milieu, that for centuries would fain inscribe itself with equal
demands on soul and body,--that is to say, the slow emergence of
an essentially SUPER-NATIONAL and nomadic species of man, who
possesses, physiologically speaking, a maximum of the art and
power of adaptation as his typical distinction. This process of
the EVOLVING EUROPEAN, which can be retarded in its TEMPO by
great relapses, but will perhaps just gain and grow thereby in
vehemence and depth--the still-raging storm and stress of
"national sentiment" pertains to it, and also the anarchism which
is appearing at present--this process will probably arrive at
results on which its naive propagators and panegyrists, the
apostles of "modern ideas," would least care to reckon. The same
new conditions under which on an average a levelling and
mediocrising of man will take place--a useful, industrious,
variously serviceable, and clever gregarious man--are in the
highest degree suitable to give rise to exceptional men of the
most dangerous and attractive qualities. For, while the capacity
for adaptation, which is every day trying changing conditions,
and begins a new work with every generation, almost with every
decade, makes the POWERFULNESS of the type impossible; while the
collective impression of such future Europeans will probably be
that of numerous, talkative, weak-willed, and very handy workmen
who REQUIRE a master, a commander, as they require their daily
bread; while, therefore, the democratising of Europe will tend to
the production of a type prepared for SLAVERY in the most subtle
sense of the term: the STRONG man will necessarily in individual
and exceptional cases, become stronger and richer than he has
perhaps ever been before--owing to the unprejudicedness of his
schooling, owing to the immense variety of practice, art, and
disguise. I meant to say that the democratising of Europe is at
the same time an involuntary arrangement for the rearing of
TYRANTS--taking the word in all its meanings, even in its most
spiritual sense.

243. I hear with pleasure that our sun is moving rapidly towards
the constellation Hercules: and I hope that the men on this earth
will do like the sun. And we foremost, we good Europeans!

244. There was a time when it was customary to call Germans
"deep" by way of distinction; but now that the most successful
type of new Germanism is covetous of quite other honours, and
perhaps misses "smartness" in all that has depth, it is almost
opportune and patriotic to doubt whether we did not formerly
deceive ourselves with that commendation: in short, whether
German depth is not at bottom something different and worse--and
something from which, thank God, we are on the point of
successfully ridding ourselves. Let us try, then, to relearn with
regard to German depth; the only thing necessary for the purpose
is a little vivisection of the German soul.--The German soul is
above all manifold, varied in its source, aggregated and super-
imposed, rather than actually built: this is owing to its origin.
A German who would embolden himself to assert: "Two souls, alas,
dwell in my breast," would make a bad guess at the truth, or,
more correctly, he would come far short of the truth about the
number of souls. As a people made up of the most extraordinary
mixing and mingling of races, perhaps even with a preponderance
of the pre-Aryan element as the "people of the centre" in every
sense of the term, the Germans are more intangible, more ample,
more contradictory, more unknown, more incalculable, more
surprising, and even more terrifying than other peoples are to
themselves:--they escape DEFINITION, and are thereby alone the
despair of the French. It IS characteristic of the Germans that
the question: "What is German?" never dies out among them.
Kotzebue certainly knew his Germans well enough: "We are known,"
they cried jubilantly to him--but Sand also thought he knew them.
Jean Paul knew what he was doing when he declared himself
incensed at Fichte's lying but patriotic flatteries and
exaggerations,--but it is probable that Goethe thought
differently about Germans from Jean Paul, even though he
acknowledged him to be right with regard to Fichte. It is a
question what Goethe really thought about the Germans?--But about
many things around him he never spoke explicitly, and all his
life he knew how to keep an astute silence--probably he had good
reason for it. It is certain that it was not the "Wars of
Independence" that made him look up more joyfully, any more than
it was the French Revolution,--the event on account of which he
RECONSTRUCTED his "Faust," and indeed the whole problem of "man,"
was the appearance of Napoleon. There are words of Goethe in
which he condemns with impatient severity, as from a foreign
land, that which Germans take a pride in, he once defined the
famous German turn of mind as "Indulgence towards its own and
others' weaknesses." Was he wrong? it is characteristic of
Germans that one is seldom entirely wrong about them. The German
soul has passages and galleries in it, there are caves, hiding-
places, and dungeons therein, its disorder has much of the charm
of the mysterious, the German is well acquainted with the bypaths
to chaos. And as everything loves its symbol, so the German loves
the clouds and all that is obscure, evolving, crepuscular, damp,
and shrouded, it seems to him that everything uncertain,
undeveloped, self-displacing, and growing is "deep". The German
himself does not EXIST, he is BECOMING, he is "developing
himself". "Development" is therefore the essentially German
discovery and hit in the great domain of philosophical formulas,--
a ruling idea, which, together with German beer and German music,
is labouring to Germanise all Europe. Foreigners are astonished
and attracted by the riddles which the conflicting nature at the
basis of the German soul propounds to them (riddles which Hegel
systematised and Richard Wagner has in the end set to music).
"Good-natured and spiteful"--such a juxtaposition, preposterous in
the case of every other people, is unfortunately only too often
justified in Germany one has only to live for a while among
Swabians to know this! The clumsiness of the German scholar and
his social distastefulness agree alarmingly well with his physical
rope-dancing and nimble boldness, of which all the Gods have
learnt to be afraid. If any one wishes to see the "German soul"
demonstrated ad oculos, let him only look at German taste, at
German arts and manners what boorish indifference to "taste"! How
the noblest and the commonest stand there in juxtaposition! How
disorderly and how rich is the whole constitution of this soul!
The German DRAGS at his soul, he drags at everything he
experiences. He digests his events badly; he never gets "done"
with them; and German depth is often only a difficult, hesitating
"digestion." And just as all chronic invalids, all dyspeptics like
what is convenient, so the German loves "frankness" and "honesty";
it is so CONVENIENT to be frank and honest!--This confidingness,
this complaisance, this showing-the-cards of German HONESTY, is
probably the most dangerous and most successful disguise which the
German is up to nowadays: it is his proper Mephistophelean art;
with this he can "still achieve much"! The German lets himself go,
and thereby gazes with faithful, blue, empty German eyes--and
other countries immediately confound him with his
dressing-gown!--I meant to say that, let "German depth" be what it
will--among ourselves alone we perhaps take the liberty to laugh
at it--we shall do well to continue henceforth to honour its
appearance and good name, and not barter away too cheaply our old
reputation as a people of depth for Prussian "smartness," and
Berlin wit and sand. It is wise for a people to pose, and LET
itself be regarded, as profound, clumsy, good-natured, honest, and
foolish: it might even be--profound to do so! Finally, we should
do honour to our name--we are not called the "TIUSCHE VOLK"
(deceptive people) for nothing. . . .

245. The "good old" time is past, it sang itself out in Mozart--
how happy are WE that his ROCOCO still speaks to us, that his
"good company," his tender enthusiasm, his childish delight in
the Chinese and its flourishes, his courtesy of heart, his
longing for the elegant, the amorous, the tripping, the tearful,
and his belief in the South, can still appeal to SOMETHING LEFT
in us! Ah, some time or other it will be over with it!--but who
can doubt that it will be over still sooner with the intelligence
and taste for Beethoven! For he was only the last echo of a break
and transition in style, and NOT, like Mozart, the last echo of a
great European taste which had existed for centuries. Beethoven
is the intermediate event between an old mellow soul that is
constantly breaking down, and a future over-young soul that is
always COMING; there is spread over his music the twilight of
eternal loss and eternal extravagant hope,--the same light in
which Europe was bathed when it dreamed with Rousseau, when it
danced round the Tree of Liberty of the Revolution, and finally
almost fell down in adoration before Napoleon. But how rapidly
does THIS very sentiment now pale, how difficult nowadays is even
the APPREHENSION of this sentiment, how strangely does the
language of Rousseau, Schiller, Shelley, and Byron sound to our
ear, in whom COLLECTIVELY the same fate of Europe was able to
SPEAK, which knew how to SING in Beethoven!--Whatever German
music came afterwards, belongs to Romanticism, that is to say, to
a movement which, historically considered, was still shorter,
more fleeting, and more superficial than that great interlude,
the transition of Europe from Rousseau to Napoleon, and to the
rise of democracy. Weber--but what do WE care nowadays for
"Freischutz" and "Oberon"! Or Marschner's "Hans Heiling" and
"Vampyre"! Or even Wagner's "Tannhauser"! That is extinct,
although not yet forgotten music. This whole music of
Romanticism, besides, was not noble enough, was not musical
enough, to maintain its position anywhere but in the theatre and
before the masses; from the beginning it was second-rate music,
which was little thought of by genuine musicians. It was
different with Felix Mendelssohn, that halcyon master, who, on
account of his lighter, purer, happier soul, quickly acquired
admiration, and was equally quickly forgotten: as the beautiful
EPISODE of German music. But with regard to Robert Schumann, who
took things seriously, and has been taken seriously from the
first--he was the last that founded a school,--do we not now
regard it as a satisfaction, a relief, a deliverance, that this
very Romanticism of Schumann's has been surmounted? Schumann,
fleeing into the "Saxon Switzerland" of his soul, with a half
Werther-like, half Jean-Paul-like nature (assuredly not like
Beethoven! assuredly not like Byron!)--his MANFRED music is a
mistake and a misunderstanding to the extent of injustice;
Schumann, with his taste, which was fundamentally a PETTY taste
(that is to say, a dangerous propensity--doubly dangerous among
Germans--for quiet lyricism and intoxication of the feelings),
going constantly apart, timidly withdrawing and retiring, a noble
weakling who revelled in nothing but anonymous joy and sorrow,
from the beginning a sort of girl and NOLI ME TANGERE--this
Schumann was already merely a GERMAN event in music, and no
longer a European event, as Beethoven had been, as in a still
greater degree Mozart had been; with Schumann German music was
threatened with its greatest danger, that of LOSING THE VOICE FOR
THE SOUL OF EUROPE and sinking into a merely national affair.

246. What a torture are books written in German to a reader who
has a THIRD ear! How indignantly he stands beside the slowly
turning swamp of sounds without tune and rhythms without dance,
which Germans call a "book"! And even the German who READS books!
How lazily, how reluctantly, how badly he reads! How many Germans
know, and consider it obligatory to know, that there is ART in
every good sentence--art which must be divined, if the sentence
is to be understood! If there is a misunderstanding about its
TEMPO, for instance, the sentence itself is misunderstood! That
one must not be doubtful about the rhythm-determining syllables,
that one should feel the breaking of the too-rigid symmetry as
intentional and as a charm, that one should lend a fine and
patient ear to every STACCATO and every RUBATO, that one should
divine the sense in the sequence of the vowels and diphthongs,
and how delicately and richly they can be tinted and retinted in
the order of their arrangement--who among book-reading Germans is
complaisant enough to recognize such duties and requirements, and
to listen to so much art and intention in language? After all,
one just "has no ear for it"; and so the most marked contrasts of
style are not heard, and the most delicate artistry is as it were
SQUANDERED on the deaf.--These were my thoughts when I noticed
how clumsily and unintuitively two masters in the art of prose-
writing have been confounded: one, whose words drop down
hesitatingly and coldly, as from the roof of a damp cave--he
counts on their dull sound and echo; and another who manipulates
his language like a flexible sword, and from his arm down into
his toes feels the dangerous bliss of the quivering, over-sharp
blade, which wishes to bite, hiss, and cut.

247. How little the German style has to do with harmony and with
the ear, is shown by the fact that precisely our good musicians
themselves write badly. The German does not read aloud, he does
not read for the ear, but only with his eyes; he has put his ears
away in the drawer for the time. In antiquity when a man read--
which was seldom enough--he read something to himself, and in a
loud voice; they were surprised when any one read silently, and
sought secretly the reason of it. In a loud voice: that is to
say, with all the swellings, inflections, and variations of key
and changes of TEMPO, in which the ancient PUBLIC world took
delight. The laws of the written style were then the same as
those of the spoken style; and these laws depended partly on the
surprising development and refined requirements of the ear and
larynx; partly on the strength, endurance, and power of the
ancient lungs. In the ancient sense, a period is above all a
physiological whole, inasmuch as it is comprised in one breath.
Such periods as occur in Demosthenes and Cicero, swelling twice
and sinking twice, and all in one breath, were pleasures to the
men of ANTIQUITY, who knew by their own schooling how to
appreciate the virtue therein, the rareness and the difficulty in
the deliverance of such a period;--WE have really no right to the
BIG period, we modern men, who are short of breath in every
sense! Those ancients, indeed, were all of them dilettanti in
speaking, consequently connoisseurs, consequently critics--they
thus brought their orators to the highest pitch; in the same
manner as in the last century, when all Italian ladies and
gentlemen knew how to sing, the virtuosoship of song (and with it
also the art of melody) reached its elevation. In Germany,
however (until quite recently when a kind of platform eloquence
began shyly and awkwardly enough to flutter its young wings),
there was properly speaking only one kind of public and
APPROXIMATELY artistical discourse--that delivered from the
pulpit. The preacher was the only one in Germany who knew the
weight of a syllable or a word, in what manner a sentence
strikes, springs, rushes, flows, and comes to a close; he alone
had a conscience in his ears, often enough a bad conscience: for
reasons are not lacking why proficiency in oratory should be
especially seldom attained by a German, or almost always too
late. The masterpiece of German prose is therefore with good
reason the masterpiece of its greatest preacher: the BIBLE has
hitherto been the best German book. Compared with Luther's Bible,
almost everything else is merely "literature"--something which
has not grown in Germany, and therefore has not taken and does
not take root in German hearts, as the Bible has done.

248. There are two kinds of geniuses: one which above all
engenders and seeks to engender, and another which willingly lets
itself be fructified and brings forth. And similarly, among the
gifted nations, there are those on whom the woman's problem of
pregnancy has devolved, and the secret task of forming, maturing,
and perfecting--the Greeks, for instance, were a nation of this
kind, and so are the French; and others which have to fructify
and become the cause of new modes of life--like the Jews, the
Romans, and, in all modesty be it asked: like the Germans?--
nations tortured and enraptured by unknown fevers and
irresistibly forced out of themselves, amorous and longing for
foreign races (for such as "let themselves be fructified"), and
withal imperious, like everything conscious of being full of
generative force, and consequently empowered "by the grace of
God." These two kinds of geniuses seek each other like man and
woman; but they also misunderstand each other--like man and

249. Every nation has its own "Tartuffery," and calls that its
virtue.--One does not know--cannot know, the best that is in one.

250. What Europe owes to the Jews?--Many things, good and bad,
and above all one thing of the nature both of the best and the
worst: the grand style in morality, the fearfulness and majesty
of infinite demands, of infinite significations, the whole
Romanticism and sublimity of moral questionableness--and
consequently just the most attractive, ensnaring, and exquisite
element in those iridescences and allurements to life, in the
aftersheen of which the sky of our European culture, its evening
sky, now glows--perhaps glows out. For this, we artists among the
spectators and philosophers, are--grateful to the Jews.

251. It must be taken into the bargain, if various clouds and
disturbances--in short, slight attacks of stupidity--pass over
the spirit of a people that suffers and WANTS to suffer from
national nervous fever and political ambition: for instance,
among present-day Germans there is alternately the anti-French
folly, the anti-Semitic folly, the anti-Polish folly, the
Christian-romantic folly, the Wagnerian folly, the Teutonic
folly, the Prussian folly (just look at those poor historians,
the Sybels and Treitschkes, and their closely bandaged heads),
and whatever else these little obscurations of the German spirit
and conscience may be called. May it be forgiven me that I, too,
when on a short daring sojourn on very infected ground, did not
remain wholly exempt from the disease, but like every one else,
began to entertain thoughts about matters which did not concern
me--the first symptom of political infection. About the Jews, for
instance, listen to the following:--I have never yet met a German
who was favourably inclined to the Jews; and however decided the
repudiation of actual anti-Semitism may be on the part of all
prudent and political men, this prudence and policy is not
perhaps directed against the nature of the sentiment itself, but
only against its dangerous excess, and especially against the
distasteful and infamous expression of this excess of sentiment;
--on this point we must not deceive ourselves. That Germany has
amply SUFFICIENT Jews, that the German stomach, the German blood,
has difficulty (and will long have difficulty) in disposing only
of this quantity of "Jew"--as the Italian, the Frenchman, and the
Englishman have done by means of a stronger digestion:--that is
the unmistakable declaration and language of a general instinct,
to which one must listen and according to which one must act.
"Let no more Jews come in! And shut the doors, especially towards
the East (also towards Austria)!"--thus commands the instinct of
a people whose nature is still feeble and uncertain, so that it
could be easily wiped out, easily extinguished, by a stronger
race. The Jews, however, are beyond all doubt the strongest,
toughest, and purest race at present living in Europe, they know
how to succeed even under the worst conditions (in fact better
than under favourable ones), by means of virtues of some sort,
which one would like nowadays to label as vices--owing above all
to a resolute faith which does not need to be ashamed before
"modern ideas", they alter only, WHEN they do alter, in the same
way that the Russian Empire makes its conquest--as an empire that
has plenty of time and is not of yesterday--namely, according to
the principle, "as slowly as possible"! A thinker who has the
future of Europe at heart, will, in all his perspectives
concerning the future, calculate upon the Jews, as he will
calculate upon the Russians, as above all the surest and
likeliest factors in the great play and battle of forces. That
which is at present called a "nation" in Europe, and is really
rather a RES FACTA than NATA (indeed, sometimes confusingly
similar to a RES FICTA ET PICTA), is in every case something
evolving, young, easily displaced, and not yet a race, much less
such a race AERE PERENNUS, as the Jews are such "nations" should
most carefully avoid all hotheaded rivalry and hostility! It is
certain that the Jews, if they desired--or if they were driven to
it, as the anti-Semites seem to wish--COULD now have the
ascendancy, nay, literally the supremacy, over Europe, that they
are NOT working and planning for that end is equally certain.
Meanwhile, they rather wish and desire, even somewhat
importunely, to be insorbed and absorbed by Europe, they long to
be finally settled, authorized, and respected somewhere, and wish
to put an end to the nomadic life, to the "wandering Jew",--and
one should certainly take account of this impulse and tendency,
and MAKE ADVANCES to it (it possibly betokens a mitigation of the
Jewish instincts) for which purpose it would perhaps be useful
and fair to banish the anti-Semitic bawlers out of the country.
One should make advances with all prudence, and with selection,
pretty much as the English nobility do It stands to reason that
the more powerful and strongly marked types of new Germanism
could enter into relation with the Jews with the least
hesitation, for instance, the nobleman officer from the Prussian
border it would be interesting in many ways to see whether the
genius for money and patience (and especially some intellect and
intellectuality--sadly lacking in the place referred to) could
not in addition be annexed and trained to the hereditary art of
commanding and obeying--for both of which the country in question
has now a classic reputation But here it is expedient to break
off my festal discourse and my sprightly Teutonomania for I have
already reached my SERIOUS TOPIC, the "European problem," as I
understand it, the rearing of a new ruling caste for Europe.

252. They are not a philosophical race--the English: Bacon
represents an ATTACK on the philosophical spirit generally,
Hobbes, Hume, and Locke, an abasement, and a depreciation of the
idea of a "philosopher" for more than a century. It was AGAINST
Hume that Kant uprose and raised himself; it was Locke of whom
Schelling RIGHTLY said, "JE MEPRISE LOCKE"; in the struggle
against the English mechanical stultification of the world, Hegel
and Schopenhauer (along with Goethe) were of one accord; the two
hostile brother-geniuses in philosophy, who pushed in different
directions towards the opposite poles of German thought, and
thereby wronged each other as only brothers will do.--What is
lacking in England, and has always been lacking, that half-actor
and rhetorician knew well enough, the absurd muddle-head,
Carlyle, who sought to conceal under passionate grimaces what he
knew about himself: namely, what was LACKING in Carlyle--real
POWER of intellect, real DEPTH of intellectual perception, in
short, philosophy. It is characteristic of such an
unphilosophical race to hold on firmly to Christianity--they NEED
its discipline for "moralizing" and humanizing. The Englishman,
more gloomy, sensual, headstrong, and brutal than the German--is
for that very reason, as the baser of the two, also the most
pious: he has all the MORE NEED of Christianity. To finer
nostrils, this English Christianity itself has still a
characteristic English taint of spleen and alcoholic excess, for
which, owing to good reasons, it is used as an antidote--the
finer poison to neutralize the coarser: a finer form of poisoning
is in fact a step in advance with coarse-mannered people, a step
towards spiritualization. The English coarseness and rustic
demureness is still most satisfactorily disguised by Christian
pantomime, and by praying and psalm-singing (or, more correctly,
it is thereby explained and differently expressed); and for the
herd of drunkards and rakes who formerly learned moral grunting
under the influence of Methodism (and more recently as the
"Salvation Army"), a penitential fit may really be the relatively
highest manifestation of "humanity" to which they can be
elevated: so much may reasonably be admitted. That, however,
which offends even in the humanest Englishman is his lack of
music, to speak figuratively (and also literally): he has neither
rhythm nor dance in the movements of his soul and body; indeed,
not even the desire for rhythm and dance, for "music." Listen to
him speaking; look at the most beautiful Englishwoman WALKING--in
no country on earth are there more beautiful doves and swans;
finally, listen to them singing! But I ask too much . . .

253. There are truths which are best recognized by mediocre
minds, because they are best adapted for them, there are truths
which only possess charms and seductive power for mediocre
spirits:--one is pushed to this probably unpleasant conclusion,
now that the influence of respectable but mediocre Englishmen--I
may mention Darwin, John Stuart Mill, and Herbert Spencer--begins
to gain the ascendancy in the middle-class region of European
taste. Indeed, who could doubt that it is a useful thing for SUCH
minds to have the ascendancy for a time? It would be an error to
consider the highly developed and independently soaring minds as
specially qualified for determining and collecting many little
common facts, and deducing conclusions from them; as exceptions,
they are rather from the first in no very favourable position
towards those who are "the rules." After all, they have more to
do than merely to perceive:--in effect, they have to BE something
new, they have to SIGNIFY something new, they have to REPRESENT
new values! The gulf between knowledge and capacity is perhaps
greater, and also more mysterious, than one thinks: the capable
man in the grand style, the creator, will possibly have to be an
ignorant person;--while on the other hand, for scientific
discoveries like those of Darwin, a certain narrowness, aridity,
and industrious carefulness (in short, something English) may not
be unfavourable for arriving at them.--Finally, let it not be
forgotten that the English, with their profound mediocrity,
brought about once before a general depression of European

What is called "modern ideas," or "the ideas of the eighteenth
century," or "French ideas"--that, consequently, against which
the GERMAN mind rose up with profound disgust--is of English
origin, there is no doubt about it. The French were only the apes
and actors of these ideas, their best soldiers, and likewise,
alas! their first and profoundest VICTIMS; for owing to the
diabolical Anglomania of "modern ideas," the AME FRANCAIS has in
the end become so thin and emaciated, that at present one recalls
its sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, its profound, passionate
strength, its inventive excellency, almost with disbelief. One
must, however, maintain this verdict of historical justice in a
determined manner, and defend it against present prejudices and
appearances: the European NOBLESSE--of sentiment, taste, and
manners, taking the word in every high sense--is the work and
invention of FRANCE; the European ignobleness, the plebeianism of
modern ideas--is ENGLAND'S work and invention.

254. Even at present France is still the seat of the most
intellectual and refined culture of Europe, it is still the high
school of taste; but one must know how to find this "France of
taste." He who belongs to it keeps himself well concealed:--they
may be a small number in whom it lives and is embodied, besides
perhaps being men who do not stand upon the strongest legs, in
part fatalists, hypochondriacs, invalids, in part persons over-
indulged, over-refined, such as have the AMBITION to conceal

They have all something in common: they keep their ears closed in
presence of the delirious folly and noisy spouting of the
democratic BOURGEOIS. In fact, a besotted and brutalized France
at present sprawls in the foreground--it recently celebrated a
veritable orgy of bad taste, and at the same time of self-
admiration, at the funeral of Victor Hugo. There is also
something else common to them: a predilection to resist
intellectual Germanizing--and a still greater inability to do so!
In this France of intellect, which is also a France of pessimism,
Schopenhauer has perhaps become more at home, and more indigenous
than he has ever been in Germany; not to speak of Heinrich Heine,
who has long ago been re-incarnated in the more refined and
fastidious lyrists of Paris; or of Hegel, who at present, in the
form of Taine--the FIRST of living historians--exercises an
almost tyrannical influence. As regards Richard Wagner, however,
the more French music learns to adapt itself to the actual needs
of the AME MODERNE, the more will it "Wagnerite"; one can safely
predict that beforehand,--it is already taking place
sufficiently! There are, however, three things which the French
can still boast of with pride as their heritage and possession,
and as indelible tokens of their ancient intellectual superiority
in Europe, in spite of all voluntary or involuntary Germanizing
and vulgarizing of taste. FIRSTLY, the capacity for artistic
emotion, for devotion to "form," for which the expression, L'ART
POUR L'ART, along with numerous others, has been invented:--such
capacity has not been lacking in France for three centuries; and
owing to its reverence for the "small number," it has again and
again made a sort of chamber music of literature possible, which
is sought for in vain elsewhere in Europe.--The SECOND thing
whereby the French can lay claim to a superiority over Europe is
their ancient, many-sided, MORALISTIC culture, owing to which one
finds on an average, even in the petty ROMANCIERS of the
newspapers and chance BOULEVARDIERS DE PARIS, a psychological
sensitiveness and curiosity, of which, for example, one has no
conception (to say nothing of the thing itself!) in Germany. The
Germans lack a couple of centuries of the moralistic work
requisite thereto, which, as we have said, France has not
grudged: those who call the Germans "naive" on that account give
them commendation for a defect. (As the opposite of the German
inexperience and innocence IN VOLUPTATE PSYCHOLOGICA, which is
not too remotely associated with the tediousness of German
intercourse,--and as the most successful expression of genuine
French curiosity and inventive talent in this domain of delicate
thrills, Henri Beyle may be noted; that remarkable anticipatory
and forerunning man, who, with a Napoleonic TEMPO, traversed HIS
Europe, in fact, several centuries of the European soul, as a
surveyor and discoverer thereof:--it has required two generations
to OVERTAKE him one way or other, to divine long afterwards some
of the riddles that perplexed and enraptured him--this strange
Epicurean and man of interrogation, the last great psychologist
of France).--There is yet a THIRD claim to superiority: in the
French character there is a successful half-way synthesis of the
North and South, which makes them comprehend many things, and
enjoins upon them other things, which an Englishman can never
comprehend. Their temperament, turned alternately to and from the
South, in which from time to time the Provencal and Ligurian
blood froths over, preserves them from the dreadful, northern
grey-in-grey, from sunless conceptual-spectrism and from poverty
of blood--our GERMAN infirmity of taste, for the excessive
prevalence of which at the present moment, blood and iron, that
is to say "high politics," has with great resolution been
prescribed (according to a dangerous healing art, which bids me
wait and wait, but not yet hope).--There is also still in France
a pre-understanding and ready welcome for those rarer and rarely
gratified men, who are too comprehensive to find satisfaction in
any kind of fatherlandism, and know how to love the South when in
the North and the North when in the South--the born Midlanders,
the "good Europeans." For them BIZET has made music, this latest
genius, who has seen a new beauty and seduction,--who has
discovered a piece of the SOUTH IN MUSIC.

255. I hold that many precautions should be taken against German
music. Suppose a person loves the South as I love it--as a great
school of recovery for the most spiritual and the most sensuous
ills, as a boundless solar profusion and effulgence which
o'erspreads a sovereign existence believing in itself--well, such
a person will learn to be somewhat on his guard against German
music, because, in injuring his taste anew, it will also injure
his health anew. Such a Southerner, a Southerner not by origin
but by BELIEF, if he should dream of the future of music, must
also dream of it being freed from the influence of the North; and
must have in his ears the prelude to a deeper, mightier, and
perhaps more perverse and mysterious music, a super-German music,
which does not fade, pale, and die away, as all German music
does, at the sight of the blue, wanton sea and the Mediterranean
clearness of sky--a super-European music, which holds its own
even in presence of the brown sunsets of the desert, whose soul
is akin to the palm-tree, and can be at home and can roam with
big, beautiful, lonely beasts of prey . . . I could imagine a music
of which the rarest charm would be that it knew nothing more of
good and evil; only that here and there perhaps some sailor's
home-sickness, some golden shadows and tender weaknesses might
sweep lightly over it; an art which, from the far distance, would
see the colours of a sinking and almost incomprehensible MORAL
world fleeing towards it, and would be hospitable enough and
profound enough to receive such belated fugitives.

256. Owing to the morbid estrangement which the nationality-craze
has induced and still induces among the nations of Europe, owing
also to the short-sighted and hasty-handed politicians, who with
the help of this craze, are at present in power, and do not
suspect to what extent the disintegrating policy they pursue must
necessarily be only an interlude policy--owing to all this and
much else that is altogether unmentionable at present, the most
unmistakable signs that EUROPE WISHES TO BE ONE, are now
overlooked, or arbitrarily and falsely misinterpreted. With all
the more profound and large-minded men of this century, the real
general tendency of the mysterious labour of their souls was to
prepare the way for that new SYNTHESIS, and tentatively to
anticipate the European of the future; only in their simulations,
or in their weaker moments, in old age perhaps, did they belong
to the "fatherlands"--they only rested from themselves when they
became "patriots." I think of such men as Napoleon, Goethe,
Beethoven, Stendhal, Heinrich Heine, Schopenhauer: it must not be
taken amiss if I also count Richard Wagner among them, about whom
one must not let oneself be deceived by his own misunderstandings
(geniuses like him have seldom the right to understand
themselves), still less, of course, by the unseemly noise with
which he is now resisted and opposed in France: the fact remains,
nevertheless, that Richard Wagner and the LATER FRENCH
ROMANTICISM of the forties, are most closely and intimately
related to one another. They are akin, fundamentally akin, in all
the heights and depths of their requirements; it is Europe, the
ONE Europe, whose soul presses urgently and longingly, outwards
and upwards, in their multifarious and boisterous art--whither?
into a new light? towards a new sun? But who would attempt to
express accurately what all these masters of new modes of speech
could not express distinctly? It is certain that the same storm
and stress tormented them, that they SOUGHT in the same manner,
these last great seekers! All of them steeped in literature to
their eyes and ears--the first artists of universal literary
culture--for the most part even themselves writers, poets,
intermediaries and blenders of the arts and the senses (Wagner,
as musician is reckoned among painters, as poet among musicians,
as artist generally among actors); all of them fanatics for
EXPRESSION "at any cost"--I specially mention Delacroix, the
nearest related to Wagner; all of them great discoverers in the
realm of the sublime, also of the loathsome and dreadful, still
greater discoverers in effect, in display, in the art of the
show-shop; all of them talented far beyond their genius, out and
out VIRTUOSI, with mysterious accesses to all that seduces,
allures, constrains, and upsets; born enemies of logic and of the
straight line, hankering after the strange, the exotic, the
monstrous, the crooked, and the self-contradictory; as men,
Tantaluses of the will, plebeian parvenus, who knew themselves to
be incapable of a noble TEMPO or of a LENTO in life and action--
think of Balzac, for instance,--unrestrained workers, almost
destroying themselves by work; antinomians and rebels in manners,
ambitious and insatiable, without equilibrium and enjoyment; all
of them finally shattering and sinking down at the Christian
cross (and with right and reason, for who of them would have been
sufficiently profound and sufficiently original for an ANTI-
CHRISTIAN philosophy?);--on the whole, a boldly daring,
splendidly overbearing, high-flying, and aloft-up-dragging class
of higher men, who had first to teach their century-and it is the
century of the MASSES--the conception "higher man." . . . Let the
German friends of Richard Wagner advise together as to whether
there is anything purely German in the Wagnerian art, or whether
its distinction does not consist precisely in coming from SUPER-
GERMAN sources and impulses: in which connection it may not be
underrated how indispensable Paris was to the development of his
type, which the strength of his instincts made him long to visit
at the most decisive time--and how the whole style of his
proceedings, of his self-apostolate, could only perfect itself in
sight of the French socialistic original. On a more subtle
comparison it will perhaps be found, to the honour of Richard
Wagner's German nature, that he has acted in everything with more
strength, daring, severity, and elevation than a nineteenth-
century Frenchman could have done--owing to the circumstance that
we Germans are as yet nearer to barbarism than the French;--
perhaps even the most remarkable creation of Richard Wagner is
not only at present, but for ever inaccessible, incomprehensible,
and inimitable to the whole latter-day Latin race: the figure of
Siegfried, that VERY FREE man, who is probably far too free, too
hard, too cheerful, too healthy, too ANTI-CATHOLIC for the taste
of old and mellow civilized nations. He may even have been a sin
against Romanticism, this anti-Latin Siegfried: well, Wagner
atoned amply for this sin in his old sad days, when--anticipating
a taste which has meanwhile passed into politics--he began, with
the religious vehemence peculiar to him, to preach, at least, THE
WAY TO ROME, if not to walk therein.--That these last words may
not be misunderstood, I will call to my aid a few powerful
rhymes, which will even betray to less delicate ears what I mean
--what I mean COUNTER TO the "last Wagner" and his Parsifal music:--

--Is this our mode?--From German heart came this vexed ululating?
From German body, this self-lacerating? Is ours this priestly
hand-dilation, This incense-fuming exaltation? Is ours this
faltering, falling, shambling, This quite uncertain ding-dong-
dangling? This sly nun-ogling, Ave-hour-bell ringing, This wholly
false enraptured heaven-o'erspringing?--Is this our mode?--Think
well!--ye still wait for admission--For what ye hear is ROME--



257. EVERY elevation of the type "man," has hitherto been the
work of an aristocratic society and so it will always be--a
society believing in a long scale of gradations of rank and
differences of worth among human beings, and requiring slavery in
some form or other. Without the PATHOS OF DISTANCE, such as grows
out of the incarnated difference of classes, out of the constant
out-looking and down-looking of the ruling caste on subordinates
and instruments, and out of their equally constant practice of
obeying and commanding, of keeping down and keeping at a
distance--that other more mysterious pathos could never have
arisen, the longing for an ever new widening of distance within
the soul itself, the formation of ever higher, rarer, further,
more extended, more comprehensive states, in short, just the
elevation of the type "man," the continued "self-surmounting of
man," to use a moral formula in a supermoral sense. To be sure,
one must not resign oneself to any humanitarian illusions about
the history of the origin of an aristocratic society (that is to
say, of the preliminary condition for the elevation of the type
"man"): the truth is hard. Let us acknowledge unprejudicedly how
every higher civilization hitherto has ORIGINATED! Men with a
still natural nature, barbarians in every terrible sense of the
word, men of prey, still in possession of unbroken strength of
will and desire for power, threw themselves upon weaker, more
moral, more peaceful races (perhaps trading or cattle-rearing
communities), or upon old mellow civilizations in which the final
vital force was flickering out in brilliant fireworks of wit and
depravity. At the commencement, the noble caste was always the
barbarian caste: their superiority did not consist first of all
in their physical, but in their psychical power--they were more
COMPLETE men (which at every point also implies the same as "more
complete beasts").

258. Corruption--as the indication that anarchy threatens to
break out among the instincts, and that the foundation of the
emotions, called "life," is convulsed--is something radically
different according to the organization in which it manifests
itself. When, for instance, an aristocracy like that of France at
the beginning of the Revolution, flung away its privileges with
sublime disgust and sacrificed itself to an excess of its moral
sentiments, it was corruption:--it was really only the closing
act of the corruption which had existed for centuries, by virtue
of which that aristocracy had abdicated step by step its lordly
prerogatives and lowered itself to a FUNCTION of royalty (in the
end even to its decoration and parade-dress). The essential
thing, however, in a good and healthy aristocracy is that it
should not regard itself as a function either of the kingship or
the commonwealth, but as the SIGNIFICANCE and highest
justification thereof--that it should therefore accept with a
good conscience the sacrifice of a legion of individuals, who,
FOR ITS SAKE, must be suppressed and reduced to imperfect men, to
slaves and instruments. Its fundamental belief must be precisely
that society is NOT allowed to exist for its own sake, but only
as a foundation and scaffolding, by means of which a select class
of beings may be able to elevate themselves to their higher
duties, and in general to a higher EXISTENCE: like those sun-
seeking climbing plants in Java--they are called Sipo Matador,--
which encircle an oak so long and so often with their arms, until
at last, high above it, but supported by it, they can unfold
their tops in the open light, and exhibit their happiness.

259. To refrain mutually from injury, from violence, from
exploitation, and put one's will on a par with that of others:
this may result in a certain rough sense in good conduct among
individuals when the necessary conditions are given (namely, the
actual similarity of the individuals in amount of force and
degree of worth, and their co-relation within one organization).
As soon, however, as one wished to take this principle more
generally, and if possible even as the FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF
SOCIETY, it would immediately disclose what it really is--namely,
a Will to the DENIAL of life, a principle of dissolution and
decay. Here one must think profoundly to the very basis and
resist all sentimental weakness: life itself is ESSENTIALLY
appropriation, injury, conquest of the strange and weak,
suppression, severity, obtrusion of peculiar forms,
incorporation, and at the least, putting it mildest,
exploitation;--but why should one for ever use precisely these
words on which for ages a disparaging purpose has been stamped?
Even the organization within which, as was previously supposed,
the individuals treat each other as equal--it takes place in
every healthy aristocracy--must itself, if it be a living and not
a dying organization, do all that towards other bodies, which the
individuals within it refrain from doing to each other it will
have to be the incarnated Will to Power, it will endeavour to
grow, to gain ground, attract to itself and acquire ascendancy--
not owing to any morality or immorality, but because it LIVES,
and because life IS precisely Will to Power. On no point,
however, is the ordinary consciousness of Europeans more
unwilling to be corrected than on this matter, people now rave
everywhere, even under the guise of science, about coming
conditions of society in which "the exploiting character" is to
be absent--that sounds to my ears as if they promised to invent a
mode of life which should refrain from all organic functions.
"Exploitation" does not belong to a depraved, or imperfect and
primitive society it belongs to the nature of the living being as
a primary organic function, it is a consequence of the intrinsic
Will to Power, which is precisely the Will to Life--Granting that
as a theory this is a novelty--as a reality it is the FUNDAMENTAL
FACT of all history let us be so far honest towards ourselves!

260. In a tour through the many finer and coarser moralities
which have hitherto prevailed or still prevail on the earth, I
found certain traits recurring regularly together, and connected
with one another, until finally two primary types revealed
themselves to me, and a radical distinction was brought to light.
There is MASTER-MORALITY and SLAVE-MORALITY,--I would at once
add, however, that in all higher and mixed civilizations, there
are also attempts at the reconciliation of the two moralities,
but one finds still oftener the confusion and mutual
misunderstanding of them, indeed sometimes their close
juxtaposition--even in the same man, within one soul. The
distinctions of moral values have either originated in a ruling
caste, pleasantly conscious of being different from the ruled--or
among the ruled class, the slaves and dependents of all sorts. In
the first case, when it is the rulers who determine the
conception "good," it is the exalted, proud disposition which is
regarded as the distinguishing feature, and that which determines
the order of rank. The noble type of man separates from himself
the beings in whom the opposite of this exalted, proud
disposition displays itself he despises them. Let it at once be
noted that in this first kind of morality the antithesis "good"
and "bad" means practically the same as "noble" and
"despicable",--the antithesis "good" and "EVIL" is of a different
origin. The cowardly, the timid, the insignificant, and those
thinking merely of narrow utility are despised; moreover, also,
the distrustful, with their constrained glances, the self-
abasing, the dog-like kind of men who let themselves be abused,
the mendicant flatterers, and above all the liars:--it is a
fundamental belief of all aristocrats that the common people are
untruthful. "We truthful ones"--the nobility in ancient Greece
called themselves. It is obvious that everywhere the designations
of moral value were at first applied to MEN; and were only
derivatively and at a later period applied to ACTIONS; it is a
gross mistake, therefore, when historians of morals start with
questions like, "Why have sympathetic actions been praised?" The
noble type of man regards HIMSELF as a determiner of values; he
does not require to be approved of; he passes the judgment: "What
is injurious to me is injurious in itself;" he knows that it is he
himself only who confers honour on things; he is a CREATOR OF
VALUES. He honours whatever he recognizes in himself: such
morality equals self-glorification. In the foreground there is
the feeling of plenitude, of power, which seeks to overflow, the
happiness of high tension, the consciousness of a wealth which
would fain give and bestow:--the noble man also helps the
unfortunate, but not--or scarcely--out of pity, but rather from
an impulse generated by the super-abundance of power. The noble
man honours in himself the powerful one, him also who has power
over himself, who knows how to speak and how to keep silence, who
takes pleasure in subjecting himself to severity and hardness,
and has reverence for all that is severe and hard. "Wotan placed
a hard heart in my breast," says an old Scandinavian Saga: it is
thus rightly expressed from the soul of a proud Viking. Such a
type of man is even proud of not being made for sympathy; the
hero of the Saga therefore adds warningly: "He who has not a hard
heart when young, will never have one." The noble and brave who
think thus are the furthest removed from the morality which sees
precisely in sympathy, or in acting for the good of others, or in
DESINTERESSEMENT, the characteristic of the moral; faith in
oneself, pride in oneself, a radical enmity and irony towards
"selflessness," belong as definitely to noble morality, as do a
careless scorn and precaution in presence of sympathy and the
"warm heart."--It is the powerful who KNOW how to honour, it is
their art, their domain for invention. The profound reverence for
age and for tradition--all law rests on this double reverence,--
the belief and prejudice in favour of ancestors and unfavourable
to newcomers, is typical in the morality of the powerful; and if,
reversely, men of "modern ideas" believe almost instinctively in
"progress" and the "future," and are more and more lacking in
respect for old age, the ignoble origin of these "ideas" has
complacently betrayed itself thereby. A morality of the ruling
class, however, is more especially foreign and irritating to
present-day taste in the sternness of its principle that one has
duties only to one's equals; that one may act towards beings of a
lower rank, towards all that is foreign, just as seems good to
one, or "as the heart desires," and in any case "beyond good and
evil": it is here that sympathy and similar sentiments can have a
place. The ability and obligation to exercise prolonged gratitude
and prolonged revenge--both only within the circle of equals,--
artfulness in retaliation, RAFFINEMENT of the idea in friendship,
a certain necessity to have enemies (as outlets for the emotions
of envy, quarrelsomeness, arrogance--in fact, in order to be a
good FRIEND): all these are typical characteristics of the noble
morality, which, as has been pointed out, is not the morality of
"modern ideas," and is therefore at present difficult to realize,
and also to unearth and disclose.--It is otherwise with the
second type of morality, SLAVE-MORALITY. Supposing that the
abused, the oppressed, the suffering, the unemancipated, the
weary, and those uncertain of themselves should moralize, what
will be the common element in their moral estimates? Probably a
pessimistic suspicion with regard to the entire situation of man
will find expression, perhaps a condemnation of man, together
with his situation. The slave has an unfavourable eye for the
virtues of the powerful; he has a skepticism and distrust, a
REFINEMENT of distrust of everything "good" that is there
honoured--he would fain persuade himself that the very happiness
there is not genuine. On the other hand, THOSE qualities which
serve to alleviate the existence of sufferers are brought into
prominence and flooded with light; it is here that sympathy, the
kind, helping hand, the warm heart, patience, diligence,
humility, and friendliness attain to honour; for here these are
the most useful qualities, and almost the only means of
supporting the burden of existence. Slave-morality is essentially
the morality of utility. Here is the seat of the origin of the
famous antithesis "good" and "evil":--power and dangerousness are
assumed to reside in the evil, a certain dreadfulness, subtlety,
and strength, which do not admit of being despised. According to
slave-morality, therefore, the "evil" man arouses fear; according
to master-morality, it is precisely the "good" man who arouses
fear and seeks to arouse it, while the bad man is regarded as the
despicable being. The contrast attains its maximum when, in
accordance with the logical consequences of slave-morality, a
shade of depreciation--it may be slight and well-intentioned--at
last attaches itself to the "good" man of this morality; because,
according to the servile mode of thought, the good man must in
any case be the SAFE man: he is good-natured, easily deceived,
perhaps a little stupid, un bonhomme. Everywhere that slave-
morality gains the ascendancy, language shows a tendency to
approximate the significations of the words "good" and "stupid."-
-A last fundamental difference: the desire for FREEDOM, the
instinct for happiness and the refinements of the feeling of
liberty belong as necessarily to slave-morals and morality, as
artifice and enthusiasm in reverence and devotion are the regular
symptoms of an aristocratic mode of thinking and estimating.--
Hence we can understand without further detail why love AS A
PASSION--it is our European specialty--must absolutely be of
noble origin; as is well known, its invention is due to the
Provencal poet-cavaliers, those brilliant, ingenious men of the
"gai saber," to whom Europe owes so much, and almost owes itself.

261. Vanity is one of the things which are perhaps most difficult
for a noble man to understand: he will be tempted to deny it,
where another kind of man thinks he sees it self-evidently. The
problem for him is to represent to his mind beings who seek to
arouse a good opinion of themselves which they themselves do not
possess--and consequently also do not "deserve,"--and who yet
BELIEVE in this good opinion afterwards. This seems to him on the
one hand such bad taste and so self-disrespectful, and on the
other hand so grotesquely unreasonable, that he would like to
consider vanity an exception, and is doubtful about it in most
cases when it is spoken of. He will say, for instance: "I may be
mistaken about my value, and on the other hand may nevertheless
demand that my value should be acknowledged by others precisely
as I rate it:--that, however, is not vanity (but self-conceit,
or, in most cases, that which is called 'humility,' and also
'modesty')." Or he will even say: "For many reasons I can delight
in the good opinion of others, perhaps because I love and honour
them, and rejoice in all their joys, perhaps also because their
good opinion endorses and strengthens my belief in my own good
opinion, perhaps because the good opinion of others, even in
cases where I do not share it, is useful to me, or gives promise
of usefulness:--all this, however, is not vanity." The man of
noble character must first bring it home forcibly to his mind,
especially with the aid of history, that, from time immemorial,
in all social strata in any way dependent, the ordinary man WAS
only that which he PASSED FOR:--not being at all accustomed to
fix values, he did not assign even to himself any other value
than that which his master assigned to him (it is the peculiar
RIGHT OF MASTERS to create values). It may be looked upon as the
result of an extraordinary atavism, that the ordinary man, even
at present, is still always WAITING for an opinion about himself,
and then instinctively submitting himself to it; yet by no means
only to a "good" opinion, but also to a bad and unjust one
(think, for instance, of the greater part of the self-
appreciations and self-depreciations which believing women learn
from their confessors, and which in general the believing
Christian learns from his Church). In fact, conformably to the
slow rise of the democratic social order (and its cause, the
blending of the blood of masters and slaves), the originally
noble and rare impulse of the masters to assign a value to
themselves and to "think well" of themselves, will now be more
and more encouraged and extended; but it has at all times an
older, ampler, and more radically ingrained propensity opposed to
it--and in the phenomenon of "vanity" this older propensity
overmasters the younger. The vain person rejoices over EVERY good
opinion which he hears about himself (quite apart from the point
of view of its usefulness, and equally regardless of its truth or
falsehood), just as he suffers from every bad opinion: for he
subjects himself to both, he feels himself subjected to both, by
that oldest instinct of subjection which breaks forth in him.--It
is "the slave" in the vain man's blood, the remains of the
slave's craftiness--and how much of the "slave" is still left in
woman, for instance!--which seeks to SEDUCE to good opinions of
itself; it is the slave, too, who immediately afterwards falls
prostrate himself before these opinions, as though he had not
called them forth.--And to repeat it again: vanity is an atavism.

262. A SPECIES originates, and a type becomes established and
strong in the long struggle with essentially constant
UNFAVOURABLE conditions. On the other hand, it is known by the
experience of breeders that species which receive super-abundant
nourishment, and in general a surplus of protection and care,
immediately tend in the most marked way to develop variations,
and are fertile in prodigies and monstrosities (also in monstrous
vices). Now look at an aristocratic commonwealth, say an ancient
Greek polis, or Venice, as a voluntary or involuntary contrivance
for the purpose of REARING human beings; there are there men
beside one another, thrown upon their own resources, who want to
make their species prevail, chiefly because they MUST prevail, or
else run the terrible danger of being exterminated. The favour,
the super-abundance, the protection are there lacking under which
variations are fostered; the species needs itself as species, as
something which, precisely by virtue of its hardness, its
uniformity, and simplicity of structure, can in general prevail
and make itself permanent in constant struggle with its
neighbours, or with rebellious or rebellion-threatening vassals.
The most varied experience teaches it what are the qualities to
which it principally owes the fact that it still exists, in spite
of all Gods and men, and has hitherto been victorious: these
qualities it calls virtues, and these virtues alone it develops
to maturity. It does so with severity, indeed it desires
severity; every aristocratic morality is intolerant in the
education of youth, in the control of women, in the marriage
customs, in the relations of old and young, in the penal laws
(which have an eye only for the degenerating): it counts
intolerance itself among the virtues, under the name of
"justice." A type with few, but very marked features, a species
of severe, warlike, wisely silent, reserved, and reticent men
(and as such, with the most delicate sensibility for the charm
and nuances of society) is thus established, unaffected by the
vicissitudes of generations; the constant struggle with uniform
UNFAVOURABLE conditions is, as already remarked, the cause of a
type becoming stable and hard. Finally, however, a happy state of
things results, the enormous tension is relaxed; there are
perhaps no more enemies among the neighbouring peoples, and the
means of life, even of the enjoyment of life, are present in
superabundance. With one stroke the bond and constraint of the
old discipline severs: it is no longer regarded as necessary, as
a condition of existence--if it would continue, it can only do so
as a form of LUXURY, as an archaizing TASTE. Variations, whether
they be deviations (into the higher, finer, and rarer), or
deteriorations and monstrosities, appear suddenly on the scene in
the greatest exuberance and splendour; the individual dares to be
individual and detach himself. At this turning-point of history
there manifest themselves, side by side, and often mixed and
entangled together, a magnificent, manifold, virgin-forest-like
up-growth and up-striving, a kind of TROPICAL TEMPO in the
rivalry of growth, and an extraordinary decay and self-
destruction, owing to the savagely opposing and seemingly
exploding egoisms, which strive with one another "for sun and
light," and can no longer assign any limit, restraint, or
forbearance for themselves by means of the hitherto existing
morality. It was this morality itself which piled up the strength
so enormously, which bent the bow in so threatening a manner:--it
is now "out of date," it is getting "out of date." The dangerous
and disquieting point has been reached when the greater, more
manifold, more comprehensive life IS LIVED BEYOND the old
morality; the "individual" stands out, and is obliged to have
recourse to his own law-giving, his own arts and artifices for
self-preservation, self-elevation, and self-deliverance. Nothing
but new "Whys," nothing but new "Hows," no common formulas any
longer, misunderstanding and disregard in league with each other,
decay, deterioration, and the loftiest desires frightfully
entangled, the genius of the race overflowing from all the
cornucopias of good and bad, a portentous simultaneousness of
Spring and Autumn, full of new charms and mysteries peculiar to
the fresh, still inexhausted, still unwearied corruption. Danger
is again present, the mother of morality, great danger; this time
shifted into the individual, into the neighbour and friend, into
the street, into their own child, into their own heart, into all
the most personal and secret recesses of their desires and
volitions. What will the moral philosophers who appear at this
time have to preach? They discover, these sharp onlookers and
loafers, that the end is quickly approaching, that everything
around them decays and produces decay, that nothing will endure
until the day after tomorrow, except one species of man, the
incurably MEDIOCRE. The mediocre alone have a prospect of
continuing and propagating themselves--they will be the men of
the future, the sole survivors; "be like them! become mediocre!"
is now the only morality which has still a significance, which
still obtains a hearing.--But it is difficult to preach this
morality of mediocrity! it can never avow what it is and what it
desires! it has to talk of moderation and dignity and duty and
brotherly love--it will have difficulty IN CONCEALING ITS IRONY!

263. There is an INSTINCT FOR RANK, which more than anything else
is already the sign of a HIGH rank; there is a DELIGHT in the
NUANCES of reverence which leads one to infer noble origin and
habits. The refinement, goodness, and loftiness of a soul are put
to a perilous test when something passes by that is of the
highest rank, but is not yet protected by the awe of authority
from obtrusive touches and incivilities: something that goes its
way like a living touchstone, undistinguished, undiscovered, and
tentative, perhaps voluntarily veiled and disguised. He whose
task and practice it is to investigate souls, will avail himself
of many varieties of this very art to determine the ultimate
value of a soul, the unalterable, innate order of rank to which
it belongs: he will test it by its INSTINCT FOR REVERENCE.
DIFFERENCE ENGENDRE HAINE: the vulgarity of many a nature spurts
up suddenly like dirty water, when any holy vessel, any jewel
from closed shrines, any book bearing the marks of great destiny,
is brought before it; while on the other hand, there is an
involuntary silence, a hesitation of the eye, a cessation of all
gestures, by which it is indicated that a soul FEELS the nearness
of what is worthiest of respect. The way in which, on the whole,
the reverence for the BIBLE has hitherto been maintained in
Europe, is perhaps the best example of discipline and refinement
of manners which Europe owes to Christianity: books of such
profoundness and supreme significance require for their
protection an external tyranny of authority, in order to acquire
the PERIOD of thousands of years which is necessary to exhaust
and unriddle them. Much has been achieved when the sentiment has
been at last instilled into the masses (the shallow-pates and the
boobies of every kind) that they are not allowed to touch
everything, that there are holy experiences before which they
must take off their shoes and keep away the unclean hand--it is
almost their highest advance towards humanity. On the contrary,
in the so-called cultured classes, the believers in "modern
ideas," nothing is perhaps so repulsive as their lack of shame,
the easy insolence of eye and hand with which they touch, taste,
and finger everything; and it is possible that even yet there is
more RELATIVE nobility of taste, and more tact for reverence
among the people, among the lower classes of the people,
especially among peasants, than among the newspaper-reading
DEMIMONDE of intellect, the cultured class.

264. It cannot be effaced from a man's soul what his ancestors
have preferably and most constantly done: whether they were
perhaps diligent economizers attached to a desk and a cash-box,
modest and citizen-like in their desires, modest also in their
virtues; or whether they were accustomed to commanding from
morning till night, fond of rude pleasures and probably of still
ruder duties and responsibilities; or whether, finally, at one
time or another, they have sacrificed old privileges of birth and
possession, in order to live wholly for their faith--for their
"God,"--as men of an inexorable and sensitive conscience, which
blushes at every compromise. It is quite impossible for a man NOT
to have the qualities and predilections of his parents and
ancestors in his constitution, whatever appearances may suggest
to the contrary. This is the problem of race. Granted that one
knows something of the parents, it is admissible to draw a
conclusion about the child: any kind of offensive incontinence,
any kind of sordid envy, or of clumsy self-vaunting--the three
things which together have constituted the genuine plebeian type
in all times--such must pass over to the child, as surely as bad
blood; and with the help of the best education and culture one
will only succeed in DECEIVING with regard to such heredity.--And
what else does education and culture try to do nowadays! In our
very democratic, or rather, very plebeian age, "education" and
"culture" MUST be essentially the art of deceiving--deceiving
with regard to origin, with regard to the inherited plebeianism
in body and soul. An educator who nowadays preached truthfulness
above everything else, and called out constantly to his pupils:
"Be true! Be natural! Show yourselves as you are!"--even such a
virtuous and sincere ass would learn in a short time to have
recourse to the FURCA of Horace, NATURAM EXPELLERE: with what
results? "Plebeianism" USQUE RECURRET. [FOOTNOTE: Horace's
"Epistles," I. x. 24.]

265. At the risk of displeasing innocent ears, I submit that
egoism belongs to the essence of a noble soul, I mean the
unalterable belief that to a being such as "we," other beings
must naturally be in subjection, and have to sacrifice
themselves. The noble soul accepts the fact of his egoism without
question, and also without consciousness of harshness,
constraint, or arbitrariness therein, but rather as something
that may have its basis in the primary law of things:--if he
sought a designation for it he would say: "It is justice itself."
He acknowledges under certain circumstances, which made him
hesitate at first, that there are other equally privileged ones;
as soon as he has settled this question of rank, he moves among
those equals and equally privileged ones with the same assurance,
as regards modesty and delicate respect, which he enjoys in
intercourse with himself--in accordance with an innate heavenly
mechanism which all the stars understand. It is an ADDITIONAL
instance of his egoism, this artfulness and self-limitation in
intercourse with his equals--every star is a similar egoist; he
honours HIMSELF in them, and in the rights which he concedes to
them, he has no doubt that the exchange of honours and rights, as
the ESSENCE of all intercourse, belongs also to the natural
condition of things. The noble soul gives as he takes, prompted
by the passionate and sensitive instinct of requital, which is at
the root of his nature. The notion of "favour" has, INTER PARES,
neither significance nor good repute; there may be a sublime way
of letting gifts as it were light upon one from above, and of
drinking them thirstily like dew-drops; but for those arts and
displays the noble soul has no aptitude. His egoism hinders him
here: in general, he looks "aloft" unwillingly--he looks either
FORWARD, horizontally and deliberately, or downwards--HE KNOWS

266. "One can only truly esteem him who does not LOOK OUT FOR
himself."--Goethe to Rath Schlosser.

267. The Chinese have a proverb which mothers even teach their
children: "SIAO-SIN" ("MAKE THY HEART SMALL"). This is the
essentially fundamental tendency in latter-day civilizations. I
have no doubt that an ancient Greek, also, would first of all
remark the self-dwarfing in us Europeans of today--in this
respect alone we should immediately be "distasteful" to him.

268. What, after all, is ignobleness?--Words are vocal symbols
for ideas; ideas, however, are more or less definite mental
symbols for frequently returning and concurring sensations, for
groups of sensations. It is not sufficient to use the same words
in order to understand one another: we must also employ the same
words for the same kind of internal experiences, we must in the
end have experiences IN COMMON. On this account the people of one
nation understand one another better than those belonging to
different nations, even when they use the same language; or
rather, when people have lived long together under similar
conditions (of climate, soil, danger, requirement, toil) there
ORIGINATES therefrom an entity that "understands itself"--namely,
a nation. In all souls a like number of frequently recurring
experiences have gained the upper hand over those occurring more
rarely: about these matters people understand one another rapidly
and always more rapidly--the history of language is the history
of a process of abbreviation; on the basis of this quick
comprehension people always unite closer and closer. The greater
the danger, the greater is the need of agreeing quickly and
readily about what is necessary; not to misunderstand one another
in danger--that is what cannot at all be dispensed with in
intercourse. Also in all loves and friendships one has the
experience that nothing of the kind continues when the discovery
has been made that in using the same words, one of the two
parties has feelings, thoughts, intuitions, wishes, or fears
different from those of the other. (The fear of the "eternal
misunderstanding": that is the good genius which so often keeps
persons of different sexes from too hasty attachments, to which
sense and heart prompt them--and NOT some Schopenhauerian "genius
of the species"!) Whichever groups of sensations within a soul
awaken most readily, begin to speak, and give the word of
command--these decide as to the general order of rank of its
values, and determine ultimately its list of desirable things. A
man's estimates of value betray something of the STRUCTURE of his
soul, and wherein it sees its conditions of life, its intrinsic
needs. Supposing now that necessity has from all time drawn
together only such men as could express similar requirements and
similar experiences by similar symbols, it results on the whole
that the easy COMMUNICABILITY of need, which implies ultimately
the undergoing only of average and COMMON experiences, must have
been the most potent of all the forces which have hitherto
operated upon mankind. The more similar, the more ordinary
people, have always had and are still having the advantage; the
more select, more refined, more unique, and difficultly
comprehensible, are liable to stand alone; they succumb to
accidents in their isolation, and seldom propagate themselves.
One must appeal to immense opposing forces, in order to thwart
this natural, all-too-natural PROGRESSUS IN SIMILE, the evolution
of man to the similar, the ordinary, the average, the gregarious
--to the IGNOBLE!--

269. The more a psychologist--a born, an unavoidable psychologist
and soul-diviner--turns his attention to the more select cases
and individuals, the greater is his danger of being suffocated by
sympathy: he NEEDS sternness and cheerfulness more than any other
man. For the corruption, the ruination of higher men, of the more
unusually constituted souls, is in fact, the rule: it is dreadful
to have such a rule always before one's eyes. The manifold
torment of the psychologist who has discovered this ruination,
who discovers once, and then discovers ALMOST repeatedly
throughout all history, this universal inner "desperateness" of
higher men, this eternal "too late!" in every sense--may perhaps
one day be the cause of his turning with bitterness against his
own lot, and of his making an attempt at self-destruction--of his
"going to ruin" himself. One may perceive in almost every
psychologist a tell-tale inclination for delightful intercourse
with commonplace and well-ordered men; the fact is thereby
disclosed that he always requires healing, that he needs a sort
of flight and forgetfulness, away from what his insight and
incisiveness--from what his "business"--has laid upon his
conscience. The fear of his memory is peculiar to him. He is
easily silenced by the judgment of others; he hears with unmoved
countenance how people honour, admire, love, and glorify, where
he has PERCEIVED--or he even conceals his silence by expressly
assenting to some plausible opinion. Perhaps the paradox of his
situation becomes so dreadful that, precisely where he has learnt
GREAT SYMPATHY, together with great CONTEMPT, the multitude, the
educated, and the visionaries, have on their part learnt great
reverence--reverence for "great men" and marvelous animals, for
the sake of whom one blesses and honours the fatherland, the
earth, the dignity of mankind, and one's own self, to whom one
points the young, and in view of whom one educates them. And who
knows but in all great instances hitherto just the same happened:
that the multitude worshipped a God, and that the "God" was only
a poor sacrificial animal! SUCCESS has always been the greatest
liar--and the "work" itself is a success; the great statesman,
the conqueror, the discoverer, are disguised in their creations
until they are unrecognizable; the "work" of the artist, of the
philosopher, only invents him who has created it, is REPUTED to
have created it; the "great men," as they are reverenced, are
poor little fictions composed afterwards; in the world of
historical values spurious coinage PREVAILS. Those great poets,
for example, such as Byron, Musset, Poe, Leopardi, Kleist, Gogol
(I do not venture to mention much greater names, but I have them
in my mind), as they now appear, and were perhaps obliged to be:
men of the moment, enthusiastic, sensuous, and childish, light-
minded and impulsive in their trust and distrust; with souls in
which usually some flaw has to be concealed; often taking revenge
with their works for an internal defilement, often seeking
forgetfulness in their soaring from a too true memory, often lost
in the mud and almost in love with it, until they become like the
Will-o'-the-Wisps around the swamps, and PRETEND TO BE stars--the
people then call them idealists,--often struggling with
protracted disgust, with an ever-reappearing phantom of
disbelief, which makes them cold, and obliges them to languish
for GLORIA and devour "faith as it is" out of the hands of
intoxicated adulators:--what a TORMENT these great artists are
and the so-called higher men in general, to him who has once
found them out! It is thus conceivable that it is just from
woman--who is clairvoyant in the world of suffering, and also
unfortunately eager to help and save to an extent far beyond her
powers--that THEY have learnt so readily those outbreaks of
boundless devoted SYMPATHY, which the multitude, above all the
reverent multitude, do not understand, and overwhelm with prying
and self-gratifying interpretations. This sympathizing invariably
deceives itself as to its power; woman would like to believe that
love can do EVERYTHING--it is the SUPERSTITION peculiar to her.
Alas, he who knows the heart finds out how poor, helpless,
pretentious, and blundering even the best and deepest love is--he
finds that it rather DESTROYS than saves!--It is possible that
under the holy fable and travesty of the life of Jesus there is
hidden one of the most painful cases of the martyrdom of
KNOWLEDGE ABOUT LOVE: the martyrdom of the most innocent and most
craving heart, that never had enough of any human love, that
DEMANDED love, that demanded inexorably and frantically to be
loved and nothing else, with terrible outbursts against those who
refused him their love; the story of a poor soul insatiated and
insatiable in love, that had to invent hell to send thither those
who WOULD NOT love him--and that at last, enlightened about human
love, had to invent a God who is entire love, entire CAPACITY for
love--who takes pity on human love, because it is so paltry, so
ignorant! He who has such sentiments, he who has such KNOWLEDGE
about love--SEEKS for death!--But why should one deal with such
painful matters? Provided, of course, that one is not obliged to
do so.

270. The intellectual haughtiness and loathing of every man who
has suffered deeply--it almost determines the order of rank HOW
deeply men can suffer--the chilling certainty, with which he is
thoroughly imbued and coloured, that by virtue of his suffering
he KNOWS MORE than the shrewdest and wisest can ever know, that
he has been familiar with, and "at home" in, many distant,
dreadful worlds of which "YOU know nothing"!--this silent
intellectual haughtiness of the sufferer, this pride of the elect
of knowledge, of the "initiated," of the almost sacrificed, finds
all forms of disguise necessary to protect itself from contact
with officious and sympathizing hands, and in general from all
that is not its equal in suffering. Profound suffering makes
noble: it separates.--One of the most refined forms of disguise
is Epicurism, along with a certain ostentatious boldness of
taste, which takes suffering lightly, and puts itself on the
defensive against all that is sorrowful and profound. They are
"gay men" who make use of gaiety, because they are misunderstood
on account of it--they WISH to be misunderstood. There are
"scientific minds" who make use of science, because it gives a
gay appearance, and because scientificness leads to the
conclusion that a person is superficial--they WISH to mislead to
a false conclusion. There are free insolent minds which would
fain conceal and deny that they are broken, proud, incurable
hearts (the cynicism of Hamlet--the case of Galiani); and
occasionally folly itself is the mask of an unfortunate OVER-
ASSURED knowledge.--From which it follows that it is the part of
a more refined humanity to have reverence "for the mask," and not
to make use of psychology and curiosity in the wrong place.

271. That which separates two men most profoundly is a different
sense and grade of purity. What does it matter about all their
honesty and reciprocal usefulness, what does it matter about all
their mutual good-will: the fact still remains--they "cannot
smell each other!" The highest instinct for purity places him who
is affected with it in the most extraordinary and dangerous
isolation, as a saint: for it is just holiness--the highest
spiritualization of the instinct in question. Any kind of
cognizance of an indescribable excess in the joy of the bath, any
kind of ardour or thirst which perpetually impels the soul out of
night into the morning, and out of gloom, out of "affliction"
into clearness, brightness, depth, and refinement:--just as much
as such a tendency DISTINGUISHES--it is a noble tendency--it also
SEPARATES.--The pity of the saint is pity for the FILTH of the
human, all-too-human. And there are grades and heights where pity
itself is regarded by him as impurity, as filth.

272. Signs of nobility: never to think of lowering our duties to
the rank of duties for everybody; to be unwilling to renounce or
to share our responsibilities; to count our prerogatives, and the
exercise of them, among our DUTIES.

273. A man who strives after great things, looks upon every one
whom he encounters on his way either as a means of advance, or a
delay and hindrance--or as a temporary resting-place. His
peculiar lofty BOUNTY to his fellow-men is only possible when he
attains his elevation and dominates. Impatience, and the
consciousness of being always condemned to comedy up to that
time--for even strife is a comedy, and conceals the end, as every
means does--spoil all intercourse for him; this kind of man is
acquainted with solitude, and what is most poisonous in it.

274. THE PROBLEM OF THOSE WHO WAIT.--Happy chances are necessary,
and many incalculable elements, in order that a higher man in
whom the solution of a problem is dormant, may yet take action,
or "break forth," as one might say--at the right moment. On an
average it DOES NOT happen; and in all corners of the earth there
are waiting ones sitting who hardly know to what extent they are
waiting, and still less that they wait in vain. Occasionally,
too, the waking call comes too late--the chance which gives
"permission" to take action--when their best youth, and strength
for action have been used up in sitting still; and how many a
one, just as he "sprang up," has found with horror that his limbs
are benumbed and his spirits are now too heavy! "It is too late,"
he has said to himself--and has become self-distrustful and
henceforth for ever useless.--In the domain of genius, may not
the "Raphael without hands" (taking the expression in its widest
sense) perhaps not be the exception, but the rule?--Perhaps
genius is by no means so rare: but rather the five hundred HANDS
which it requires in order to tyrannize over the [GREEK INSERTED
HERE], "the right time"--in order to take chance by the forelock!

275. He who does not WISH to see the height of a man, looks all
the more sharply at what is low in him, and in the foreground--
and thereby betrays himself.

276. In all kinds of injury and loss the lower and coarser soul
is better off than the nobler soul: the dangers of the latter
must be greater, the probability that it will come to grief and
perish is in fact immense, considering the multiplicity of the
conditions of its existence.--In a lizard a finger grows again
which has been lost; not so in man.--

277. It is too bad! Always the old story! When a man has finished
building his house, he finds that he has learnt unawares
something which he OUGHT absolutely to have known before he--
began to build. The eternal, fatal "Too late!" The melancholia of
everything COMPLETED!--

278.--Wanderer, who art thou? I see thee follow thy path without
scorn, without love, with unfathomable eyes, wet and sad as a
plummet which has returned to the light insatiated out of every
depth--what did it seek down there?--with a bosom that never
sighs, with lips that conceal their loathing, with a hand which
only slowly grasps: who art thou? what hast thou done? Rest thee
here: this place has hospitality for every one--refresh thyself!
And whoever thou art, what is it that now pleases thee? What will
serve to refresh thee? Only name it, whatever I have I offer
thee! "To refresh me? To refresh me? Oh, thou prying one, what
sayest thou! But give me, I pray thee---" What? what? Speak out!
"Another mask! A second mask!"

279. Men of profound sadness betray themselves when they are
happy: they have a mode of seizing upon happiness as though they
would choke and strangle it, out of jealousy--ah, they know only
too well that it will flee from them!

280. "Bad! Bad! What? Does he not--go back?" Yes! But you
misunderstand him when you complain about it. He goes back like
every one who is about to make a great spring.

281.--"Will people believe it of me? But I insist that they
believe it of me: I have always thought very unsatisfactorily of
myself and about myself, only in very rare cases, only
compulsorily, always without delight in 'the subject,' ready to
digress from 'myself,' and always without faith in the result,
owing to an unconquerable distrust of the POSSIBILITY of self-
knowledge, which has led me so far as to feel a CONTRADICTIO IN
ADJECTO even in the idea of 'direct knowledge' which theorists
allow themselves:--this matter of fact is almost the most certain
thing I know about myself. There must be a sort of repugnance in
me to BELIEVE anything definite about myself.--Is there perhaps
some enigma therein? Probably; but fortunately nothing for my own
teeth.--Perhaps it betrays the species to which I belong?--but
not to myself, as is sufficiently agreeable to me."

282.--"But what has happened to you?"--"I do not know," he said,
hesitatingly; "perhaps the Harpies have flown over my table."--It
sometimes happens nowadays that a gentle, sober, retiring man
becomes suddenly mad, breaks the plates, upsets the table,
shrieks, raves, and shocks everybody--and finally withdraws,
ashamed, and raging at himself--whither? for what purpose? To
famish apart? To suffocate with his memories?--To him who has the
desires of a lofty and dainty soul, and only seldom finds his
table laid and his food prepared, the danger will always be
great--nowadays, however, it is extraordinarily so. Thrown into
the midst of a noisy and plebeian age, with which he does not
like to eat out of the same dish, he may readily perish of hunger
and thirst--or, should he nevertheless finally "fall to," of
sudden nausea.--We have probably all sat at tables to which we
did not belong; and precisely the most spiritual of us, who are
most difficult to nourish, know the dangerous DYSPEPSIA which
originates from a sudden insight and disillusionment about our
food and our messmates--the AFTER-DINNER NAUSEA.

283. If one wishes to praise at all, it is a delicate and at the
same time a noble self-control, to praise only where one DOES NOT
agree--otherwise in fact one would praise oneself, which is
contrary to good taste:--a self-control, to be sure, which offers
excellent opportunity and provocation to constant
MISUNDERSTANDING. To be able to allow oneself this veritable
luxury of taste and morality, one must not live among
intellectual imbeciles, but rather among men whose
misunderstandings and mistakes amuse by their refinement--or one
will have to pay dearly for it!--"He praises me, THEREFORE he
acknowledges me to be right"--this asinine method of inference
spoils half of the life of us recluses, for it brings the asses
into our neighbourhood and friendship.

284. To live in a vast and proud tranquility; always beyond . . .
To have, or not to have, one's emotions, one's For and Against,
according to choice; to lower oneself to them for hours; to SEAT
oneself on them as upon horses, and often as upon asses:--for one
must know how to make use of their stupidity as well as of their
fire. To conserve one's three hundred foregrounds; also one's
black spectacles: for there are circumstances when nobody must
look into our eyes, still less into our "motives." And to choose
for company that roguish and cheerful vice, politeness. And to
remain master of one's four virtues, courage, insight, sympathy,
and solitude. For solitude is a virtue with us, as a sublime bent
and bias to purity, which divines that in the contact of man and
man--"in society"--it must be unavoidably impure. All society
makes one somehow, somewhere, or sometime--"commonplace."

285. The greatest events and thoughts--the greatest thoughts,
however, are the greatest events--are longest in being
comprehended: the generations which are contemporary with them do
not EXPERIENCE such events--they live past them. Something
happens there as in the realm of stars. The light of the furthest
stars is longest in reaching man; and before it has arrived man
DENIES--that there are stars there. "How many centuries does a
mind require to be understood?"--that is also a standard, one
also makes a gradation of rank and an etiquette therewith, such
as is necessary for mind and for star.

286. "Here is the prospect free, the mind exalted." [FOOTNOTE:
Goethe's "Faust," Part II, Act V. The words of Dr. Marianus.]--
But there is a reverse kind of man, who is also upon a height,
and has also a free prospect--but looks DOWNWARDS.

287. What is noble? What does the word "noble" still mean for us
nowadays? How does the noble man betray himself, how is he
recognized under this heavy overcast sky of the commencing
plebeianism, by which everything is rendered opaque and leaden?--
It is not his actions which establish his claim--actions are
always ambiguous, always inscrutable; neither is it his "works."
One finds nowadays among artists and scholars plenty of those who
betray by their works that a profound longing for nobleness
impels them; but this very NEED of nobleness is radically
different from the needs of the noble soul itself, and is in fact
the eloquent and dangerous sign of the lack thereof. It is not
the works, but the BELIEF which is here decisive and determines
the order of rank--to employ once more an old religious formula
with a new and deeper meaning--it is some fundamental certainty
which a noble soul has about itself, something which is not to be
sought, is not to be found, and perhaps, also, is not to be

288. There are men who are unavoidably intellectual, let them
turn and twist themselves as they will, and hold their hands
before their treacherous eyes--as though the hand were not a
betrayer; it always comes out at last that they have something
which they hide--namely, intellect. One of the subtlest means of
deceiving, at least as long as possible, and of successfully
representing oneself to be stupider than one really is--which in
everyday life is often as desirable as an umbrella,--is called
ENTHUSIASM, including what belongs to it, for instance, virtue.
For as Galiani said, who was obliged to know it: VERTU EST

289. In the writings of a recluse one always hears something of
the echo of the wilderness, something of the murmuring tones and
timid vigilance of solitude; in his strongest words, even in his
cry itself, there sounds a new and more dangerous kind of
silence, of concealment. He who has sat day and night, from
year's end to year's end, alone with his soul in familiar discord
and discourse, he who has become a cave-bear, or a treasure-
seeker, or a treasure-guardian and dragon in his cave--it may be
a labyrinth, but can also be a gold-mine--his ideas themselves
eventually acquire a twilight-colour of their own, and an odour,
as much of the depth as of the mould, something uncommunicative
and repulsive, which blows chilly upon every passerby. The
recluse does not believe that a philosopher--supposing that a
philosopher has always in the first place been a recluse--ever
expressed his actual and ultimate opinions in books: are not
books written precisely to hide what is in us?--indeed, he will
doubt whether a philosopher CAN have "ultimate and actual"
opinions at all; whether behind every cave in him there is not,
and must necessarily be, a still deeper cave: an ampler,
stranger, richer world beyond the surface, an abyss behind every
bottom, beneath every "foundation." Every philosophy is a
foreground philosophy--this is a recluse's verdict: "There is
something arbitrary in the fact that the PHILOSOPHER came to a
stand here, took a retrospect, and looked around; that he HERE
laid his spade aside and did not dig any deeper--there is also
something suspicious in it." Every philosophy also CONCEALS a
philosophy; every opinion is also a LURKING-PLACE, every word is
also a MASK.

290. Every deep thinker is more afraid of being understood than
of being misunderstood. The latter perhaps wounds his vanity; but
the former wounds his heart, his sympathy, which always says:
"Ah, why would you also have as hard a time of it as I have?"

291. Man, a COMPLEX, mendacious, artful, and inscrutable animal,
uncanny to the other animals by his artifice and sagacity, rather
than by his strength, has invented the good conscience in order
finally to enjoy his soul as something SIMPLE; and the whole of
morality is a long, audacious falsification, by virtue of which
generally enjoyment at the sight of the soul becomes possible.
From this point of view there is perhaps much more in the
conception of "art" than is generally believed.

292. A philosopher: that is a man who constantly experiences,
sees, hears, suspects, hopes, and dreams extraordinary things;
who is struck by his own thoughts as if they came from the
outside, from above and below, as a species of events and
lightning-flashes PECULIAR TO HIM; who is perhaps himself a storm
pregnant with new lightnings; a portentous man, around whom there
is always rumbling and mumbling and gaping and something uncanny
going on. A philosopher: alas, a being who often runs away from
himself, is often afraid of himself--but whose curiosity always
makes him "come to himself" again.

293. A man who says: "I like that, I take it for my own, and mean
to guard and protect it from every one"; a man who can conduct a
case, carry out a resolution, remain true to an opinion, keep
hold of a woman, punish and overthrow insolence; a man who has
his indignation and his sword, and to whom the weak, the
suffering, the oppressed, and even the animals willingly submit
and naturally belong; in short, a man who is a MASTER by nature--
when such a man has sympathy, well! THAT sympathy has value! But
of what account is the sympathy of those who suffer! Or of those
even who preach sympathy! There is nowadays, throughout almost
the whole of Europe, a sickly irritability and sensitiveness
towards pain, and also a repulsive irrestrainableness in
complaining, an effeminizing, which, with the aid of religion and
philosophical nonsense, seeks to deck itself out as something
superior--there is a regular cult of suffering. The UNMANLINESS
of that which is called "sympathy" by such groups of visionaries,
is always, I believe, the first thing that strikes the eye.--One
must resolutely and radically taboo this latest form of bad
taste; and finally I wish people to put the good amulet, "GAI
SABER" ("gay science," in ordinary language), on heart and neck,
as a protection against it.

294. THE OLYMPIAN VICE.--Despite the philosopher who, as a
genuine Englishman, tried to bring laughter into bad repute in
all thinking minds--"Laughing is a bad infirmity of human nature,
which every thinking mind will strive to overcome" (Hobbes),--I
would even allow myself to rank philosophers according to the
quality of their laughing--up to those who are capable of GOLDEN
laughter. And supposing that Gods also philosophize, which I am
strongly inclined to believe, owing to many reasons--I have no
doubt that they also know how to laugh thereby in an overman-like
and new fashion--and at the expense of all serious things! Gods
are fond of ridicule: it seems that they cannot refrain from
laughter even in holy matters.

295. The genius of the heart, as that great mysterious one
possesses it, the tempter-god and born rat-catcher of
consciences, whose voice can descend into the nether-world of
every soul, who neither speaks a word nor casts a glance in which
there may not be some motive or touch of allurement, to whose
perfection it pertains that he knows how to appear,--not as he
is, but in a guise which acts as an ADDITIONAL constraint on his
followers to press ever closer to him, to follow him more
cordially and thoroughly;--the genius of the heart, which imposes
silence and attention on everything loud and self-conceited,
which smoothes rough souls and makes them taste a new longing--to
lie placid as a mirror, that the deep heavens may be reflected in
them;--the genius of the heart, which teaches the clumsy and too
hasty hand to hesitate, and to grasp more delicately; which
scents the hidden and forgotten treasure, the drop of goodness
and sweet spirituality under thick dark ice, and is a divining-
rod for every grain of gold, long buried and imprisoned in mud
and sand; the genius of the heart, from contact with which every
one goes away richer; not favoured or surprised, not as though
gratified and oppressed by the good things of others; but richer
in himself, newer than before, broken up, blown upon, and sounded
by a thawing wind; more uncertain, perhaps, more delicate, more
fragile, more bruised, but full of hopes which as yet lack names,
full of a new will and current, full of a new ill-will and
counter-current . . . but what am I doing, my friends? Of whom am
I talking to you? Have I forgotten myself so far that I have not
even told you his name? Unless it be that you have already
divined of your own accord who this questionable God and spirit
is, that wishes to be PRAISED in such a manner? For, as it
happens to every one who from childhood onward has always been on
his legs, and in foreign lands, I have also encountered on my
path many strange and dangerous spirits; above all, however, and
again and again, the one of whom I have just spoken: in fact, no
less a personage than the God DIONYSUS, the great equivocator and
tempter, to whom, as you know, I once offered in all secrecy and
reverence my first-fruits--the last, as it seems to me, who has
offered a SACRIFICE to him, for I have found no one who could
understand what I was then doing. In the meantime, however, I
have learned much, far too much, about the philosophy of this
God, and, as I said, from mouth to mouth--I, the last disciple
and initiate of the God Dionysus: and perhaps I might at last
begin to give you, my friends, as far as I am allowed, a little
taste of this philosophy? In a hushed voice, as is but seemly:
for it has to do with much that is secret, new, strange,
wonderful, and uncanny. The very fact that Dionysus is a
philosopher, and that therefore Gods also philosophize, seems to
me a novelty which is not unensnaring, and might perhaps arouse
suspicion precisely among philosophers;--among you, my friends,
there is less to be said against it, except that it comes too
late and not at the right time; for, as it has been disclosed to
me, you are loth nowadays to believe in God and gods. It may
happen, too, that in the frankness of my story I must go further
than is agreeable to the strict usages of your ears? Certainly
the God in question went further, very much further, in such
dialogues, and was always many paces ahead of me . . . Indeed, if
it were allowed, I should have to give him, according to human
usage, fine ceremonious tides of lustre and merit, I should have
to extol his courage as investigator and discoverer, his fearless
honesty, truthfulness, and love of wisdom. But such a God does
not know what to do with all that respectable trumpery and pomp.
"Keep that," he would say, "for thyself and those like thee, and
whoever else require it! I--have no reason to cover my
nakedness!" One suspects that this kind of divinity and
philosopher perhaps lacks shame?--He once said: "Under certain
circumstances I love mankind"--and referred thereby to Ariadne,
who was present; "in my opinion man is an agreeable, brave,
inventive animal, that has not his equal upon earth, he makes his
way even through all labyrinths. I like man, and often think how
I can still further advance him, and make him stronger, more
evil, and more profound."--"Stronger, more evil, and more
profound?" I asked in horror. "Yes," he said again, "stronger,
more evil, and more profound; also more beautiful"--and thereby
the tempter-god smiled with his halcyon smile, as though he had
just paid some charming compliment. One here sees at once that it
is not only shame that this divinity lacks;--and in general there
are good grounds for supposing that in some things the Gods could
all of them come to us men for instruction. We men are--more

296. Alas! what are you, after all, my written and painted
thoughts! Not long ago you were so variegated, young and
malicious, so full of thorns and secret spices, that you made me
sneeze and laugh--and now? You have already doffed your novelty,
and some of you, I fear, are ready to become truths, so immortal
do they look, so pathetically honest, so tedious! And was it ever
otherwise? What then do we write and paint, we mandarins with
Chinese brush, we immortalisers of things which LEND themselves
to writing, what are we alone capable of painting? Alas, only
that which is just about to fade and begins to lose its odour!
Alas, only exhausted and departing storms and belated yellow
sentiments! Alas, only birds strayed and fatigued by flight,
which now let themselves be captured with the hand--with OUR
hand! We immortalize what cannot live and fly much longer, things
only which are exhausted and mellow! And it is only for your
AFTERNOON, you, my written and painted thoughts, for which alone
I have colours, many colours, perhaps, many variegated
softenings, and fifty yellows and browns and greens and reds;--
but nobody will divine thereby how ye looked in your morning, you
sudden sparks and marvels of my solitude, you, my old, beloved--
EVIL thoughts!


By F W Nietzsche

Translated by L A Magnus


MIDDAY of Life! Oh, season of delight!
My summer's park!
Uneaseful joy to look, to lurk, to hark--
I peer for friends, am ready day and night,--
Where linger ye, my friends? The time is right!


Is not the glacier's grey today for you
The brooklet seeks you, wind, cloud, with longing thread
And thrust themselves yet higher to the blue,
To spy for you from farthest eagle's view


My table was spread out for you on high--
Who dwelleth so
Star-near, so near the grisly pit below?--
My realm--what realm hath wider boundary?
My honey--who hath sipped its fragrancy?


Friends, ye are there! Woe me,--yet I am not
He whom ye seek?
Ye stare and stop--better your wrath could speak!
I am not I? Hand, gait, face, changed? And what
I am, to you my friends, now am I not?


Am I an other? Strange am I to Me?
Yet from Me sprung?
A wrestler, by himself too oft self-wrung?
Hindering too oft my own self's potency,
Wounded and hampered by self-victory?


I sought where-so the wind blows keenest. There
I learned to dwell
Where no man dwells, on lonesome ice-lorn fell,
And unlearned Man and God and curse and prayer?
Became a ghost haunting the glaciers bare?


Ye, my old friends! Look! Ye turn pale, filled o'er
With love and fear!
Go! Yet not in wrath. Ye could ne'er live here.
Here in the farthest realm of ice and scaur,
A huntsman must one be, like chamois soar.


An evil huntsman was I? See how taut
My bow was bent!
Strongest was he by whom such bolt were sent--
Woe now! That arrow is with peril fraught,
Perilous as none.--Have yon safe home ye sought!


Ye go! Thou didst endure enough, oh, heart;--
Strong was thy hope;
Unto new friends thy portals widely ope,
Let old ones be. Bid memory depart!
Wast thou young then, now--better young thou art!


What linked us once together, one hope's tie--
(Who now doth con
Those lines, now fading, Love once wrote thereon?)--
Is like a parchment, which the hand is shy
To touch--like crackling leaves, all seared, all dry.


Oh! Friends no more! They are--what name for those?--
Friends' phantom-flight
Knocking at my heart's window-pane at night,
Gazing on me, that speaks "We were" and goes,--
Oh, withered words, once fragrant as the rose!


Pinings of youth that might not understand!
For which I pined,
Which I deemed changed with me, kin of my kind:
But they grew old, and thus were doomed and banned:
None but new kith are native of my land!


Midday of life! My second youth's delight!
My summer's park!
Unrestful joy to long, to lurk, to hark!
I peer for friends!--am ready day and night,
For my new friends. Come! Come! The time is right!


This song is done,--the sweet sad cry of rue
Sang out its end;
A wizard wrought it, he the timely friend,
The midday-friend,--no, do not ask me who;
At midday 'twas, when one became as two.


We keep our Feast of Feasts, sure of our bourne,
Our aims self-same:
The Guest of Guests, friend Zarathustra, came!
The world now laughs, the grisly veil was torn,
And Light and Dark were one that wedding-morn.

End of Project Gutenberg's Beyond Good and Evil, by Friedrich Nietzsche

Udvalgte artikler
Filosofi: Dekonstruktion
Her introduceres dekonstruktionen som er en filosofi Jaques Derrida grundlagde.

Psykologi: Sigmund Freud og psykoanalysen
Her fremlægges psykoanalysen som er en af de væsentligeste psykologiske retninger.

Filosofi: Ludwig Wittgenstein: Fra logik til sprogspilsteori
Her skildres de to meget forskellige filosofiske sprogteorier som Wittgenstein beskæftigede sig med.

Sociologi og psykologi: Introduktion til Pierre Bourdieu
Om begreber og videnskabsteori hos Bourdieu, som i høj grad benyttes indenfor sociologien og psykologien.

Filosofi: Aristoteles logik og metafysik
En gennemgang af Aristoteles filosofi om logik og metafysik.