Cen ae eS ae ere a} o> eth ei ee ar ae Coes Pee a wk aes) AS ANE He MM os Satnoee 2 ARR e on Boe Mii PETMAN Aa ahi Le) Pus 1 Le eee ee Ce) " eee iets al fot |e ek ce | . hl ahs ff Sa tet Foe eg) ape erodes ety eee) bs ee ee eee » Lr ee ee a a ihe Co - Es aay of Virginia Library : ; _ A2 192 ‘. ee ‘. homo and The birth os A mL [rr. 4-2 ne aera eae eo et ae se IN MEMORY-OF DAN: AND’ KATHRYN » NORTON f i hs f 4 : f , Mi f i Ly i} . bf 5 b| i i ‘ y , 4 ie 5 ae a H 7 i i a ; Sf iY ¢ a] — 5 -—~ wm re Fe 2 ¢* 7— ae. Mey, ae eS 2 G TI ee Tr Lo ener me ae eared ; 4 ! yt ee eee nr Fel Be ee PAY en eee Bead et ee AE ee ee Sebi hte ttt De Ce at the te e+ Ay eeAe Ud : ro ae Oe a tite | tah ea eee i } Y } a) 1 e f Ki ! Ki i : § 5 5 4 v ie i if 1 Re re hn See nl Ses tetarate va inrlar inl PE MOTT TET, ea : : hers a Dv a ~—_ x -~ .Ty 4 a . > amie “ EN aad oi * att SIMs s EO en en are ete i J 5 % ¢ : By wevl rate en nae eee le I TE Dee ea ae ee tee ee ne Phe ae ty “Wweaa Sa ee Ee SO a fentaenns a 4 } % 4 Sd rf : Ne ke | Fo to ht Re tic herettretel teeters lene ae ne - =% ope ait: Fe oe Nee he al al y a= ee I THE MODERN LIBRA Re OF THE WORLD’S BEST BOOKS — eee act EGGE HOMO THE BIRTH OF TRAGEDY ee Ce (are gasp a ee oe x. : aA AY ay t 44 , y ' mf x )a att dit Turn to the end of this vol- ume for a complete list of titles in the Modern Library i } 1 f ' Hl f i 4 7 t re i { i a = I aD Sea each trieen iene ato od ~ ee, Fe i am er)a ve, “ee 7 boy =") | | | | | | | eee AND HE BIRTH OF TRAGEDY BY PRED Ren NITE 2 SiG is ee TRANSLATED By CELEB T OaN 2P3 i ADIMAN wy THE MODERN LIBRARY YORK PUBLISHERS ; NEW SS Sn Sees ‘ CARNE ey ao Be ate hate te led ee et red ae Nn a as — oe ee ae = ee ae en Ee bene eo Ree ae wd ene Fo Se CS age ek IONE NR oa nn ee ee ee a} aa / Copyright, 1927)» by THE MODERN LIBRARY, INC. ————<— ———— First Edition, 1927 : TCE re a oe ne a be bee eS RE a mt, St ae heme bese ene ” a a ie ; LENS a na wae wes Sats arte brevis tania petites ¢ « ‘ Manufactured in the United States of ape for The Modern Library, Inc., by H. Wolf a Par) ” osPREFACE I IN view of the fact that before long I must con- front my fellow-men with the very greatest demand that has ever yet been made upon them, it seems to me indispensable to declare here who and what I am. As a matter of fact, this should be pretty well known already, for I have not allowed myself to be “without witness.” But the disparity between the greatness of my task and the smallness of my contemporaries is made plain by the fact that peo- ple have neither heard me nor seen me. I live on my own credit—perhaps it is only a prejudice to suppose that I am living at all. All I have to do is to speak to any one of the “scholars” who visit the Ober-Engadine in the summer, in order to con- vince myself that I am not alive. . . . Under these circumstances, it is a duty—and one against which my customary reserve, and still more the pride of my instincts, rebel—to say: “Listen! for I am such and such a person. For Heaven’s sake do not con- fuse me with any one else! V SE { a RR rn es paper ee gare a a ra Sams - é ee le oe — . . arb ~ satans tar niente cetera Se anata a ‘ if- ae Serta a merit. 7 ‘ ity. a Pee nO re Ne i > = Fh MSE rie eee tae ar het ernaeite ie dee eben anata DN Da oe Sean eg ae 4 2535 PREFACE 2 For instance, I am in no way a bugbear, a moral monster. It is true that my nature is in direct con- trast to the sort of man who has hitherto been hon- ored as virtuous. But between ourselves, it seems to me that this is precisely a reason for pride. I am a disciple of the philosopher Dionysus, and I would sooner be a satyr than a saint. But I merely ask that you read this book! Perhaps I have here succeeded in expressing this contrast in a cheerful and sympathetic manner. Perhaps the work may have no other purpose. The very last thing I should promise to accom- plish would be to “improve” mankind. I set up no new idols: I only want old idols to learn what it means to have feet of clay. To overthrow idols (the name I give to ideals) is very much more like my business. In proportion as we have invented an ideal world we have deprived reality of its value, its meaning, and its truth... . The “true world” and the “apparent world”—in plain English, the fictitious world and reality. . . . Hitherto the lie of the ideal has been the curse of reality; by means of it man’s most basic instincts have become menda- cious and false: so much so that those values have come to be worshiped which are most exactly an-" tagonistic to the ones which would ensure man’s prosperity, his future, and his great right to that future.PREFACE 3 He who can breathe in the air of my writings knows that it is the air of the heights, that it is bracing. A man must be formed for it, otherwise there is no little danger of chill. The ice is near, the loneliness is terrible—but how quiet everything is in the sunshine! how freely one breathes! how much, one feels, lies beneath one! Philosophy, as I have understood and experienced it hitherto, is a voluntary retirement into a region of ice and moun- tain-peaks—the search for all that is strange and questionable in existence, everything upon which, hitherto, morality has set its ban. Through long experience, derived from such wanderings in the forbidden land, I learned to look at the causes of mankind’s moralizing and idealizing in a manner very different from that which may seem ordinarily desirable. The secret history of philosophers, the psychology of their great names, was revealed to me. How much truth can a mind endure? How much truth will it dare? These questions became for me more and more the essential criterion. Error (the belief in the ideal) is not blindness; error is cowardice. . . . Every conquest, all progress in knowledge, is the result of courage, of hardness towards one’s self, of cleanliness towards one’s self. I do not refute ideals; I merely draw on my cloves in their presence. . . . Nitimur in vetitum: by this “_— Soa a et Se Se rat ee te Sayre PO ee ene en es le ee abn me ¥ in ; ‘net ee ae ee ee arte es ‘ute (8-3 57 ee oe Eee eee enny s ) | 4 ! | | i. f | Sse RO antral oii hie a So Sek SPE Be ere lect earns wn eae ead I Vj ~ or aad Pe Pig ss Vili PREFACE sign I shall conquer; for that which has hitherto been most stringently forbidden has always been the Truth. 4 Among my writings, my Zarathustra holds a spe- ‘cial place. With it, I gave my fellow-men the greatest gift that has ever been bestowed upon them. This book, whose voice resounds across the ages, is not only the loftiest book in the world, the verita- ble book of mountain air—the whole phenomenon, mankind, lies at an incalculable distance beneath it —pbut it is also the deepest book, born of the inmost fullness of truth; an inexhaustible well, into which no pitcher descends without rising again laden with gold and goodness. No “prophet” speaks here, no horrible hybrids of sickness and the Will to Power, called by men founders of religions. If a man would not do terrible wrong to his own wisdom, he must above all give proper heed to the tones—the halcyon tones—that come from Zarathustra: “The most silent words are harbingers of the storm: thoughts that come on dove’s feet lead the world. “The figs fall from the trees; they are good and sweet; and, in falling, the red skins of them break. A north wind am I to ripe figs. “Thus, like figs, do these doctrines fall for you, my friends: imbibe now their juice and their sweetPREFACE substance! It is autumn all around, and clear sky, and afternoon.” * No fanatic speaks to you here; this is not a “ser- mon”; no faith is demanded. From out an infinite fullness of light and depth of joy, drop by drop, my words issue—the tempo of these discourses is slow and measured. Such things are only for the most elect; it is an unparalleled privilege to be a listener here; not every one who likes can have ears to hear Zarathustra. Then shall we not say of Zarathustra, that he is a seducer? . . . But what, indeed, does he himself say, the first time he returns to his solitude? Just the opposite of what any “Sage,” “Saint,” “Redeemer,” or other decadent would say. . . . Not only his words, but he him- self is different from them. “T now go alone, my disciples! Ye also now go away, and alone! So will I have it. “Verily, I advise you: depart from me, and guard yourselves against Zarathustra! And better still: be ashamed of him! Perhaps he hath deceived you. “The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies, but also to hate his friends. “One requiteth a teacher badly if one remain merely a scholar. And why will ye not pluck at my wreath? * Commons’ Trans., Modern Library Ed., p. 97. wr - 4 - , a we yf aon ty fea ry! ms - we 2 hae er ON. ee ne Me ie Cer haar rr tL eal cat aati OS A Oe ne a SS _— Se NI iM " tan St de} a3 as ; i t 1 A ) i i } i r if | | b ; a ie ; f° ; ii a ‘ : ie 7 ae ek f m ee ie i Bhs SED - ~~ Co a ry . “ We PREFACE “Ve yvenerate me; but what if your veneration should some day collapse? Take heed lest a statue crush you! “Ye say, ye believe in Zarathustra? But of what account is Zarathustra? Ye are my believers: but of what account are all believers? “Ve had not yet sought yourselves: then did ye find me. So do all believers; therefore all belief is of so little account. “Now do I bid you lose me and find yourselves; and only when ye have all denied me, will I return unto you.” * FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE. * Commons’ Trans., Mod. Lib. Ed., pp. 91-92.On this perfect day, when everything is ripening, and not only the grapes are getting brown, a ray of sunshine fell across my life: I looked behind me, I looked before me, and never did I see so many good things all at once. Not in vain have I buried my four-and-fortieth year to-day; I had the right to bury it—what was vital in it has been saved and is immortal. The first book of the Transvaluation of all Values, The Songs of Zarathustra, The Twilight of the Idols, my attempt to philosophize with the hammer—all are the gifts of this year, even of its last quarter—How could I help being thankful to the whole of my life? And so I am going to tell myself the story of that life. 7 qi : ane a ee ait AeEITe I crn nN fat mea pee en ete ll aaa Te aia ee at ee el hema a P pal % : 4 4 : P “ i ; x if 4 | a 4 a) 1 4 f i hy f af y it ¢ a} 2 Ret ee a terete ge ie | 4 E Vie i ie : HI f ( B ae ie if =a SQUIRES ee a Aa te ee _ ae = “4-7 Ai sional atiealiciin ae teECCE HOMO HOW ONE BECOMES WHAT ONE IS WHY I AM SO WISE I Tue happiness of my existence, its unique char- acter perhaps, lies in its fatefulness: expressing if in the form of a riddle, as my own father I am already dead, as my own mother I still live and grow old. This double origin, taken as it were fron) the highest and lowest rungs of the ladder of life, at once a decadence and a beginning, this, if any- thing, explains that neutrality, that freedom from partisanship with regard to the general problem of life, which perhaps distinguishes me. I am more sensitive to the first indications of ascent and de- scent than any man that has yet lived. In this do- main I am a master par excellence—I know both sides, for I am both sides. My father died in his thirty-sixth year: he was delicate, lovable, and mor- bid, like one fated for but a short life—a gracious reminder of life rather than life itself. In the same 3 ' \ Peter = MD A ee Re lS ete te eee a Lae + Slane ei v eom at nN nN Ne ne ey a rate Rr ee se iara be fan} st } - Te sear pete heerlen coe eA ? ‘aa Rn Ae ne cape IE NERS ean SI ie a 4 BRecE HOMO year that his life declined mine also declined: in my thirty-sixth year my vitality reached its lowest point—I still lived, but I could not see three paces before me. At that time—it was the year 1879—I resigned my professorship at Basel, lived through the summer like a shadow in St. Moritz, and spent the following winter, the most sunless of my life, like a shadow in Naumburg. I was then at my lowest ebb. The Wanderer and His Shadow was the product of this period. There is no doubt that I was familiar with shadows then. The following winter, my first winter in Genoa, brought with it that sweetness and spirituality which is almost in- separable from extreme poverty of blood and mus- cle, in the shape of The Dawn of Day. The per- fect brightness and cheerfulness, the intellectual ex- uberance even, that this work reflects, coincide, in my case, not only with the most profound bodily weakness, but also with an excess of suffering. In the midst of the agony caused by a seventy-two hour headache and violent attacks of nausea, I was pos- sessed of extraordinary dialectical clearness, and in utter cold blood I then thought out things, for which, in my more healthy moments, I am not enough of a climber, not subtle enough, not cold enough. My readers may know to what extent I consider dialectic a symptom of decadence, as, for example, in the most famous case of all—that of Socrates. All the morbid disturbances of the intel- lect, even that semistupor which follows fever, areECCE HOMO to this day strangers to me; and to inform myself concerning their nature and frequency, I had to resort to learned works. My circulation is slow. No one has ever been able to detect fever in me. A doctor who treated me for some time as a nerve patient finally declared: “No! there’s nothing the matter with your nerves; I myself am the nervous one.” They have been unable to discover any local degeneration in me, or any organic stomach trou- ble, however much I may have suffered from pro- found weakness of the gastric system as the result of general exhaustion. Even my eye trouble, which at times approached dangerously near blindness, was only an effect and not a cause; for, with every improvement of my general bodily health came a corresponding increase in my power of vision. An all too long series of years meant recovery to me. But, sad to say, it also meant relapse, breakdown, periods of decadence. After this, need I say that I am experienced in questions of decadence? If know them inside and out. Even that filigree art of prehension and comprehension in general, that fecling for nuances, that psychology of “seeing what is around the corner,’”’ and whatever else I may be able to do, was first learnt then, and is the specific gift of that period during which everything in me was subtilized—observation itself, together with all the organs of observation. To view healthier con- cepts and values from the standpoint of the sick, and conversely to view the secret work of the in- : =
A = ees ee eee
A
ve
yee
Da
a
in
i
B.
a
a
Pe
oh ,
i
Pn
<<
x
22 ECCE HOMO
impure! An ice-cave to their bodies would out
happiness be, and to their spirits!
“And as strong winds will we live above them,
neighbors to the eagles, neighbors to the snow
neighbors to the sun: thus live the strong winds.
“And like a wind will I one day blow amongst
them, and with my spirit, take the breath from thei:
spirit: thus willeth my future.
“Verily, a strong wind is Zarathustra to all lovi
places; and this counsel counseleth he to his \ene
-
~~
mies and to whatever spitteth and speweth: ‘Take
care not to spit against the wind!’ ”’ * (
4Commons’ Trans., Modern Library Edition, pp. I10-IIt.WHY I AM SO CLEVER
I
Wuy do I know more than other people? Why,
in general, am I so clever? I have never pondered
‘over questions that are not really questions. I have
never wasted my strength. I have no experience,
for instance, of actual religious difficulties. I am
‘quite unfamiliar with the feeling of “sinfulness.”
ee I lack a reliable criterion for determining
‘4 prick of conscience: from what one hears, a prick
bf conscience does not seem to me anything very
worthy of veneration. .. . I dislike to leave an
‘action of mine in the lurch; I prefer to omit utterly
the bad result, the consequences, from any problem
involving values. In the face of evil consequences
it is: too easy to lose the proper standpoint from
which to view an action. A prick of conscience
te to me a sort of “evil eye.” Something that
has failed should be all the more honored just be-
‘cause it has failed—this agrees much better with my
‘morality—‘God,” “the immortality of the soul,”
“salvation,” a “beyond”—these are mere notions, to
‘which I paid no attention, on which I never wasted
jjany time, even as a child—though perhaps I was
‘Inever enough of a child for that—I am quite unac-
quainted with atheism as a result, and still less as an
23
,
A
al
Vy
a
‘| - a *
" Stay mae Sm ee viitiiine 4 Ps oe 5 ~ a i Pn
a ~ + ee rt ere te oe Leia ee eT ot AE TON oS ee SY ee ee Me Ne ee a oe eC nn as
TE erneee
ee ee ee
NO ae A a aoe" ra
Sa ie realy ¥ OS ee eee ee
_—.
ee shelter a ea a Ne ee
Bo > a ho Oia oe ee a ee iets paging py ~ ~ . ~
a
a a ~
ca i
el ea
~
.
4
24 ECCE HOMO
event: with me it is instinctive. I am too inquisitive,
too skeptical, too arrogant, to let myself be satisfied |
with an obvious and crass solution of things. God |
is such an obvious and crass solution: a solution
which is a sheer indelicacy to us thinkers—at bot-
tom He is really nothing but a coarse commandment
against us: ye shall not think! ...I am much |
more interested in another question—on which the ‘
“salvation of humanity” depends much more than |;
upon any piece of theological curiosity: the question :
of nutrition. For ordinary purposes, it may be for-
mulated thus: “How precisely must thou nourish *
thyself in order to attain to thy maximum of power,
or virtw in the Renaissance style—of virtue free
from moralism?”’ Here my experiences have been
the worst possible; I am surprised that it took me
so long to become aware of this question and to de-
rive “understanding” from my experiences. Only
the utter worthlessness of our German culture—its
“idealism’—can to some extent explain how it was
that precisely in this matter I was so backward that
my ignorance was almost saintly. For this ‘“cul-
ture” from first to last teaches one to lose sight of |
I
—ee ~~r=%
eS SS
realities and instead to hunt after thoroughly prob- !
lematic, so-called ideal goals, as, for instance, ‘‘clas-
sical culture’—as if we were not doomed from the
start in our endeavor to unite “classical” and “Ger-
man” in one concept! It is even a little comical—
just try to picture a “classically cultured”? citizen of
Leipzig!—Indeed, I confess that up to a very ma- |ECCE HOMO
ture age, my food was quite bad—expressed in
moral terms, it was “impersonal,” “selfless,” “altru-
istic,” to the glory of cooks and other fellow-Chris-
tians. For example, it was the Leipzig cookery, to-
gether with my first study of Schopenhauer (1865),
that made me gravely renounce my “Will to Live.”
To become a malnutritient and to spoil one’s stom-
ach in the process—this problem seemed to me to
be admirably solved by the above-mentioned cook-
,ery. (It is said that the year 1866 introduced
|changes into this department.) But as to German
cookery in general—what has it not got on its con-
i science! Soup before the meal (still called alla te-
| desca in the sixteenth century Venetian cook-books;
| meat cooked till the flavor is gone, vegetables cooked
| with fat and flour: the degeneration of pastries into
‘paper-weights! Add to this the utterly bestial post-
‘prandial habits of the ancients, not merely of the
ancient Germans, and you will begin to understand
where German intellect had its origin—in a disor-
dered intestinal tract. . . . German intellect is in-
digestion; it can assimilate nothing. But even Eng-
lish, which, as against German, and indeed French,
diet, seems to me to be a “return to Nature’’—that
is to say, to cannibalism—is basically repugnant to
my own instincts. It seems to me that it gives the
intellect heavy feet, Englishwomen’s feet. .. . The
best cooking is that of Piedmont. Alcohol does not
enough to turn life into a valley of tears for me;—
ome Py
ne nen a a
Re ett ee et tet RS ce oe
agree with me; one glass of wine or beer a day is
e
Pa
~
hs
on ye em
Se Fic orale yen ES a 2 sh Shah Wee Pet Mh
Pca as OB ier ON a a ae a:
=
eer pa — lca — °
am ane ALORS a ee eee ora ad oe ta = a cancacmeaonata a
io J
she maeertee incite eS lta ti ere eee hae
“ngomeenni tts
Pre,
i
a ECCE HOMO
in Munich live my antipodes. Admitting that I
came to understand this rationally rather late, yet I
had experienced it as a mere child. As a-boy I
believed that wine-drinking and tobacco-smoking
were at first but youthful vanities, and later
simply bad habits. Perhaps the wine of Naumburg
was partly responsible for this harsh judgment. To
believe that wine was exhilarating, I should have
had to be a Christian—in other words, I should have
had to believe in what, for me, is an absurdity.
Strangely enough, whereas small largely diluted
quantities of alcohol depressed me, great quantities
made me act almost like a sailor on shore leave.
Even as a boy I showed my bravado in this respect.
To compose and transcribe a long Latin essay in one
night, ambitious of emulating with my pen the aus-
terity and terseness of my model, Sallust, and to
sprinkle the exercise with a few strong hot toddies—
this procedure, while I was a pupil at the venerabl
old school of Pforta, did not disagree in the ss
with my physiology, nor perhaps with that of Sal
lust—however badly it may have agreed with digni
fied Pforta. Later on, towards the middle of my
life, I grew more and more decisive in my opposiy
tion to spirituous drinks: I, an opponent of vege
tarianism from experience—like Richard Wagner,
who reconverted me—cannot with sufficient earnest-,
ness advise all more spiritual natures to abstain
absolutely from alcohol. Water answers the same}
purpose. . . . I prefer those places where there are;HCCE HOMO 27
numerous opportunities of drinking from running
brooks as at Nice, Turin, Sils, where water follows
me wherever I turn. J” vino veritas: it seems that
here too I disagree with the rest of the world about
the concept “Truth”—with me spirit moves on the
face of the waters. . . . Here are a few more bits
of advice taken from my morality. A heavy meal
is digested more easily than one that 1s too meager.
The first condition of a good digestion is that the
stomach should be active as a whole. Therefore a
man ought to know the size of his stomach. For
the same reasons I advise against all those inter-
minable meals, which I call interrupted sacrificial
feasts, and which are to be had at any table d’hote.
Nothing between meals, no coffee—coffee makes one
gloomy. Tea is advisable only in the morning—in
small quantities, but very strong. It may be very
harmful, and indispose you for the whole day, if it
is the least bit too weak. Here each one has his
own standard, often between the narrowest and most
delicate limits. In a very enervating climate it is
inadvisable to begin the day with tea: an hour be-
fore, it is a good thing to have a cup of thick cocoa,
free from oil. Remain seated as little as possible;
trust no thought that is not born in the open, to the
accompaniment of free bodily motion—nor one in
which your very muscles do not celebrate a feast.
All prejudices may be traced back to the intestines.
A sedentary life, as I have already said elsewhere,
is the real sin against the Holy Ghost.
.
WS
mM
,
’
Sz.
Skee
IE ee eae Tea ee
SoS rs SLATE Se
nes.
ae
PR Aeetetiasadialimioen tle thot Beater taesinthcnes cies ira Oe Se Poet that
Sad ne ee nn cela ae ems
a OPa
Fn
Sn cat ame ep eA Lea F Se:
cae at ies
ep tesie tepambnice de eee aeebetnahe ohn tee
ans
=
pccriencia hap cen ii hae BN Na
*.
eel but ie 2 ey =
- a Ps De ad _ 7 _— ' |
Se yn A bp Re ERO a en et tee =3
90 ECCE HOMO
when it will gaze both backwards and forwards, |
when it will emerge from the tyranny of accident |
and the priesthood, and for the first time pose the
question of the Why and Wherefore of humanity ’
as a whole. This life-task is a necessary result of |
the view that mankind does zot follow the right
road of its own accord, that it is by no means !
divinely ruled, but rather, that it is precisely under |
the cover of its most sacred values that the tendency +
to negation, corruption, and decadence has exerted
such seductive power. The question as to the origin
of moral values is therefore a question of primary
importance to me because it determines the future
of mankind. We are asked to believe that at bot-
tom everything is in the best hands, that a book,
the Bible, gives us the definite assurance of a divine
guidance and wisdom overlooking man’s destiny.
Translated back into reality, what we have is this,
namely, the will to stifle the terrible truth which
maintains the very opposite, which is that up to
now man has been in the worst hands, that he has
been ruled by the misfits, the physiologically botched,
the men of cunning and revengefulness, the so-called
“‘saints’”—those slanderers of the world and tra-
ducers of humanity. A decisive proof of the fact
that the priest (including those priests in disguise,
philosophers) has become master, not only within
a limited religious community, but everywhere, and
that the morality of decadence, the will to nothing-
ness, has passed as morality per se, is to be foundBCCE HOMO 9]
in this: that altruism is considered an absoiute
value, but egoism meets with hostility everywhere.
He who disagrees with me on this point, I regard
as infected. But all the world disagrees with me.
For a physiologist such an opposition of values would
leave no room for doubt. If the smallest organ
within the body neglects, however slightly, to ex-
ercise with complete assurance its self-preservative
powers, its recuperative claims, and its “egoism, ”
the whole system will degenerate. The physiologist
insists that these decayed parts be cut out; he de-
nies all fellow-feeling for such parts; he pities them
not at all. But what the priest wants is precisely
the degeneration of the whole of mankind; hence
he preserves the decayed elements—this is the price
of his rule over humanity. What meaning have
those lies, those ancillary concepts of morality,
“Soul,” “Spirit,” “Free Will,” “God,” if their aim
be not that of the physiological ruin of mankind?
When one is no longer serious about self-preserva-\
tion and the increase of bodily energy, #.e., of life; |
when anemia is made an ideal and the contempt of
the body is construed as “the salvation of the soul,”
what can all this be if not a recipe for decadence?
Loss of ballast, resistance offered to natural in-
stincts, in a word, “selflessness,”’—this is what has
hitherto been called morality. With The Dawn of
Day I first took up the struggle against the morality
of self-renunciation.
;
& a ha “7
alr
Pate
Seed ae trees NER ce Re een
-
s
P<
:
ne ee eet oo ee
=
te ete eres
a mS Pe main
ee
NT Sod
e P|}
Coe hee)
=
——d
a
DOA ia
Ie
~~
ft
ts
4
Se eae be eno ee Se Aare
=
eda BAS I ERED ERE
LO eg ICE i aE Rete
a
Ya.
Piel.
“JOYFUL WISDOM: LA GAYA SCIENZA”
The Dawn of Day is a yea-saying book, profound |
but clear and gracious in style. This is true also |
and in the highest degree of La Gaya Sctenza: in |
r
almost every sentence of this book profundity and |
high spirits are delicately combined. A verse which
expresses my gratitude for the most wonderful Jan- |
uary In my experience—the whole book is its gift
—sufficiently reveals from what depths “wisdom’’
has emerged to become “joyful’’:
Der du mit dem Flammenspeere
Meine Seele Eis zertheilt,
Das sie brausend nun zum Meere
Ihrer hochsten Hoffnung eilt;
Heller stets und stets gesunder,
Frei im liebevollsten Musz—
Also preist sie deine Wunder,
Schonster Januarius! *
Who can have any doubt as to what “supreme
hope” means here, once he has caught the gleam of
the jeweled beauty of Zarathustra’s first words at
the close of the fourth book? Or once he has read
1“You melt the ice around my heart with your flaming spear;
with a roar it hastens to empty itself into the sea of its supreme
hope; it is ever brighter, ever purer: thus, O beautiful January,
does it praise the marve!s you accomplish.”
92ECCE HOMO
the granite-like sentences at the end of the third
book, where there is the first formulation of a
destiny for all ages? The songs of Prince Free-
as-a-Bird, written for the most part in Sicily, remind
one quite forcibly of that Provengal notion of “La
Gaya Scienza,” of that union of singer, knight, and
free spirit, which distinguishes that wonderfully
early culture of the Provencals from a'l ambiguous
cultures. The last poem, “To the Muistral,”—an
exuberant dance song in which, if you please,
morality is freely trodden on,—is a perfect Proven-
calism.
= i) A
are en OE ne
SO ok ee eee ne Oe ne nen ee Re ie on De ee Le
i
q
i
!
;
1
:
¥
.
a
a a
vw
v
4
, it
g:
‘
y
4
a:
—
he
FR See brentmh ipsa ache
a7
Ba DOA he
Pe
>
wa
. ie
ss
|
~~
er ne ne ae ne oe eS eee
ALL AND NONE”
I
I wouLp now like to tell you the history of my
Zarathustra. Its fundamental conception, the idea
of Eternal Recurrence, the highest formula of af-
firmation that can ever be attained, belongs to
August, 1881. I made a hasty note of it on a
sheet of paper, with the postscript: “Six thousand
feet beyond man and time.” That day I was walk-
ing through the woods beside Lake Silvaplana; I
halted not far from Surlei, beside a huge, towering,
pyramidal rock. It was there that the idea came
to me. If I count back two months previous to this
day, I can discover a warning sign in the form of
an abrupt and profoundly decisive change in my
tastes—more especially in music. Perhaps the
whole of Zarathustra may be classified as music—
I am sure that one of the conditions of its produc-
tion was a renaissance in me of the art of hearing.
In Recoaro, a little mountain watering-place near
Vicenza, where I spent the spring of 1881, I, to-
gether with my friend and maestro, Peter Gast
(another who had been reborn), discovered that the
pheenix bird of music hovered over us, decked in
94
\
“THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA: A BOOK FOR |SS
x 4
“3
py
ECCE' HOMO 95
ee
Sead ee a NE Cn NO RO a I Ra a
more beautiful and brilliant plumage than it had
ever before exhibited. If, therefore, I reckon from
that day to the sudden birth of the book, amid the
most unlikely circumstances, in February, 1883,
its last part, from which I quoted a few lines in my
preface, was finished exactly during the hallowed
hour of Richard Wagner’s death in Venice,—it
would appear that the period of gestation was
eighteen months. This period of exactly eighteen
months might suggest, at least to Buddhists, that I
am in reality a female elephant. The interval was
devoted to the Gaya Scienza, which has a hundred
indications of the approach of something unparal-
leled; its conclusion shows the beginning of Zara-
thustra, since it presents Zarathustra’s fundamental
thought in the last aphorism but one of the fourth
book. To this interval also belongs that Hymn to
Life (for a mixed choir and orchestra), the score of
which was published in Leipzig two years ago by
E. W. Fritsch. Perhaps it is no small indication
of my spiritual state during this year, when the
essentially yea-saying pathos, which I call the tragic
pathos, filled my soul to the brim. Some day peo-
ple will sing it to my memory. As there seems to be
some misunderstanding current, I should like to
emphasize the point that the text is not by me; it
was the astounding inspiration of a young Russian
lady, Miss Lou von Salome, with whom I was then
very friendly. He who can in any way derive some
meaning from the last words of the poem will un-
i OER iis et Pe fe Me ed oe ae Le DNS oe
Ld
+
NePe
st
=
Seti
se aes
i NE Rae es a 8
=
}
i
Sate eae oe nae oe ne te ae
sole taeshe taereaenicee de teeten seebionaior aes naa
‘oe eter haan ieee eo
ae) ey DA Sake te ny jaa opty SO te
= a
Pres
ci
96 ECCE HOMO
derstand why I preferred and admired it: there is
greatness in them. Pain cannot rank as an objec-
tion to life: “No matter if thou hast no happiness
left to give me! Thou hast thy Sorrow still.”
In this passage it may be that my music also rises
to greatness. (The last note of the oboe should be
C-sharp, not C. The latter is a misprint.) During
the following winter, I was living not far from
Genoa on that pleasant peaceful Gulf of Rapallo,
which cuts inland between Chiavari and Cape Porto
Fino. I was not in the best of health; the winter
was cold and exceptionally rainy; and my small
albergo was so close to shore that the noise of a
rough sea rendered sleep impossible. These cir-
/ cumstances were the very reverse of favorable; and
yet, despite them, and as if in proof of my theory
that everything decisive arises as the result of op-
position, it was during this very winter and amid
- these unfavorable circumstances that my Zarathustra
was born. In the morning I used to start out in a
southerly direction on the glorious road to Zoagli,
which rises up through a forest of pines and gives
one a view far out to sea. In the afternoon, when-
ever my health permitted, I would walk around the
whole bay from Santa Margherita to beyond Porto _
Fino. This spot and the country around it is the
more firmly enshrined in my affections because it
was so dearly loved by the Emperor Frederick IIT.
In the fall of 1886 I happened to be there again
when he was revisiting this small forgotten world
mapeep-nenaeemppametanmmatsntnndng ar >
aan enema ett amin wave?ECCE HOMO 97
of happiness for the last time. It was on these two
roads that all Zarathustra, and particularly Zara-
thustra himself as a type, came to me—perhaps I
should rather say—invaded me.
2
In order to understand the Zarathustra-type, you
must first be quite clear as to its prime physiologi-
cal condition, a condition I choose to call great
healthiness. I cannot make this idea any plainer
or more personal than I have done already in one
of the last aphorisms (No. 382) of the fifth book
of the Gaya Scienza: “We new, nameless, and un-
fathomable beings,” so runs the passage, “prema-
ture births of a future still unproved—we need
new means towards our new goal; we need a new
healthiness, a stronger, keener, harder, bolder, and
merrier healthiness than any that has been seen
up to this time. He whose soul longs to experience
the whole range of previous values and desires to
circumnavigate this ideal ‘Mediterranean Sea’; who,
from the adventures of his own profound experi-
ence, would know how it feels to be a conqueror
and discoverer of the ideal;—and who would like-
wise know how it feels to be an artist, saint, legis-
lator, sage, scholar, pietist, and godlike anchorite
of old;—such a man requires one thing preémi-
nently, and that is, great healthiness—healthiness
which is not a mere static possession, but which he
noel tae
Rn ie eee Den ere eee ee bee
. ear
a
Sy,
;
en — - Pm Pi
eed : a Beet hae ee tee Ngee ee ee ~— aceameine ne . pon SEED
ee od ee One ee ee EO DRO ONS OT ca Dn GOR Nn aL aes me tre ear de CATO I a .,
Saas
‘
ifSadie
Co hes
SO En Ae ee eer as en Taney <
=
he
Re Sone ee nk ae
a a aa
af
Sip
_:
‘
98 ECCK HOMO
is constantly acquiring and must acquire, because
he is continually sacrificing it, and must so sacri-
fice it! And now, therefore, after having been long
on the way, we Argonauts of the ideal, our courage
perhaps greater than our prudence, often ship-
wrecked and bruised, but, as I say, healthier than
people would like to admit, dangerously healthy,
recovering health again and again—it would seem
as if our trouble were to be rewarded, as if we saw
before us that undiscovered country, whose fron-
tiers no one has yet seen, a land lying beyond all
other known lands and hiding-places of the ideal,
a world so overflowing with beauty, strangeness,
doubt, terror, and divinity, that both our curiosity
and our lust for possession are wrought to a pitch
of extreme excitement. Nothing on earth can sat-
isfy us. Alas! how with such vistas before us and
with our conscience and consciousness full of such
burning desire, can we still be content with the man
of the present day? This is bad enough; but,
further, it is inevitable that we should regard his
highest aims and hopes with but a mock serious-
ness, or perhaps give them no further consideration.
Another ideal hovers before our eyes, a wonderful,
seductive, perilous ideal, which we should be un-
willing to urge upon any one, because we cannot
so easily admit any one’s right to it. It is an ideal
of a spirit who plays innocently (that is to say, in-
voluntarily, out of his superabundance of power)
with everything that has hitherto been called holy,E.CCE HOMO 99
good, inviolable, divine; a spirit to whom the highest
popular standards would be a mere danger, a de-
cay, an abasement, or at the very least, a relaxa-
tion, a blindness, and a temporary forgetfulness of
self: the ideal of a humanly superhuman well-being
and good-will, which often enough may seem un-
human—when, for example, it confronts all man-
kind’s former seriousness and solemnities as their
most lifelike and unconscious parody in gesture,
speech, accent, look, morality, and duty—but with
which, nevertheless, great seriousness perhaps first
arises, the first note of interrogation is affixed, the
soul’s destiny changes, the hour hand moves, and
tragedy begins.”
3
Can any one at the end of this nineteenth cen-
tury possibly have any distinct notion of what poets
of a more vigorous period meant by inspiration?
If not, I should like to describe it. Provided one
has the slightest remnant of superstition left, one
can hardly reject completely the idea that one is
the mere incarnation, or mouthpiece, or medium of
some almighty power. The notion of revelation de-
scribes the condition quite simply; by which I mean
that something profoundly convulsive and disturb-
ing suddenly becomes visible and audible with in-
describable definiteness and exactness. One hears
—one does not seek; one takes—one does not ask
.
u
Skee
wlnRaases abt dee 0 20k Rae Sa LAL ce MS et egg ne tt aS hI
="
eg fen oe
Ova oe ee oe
Wa
-
pa
a
or
a
Ft pe Ce an aD ten fa eee
A
~see
ee ee
sa
—_—
RS ioeehihels Sie a aN. Xa. i fo-9-ra tar iene eee ieederiee aeaerendier talons aii
Fo.
‘
e
rata. o>.
—sierpie t
a en eee |
‘NER
100 ECCE HOMO
who gives: a thought flashes out like lightning, in-
evitably without hesitation—I have never had any
choice about it. There is an ecstasy whose ter-
rific tension is sometimes released by a flood of
tears, during which one’s progress varies from in-
voluntary impetuosity to involuntary slowness.
There is the feeling that one is utterly out of hand,
with the most distinct consciousness of an infinitude
of shuddering thrills that pass through one from
head to foot:—there is a profound happiness in
which the most painful and gloomy feelings are not
discordant in effect, but are required as necessary
colors in this overflow of light. There is an in-
stinct for rhythmic relations which embraces an en-
tire world of forms (length, the need for a widely
extended rhythm, is almost a measure of the force
of inspiration, a sort of counterpart to its pres-
sure and tension). Everything occurs quite without
volition, as if in an eruption of freedom, independ-
ence, power and divinity. The spontaneity of the
images and similes is most remarkable; one loses
all perception of what is imagery and simile; every-
thing offers itself as the most immediate, exact, and
SN EERE eNRpN IE ae
simple means of expression. If I may recall a
phrase of Zarathustra’s, it actually seems as if the ©
things themselves came to one, and offered them-—
selves as similes. (‘Here do all things come caress- :
ingly to thy discourse and flatter thee, for they
would fain ride upon thy back. On every simile,ECCE HOMO 101
thou ridest here to every truth. Here fly open be-
fore thee all the speech and word shrines of ex-
istence, here all existence would become speech, here
all Becoming would learn of thee how to speak.’’)
This is my experience of inspiration. I have no
doubt that I should have to go back millenniums to
find another who could say to me: “It is mine also!”
4
For a few weeks afterwards I lay ill in Genoa.
Then followed a depressing spring in Rome, where
I escaped with my life. It was not a pleasant ex-
perience. This city, which I did not choose my-
self and which is of all places the most unsuited to
the author of Zarathustra, weighed heavily upon my
spirit. I tried to leave it. I wanted to go to Aquila
—Rome’s complete antithesis, and founded in a
spirit of enmity towards that city, just as I too shall
found a city some day, in commemoration of an
atheist and anti-ecclesiast, a man after my own
heart, the great Hohenstaufen, Emperor Frederick
II. But Destiny said no: I had to return again to
Rome. Finally I had to be content with the Piazza
Barberini, after I had exhausted myself in the search
for an antichristian quarter. I fear that on one
occasion, to avoid bad smells as much as possible,
I actually inquired at the Palazzo del Quirinale
whether they did not have a quiet room for a
eo we .
Pe oe a mene ~ - ‘3
4 OT a EN ee PS ee ee
a
A
.
: F fe operate tins STA ee eal cent ee Pia * TE oe Pe
re ee eed Sanna Swe LO he SSD ON PQ Bs Bn em Nc ca ee ek ea a
a
odSST SA a a ee
102 ECCE HOMO
philosopher. In a loggia high above the Piazza over-
looking Rome, with the plash of fountains far be-
low, sounding in my ears, the loneliest of all songs ))
was composed—‘“The Night-Song.” About this time }
I was continually obsessed by a melody of ineffable |
sadness, whose refrain I recognized in the words,
“dead through immortality.” . . . In the summer,
on my return to the sacred spot where the first
thought of Zarathustra had flashed like lightning
across my mind, I conceived the second part. Ten
days sufficed. Neither for the second, the first, nor
the third part, have I required a day longer. The
following winter, beneath the halcyon sky of Nice,
which then for the first time filled me with its bril-
liant light, I found the third Zarathustra—and so
completed the work. The whole composition had
taken scarcely a year. Many hidden corners and |
heights in the country round Nice are hallowed for }
me by unforgettable moments. That decisive sec- |
tion, “Old and New Tables,” was composed during 7
the arduous ascent from the station to Eza, that |
wonderful Moorish eyrie. When my creative energy |
flowed most freely, my muscular activity was al- |
ways greatest. The body is inspired: let us leave :
|
|
og i Ac te bm oo eRe TS EE iy F Se
: path me aan ey Oe
i
aia NaN Se ePIC ite catetnaeaeasih ae alae
the “soul” out of consideration. I might often have |
been seen dancing; I used to walk through the hills ©
for seven or eight hours on end without a hint of ©
fatigue. I slept well, laughed a good deal—I was
perfectly vigorous and patient.
> 3
Pra
, EBs
e uj
)
Sle?
7
Sad tl te aR Se Nee Nn a an Oe ON en er ee re Ro Dao i .
a
oa
ECCE HOMO
_—
5
Excluding these ten-day work periods, the years
during the production of Zarathustra, but especially
thereafter, were for me years of unparalleled misery.
It is a dear price that a man pays for being im-
mortal: he must die many times over during his
life. There is a thing that I call the rancor of
preatness: everything great, whether it be a work
or a deed, once it is completed, turns immediately
against its author. The very fact that he is its
author now makes him weak.* Henceforth he can
no longer endure his deed. He cannot face it
squarely. To have done something one could never
have willed, something to which the knot of human
destiny is bound—and to carry this about! It al-
most crushes one! The rancor of greatness! And
there is another thing—the uncanny silence that
prevails. Solitude has seven skins; nothing can
penetrate it. You go among men; you greet friends:
but it is only a new wilderness you encounter—
their faces are blank, or at best merely expressive
of a sort of revolt. I experienced this latter re-
action, in varying degrees of intensity, from almost
every one who came near me; it would seem that
nothing inflicts a deeper wound than suddenly to
make one’s distance felt. Those noble natures are
scarce who cannot live without reverence. A third
thing is the absurd sensitivity of the skin to small
4 - a.
Ne ie a tae ee eee —" . ™ * _ - ae
ON eer ee te ee Pee es MO oe oe et ENS
\re a eee tee iad "t ? ne be
Tear be bn ee iene a
a ea reer ce
5. SOR
— 7
Pret:
¢t
r
ECCE HOMO
pin-pricks, a sort of helplessness in the presence
of all small things. This seems to me an inevitable
condition resulting from that .appalling expenditure
of defensive energy, which is the prerequisite of
every creative act, of every act born of a man’s most
intimate and personal being. Thus the small de:
fensive forces are, as it were, suspended, and they
receive no fresh supply of energy. I even dare
suggest that one’s digestive processes are impeded,
that one has a greater tendency to inertia, and that
one is much too open to sensations of cold and
suspicion, suspicion. that in many Cases is merely
a blunder in etiology. On one such occasion I be-
came conscious of the proximity of a herd of cows,
some time before I could possibly have seen it with
my eyes, simply owing to a return in me of milder
and more benevolent sentiments: they communi-
cated warmth to me. ...
6
This work is utterly unique. Let us leave the
poets out of consideration: it may be that nothing
has yet been produced out of such a superabundance
of strength. My concept “Dionysian” here became
the highest deed; measured by it all other human
deeds seem poor and limited. The fact that a
Goethe or a Shakespeare would not have been able
to breathe for a moment in this terrific atmosphere
of passion and elevation; the fact that compared |ECCE HOMO 105
with Zarathustra, Dante is no more than a believer,
and not one who creates truth for the first time—
a world-ruling spirit, a Destiny; the fact that the
Vedic poets were priests and not even fit to un-
fasten Zarathustra’s sandal—all this is of no great
importance; it gives no idea of the distance, of the
azure solitude, wherein this work dwells. Zara-
thustra has an eternal right to say: “I draw circles
around me and holy boundaries. Ever fewer are
they that mount with me to ever loftier heights.
I build me a mountain range of ever holier moun-
tains.” All the spirit and goodness of every great
soul combined could not create one of Zarathustra’s
discourses. The ladder of his ascent and descent
is of boundless length; he has seen further, willed
further, and gone further than any other man. He
contradicts himself in every word, this most yea-
saying of all spirits. Yet in him all oppositions
are resolved into a new unity. The loftiest and the
basest powers of human nature, the sweetest, the
lightest, and the most terrible, stream from one
source with an eternal certainty. Before him, no
one knew what was height, or depth; still less did
they know what was truth. There is not a single
moment in this revelation of truth which had been
anticipated or divined by even the greatest among
men. Before Zarathustra there was no wisdom,
no examination of the soul, no art of speech: the
most familiar, the most ordinary things now utter
unheard-of words. The sentence quivers with pas-
— ae +
Sk be el eee eames pejesekan nk SB Blah SASSANID BN LILO NRL CR Oa ce LEE LLL LADS
' -
P. tao tee Se ne ae ae
eee te teat eat erate ee hee eee eat oe eae al
“i
‘ * r
a .
Y aS)
‘A
~~
—
mph SE.106 E.CCE HOMO
sion. Eloquence has become music. Lightning- |
bolts are hurled towards undreamed-of futures.
The hitherto most powerful use of parables is timid
child’s play beside this return of language to the
nature of imagery. See how Zarathustra descends
from the mountain! How graciously he speaks to
all! See how tenderly he treats his adversaries, the
priests, how he suffers with them from themselves!
~ Here, at every moment, man is surpassed, and the
concept “Superman” becomes the greatest reality
—everything that has hitherto been called great in
man lies far beneath, immeasurably distant. The
halcyonic temper, the light feet, the omnipresence
of wickedness and exuberance and everything typi-
cal of Zarathustra, was never before thought to be
bound up with the essence of greatness. In pre-
cisely these spatial limits and this accessibility to
opposites Zarathustra feels himself the highest of
all living things: and when you hear how he defines
himself, you will give up trying to find his equal.
“The soul which hath the longest ladder and can
go deepest down,
“The most comprehensive soul, which can run
and stray and rove furthest in itself, the most neces-
sary soul, which out of joy flingeth itself into
chance ;—
“The soul in Being which plungeth into Becom-
ing; the possessing soul, which seeketh to attain de-
sire and longing; —
“The soul fleeing from itself, which overtaketh
ee en ee F “29
baserte"teesha-speseantahicne da Geen Seabee baehaae ie a oe Ce eT ba a ne RE ie Ey
aie
aha
I Rea has trish ia eae
Nea)
_—
“4
oe “-
a .
YF >
5 ~
raMe
Seen OEE
en
—
EROCE HOMO 107
itself in the widest circuit;—the wisest soul unto
which folly speaketh most sweetly: —
“The soul most self-loving, in which all things
have their current and counter-current, their ebb
- AS te je oe “ rev 7 » - a 7 : » ~
Cad an ee ne a eet oe eee eee aren ee SL poem tee pegecen ene eh She dteetid ahd ah Lk st IR cy ee ee NRE Fee oS
A
and their flow.” *
But this is the very essence of Dionysus. Another
consideration leads to this same idea. he psycho-
logical problem the Zarathustra-type presents Is
this: how can he, who to an unprecedented extent
says no, and acts no, in reference to all to which
man has hitherto said yes, nevertheless remain the
opposite of a no-saying spirit? How can he who
bears destiny’s heaviest burden, whose life-task is
a fatality, yet be the lightest and the most tran-
scendental of spirits—for Zarathustra is a dancer?
how can he who has the hardest and most terrible
insight into reality, and who has thought the most
“abysmal thoughts,” nevertheless find in these things
no objections to existence, or to its eternal recur-
rence?—how is it that on the contrary he finds rea-
sons for being himself the everlasting Yea to all
things, “the tremendous and unlimited saying of
Yea and Amen”? . . . “Into every abyss do I bear
the benediction of my yea to Life.” .. . But this
again is the very essence of Dionysus.
7
What language will such a spirit speak, when he
1 Modern Library Edition, p. 214.
Lad}
+“
a Se : _ aE eo —_ , .
SC hele a sere tiered erie ate SRS EN BENIN ER I EO TT re eh Eat ree Fg m
Sr . * a so - ieee ms, ~~ 3 ee = " < a oa S ¥en —2
artes ‘ iz : = ms: : é - ae ee are re) O
~
Pe) eae et
Pigs, > >, i et,
tear notin
, fe
fi
"ii
108 ECCE HOMO
communes with himself? The language of the
dithyramb. I am the inventor of the dithyramb.
Hearken unto’ the manner in which Zarathustra
speaks to his soul Before Sunrise (iii. 48). Before
I came such emerald joys, such divine tenderness,
had found no voice. Even the profoundest melan-
choly of such a Dionysus becomes a dithyramb. |
take as an example “The Night-Song”—the immor-
tal lament of one who, because of his superabun-
dance of light and power, because of his solar na-
ture, is condemned never to love:
“Tis night: now do all gushing fountains speak
louder. And my soul also is a gushing fountain.
“Tis night: now only do all songs of the loving
ones awake. And my soul also is the song of a lov-
ing one.
“Something unappeased, unappeasable, is within
me; it longeth to find expression. A craving for
love is within me, which speaketh itself the language
of love.
“Light am I: ah, that I were night! But it is my
lonesomeness, to be begirt with light!
“Ah, that I were dark and nightly! How would
I suck at the breasts of light!
“And you yourselves would I bless, ye twinkling
starlets and glow-worms aloft!—and would rejoice
in the gifts of your light.
“But I live in mine own light, I drink again into
myself the flames that break ‘orth from me.
“T know not the happiness of the receiver; andECCE HOMO 109
oft have I dreamed that stealing must be more
blessed than receiving.
“Tt is my poverty that my hand never ceaseth be-
stowing; it is mine envy that I see waiting eyes
and brightened nights of longing.
“Oh, the misery of all bestowers! Oh, the dark-
ening of my sun! Oh, the craving to crave! Oh,
the violent hunger in satiety!
“They take from me; but do I yet touch their
soul? There is a gap ’twixt giving and receiving;
and the smallest gap hath finally to be bridged
over,
“A hunger ariseth out of my beauty: I should
like to injure those I illumine; I should like to rob
those I have gifted: thus do I hunger for wicked-
ness,
“Withdrawing my hand when another hand al-
ready stretcheth out to it; hesitating like the cas-
cade, which hesitateth even in its leap:—thus do
I hunger for wickedness
“Such revenge doth mine abundance think of:
such mischief welleth out of my lonesomeness.
“My happiness in bestowing died in bestowing.
My virtue became weary of itself by its abundance!
“He who ever bestoweth is in danger of losing
his shame; to him who ever dispenseth the hand
and heart become callous by very dispensing.
“Mine eye no longer overfloweth for the shame
of suppliants;. my hand hath become too hard for
the trembling of filled hands.
7
- +
~ = « r Y
inoeiminntenialdaedl a ae RT ec or
a he ee ee
ST a ee oe ee we
SOG Oe eaten agp Mla
CS ae en eee ne ee ee ee ee ee
Ns
~
WaRaat ati ae ” P=
“ 1 A gem) |
Ss carrie tar bac doe inne ee pane ee a a ee ee
Le ee a ee . Pe al hs
SMEs pita ana Se SP PCO tn a ae aC
7
4 ,
¥,
B
i '
%
:
a '
ae
f
an
ne
> a
Nee
7”
ECCE HOMO
“Whence have gone the tears of mine eye, and
the down of my heart? Oh, the lonesomeness of
all bestowers! Oh, the silence of all shining ones!
“Many suns circle in desert space: to all that is
dark do they speak with their light—but to me they
are silent.
“Oh, this is the hostility of light to the shining
one: unpityingly does it pursue its course.
“Unfair to the shining one in its innermost heart,
cold to the suns:—thus traveleth every sun.
“Like a storm do the suns pursue their courses:
that is their traveling. Their inexorable will do
they follow: that is their coldness.
“Oh, ye only is it, ye dark, nightly ones, that
extract warmth from the shining ones! Oh, ye only
drink milk and refreshment from the light udders!
“Ah, there is ice around me, my hand burneth
with the ice! Ah, there is thirst in me; it panteth
after your thirst!
“Tis night: alas, that I have to be light! And
thirst for the nightly! And lonesomeness!
“Tis night: now doth my longing break forth
in me as a fountain—for speech do I long.
“Tis night: now do all gushing fountains speak
louder: and my soul also is a gushing fountain.
“Tis night: now do all songs of loving ones
awake. And my soul also is the song of a loving
one.”
CN a Ey a -
ee nee ee ee
a eas a i Ee Pe aaaECCE HOMO
8
Such things have never been written, never been
felt, never been suffered: such suffering can be borne
only by a God, Dionysus. The reply to such a
dithyramb on the sun’s solitude in light would be
Ariadne. . . . Who beside me knows who Ariadne
is! No one hitherto has found any clue to such
riddles; I even doubt whether any one ever saw a
riddle here. One day Zarathustra severely de-
termines his life-task—and it is also mine. Let no
one misunderstand its meaning. It is a yea-saying
to the point of justifying, to the point of redeeming
all past things.
“T walk amongst men as the fragments of the
future: that future which I contemplate.
‘And it is all my poetization and aspiration to
compose and collect into unity what is fragment and
riddle and fearful chance.
“And how could I endure to be a man, if man were
not also the composer, and riddle reader, and re-
deemer of chance!
‘To redeem what is past, and to transform every
‘It was’ into ‘Thus would I have it’!—that alone
do I call redemption!” ?
In another passage he defines as strictly as pos-
sible exactly what ‘“‘man” can be to him—not the
object of love nor yet of pity—Zarathustra has mas-
* Modern Library Edition, p. 149.
7 |
7 E i a lis ana a — nag te Ret 2 me . sea ae. yy
Ea oO tO aaa alae el
ee eee os eee hee rae
et he ote ete
OD Sit notte *
“ 7 . i)
1
x
"
~es
ier
a ee -o-~ b- - —
2 eS wits a MA ca a nd SE TT, as 2
. ee ee RTT Y: 5
j ‘
Nene ha a Ae i
a
se nena de deci acer a ae
PS mr ne an oi a NIE hh iT IEE
112 ECCE HOMO
tered even his loathing of man: man is to him some- 7
thing inchoate, raw material, an ugly stone in need |
of the sculptor.
‘No longer willing, no longer valuing, and no ~
longer creating! Oh, that that great debility may —
ever be far from me!
“And also in discerning do I feel only my will’s |
procreation and evolving delight; and if there be }
innocence in my knowledge, it is because there is
will to procreation in it.
“Away from God and Gods did this will allure }
me: what would there be to create if there were
—Gods!
“But to man doth it ever impel me anew, my |
fervent creative will; thus impelleth it the hammer |
to the stone.
“Ah, ye men, within the stone slumbereth an
image for me, the image of my visions! Ah, that}
it should slumber in the hardest, ugliest stone!
“Now rageth my hammer ruthlessly against iis
prison. From the stone fly the fragments: what’s §
that to me?
“T will complete it: for a shadow came unto me ™
—the stillest and lightest of all things once came ~
unto me!
“The beauty of the Superman came unto me as |
a shadow. Ah, my brethren! Of what account are
—__the Gods to me!” ®
$ Modern Library Edition, p. 99._r ed
a a
foe
ECCE HOMO 113
One last observation, suggested by the italicized
line. To the Dionysian life-task belongs the hard-
ness of the hammer, and one of its prime conditions
is a definite joy even in destruction. The command,
“Harden yourselves!” and the deep conviction that
all creators are hard, is the essential sign of a Diony-
sian nature.
mE an en rn fa naa a ADE Be eS dors
= en — mg wie
!
j 1
f
i
:
vs
i
- a. oe
\.
he aa ae ee a ee ae a a cd _ we eee eee
= Peale wonton CR ant De eee ek need ne en a ee ee ee ee
‘
\“BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL: THE
PRELUDE TO A PHILOSOPHY
OF THE FUTURE”
I
My work for the years that followed was pre-§
scribed as distinctly as possible. Now that the yea-
saying part of my life-task was achieved, there came }
the turn of the negative portion, which was to deny
both in word and in deed: the transvaluation of all?
previous values, the great wa ar—the evocation of |
the day of the final decision. Now I had to look
about me slowly for my peers, for those who, out»
of strength, would assist me in the work of destruc- }
tion. henceforth all my writings are so much)
bait: perhaps I understand angling as well as any
one? If nothing was caught, I was not to blame.
There were simply no fish.
Oe a a eS ne cette ae hen en ee ae y=
= - . ; . ; eae | ]
onheshieee
ees
Or Sata rset a Ca Rea a
-
E25 SSRI EAE
, rs phe
~
2 :
_
In all essential points, this book (1886) is a criti-
cism of modernity, including modern science, mod-}
ern art, even modern politics, along with some in-|
dications as to a contrasting type which would be}
as little like modern man as jjossible, a noble, 4)
yea-saying type. In this latter’ sense the book as)
II4
:
ve
—_
oECCE HOMO 115
school for gentlemen—the term here being used
with a much more spiritual and radical significance
than it has ever had before. Even to endure the
idea one must be physically courageous, one must
er have learned fear. All those things on which
> prides itself are felt as conflicting with the
mentioned; they are looked upon almost in the
of bad manners. Among these things are our
tar-lamed “objectivity,” “sympathy with all that
suffers,” “the historica
1 sense,” with its servility be-
ore foreign tastes, its lying-in-the-dust before petits
jatts, and finally the science mania —if you con-
sider the fact that this book follows Zarathustra.
you may perhaps guess to what dietetic régime it
owes its life. The eye which has been vigorously
compelled to see things at a great distance —Zara-
thustra is even more far-sighted than the Tsar—
is here forced, on the contrary, to focus sharply
on that which is close at hand, our own age and
environment. In all the aphorisms and especially
in the form, the reader will find the same voluntary
rejection of those instincts which made a Zarathus-
‘ra possible. Refinement in form, in aims. and in
the art of keeping silent, are emphasized; psy-
chology is handled with a deliberate hardness and
cruelty,—the book manages to get along without a
single good-natured word. . . . All this is invigorat-
ing. Who can conceive the kind of recreation made
mecessary by such an expenditure of goodness as is
to be found in Zarathustra? Theologically speak-
;
poo LP
& ls eet Sore i
nen ee eet ee eo bee ine SPS CN Gin’ Pia ee ial toes be Dee none]
RO eRe SOR i a en ee Ra ll .
SS be ta ieee eee eet eet rn
caP
y
116 ECCE HOMO
ing—pay close attention for I seldom speak as a )
theologian—it was God Himself who, at the end )
of His day’s work, coiled Himself up in the form of
a serpent at the foot of the tree of knowledge. It
was thus that He recovered from being a God. . . .
He had made everything too beautiful. . .. The
devil is simply God’s moment of idleness at the end
of that seventh day. |
f
i ®
/
4
i
{
f
'
;
f
ie
ie
1
iH
#
ie
ae
oe hee
cos te a a a
ie ara tae
—
4 Lo
fs
é
a
Z.
Pearsete =—
“THE GENEALOGY OF MORALS:
A POLEMIC”
THE three essays which make up this genealogy
are, as regards expression, aim, and the technique
of the unexpected, perhaps the most curious things
that. have ever been written. Dionysus, as you
know, is also the god of darkness. In each case
the beginning is calculated to lead one astray; it
is cool, scientific, even ironical, intentionally thrust
to the fore, intentionally reticent. Gradually the
atmosphere becomes less calm; there is an occa-
sional flash of lightning; exceedingly unpleasant
truths emphasize their appearance with a dull,
rumbling sound from out remote distances—until
finally a fierce tempo is attained in which everything
strains forward with terrible intensity. At the end,
in each case, amid fearful thunderclaps, a new truth
yecomes visible through heavy clouds. The truth
yi the first essay is the psychology of Christianity:
the birth of Christianity out of the spirit of resent-
ment, not, as is supposed, out of the “Spirit”—
essentially a counter-movement, a great rebellion
against domination by noble values. This second
essay deals with the psychology of conscience: this
iS not, as is supposed, “the voice of God in man”;
117
a eT ee nn ORS Fi Tn rr
S
y
~~
SRS od et ee ere ere ee en
er Powe fe
Dis ee te eee ee ee
3
~ hye
eio
¢
}
f
f
[
ee
f
;
:
U
se-aretitn-adeatn aieacier eee a pare ae
Br hr eta altar ie a a Ne Be
-
ERIS SAE
= a
Pe a,
¢t
i
ECCE HOMO
it is the instinct of cruelty, turning in upon itself 5
after it can no longer release itself outwardly. |
Crudty is here revealed, for the first time, as one |
of the sIdest and most indispensable elements in the }
foundation of culture. The third essay is a reply }
to the questicn as to the origin of the terrific power |
of the ascetic ideal, of the priest ideal, despite the |
fact that this ideal ix essentially harmful, that it is }
the will to annihilation and decadence. Reply: it |
was powerful not because God was active behind the |
priests, as is supposed, but because it was a faute |
de mieux—hitherto it has been the only ideal; it,
has had no competition. ‘For man would rather”
aspire to nothingness than not aspire at all.” The
main trouble was that before Zarathustra, a counter- |
ideal was lacking. You have understood my mean-
ing. Three decisive psychological overtures pre-}
ceding a Transvaluation of all Values—This book
contains the first psychology of the priest.“THE TWILIGHT OF THE IDOLS: HOW
TO PHILOSOPHIZE WITH THE HAMMER”
I
Tus work of not quite one hundred and fifty
pages, with its cheerful and fateful tone, like a
laughing demon, the work of so few days that I
hesitate to give their number—is altogether an ex-
ception among books: there is no work more rich in
substance, more independent, more subversive—
more wicked. Should any one care to get a brief
idea of how everything, before my time, was stand-
ing on its head, he might begin by reading this
book. What is called “Idols” on the title page 1s
quite simply everything that has hitherto been called
truth. The Twilight of the Idols—in plain English,
the old truth is nearing its end.
2
There is no reality, no “ideality,” that has not
been touched upon in this book (touched! what a
cautious euphemism!). Not merely those idols
which are eternal, but those that are most recent—
and consequently, most senile: modern ideas, for in-
stance. A strong wind blows among the trees and
II9
,
SR ee dy eee ee Sa nee moe
“ a Pe me -
s -_
SY ne Ptah a :
Sut pn IO So ea oe CT TN
7: a
. ~
I ee et ee en Ot ME ON Ll ea , ea ame ae ee es eee Pend atte “ se terr
gs
—rancanacaseorasmeramncy #7
eB OR Pe
ra
Sse eae De oS a rte dere ars ht
8 . a et
Fe hmm ha Serle
¢=
al
re
120 ECCE HOMO
everywhere fruit—truths—fall to earth. There is |
a surplus as of an overfruitful autumn here: you |
trip over truths; you even crush some to death, there |
are too many of them. But those things that you |
grasp are no longer questionable; they have the!
stamp of decisiveness. I alone possess a yardstick |
for “truths”; I am the sole arbiter. It would seem
as if a second consciousness had arisen in me, as
if the “will” in me had cast a light upon the down- 7
ward path along which it has been running for ages.
The downward path—that was what they called |
the road to “Truth.” All dark impulse—‘obscurest |
aspiration’ —is at an end; the “good man” is pre-
cisely he who is least aware of the “true way.” *
And, speaking quite seriously, no one before me |
knew the true way, the way upwards: only after |
my time could men once again find hopes, life-tasks, |
and paths leading to culture—of which J am the |
joyful herald. It is on this account that I am also |
a fatality.
3
Immediately after completing this work, and |
without losing a single day, I attacked the formidable
task of the Transvaluation with a supreme feeling
of pride which nothing could equal; and, sure at
every moment of my immortality, I engraved sign
1A good man through obscurest aspiration,
Has still an instinct of the one true way.
—Prologue to Faust, Bayard Taylor’s Trans.
SA Ph ey
ap aeECCE HOMO 121
after sign. upon brass tablets with the certainty of
Fate. The Preface was born on September 3, 1888.
When, after finishing it, I emerged into the morn-
ing air, I was greeted by the most beautiful day the
Upper Engadine had ever disclosed to me—clear,
glowing with color, and including all the contrasts
and all the intermediary gradations between ice and
the south. Owing to a delay caused by floods, I did
not leave Sils-Maria until the zoth of September,
so that I was finally the only visitor in this wonderful
spot, on which my gratitude bestows the gift of an
immortal name. After a journey full of incident,
including one narrow escape from death in the waters
of Lake Como, which was flooded when I reached
it in the dead of night,—I arrived at Turin on the
afternoon of the 21st. Turin, the only suitable
place for me, and from that time on, my home. I
took the same lodgings I had occupied in the spring,
Via Carlo Alberto 6, III, opposite the mighty Pa-
lazzo Carignano, in which Vittorio Emanuele was
born; I had a view of the Piazza Carlo Alberto and
of the hill-country beyond it. Without hesitating,
without letting myself be diverted for a moment,
I returned to my work; only the last quarter still
remained to be written. On the 30th of September,
a great triumph; the seventh day; divine idleness on
the banks of the Po. The same day, I wrote the
Preface to The Twilight of the Idols, the correc-
tion of the proofs of which was a recreation for
me during the month of September. I never experi-
NT
SESE
wien
oe wn ee Cn Se ee a Re RT eo
eee
anal
RR oe lee ol eT a a ee Me ae ee
Aeiviminitatoat amine an at .
a ne ne oe Se ee Be eT Te re
| ~
Rae
Ys
“=}
122 ECCEK HOMO
be ae Sp,
are engi te dea
enced such an autumn; nor ever imagined that such
things could be possible—a Claude Lorrain ex-
tended to infinity, every day of an equal unlimited
perfection.
ce eee
te deca ke ee seastchatteae ed
RLS ET ee ee
=
e)
;
Me .
Le
# :
fy
iy
eS eae Binet tere, ptariont sip pia arhieeaaates Re hese
—
Noh
wy.
~
So
- lla
i>
<=
fi“THE CASE OF WAGNER: A MUSICIAN’S
PROBLEM”
To do justice to this essay a man ought to suffer
from the fate of music as from an open wound.—
From what do I suffer when I suffer from the fate
of music? From this, that music has been deprived
of its world-transfiguring, yea-saying character—
that it is decadent music and no longer the flute of
Dionysus. Suppose, however, that a man feels the
cause of music to be his own cause, the expression
of his own passion; in that case he will find this essay
exceptionally mild and courteous. To be cheerful
amid such circumstances, and with others to make
good-natured fun of one’s self,—ridendo dicere
severum, when the verum aicere would justify any
degree of hardness,—is humanity itself. Who can
doubt that I, as an old artillery-man, had it in my
power to train my seavy guns on Wagner ?>—Every-
thing decisive in this matter I kept to myself—I
have loved Wagner.—But after all, an attack upon
a more than usually subtle “unknown person” whom
another would not have divinec so easily, is a signifi-
1 The motto of The Case of Wagner—Tr.
123
cat
PRR ce rete
(
REE ABE et ee eG he a a A ey BL owt
Ba
ee ee a ee oe ee eT ee
Pe
ay On eos
a eee
\SS
hw
-" Sa aah a le hat i eI Nae
=
" soe
po ke ay sal
}
Zz
oa
:
Re ne a bn eee ma tact caiecamenrarany Se
= a
sb
ye
fo
~*~
124 ECCEKE HOMO
cant part of my life-task. Oh, I still have quite a }
few other “unknown persons” to unmask besides a »
Cagliostro of Music! Especially, I have to direct |
an attack against the German people, who, in spiri- }
tual matters, grow constantly more indolent, poorer |
in instincts, and more honest; who, with enviable |
appetite, persist in nourishing themselves with con-
tradictions, and gulp down “Faith” together with
science, Christian love together with anti-Semitism,
and the will to power (to the “Empire”), together |
with the gospel of humility—all this without the ©
slightest sign of indigestion! They take no sides |
amid all these contradictions! What stomachic neu-
trality! What “selflessness”! What a sense of
justice there is in the German palate, which grants
equal rights to all,—which finds everything deli- >
cious! The Germans are undoubtedly idealists. On
my last visit to Germany, I found German taste
engaged in granting equal right to Wagner and the
Trumpeter of Sdkkingen; and I myself saw how
Leipzig tried to honor one of the most genuine and
most German of musicians—(using German in the
old sense of the word)—a man who was no mere
German of the Empire, the master Heinrich Schiitz,
by founding a Liszt Society, with the aim of culti-
vating and spreading artful (U%stige *) Church mu-
sic. The Germans are undoubtedly idealists... .
2 The pun, of course, is not transferable —Tr.ECCE HOMO
But here nothing shall prevent me from being
rude, and telling the Germans a few unpleasant
truths: who else is there to do it? I am speaking of
their laxity in historical matters. Not only have
the German historians completely lost that broad
view of cultural progress and cultural values; not
only are they all political (or Church) puppets; but
this broad view itself is banned by them. First and
foremost a man must be ‘‘German,” he must belong
to “the race”; only then can he decide upon all his-
torical values and lack of values—only then can
he establish them. . . . “I am a German,” consti-
tutes an argument, “Deutschland wtber Alles,” a
principle; the Germans represent the “moral order
of the universe” in history; in their relation to the
Roman Empire, they are standard-bearers of free-
dom; in their relation to the eighteenth century,
they are the restorers of morality, of the “Cate-
gorical Imperative.”’ There is such a thing as his-
tory interpreted according to Imperial Germany;
there is, I fear, even anti-Semitic history—there is
also court history, for which Herr von Treitschke
is not ashamed of himself. Recently an idiotic opin-
ion, a theory of Vischer the Swabian esthete, since
happily deceased, made the rounds of the German
newspapers as a “truth” to which every German
must perforce assent. Here it is: ““The Renaissance
and the Reformation must be taken together to con-
—
Ar a
ea SOS a Oe ere Tn ee eer ee ecartmeed Sf SIS
- ae ea A - BN mea le - ~ Petey Ps ti ieienainatirtanin Mae
Be on SF OR SOR ND re Nee Be een EDEN Ce Te en rn ES=
a
SII eT TT Te NE NE ITIL oan “23
- = Ree Ter har ntact La oS Ca a, ta fgg crn en i ta eae eh
Se yay —— SF 8-eemenep perigee a 3 ae marian iad ae ad uf
te fe
oe SIN
_
—.
is
=
]
126 KECCK HOMO
stitute a whole—the esthetic rebirth and the moral
rebirth.” Such sentences exhaust my patience, and
I feel a desire, I even feel it my duty, to tell the
Germans, once for all, what they already have on
their conscience. Every great crime against cul-
ture committed during the last four hundred years
lies on their conscience! . . . And always for the
same reason, because of their fundamental coward-
ice in the face of reality, which is also cowardice in
the face of truth; because of the falsehood which
has become almost instinctive with them—because
of “idealism.” The Germans deprived Europe of
the fruits, the whole meaning of her last period of
greatness—the Renaissance; and this at a moment
when a higher order of values, when values that
were noble, that said yea to life, that assured a
future, had achieved a victory over the opposing
values of degeneration, in the very hearts of their
supporters! Then Luther, that fatal monk, not
only restored the Church, but, what was a thou-
sand times worse, restored Christianity the very
moment that it lay prostrate. Christianity, the De-
nial of the Will to Live, became a religion! Luther
was an impossible monk who, on the basis of his
“Impossibility,” attacked the Church, and conse-
quently restored it! Catholics would have good
reason to celebrate feasts in honor of Luther, and
to produce festival plays in his honor. Luther and
the “moral rebirth”! To the devil with all psy-
chology! There is no doubt about it—the Ger-
©. ee See ~
on Og EE a ee a: arECCE HOMO 127
mans are idealists. On two separate occasions
when, by terrific boldness and self-control, an up-
right, unequivocal, and perfectly scientific attitude
of mind had been attained, the Germans knew how
to find a secret path back to the old “ideal,” recon-
ciliations between truth and the “ideal,’’ and, at bot-
tom, formule for a right to reject science and rein-
state falsehood. Leibniz and Kant—these two
great drag-chains upon the intellectual honesty of
Europe! Finally, when there appeared on the
bridge spanning two centuries of decadence, a su-
perior force of genius and will strong enough to
weld Europe into a political and economic unit, that
it might rule the world, the Germans, with their
Wars of Independence, robbed Europe of the mean-
ing, the marvelous meaning, of Napoleon’s life. And
with this they incurred the responsibility for every-
thing that resulted, everything that exists to-day—
the sickliness and stupidity that opposes culture, the
neurosis called Nationalism, from which Europe
suffers, this eternal subdivision of Europe into petty
states, accompanied by petty politics: they have
robbed Europe itself of its meaning and intelligence,
—they have led it into a blind alley. Is there any
one but I who knows a way out of this blind al-
ley? Any one who knows of a common task great
enough to reunite the peoples of Europe?
<—_—
es
NS
foes
pal
|
%
le
a
ra
;
|
DI
i
|
t
) t
3
o
‘
j
;
,
5;
~
h
a]
4
;
}
4
.y
|
Y
&
i
Vy
4
id
ei
ny
2}
i aed
_ eee ont — eh —_——,
Te bb pe
ae aes
sheer netaiice tatoo bee hee
(De a Sa a lata a aa Ne ht
me
a ee ene eae Ate.
ECCE HOMO
3
:
|
i
And after all, why should I not utter my sus-}
picions? In my case, too, the Germans will attempt
to make a great destiny give birth merely to a mouse.
They have compromised themselves with me up
to the present; I doubt whether things will get bet-
ter in the future. Oh, how I should like to prove |
a false prophet here! My natural readers and
listeners are already Russians, Scandinavians, and
Frenchmen—will they always be the same? In?
the history of knowledge, Germans are represented ©
only by doubtful names, they have produced only
|
|
t
:
i
“unconscious” swindlers (the word applies to Fichte, ©
Schelling, Schopenhauer, Hegel, and Schleiermacher, |
as well as to Kant or Leibniz; they were all mere |
Schletermachers).° The Germans must not have |
the honor of associating with theirs the first upright |
intellect in their history of intellect, an intellect in
which truth prevailed over a swindle lasting four ”
thousand years. ‘German intellect” is bad air for
me: I breathe with difficulty in the neighborhood of |
this psychological uncleanliness that has now be- |
come instinctive—an uncleanliness which in every ©
word and gesture betrays a German. They have
never endured a seventeenth century of vigorous
self-examination, as have the French,—a La Roche-
foucauld, a Descartes, are a hundred times more
3 Schletermacher=a maker of veils—Tr.BRGCGCE HOMO 129
upright than the first among Germans—who till
now have had no psychologists. But psychology is
practically the standard of measurement for the
cleanliness or uncleanliness of a race... . / And if
a man is not clean, how can he be deep? The Ger-
mans are like women, you can never fathom their
depths—they have none, and that ends it. They
cannot even be called shallow. What is called
“deep” in Germany, is precisely this instinctive un-
cleanliness toward one’s self, of which I have just
spoken: they wll not be clear in regard to their own
natures. Might I not suggest the word “German”
as an international epithet to indicate this psycho-
logical depravity?—At this moment, for instance,
the German Emperor is declaring it to be his Chris-
tian duty to free the slaves in Africa; among us good
Europeans, this would simply be called “German.”
_, . Have the Germans ever produced even a book
that had depth? They have no notion what consti-
tutes depth. I have known scholars who considered
Kant deep. At the Prussian Court I fear that Herr
von Treitschke is regarded as deep. And when I
have chanced to praise Stendhal as a deep psycholo-
gist, I have often been compelled, among German
University Professors, to spell out his name for
them.
4
And why should I not proceed to the end? I
: .
~ J
“ Pe « _— SF A NAD ee en ¥ ~—. ey A
CF te Sh ie nae en PS ee eet a "3
sloth S eT ae) lates ce A gaa ni ate
Ce en ea SN For Ss Nae oe ee ate bee eee
love to make a clean breast of things. It is even
7 ms 7
5 “ters ve
a tae
eae
aae
“ “
“$id
ee re ee oo rr.
Poe Penn Or Ce na ne bn Pearle yr yen poy orn
ee ee
ee ees
ST RTI OM LTT:
aN NE a ee ar
130 ECCE HOMO
part of my ambition to be considered as a despiser
of Germans par excellence. At the age of twenty-
six I had already expressed my suspicions of the
German character (see my Thoughts out of Season,
third part). The Germans are impossible for me.
When I try to think of a man who runs counter to
all my instincts, the result is always a German. My
first test of a man, is, whether he has a feeling for
distance in him; whether he sees rank, gradation,
and order everywhere between man and man:
whether he makes distinctions; for this is what con-
stitutes a gentleman. Otherwise he belongs irrev-
ocably to that open-hearted, alas! quite good-
natured species, /a canaille! But the Germans are
canaulle—for, alas! they are so good-natured! A
man debases himself by consorting with Germans:
the German places every one on an equal footing.
If I except my intercourse with a few artists, and
especially with Richard Wagner, I may say that I
have not spent one pleasant hour with Germans. If
the profoundest spirit of the ages were to appear
among Germans, some savior of the Capitol would
be sure to declare that his own unbeautiful soul was
at least as great. JI cannot endure this race with
which a man is always in bad company, which has
no feeling for nuances (and alas! I am a nuance),
which has no esprit in its feet, and cannot even
walk! For the Germans have no feet at all, they
merely have legs. The Germans have no idea of
how vulgar they are—which is itself the very acme
i 2 ee ane eaeWOCE HO MO 131
of vulgarity,—they are not once ashamed of being
merely Germans. They will have their say in every-
thing, they regard themselves as fit to decide every-
thing; I fear that they have even decided about
me. . . . My whole life is essentially a proof of
this. In vain have I sought among them for a sign
of tact and delicacy towards myself. Among Jews
I did indeed find it, but never among Germans. My
instinct is to be mild and benevolent to all,—I have
the right not to draw distinctions,—but this does
not prevent me from keeping my eyes open. I ex-
cept no one, least of all my friends—I can only
hope that this has not prejudiced my reputation
for humanity towards them. There are five or six
things which I have always held as points of honor.
Nevertheless, the truth remains that for many years
I have regarded almost every letter I received as
a piece of cynicism. For there is more cynicism
in an attitude of good-will towards me than in any
sort of hatred. I tell every one of my friends frankly
that he has never thought it worth the trouble to
study any of my writings: I can guess, from some
slight indications, that they are not even familiar
with their contents. And as concerns my Zarathus-
tra, which of my friends would have seen more in it
than a piece of inexcusable, though fortunately quite
harmless, arrogance? Ten years have elapsed, and
no one has yet felt himself in duty bound to defend
my name against the absurd silence under which it
lies buried. It was a foreigner, a Dane, who first
— ce a
a
et Seat a ra aed ee ee ee en ee ea RE Finca rt ne
—~
Es Tita ee ot et ee a Se oe wee
et aa
me
Is ee ete en ae en a ene eee on eae ee EN ea
wa Po
X
Ne
aSn a oa LY F Sr
Cee ees ee
=
ae hc ie de gh at ear i
ce
t
2 rn
-
ft
a
132 ECCE HOMO
showed sufficient keenness of instinct and courage to |
do this, and who grew indignant at my so-called §
friends. At what German University to-day would )
such lectures on my philosophy be possible, as those }
which Dr. Brandes delivered last spring in Copen- |
hagen, thus proving once more his right to be called
a psychologist? I myself have never suffered from |
all this; what is necessary does not offend me. Amor ©
fati is the essence of my nature. This, however, does 7
not prevent a love of irony, even world-historic |
irony. And, accordingly, about two years before
hurling the annihilating thunderbolt of the Trans-—
valuation, which will send the whole earth into con-
vulsions, I sent my Case of Wagner out into the |
world. The Germans were to immortalize them- |
selves once more by completely misunderstanding |
me—there is still time for it. And have they done |
so? Admirably, my dear Germans! Allow me to |
congratulate you. . . |WHY I AM A FATALITY
I
I KNow my destiny. Some day my name will be
bound up with the recollection ot something terrific
—of a crisis quite unprecedented, of the most pro-
found clash of consciences, and the decisive con-
demnation of all that theretofore had been believed,
required, and hallowed. I am not a man, I am
dynamite. And with all this there is nothing in me
to suggest the founder of a religion. Religions
are the business of the mob; after coming in con-
tact with a religious man, I always have to wash
my hands. .. . I want no “believers”; I think I
am too full of malice even to believe in myself; I
never address myself to the masses. I have a ter-
tific fear that some day I shall be pronounced
“holy.” You can easily guess why I publish this
book beforehand—it is to prevent people from wrong-
ing me. I do not wish to be a saint; I would much
rather be a clown. Perhaps I am a clown. And
despite this—or rather not despite this (for there
has never been anything falser than a saint)—I am
the voice of truth. But my truth is terrible: for
hitherto lies have been called truth. The Transval-
vation of all Values: that is my formula for man-
kind’s act of highest self-recognition, which in me
133
;
Pe
—
EO ad ER ee eS i OT oo
See
FS ee tn eneeneterpeg—eenale: pe ee he A he ae Oe Se
i
a
4 > a *
io ia aot the wie “ oe
a I a wr pene oe
tSet nines eee tal
es 4
IIS Tene ee
=
+
a Neate ee ee en tae ? Te
PAT ee ONDA LER ee
So a telnet a cor Saran thet aharcewea trac chp stipe ia
rs es 3 ert te tr merida tod reodangeaePRe
Pie a aly
ae
Pigs
és
a
ECCE HO MO
has become flesh and genius. My destiny ordains
that I should be the first decent human being, that
I should feel myself opposed to the falsehood of
ages. I was the first to discover truth, by sensing
falsehood as falsehood. I smelt it as such. . . My
genius resides in my nostrils. I contradict as no
one has contradicted before, and nevertheless I am
the reverse of a negative spirit. I am a joyful her-
ald, unparalleled in history; I am acquainted with
tasks of a grandeur formerly inconceivable. Hope
is reborn with me. Thus, I am necessarily a Man
of Destiny.' For when Truth engages in struggle
with the falsehood of ages, we must expect shocks
and a series of earthquakes, with a rearrangement
of hills and valleys, such as has never yet been
dreamed of. The concept “politics” is thus raised
bodily into the realm of spiritual warfare. All the
mighty forms of the old society are blown into space
—for they all rest on falsehood: there will be wars,
whose like have never been seen on earth before.
Politics on a grand scale will date from me.
2
Do you desire a formula for such a destiny
become incarnate? It is contained in my
Zarathustra:
‘And he who would be a creator in good and evil
must first be a destroyer, and break values into
pieces. ;
A
4ECCE HOMO 135
“Thus the greatest evil belongeth unto the great-
est good: but this is the creative good.”
I am by far the most terrible man that has ever
existed; but this does not negate the fact that I
shall be the most beneficent. I know the joy of
annihilation to a degree commensurate with my
power to annihilate. In both cases I obey my
Dionysian nature, which cannot separate the nega-
tive deed from yea-saying. I am the first im-
moralist, and thus I am the essential destroyer.
>
4
I have not been asked, as I should have been,
precisely what the name of Zarathustra meant in
my mouth, in the mouth of the first immoralist; for
waoat constitutes the historical uniqueness of this
Persian is the fact that he was the exact opposite.
Zarathustra was the first to see in the struggle be-
tween good and evil the essential wheel in the work-
ing of things. The translation of morality into
metaphysics, as force, first cause, end-in-itself, 1s
his work. But the very question already suggests
its own manner. Zarathustra created this most
fateful of all errors—morality; consequently, he
must be the first to recognize it as an error. Not
only because he has had longer and greater expe-
rience of the subject than any other thinker,—all
history is indeed the experimental refutation of the
theory of the so-called moral order of the world,—
a
ees
aR Be Cte
SOS SRNL ce atest ER a MOR Ne ee ee ee
~ leer ee ree
ha
ci
she?
aEe a oo a —
136 ECCE HOMO
what is more important is that Zarathustra is more
truthful than any other thinker. His teaching and
his alone defines truthfulness as the highest virtue—
that is to say, as the reverse of the cowardice of
- the “idealist” who flees at the sight of reality.
‘ Zarathustra has more boldness in him than all other
4 thinkers put together. To tell the truth and to
J | shoot straight: those are the Persian virtues. Do
+ | you understand? . .. The defeat of morality by
+ | itself, through truthfulness, the moralist’s defeat of
himself in his opposite—in me—that is what the
' name Zarathustra means in my mouth.
ew
=
SOM CRS Ae et
4
At bottom there are two negations included in
the term Immoralist. First I deny the type of
man who formerly passed as the highest—the good,
the benevolent, the charitable; and, on the other
hand, I deny that kind of morality which has be-
come recognized and dominant as morality-in-itself
—the morality of decadence, or, to use a cruder
term, Christian morality. I would agree to con-
sider the second of these negations as the more
decisive, for, generally speaking, the overevaluation
of goodness and kindness seems to me already a
consequence of decadence, a symptom of weakness,
incompatible with an ascending, yea-saying lile.
Negation and annihilation are conditions of the
yea-saying attitude. Let me pause for a moment at
a MEM tri int hE 0 Soe earns in nad
a
a
rc}
a
’
FF Oo me ny wai
od ia Hn 8 8 .
¢=
7a
.
|
Poem EY
ECCE HOMO 137
nl
the problem of the psychology of the good man.
In order to evaluate any type of man, we must cal-) =
culate the cost of his maintenance, we must know, 4
the conditions of his existence. The condition of}
the existence of the good is falsehood: or, expressed ~* ‘
differently, the unwillingness to see how reality is &% Z
actually constituted; a reality which is not. always
provocative of beneficent instincts, and which is
still less pleased at the continual intrusion of care-
less, good-natured hands. To consider distress of
all kinds as an objection, as something to be de-
stroyed, is sheer idiocy; generally speaking, it is
actually harmful in its consequences, a fatal stu-
pidity—almost as mad as the desire to abolish bad
weather, out of pity for the poor, perhaps. In the,
great economy of the universe, the terrors of reality |
(in the passions, in the desires, in the will to power) | :
are incalculably more essential than that form of |
petty happiness, so-called “‘goodness’’; it is sheer
indulgence to grant the latter any place at all, since
it is bound up with a falsification of the instincts.
I shall have a good opportunity of showing the
ghastly consequences to history, of optimism, this
misshapen offspring of the homines optimi. Zara-
thustra, the first to see that the optimist is just as
degenerate as the pessimist, and perhaps more
ha-‘nful, says: “Good men never speak the truth.
False shores and false harbors were ye taught by
the good. In the lies of the good were ye born and
bred, Through the good everything hath become
\\ ae ne i oe ae ae a ee aa - ed = A > . '
“I fo. i ne Ce nn ea SY OO ee eT Oe ST SEE A SE en A EE Pe re ee te Nene ee DN ST ea in RM Oe VE Re ea a aaren a a eT eB Seal oral
t—
eee ee
vs
ne ee EN er ht a XN S-Series as EB ee EI
}
“
55
net
a
:
7
P
e
138 ECCE HOMO
false and crooked from the very roots.’ Fortu-
nately the world is not built merely upon those in-
stincts in which the good-natured herd-animal ;
would find his paltry happiness. To demand that |
everybody become a “good man,” a gregarious ani-
mal, a blue-eyed, benevolent, “beautiful soul,” or—
as Herbert Spencer wished—an altruist, would mean :
robbing existence of its greatest character, cas-
trating mankind and reducing it to a wretched
Mongolism. And this has been attempted! It is
this that men call morality. In this sense Zara-
thustra calls “the good” now “the last men,” and
again “the beginning of the end”; and above all,
he considers them the most harmful kind of men,
because they secure their existence at the cost of
Truth and at the cost of the Future.
“The good—they cannot create; they are ever
the beginning of the end.
“They crucify him who writeth new values on new |
tables; they sacrifice unto themselves the future;
' they crucify the whole future of humanity!
“The good—they are ever the beginning of the
' end.
“And whatever harm the slanderers of the world
may do, the harm of the good is the most calamitous
of all harm.”
~
?
5
Zarathustra, the first psychologist of the good ~
man, is consequently the friend of the evil man.ECCE HOMO 139
When a degenerate man arises to the highest rank,
he must do so only at the cost of the reverse type—
at the cost of the strong man who is certain of life.
When the herd-animal shines with the bright rays
of the purest virtue, the exceptional man must be
degraded to the rank of the evil. When f
insists at all costs on claiming the word “truth”
as its world-outlook, the really truthful man must
be sought out among those of worst repute. Zara-
thustra is quite unequivocal here; he says that it
was precisely the knowledge of the good, of the
“Dest,” that caused his horror of men. And it was
out of this feeling of repulsion that he grew the
wings with which to soar into distant futures. He
does not conceal the fact that this type of man, a
relatively superhuman type, is superhuman particu-
larly as compared with the “good” man, and that
the good and the just would call his superman the
devil.
“Ye higher men, on whom my gaze now falls,
this is the doubt that ye wake in my breast, and
this is my secret laughter: methinks ye would call
my Superman—the devil! So strange are ye in
your souls to all that is great, that the Superman
would be terrible in your eyes for his goodness.”
It is from this and no other passage, that one
must set out to understand the goal that Zara-
thustra wants—the kind of man that he conceives,
conceives reality as it is; he is strong enough for
this—he is not estranged or removed from it, he is
alsehood
ay ‘
wl
SC
a
ee eneres
SO Te nn ED:
Ret ee nl ee
Ee ee Ie ee fe Ne ad ot eee TE Nn
, a
ee ee
“ : be en te140 ECCE HOMO
himself the reality, in him can be found all the
doubt and terror of reality: only thus can man
have greatness.
er
6
But I have chosen the title of Immoralist as a
mark of distinction in still another sense; I am
very proud to possess this name that elevates me
above all mankind. No one hitherto has felt Chris-
tian morality beneath him; to do that one must
have height, far vision, and an abysmal psycho-
logical depth, previously utterly unheard of. Up to
the present Christian morality has been the Circe
of all thinkers—they stood at her service. What
man, before me, had descended into the caves from
which the poisonous fumes of this ideal—of this
slandering of the world—burst forth? What man
before me had even dared to suspect that they were
caves? What one of the philosophers preceding
me was a real psychologist, and not its very re-
verse, a “superior swindler,” an “Tdealist”? Before
me there was no psychology. To be the first may be
y \a curse; in any case, it is a destiny: for as the first
| one also can despise. My danger is the loathing of
} mankind.
7
Have you understood me? What defines me,
what places me apart from the rest of humanity,
DT hata heated i 2M: - 1 “4 mw ony
ee lary in a SSS rch a Ea sa ee Oe eee
Boa SRE
¢c
‘
a
neECCE HOMO 141
is the fact that I unmasked Christian morality. |
For this reason I needed a word which would con- |
tain the idea of a universal challenge. Not to have |
soen these things before seemed to me to be the |
sign of the greatest uncleanliness mankind has on
its conscience, to be self-deception become instinc-
tive, to be the fundamental will to close one’s eyes
to every phenomenon, every cause, every reality;
in fact, it was a psychological deception that
amounted to crime. Blindness in the face of Chris-
tianity is the essential crime—it is the crime agaist
life. Ages and peoples, the first as well as the last,
philosophers and old women, with the exception of
five or six moments in history (and of myself, the
seventh), are all equally guilty. Christian morality
is the most pernicious form of the will to falsehood,
the real Circe of humanity, that has corrupted it.
It is not error as error which infuriates me here;
it is not the age-long lack of “good-will,” of disci-
pline, of decency, and of spiritual courage, which
betrays itself in the triumph of Christian morality;
it is the absence of nature, it is the perfectly ghastly
fact that what was unnatural received the highest
honors as morality, and remained suspended over
man as the law of the Categorical Imperative.
Imagine blundering in this way, mot as an indi-
vidual, mot as a people, but as mankind! To teach |
the contempt of the primal life-instincts; to set up
fraudulently a “soul,” a “spirit,” in order to over-
throw the body; to teach man to find impurity in |
- ~ os Yj
OR Oe a ae RET Eee era —
- os
e Sah oo Se eon Sue
> ij
\
aS
—
a oe Me Some Se
OCA PM LTBI K
Ee ee oe ead ra Tne oe a
wePea
-
ye
ee,
baler ed
OO alt ad EET ERI } «29
ae th Rs bn > ne Se nee Pee
=
AN EOS eS i =r emiipi eT al eee se aa dee ra ys
142 ECCE HOMO
‘\the prerequisite of life—in sex; to look for the
|
principle of evil in the profound need for expansion |
—that is to say, in vigorous self-love (the term itself |
is Slanderous); and conversely to see a higher moral
value—but what am I saying?—I mean the moral
value per se, in the typical signs of decay, in the
antagonism of the instincts in “selflessness,” in the |
loss of ballast, in “objectivity” and in “neighbor |
love.” What! is humanity itself in a state of de-
cadence? Has it always been so? One thing is
established, that ye have been taught only the values
of decadence as the highest values. The morality —
of self-renunciation is essentially the morality of
degeneration; the fact, “I am going to the dogs,”
is translated into the imperative, “Ye shall all go to
the dogs’”—and not only into the imperative. This
morality of self-renunciation, the only kind of
: morality that has been taught hitherto, betrays the
will to nothingness—it is a basic denial of life.
There still remains the possibility that it is not
mankind that is degenerating, but only that para-
sitical kind of man—the priest, who, by means of
morality has lied himself into his position of de-
terminer of values, who has divined in Christian
morality his road to power. And, in fact, this is
my opinion. The teachers and leaders of man-
kind—including the theologians—have been, every
one of them, decadents: hence their transvaluation
of all values into a hostility to life; hence morality.
Here is a definition of morality: Morality is theECCK HOMO 143
idiosyncrasy of decadents, actuated by a desire to
avenge themselves successfully upon life. I attach
great value to this definition.
§
Have you understood me? I have not uttered a
single word which I had not already said five years
ago through the mouth of Zarathustra. The un-
masking of Christian morality is a unique event, a
real catastrophe. He who throws light upon it is a| ,
force majeure, a fatality; he breaks the history 2 :
mankind in two. Man lives either before or after
him. The lightning truth struck precisely that
which heretofore had stood highest: he who under-
stands what was then destroyed should look to see =
—
;
whether he still holds anything in his hands. — i”
Everything which until then was called truth, is 2 |
now recognized as the most harmful, spiteful, and ¢
concealed form of falsehood; the sacred pretext, the —
“improvement” of man, is recognized as a ruse to
drain life of its blood. Morality as Vampirism.
. . . He who unmasks morality simultaneously un-
masks the worthlessness of the values in which men
believe or have believed; he sees nothing worthy
of honor in the most venerated men—even in the
type of men that has been pronounced holy; he sees
in them only the most fatal kind of abortions, fatal,
because they fascinate. The concept “God” was
invented as the counter-concept to life—everything
ae SS Me ON Be BE SY nc OE a ce eee ne ee
SE be a lt ed
Se eee ae te Se ee en
i
%
{
¥
i
{
af
ul
a a
Py A
Bd
be
4 a
a,
roi
F)
P,
—¥
a
144 ECCE HOMO
harmful, poisonous, slanderous, and all deadly hos-
tility to life, all bound together in oneshorrible unit.
The concepts “beyond” and “true world” were in-
vented in order to depreciate the only word that
exists—in order to leave no goal, no significance,
no task, to our earthly reality. The concepts “‘soul,”’
“spirit,” and last of all the concept ‘‘immortal soul,”
were invented to despise the body, to make it sick
and “holy,” to inspire a terrible levity towards all
those things in life which deserve to be treated
seriously, questions of nutrition, housing, intel-
lectual diet, care of the sick, cleanliness, and
weather. Instead of health, we find the “salvation
of the soul’”—in other words, a folie circulaire fluc-
tuating between the convulsions of penitence and
the hysteria of redemption. The concept “sin,”
together with the instrument of torture appertaining
to it, the concept of “free will,’ was invented in
order to mislead our instincts, to render the mis-
trust of them man’s second nature! In the concepts
“selflessness” and “self-denial,” the actual symptoms
of decadence are revealed. The allurement of the
harmful, the inability to discover one’s real needs,
and finally self-destruction, are converted into val-
ues, into the “duty,” the “holiness,” and the “di-
vinity” of man. Finally—most frightful of ail—
the notion of the good man comes to mean every-
thing which is weak, ill, misshapen, and suffering
from itself, everything which should be obliterated.
The law of selection is thwarted, an ideal is made in
ee tn at tae its.
hernias ce
whee een dea Ceatas Seaehen ana Sh pr a IS BE TN Ta a Sar Sh
Pe SSIS EES EIB IOS EEE Shs
wn
,
ss
fECCE HOMO 145
opposition to the proud, fortunate man, to the yea-
Saying man, to him who is certain of the future, to
him who guarantees the future—this man is hence-
forth called evil. And all this was believed in as
morality!—Ecrasez lV’infame!
9
Have you understood me? Dionysus versus
Christ. .
.
, Y
“—,
ee j
ee
al
—s
Ee NR ET Re ent oo
—~
CEI eae al Oe et eee a a Me RE Nae ee En Be
(
Ny
3
:
BI
4
|
oT
9
|
r
4
J
¥
i
Ph
i
'
iy
Rf
ag
yrec ee
ee 2 Se eee so
Saas Pye i IE i hs
DT a ny rh aE ESRC ah rina DSS bon ha Senate ta a
- a
hha
a
AN ATTEMPT AT SELF-CRITICISM
(1886)
I
WHATEVER may lie at the bottom of this doubtful
book is a question of the first rank and interest; ~
moreover it is a deeply personal question—in proof
thereof note the time in which it originated, and
despite which it originated, the exciting period of
the Franco-German war of 1870-71. While the
thunder of the battle of Worth was rolling over
Europe, the ruminator and riddle-lover, who was to
be the father of this book, sat somewhere in a corner
of the Alps, lost in riddles and ruminations, con-
sequently very much concerned and at the same time
unconcerned; and he wrote down his meditations
on the Greeks—the kernel of the curious and diffi- -
cult book, to which this belated prologue (or epi-
logue) ‘is devoted. A few weeks passed and he
found himself under the walls of Metz, his mind not
yet free of questions concerning the alleged ‘‘cheer-
fulness” of the Greeks and of Greek art; till at last,
in that month of greatest suspense, when peace was
being debated at Versailles, he too attained to peace —
with himself, and slowly convalescing from a dis-
ease brought home from the field, made up his mind
definitely regarding the “Birth of Tragedy from
146ECCE HOMO 147
the Spirit of Music.” Music? |Music—and
Tragedy? Greeks—and tragic music? Greeks and
the Art-products of pessimism? A race of men,
well-fashioned, beautiful, envied, life-inspiring, like
no other race hitherto, the Greeks—indeed? Were
the Greeks in need of tragedy? Yea—of art?)
Whertfore—Greek art? ...
We can thus guess the great question that arose
concerning the value of existence. Is pessimism
necessarily the sign of decline, of decay, of failure,
of exhausted and debilitated instincts?—as was the
case with the Indians, as is, to all appearance, the
case with us “modern” men and Europeans? Is
there a pessimism of strength? Is there an intel-
lectual predilection for what is hard, awful, evil,
problematical in existence—a tendency that is the
result of well-being, exuberant health, a fullness of
existence? Is there perhaps suffering involved in
that very overfullness? A seductive keen-eyed bold-
ness which yearns for the terrible, as for the enemy,
the worthy enemy, against whom it may measure its
strength, from whom it would learn what “fear”
is? What does tragic myth mean to the Greeks of
the best, the strongest, the bravest era? And the
prodigious phenomenon of the Dionysian? And
that which was born of the Dionysian, tragedy?
And again: that of which tragedy died, the Socra-
tism of morality, the dialectic complacency and
cheerfulness of the theoretical man? Might not
this very Socratism be a sign of decline, of fatigue,
oa
ae
bie on ne ay
'
Se tA eine nd Sree el ee ramen tet geen he RS lah AES BILE BENG SO RYE O NTL bape em Seed
a 2 ee Oe Laotend b a
eo slams
et er a le ee =
. é4 We a a
ts hoe ene a et en en eee re ANNE |
vy
a
ec~ a
nhete-Siterdarey ht
-~Es -
wh fe-ceta heres sca i iS De RR a
BN Loa ete aS hace Ni A a BN NS
J
?
PF.
er
;
Pn
i
148 ECCE HOMO
of disease, of anarchical disintegrating instincts?
And the “Greek cheerfulness” of the later Hellen-
ism, might that not be merely a glowing sunset?
Is the Epicurean will counter to pessimism merely
a precaution of the sufferer? And science itself, our
science—aye, considered as a symptom of life, what
does all science really signify? Whither, Worse
still, whence—all science? Well? Is scientism
perhaps only a fear and an evasion of pessimism?
A subtle defense against—iruth? Morally speak-
ing, something like falsehood and cowardice? And,
unmorally speaking, an artifice? O Socrates, Soc-
rates, was this perhaps t/y secret? Oh, mysterious
ironist, was this perhaps thine—irony? .. .
2
What I then began to deal with was a thing ter-
rible and dangerous, a problem with horns, not
necessarily a bull, but in any case a new problem.
To-day I should say it was the problem of science
itselfi—science glimpsed for the first time as prob-
lematic, as questionable. But the book, the outlet
for my youthful ardors and suspicions—what an
impossible book must needs be the result of a task
so unfit for a youth. Constructed out of mere pre-
cocious, immature personal experiences, all of which
lay close to the threshold of the communicable, seen
from the standpoint of avt—for the problem of
science cannot be discerned on the groundwork ofECCE HOMO 149
science, a book perhaps for artists (that is, an
exceptional kind of artists, for whom one must seek
and does not even care to seek ...), with the
analytical and retrospective tendencies that accom-
pany such artists, full of psychological innovations
and artists’ secrets, with an artist’s metaphysics in
the background, a work of youth, full of youthful
spirit and youthful melancholy, independent, defi-
antly self-sufficient even when it seems to bow to
some authority and self-veneration; in short, a
firstling-work, in every bad sense of the term; in
spite of its old problem, filled with every fault of
youth, above all with youth’s prolixity and youth’s
“storm and stress”: on the other hand, in view of
the success it had (especially with the great artist
to whom it addressed itself, as it were, in a duo-
logue, Richard Wagner), it was a demonstrated
book, I mean a book which, at any rate, sufficed
“for the best of its time.’ On this account, it
should be treated with some consideration and re-
serve; yet I shall not altogether conceal how un-
pleasant are the feelings it awakens in me, how
after sixteen years it stands a total stranger before
me,—before an eye which is more mature, and a
hundred times more fastidious, but which has by
no means grown colder, an eye that has lost none of
its interest in that very problem attacked for the
first time by this daring book,—to view science
through the eyes of the artist, and art through the
eCyesiop Ufa.
t
= SE
foes
es nd el ee et ae ee Me Neen ON DN BE OY a bene a em CM nn ee fnaguegis Cupaect-Oaepaebeed lB OF nd Hert
ten Pe oT iat ‘ . \
a et en ON Se Pee ea ee ot rn et]
~~
wastest epee hae caer chsh a a Re SE SR tay , Tt
Sheed
*
il
Pe on
A oI
Piel,
v=
ERLE BTA LAR ROE
Paty
}
y
‘Al
ECCE HOMO
3
Let me repeat that to-day the book appears im- |
possible to me,—I consider it badly written, heavy,
painful, full of a straining after images, maudlin,
sugared at times to the point of effeminacy, uneven
in tempo, devoid of the will to logical clarity, utterly
convinced and therefore contemptuous of demon-
stration, distrustful even of the propriety of demon- .
stration, viewing itself as a book for initiates, as
“music” for those who are baptized in the name of
Music, as a book for those who are united from the -
beginning of things by common and rare experi-
ences in art, as a countersign for blood-relations im
artibus,—a haughty and fantastic book, which from
the very first page withdraws even more from the
profanum vulgus of the “cultured” than from the
‘Heople,” but which also, as its effect has shown and
still shows, knows quite well how to seek out fellow-
enthusiasts and lure them into new byways and
dancing-grounds. Here, at any rate—this much was
acknowledged with curiosity as well as with aver-
sion—here spoke a strange voice, the disciple of a
still “unknown God,” who for the time being had
concealed himself under the scholar’s hood, under
the German’s gravity and discomfort in the face of
dialectic, even under the bad manners of the Wag-
nerian; here was a spirit with strange and still
nameless needs, a memory bristling with questions,
experiences and obscurities, beside which stood theECCE HOMO 151
name Dionysus like still another question mark;
here spoke—people said to themselves with suspi-
cion—something akin to a mystic and almost mz-
nadic soul, which, undecided whether it should re-
veal or conceal itself, stammers uncontrolled, with
difficulty aS in a strange tongue. It should have
sung, this “new soul”—not spoken! What a pity
that I did not dare to utter my thoughts as a poet!
Perhaps I could have done so! Or at least as a
philologist: for even to-day almost everything in
this domain remains to be discovered and disin-
terred by the philologist! Above all was the prob-
lem, that here there is a problem before us,—and
that, as long as we have no answer to the question
“What is Dionysian?” the Greeks must remain, now
as ever, wholly unknown and unintelligible... .
4
Yes, what is Dionysian? In this book an answer
is found,—for here speaks a “knowing one,” the
votary and disciple of his god. Perhaps to-day I
should speak with more caution and less eloquence
of a psychological question so difficult as that of the
origin of Greek tragedy. A fundamental question
is the relation of the Greek to pain, his degree of
sensitivity—did it remain constant? or did it vary?
—did his ever-increasing longing for beauty, for
festivals, merriment, new cults, really grow out of
want, privation, melancholy, pain? For even if
Oe aan RN ne en
cat
CARL NNT are aT vase eT eee Se Ne em Nerd
y= .
ee ee eee oo gy
1 De nS ee PET of nent eae tee
5
\SD eee anit Len J
APRA AERA BINT I ee EE
seh ee teeta abt te ia Tees Se
”™ a — _
i
hms
Ee SE ot fata hating ne Te kate oe
i Mg ea RR EEE EN we SEEM
=
Pre?
rs
/
152 ECCE HOMO
this were true—and Pericles (or Thucydides) intr
mates as much in the great Funeral Oration—fiow
shall we account for the opposite longing, that pre §
ceded it, the longing for the ugly, the Old Hellene’s *
stout, resolute will to pessimism, to tragic myth, 16
a conception of all that is terrible, evil, mysterious,
destructive, fatal, at the basis of existence? Whence ’
then must tragedy have sprung? Perhaps from
joy, from strength, from exuberant health, from
overfullness. And what then, physiologically speak- ©
ing, is the significance of that madness, the Did- ©
nysian madness, out of which grew comic as well as ‘
tragic art? What? Is it possible that madness is not
necessarily a symptom of degeneration, of decline,
of a decadent culture? Perhaps this is a question
for alienists—there are neuroses of fealth? Of ©
folk-youth and folk-youthfulness? What does that
synthesis of god and goat in the satyr mean? What
personal experience, what compulsion, made the |
Greek conceive the Dionysian reveler and primitive
man as a satyr? And as regards the origin of the
tragic chorus: perhaps there were endemic ecstasies
in these periods when the Greek body flourished and
the Greek soul overflowed with life? Visions, per-
haps, and hallucinations, which gripped entire com- |
munities, entire cult-assemblies? What if the
Greeks in the very wealth of their youth had the
will to be tragic and were pessimists? What if it
was madness itself, to use a word of Plato’s, which
conferred the greatest blessings upon Hellas? AndECCE HOMO 153
what if, on the other hand and conversely, at the
very moment of their dissolution and weakness, the
Greeks became increasingly more optimistic, more
superficial, more histrionic, also more ardent for
logic and the logicizing of the world,—consequently
at the same time more ‘‘cheerful” and more “‘scien-
tific’? Yes, despite all “modern ideas” and demo-
cratic prejudices, may not the triumph of optimism,
the domination of common sense, the practical and
theoretical w«tilitarianism (like democracy itself,
with which it is synchronous )—may not all these be
symptomatic of declining vigor, of approaching age,
of bodily fatigue? And not, in any sense,—pessi-
mism? Was Epicurus an optimist—because a swf-
ferer? . . . We can now see the load of weighty
questions with which this book has burdened itself
—let us not fail to add the weightiest question of
all! Viewed through the eyes of life, what is the
meaning of—morality? . .
_
J
Even in the foreword to Richard W2gner, art—
and not morality—is set down as the properly meta-
physical activity of man; in the book itself there
recurs time and again the piquant proposition that
the existence of the world is justified only as an
esthetic phenomenon. In fact, the entire book
recognizes only an artist-thought and an artist-
afterthought behind all occurrences,—a “God,” if
~ 7
. 7 a |
7 > - . Pp 7
LN nS ER AD ene a ER ee : a eo D. a enn ELE
To Be ed Nt a a Ne en ee De De re en NE de eas oe oe) SAE ne WN ad eer ie ee
aneet
et oe ee A
~ ae
ee eat aw . ee
soe he teeter te at Te le rt hen ee eee
ON ee
ae on_-
}
A ae MR esa brlilg pa ie bet St Serensh ie erage aetnale nese ee aaa a te Re ene ites
ahah ay
io
“
a
a:
‘
a“
>
Pa
154 ECCE HOMO
you wish, but assuredly only a quite thoughtless
and unmoral artist-God, who, in creation as in de-
struction, in good as in evil, desires to become con- |
scious of his own equable joy and mastery; who, in
creating worlds, frees himself from the anguish of
fullness and overfullness, from the suffering of the
contradictions concentrated within him. The world
is conceived as the continuous redemption of God,
as the ever-changing, ever-new vision of the most-
suffering, most discordant, most contradictory being,
who can redeem himself only in appearance. You
may call it arbitrary, idle, fantastic, if you will,—
but the point is, that this entire artist-metaphysics :
already betrays a spirit, which is determined some:
day, at all hazards, to make a stand against the
moral interpretation and significance of life. Here,
for the first time perhaps, a pessimism “Beyond
Good and Evil” announces itself; here form and
expression are given to that “perverseness of dispo-
sition” against which Schopenhauer never tired of.
hurling thunderbolts;—here is a philosophy which,
with derogatory intent, dares to place morality itself
in the world of phenomena, and not only among
“phenomena” (in the sense of the idealistic terminus
technicus), but among the “illusions,” as appear-:
ance, semblance, error, interpretation, rationaliza-
tion, art. Perhaps the depth of this anti-moralistic:
tendency may be best estimated from the guarded:
and hostile silence with which Christianity is treated”
throughout the book,—Christianity, considered as4
a
CC
nek
ECCE HOMO 155
the most extravagant burlesque of the moral theme
to which mankind has hitherto been obliged to
listen. In fact, there is no greater antithesis to the
purely esthetic world-interpretation and justification
taught in this book, than the Christian dogma,
which is oly moral, which wishes to be only moral,
and which, with its absolute standards (for instance,
the truthfulness of God), relegates—that is, dis-
owns, convicts, condemns—art, all art, to the realm
of falsehood. Behind such a mode of thought and
evaluation, which, if at all genuine, must be hostile
to art, I could always feel something ostile to life,
the wrathful, vindictive negation of the will to life:
for all life rests on appearance, art, illusion, the
human vision, the necessity of perspective and
error. From the beginning, Christianity was, essen- )
tially and thoroughly, the nausea and surfeit of Life
for Life, which merely disguised, concealed and.
decked itself out under the belief in “another” or
“better” life. The hatred of the “world,” the con-
demnation of emotion, the fear of beauty and sen-
Suality, a beyond, invented to slander this world all
the more, at bottom a longing for Nothingness, for
the end, for rest, for the “Sabbath of Sabbaths”—
all this, together with the unconditional insistence
of Christianity on the recognition only of moral
values, has always appeared to me as the most
dangerous and ominous of all possible forms of a
“will to perish”; at the very least, as the symptom
)
of a most fatal disease, of the profoundest weari-
Aeon ee
ee ee Oe pn re en on
SERS A Boe ed eee eet re tere ona Strat en ee oe
Pee ee
% Seon :
ros el ee — = 7 De eae
A x nena - Se ee ee ee eee ne Se a ee oe ee
aad
YS156 ECCE HOMO
ness, faint-heartedness, exhaustion, anemia—for /
judged by morality (especially Christian, that is,
absolute morality) life must constantly and inevi-
tably be the loser, because life is something essen-
tially unmoral,—indeed, bowed down under the
weight of contempt and the everlasting No, life
must finally be felt as unworthy of desire, as in
itself unworthy. Morality itseli—what?—may not
morality be a ‘‘will to negate life,”’ a secret instinct
for annihilation, a_principle_of decay, _of deprecia-.
tion, of slander, the beginning of the end? And,
accordingly, the danger of dangers? ... It was
against morality, therefore, that my instinct, an
instinct defending life, turned in this provocative
book, inventing for itself a fundamental counter-
dogma and counter-evaluation of life, one purely
artistic and anti-Christian. What should I call it?
As a philologist and man of words I baptized it,
not without some impertinence,—for who could be™
sure of the proper name of the Antichrist?—with
the name of a Greek god: I called it Dionysian.
ree coer essere See
6
Can you now see the problem I dared suggest
in this early work? How I now regret that at that.
time I did not have the courage (immodesty?) to:
allow myself an individual language for such indi-
vidual contemplations and attempts—that I pain-.
fully sought to express, in Kant’s and Schopen-
, i ‘Wee ST si ee =a prvi e tip tarhiia tala nS SEP Se eet fete Serres eas Se Oe oa es Stas Dn ee
~ i,
has
raECCEK HOMO 157
hauer’s terms, strange and new values, which were
fundamentally opposed to the spirit, as well as the
taste, of Kant and Schopenhauer! What, for ex-
ample, were Schopenhauer’s views on tragedy?
“What gives”—he says in The World as Will and
Idea, Il. 495—“‘to all tragedy that singular swing
towards elevation, is the awakening of the knowl-
edge that the world, that life, cannot satisfy us
thoroughly, and consequently is ot worthy of our
attachment. In this consists the tragic spirit: it
therefore leads to resignation.’ Oh, how different
was the voice of Dionysus! How alien to me then
was this very resignationism! But there is some-
thing far worse in this book, which I now regret
even more than I regret having obscured and spoiled
Dionysian anticipations with Schopenhauerian for-
mule: to wit, that, in general, I spoiled the grand
Hellenic problem, as I saw it, by an admixture of
modern ideas! That I entertained hopes, when
there was no hope, when everything pointed but too
plainly to an approaching end! That, on the basis
of our latter-day German music, I began to make
up stories about the ‘“‘Teutonic spirit” as if it were
on the point of discovering and returning to itself—
aye, and that I did this just when the German spirit
which not long before had still had the will to lead
and master Europe, testamentarily and conclusively
resigned, and, under the pompous pretense of
founding an empire, effected its transition to medi-
ocracy, democracy, and ‘modern ideas.” In fact,
“
p
t
-?
a
’
- :
eli? 4
—"
- = em a ee pt eee ET] Se Pe
ot
SLOSS SUT care platessa ede 1S Ee ANS
Pe oe
RS Oe ae Site Mai “a : wR ¥
NE a nr Se tn OR ae eee ened Sore,.
s
EeCh HOMD
I have since learned to regard this “Teutonic spirit”
without either hope or pity, just as I regard our
contemporary German music, which is romantic
through and through, the most un-Grecian of all
art-forms, and moreover a first-class nerve-destroyer,
doubly dangerous for a people that likes drinking
and honors obscurity as a virtue—dangerous’ in
its twofold capacity of an intoxicating and stupe-
fying narcotic. Of course, apart from ali pre-
cipitate hopes and faulty applications to matters spe-
cially modern, with which I then spoiled my first
book, the great Dionysian problem there suggested,
persists, even with reference to music: how shall
we conceive of a music, which is no longer, like
the German, of Romantic origin, but of Dvo-
Soret ie eanerree aac crane een Seer ae One es
me are see rae a ae i "dep eee el oe
=
et ai
nysian.
7
se taepanlices otea thane iia
—But, my dear Sir, if your book is not Roman-
ticism, what in Heaven’s name is? Can a deep |
hatred of the present, of “reality” and “modern
ideas,” be more emphasized than it is in your artist-
metaphysics?—which would rather believe in
Nothing, or in the devil, than in the “Now”? Is
there not a fundamental bass growl of wrath and
destructive joy beneath all your contrapuntal vocal
art and aural seduction? Does not the book contain |
a mad determination to oppose all that is “now,” |
a will not very far removed from practical nihilism |
which seems to say: “Let nothing be true, sooner
et eee
por
Ce gt
—
> PEALE
——
4
nc ectherteeeriene ieee
FF PS on a em a vena
.
]
ll a
MeansECCE HOMO 159
than have you right, and your truth prevail!”
Listen to yourself, my dear Sir Pessimist and art-
defier, listen with open ears, to a single select pas-
sage of your own book, that not ineloquent dragon-
slayer passage, which may have a seductive Pied
Piper appeal to young ears and hearts. What? Is
not that the romanticism of 1830 par excellence,
masked as the pessimism of 1850? After which, of
course, the usual romanticist finale at once strikes
up—rupture, collapse, return and prostration before
an old belief, before the old God. . . . What? is
not your pessimist book itself a piece of anti-
Hellenism, an example of Romanticism, something
“equally intoxicating and stupefying,”’ a narcotic
at all events, aye, a piece of music, of German
music? Hearken to this:
“Let us imagine a rising generation with this bold
vision, this heroic desire for the magnificent; let us
imagine the valiant step of these dragon-slayers, the
proud daring with which they turn their backs on all
the effeminate doctrines of optimism, that they may
‘live resolutely,’ wholly and fully. Would it not be
necessary for the tragic man of this culture, with
his self-discipline of seriousness and terror, to de-
sire a new art, the art of metaphysical comfort,
namely, tragedy—to claim it as Helen, and exclaim
with Faust:
“Und sollt ich nicht, sehnsiichtigster
Gewalt,
)
a
"
\
ees
a. ne
Neat et
A
~~
ae
SALES OC SEES MAE re ea SR Te gegen cna bs AE aa BE EL IGS SELEY CON RS aang sand eek LTS
Oo ins cag caer eye arenakewn SSE LD LCE GNA ET
Cet ded
eae |a etnies | hit
nt OITA — — Seen .
i ee nip haifa elaine SE SUE 5 tarnish iil ir a ee
eI
4 q
iy
Ni
49°
ai
f
i
5
it
a
a
‘
PIF:
aT
7s
4
ECCE HOMO
Ins Leben ziehn die einzigste Ge-
staltr’’ «
“Would it not be mecessary?” ... No, thrice
no! ye young romanticists: it would not be neces-
sary! But it is very probable, that things may end
thus, that ye may end thus, namely “comforted,” to
use my term, in spite of all self-discipline of seri-
ousness and terror; metaphysically comforted, in
short, as Romanticists are wont to end, as Chris-
tians. . . . No! ye should first of all learn the art
of earthly comfort, ye should learn to laugh, my
young friends, if ye wish to remain pessimists: if so,
you will perhaps, as laughing ones, eventually send
all metaphysical comfortism to the devil—and
metaphysics first of all! Or, in the language of
that Dionysian ogre, called Zarathustra:
“Lift up your hearts, my brethren, high, higher!
And do not forget your legs! Lift up also your
legs, ye good dancers, and better still if ye stand
upon your heads!
“This crown of the laughter, this rose-garland
crown: I myself have put on this crown; I myself
have consecrated my laughter. No one else have
I found to-day potent enough for this.
“Zarathustra the dancer, Zarathustra the light
one, who beckoneth with his pinions, one ready for
1 And shall not I, by mightiest desire,
In living forms that sole fair form acquire ?
—Faust, Swanwick’s Trans.ECCE HOMO 161
flight, beckoning unto all birds, ready and prepared,
a blissfully light-spirited one: —
“Zarathustra the soothsayer, Zarathustra the
sooth-laugher, no impatient one, no absolute one,
one who loveth leaps and side-leaps: I myself have
put on this crown!
“This crown of the laughter, this rose-garland
crown: to you, my brethren, do I cast this crown!
Laughing have I consecrated; ye higher men, /earn,
I pray you—to laugh!” ’
2 Thus Spake Zarathustra, \xxiii. 17, 18, and 20.
Modern Library Edition.
Sils-Maria, Oberengadin, August, 1886.
= EE
Partie
CRA are areas a a Re ME AL Fe OS RE Nad SE nn fe a RRR Fee et
4
a
Pee of
or ORL AOS
|
3
4
A
AY
a4
4]
a
7]
sy
a
Bs
7fe
4
f
;
Fi
i
j
y
f
ie
i
|
t
} ’
a
ie
te
I ’
be
5
[
Dy
i
iy
hs
,
yl
if
re
ee
(
:
>
basics
Ee,
Law
ee OA Ne
ee, aie
as
é
Pn, ;
% or : - r - . aa ero
ane - OO ER ha eee ow mein Rete et ae ~ ea
THE BIRTH OF TRAGEDY
FROM THE SPIRIT OF MUSIC
SOT carey gabe ea ee ee
Se ae tl ee Se bee oe ny
Reeth eee fe ee ee ee
She aeeltaae yl
rea
Se Ag
SS
«
.~;
Fea
em en ee eh ae | hig
v \
i
> |
|
i
i
,
f
:
; ;
a!
(
Be
bf
5
4
+
ie
'
f
a
I,
y
J
F
‘fe
b
‘
a)
ce
<%
Sia
ft
/|
FOREWORD TO RICHARD WAGNER
In order to keep at a distance all the possible
scruples, excitements, and misunderstandings to
which the thoughts gathered in this essay will give
occasion, considering the peculiar character of our
esthetic publicity; and also that I may be able to
write the introductory remarks with the same con-
templative joy, whose reflection (the result of good
and elevating hours) it bears on every page; that I
may do this, I picture the moment when you, my
much respected friend, will receive this essay; per-
haps, after an evening walk in the winter snow, you
will behold the unbound Prometheus on the title-
page, read my name, and be at once convinced that,
whatever this essay may contain, the author has
something serious and impressive to say, and, more-
over, that in all his meditations he communed with
you as with one present and so could write only
what befitted that presence. Thus you will be re-
minded that I collected myself for these thoughts
just when your magnificent dissertation on Bee-
thoven originated, amid the horrors and sublimities
of the war which had just then broken out. But
it would be a mistake for any to suppose that this
colle¢tion merely opposes esthetic revelry to patri-
mirachtement, gay Saag to gallant earnest-
165
See MGR) omen ae A
i Oe A a es ce ee ea al pear iy os
SOR ERA ae wl ee ee ee ee Se NU Ne On oe ON Det eae Bea
fn ae tl ot ae AP Pe pe)
eouse
J A ne" An et i Migiyl i at
A Oe ee ee or ee
ty
ee ee eee a
PELE TLE I eee ae a ec ene di
re nee ear
Skea
T+
Sa te a SETA ORT
4 !
=
“SOE
Fe
ae
vt .
1446 THE BIRTH OF TRAGEDS
ness. Upon a real perusal of this essay, such a
reader, rather to his surprise, will discover how
serious is the German problem we must deal with,
which we properly place, as the critical considera-
tion, in the very center of German hopes. Perhaps,
however, this same class of readers will be shocked
at seeing an esthetic problem taken so seriously,
especially if they see in art nothing but a merry
diversion, an easily dispensed-with tinkling accom-
paniment to the “seriousness of existence’”’: as if no
one had any idea of the meaning of the opposition
implied. These earnest ones may be informed of
my conviction that art is the highest task and the
proper metaphysical activity of this life, as it is
understood by the man, to whom, as my noble
champion on this same path, I now dedicate this
essay.
Basel, end of the year, 1871.14, sects
a
THE BIRTH OF TRAGEDY
I
WE shall do a great deal for the science of es-
thetics, once we perceive not merely by logical
inference, but with the immediate > certainty of in-
tuition, that the continuous development of art is |
‘bound up with the Apollonian and Dionysian _dual-
ity: just as procreation depends on the duality of
the sexes, involving perpetual strife with only peri-
odically intervening reconciliations. The terms
Dionysian and Apollonian we borrow from the
Greeks, who disclose to the discerning mind the
profound mysteries of their view of art, not, to be :
sure, In concepts, but in the impressively clear fig-
ures of their gods. Through Apollo and Dionysus,
the two art-deities of the Greeks) we come to recog-
nize fhat in the Greek world there existed a sharp
opposition, in origin and aims, between the Apol-
lonian art_of sculpture, and the non-plastic, Diony-
Sian, art of music. These two distinct tendencies
run parallel to each other, for the most part openly
at variance; and they continually incite each other
to new and more powerful births, which perpetuate
an antagonism, only superficially reconciled by the
common term “Art”; till at last, by a metaphysical
miracle of the Hellenic will, they appear coupled
167
- ; n "|
on a BE ie ne Ne. ~- OTe mam ED 4
leat OO eR MSE DAE BRE pent Oe ee en re OL cin de DR nn re ay ee
oe een FOES Se et ot ee pee
nlaed
‘| - “ oe
ye
Na of
aae — 7
2 a IY
a ee eer ee =
Se eae rene. i Goat Rta eR a SR as
Ne I ant rrteeehine ee
: Sonya, atc re aplasia ra a
/ . ni gniie - . . aii
ra,
rae
166 THE BIR DPHOOF TRAGEDY
with-each other, and through this coupling even-
tually generate the art-preduct, equally Dionysian
and Apollonian, of Attic tragedy. i)
In order to grasp these two tendencies, let us first
conceive of them as the separate art-worlds of
dreams and drunkenness. ‘These physiological phe-
nomena present a contrast analogous to that existing
between the Apollonian and the Dionysian. It was
in dreams, says Lucretius, that the glorious divine
figures first appeared to the souls of men; in dreams
the great shaper beheld the splendid corporeal struc-
ture of superhuman beings; and the Hellenic poet,
if questioned about the riiysteries of poetic inspira-
tion. would likewise have suggested dreams and he
might have given an explanation like that of Hans
Sachs in the Mastersmgers:
“Mein Freund, das grad’ ist Dichters Werk,
dess er sein Traumen deut’ and merk’.
Glaubt mir, des Menschen wahrster Wahn
wird ihm im Traume aufgethan:
all’ Dichtkunst und Poéterel
ist nichts als Wahrtraum-Deuterei.” *
The beautiful appearance of the dream-worlds, in
creating which every man is a perfect artist, is the
prerequisite of all plastic art, and in fact, as we
1 “My iriend, that is exactly the poet’s task, to mark his dreams
and to attach meanings to them. Believe me, man’s most pro-
found illusions are revealed, to him in dreams; and all versifying
and poetizing is nothing a an interpretation of them.”
BdA
—_
nN ” ; :
Tee
THE BERTH OF “TRAGEDY a69
fpr
our dreams we delight in the immediate apprehen
sion of form; all forms speak to us;none are unim-
portant, none are superfluous. But, when this
dream-reality is most intense, we also have, glimmer-
ing through it, the sensation of its appearance: at
least this is my experience, as to whose frequency,
aye, normality, I could adduce many proofs, in addi-
tion to the sayings of the poets. Indeed, the man
of philosophic mind has a presentiment that under-
neath this reality in which we live and have our
being, is concealed another and quite different
reality, which, like the first, is an appearance; and
Schopenhauer actually indicates as the criterion of
philosophical ability the occasional ability to view
men and things as mere phantoms or dream-pic- )
tures. Thus the esthetically sensitive man stands in :
the same relation to the reality of dreams as the
philosopher does to the reality of existence; he is _ ;
a close and willing observer, for these pictures af- / /
ford him an interpretation of life, and it is by these
processes that he trains himself for life. And it is
not only the agreeable and friendly pictures that he
experiences in himself with such perfect under-
standing: but the serious, the troubled, the sad, the
gloomy, the sudden restraints, the tricks of fate, the
uneasy presentiments, in short, the whole Divine
Comedy of life, and the Inferno, also pass before
him, not like mere shadows on the wall—for in these
scenes he lives and suffers-—-and yet not without that
Shall see, of an important part of poetry also: “In \
2 SOY sO CEST Oat oe neuron dE LY
cs a = ce oa = ee Neen Be in
y
otal 0 res od - so a —_
Pataca Sa ee de ee eee ee ee ee A be ee et ed
at
SE Bewts
a A
‘use
XYSI
pe tent ie Aled ior a oo to he het erdenta latest a ” o
See eine ne Sa 5 IIR Bnet fri ren A ae ET Tey ee
: = 3 ‘ se tect eh?! "
FT A a Name em er
xa re
, Z
i170 THE BIRTH OF TRAGEDY
fleeting sensation of appearance. And _ perhaps
many will, like myself, recall that amid the dangers
and terrors of dream-life they would at times, cry
out in self-encouragement, and not without success:
“Tt is only a dream! I will dream on!” J. have
likewise heard of persons capable of continuing one
and the same dream for three and even more suc-
_cessive nights: facts which indicate clearly that our
innermost beings, our common subconscious ex-
periences, express themselves in dreams because
they must do so and because they take profound
delight in so doing.
“This joyful necessity of the dream-experience has
been embodied by the Greeks in their Apollo: for
[Apollo, the god of all plastic energies,.is at the same
time the soothsaying god. He, who ( as the etymol-
ogy of the name indicates) is the “shining one,” the
deity of light, is also ruler over the fair appearance
of the inner world of fantasy. The higher truth, the
perfection of these states in contrast to the incom-
pletely intelligible everyday world, this deep con-
sciousness of nature, healing and helping in sleep and
dreams, is at the same time the symbolical analogue
of the soothsaying faculty and of the arts generally,
which make life possible and worth living. But we
must also include in our picture of Apollo that deli-
cate boundary, which the dream-picture must not
overstep—lest it act pathologically (in which case
appearance would impose upon US as pure reality).
We must keep in mind that measured restraint, that
’ J Peete sich Lb ST
f
wy aeBIRTH OF TRAGREY 2
eee,
es
Tas
freedom from the wilder emotions, Yhat philosophi ical
calm of the sculptor-g god. His eye must be “sun-_
like,” as befits his origin; even when his glance is
angry and distempered, the sacredness of his beau-
tiful appearance must still be there. And so, in one
sense, we might apply to Apollo the words of
Schopenhauer when he speaks of the man wrapt In
the veil of Maya: ? Welt als Wille und Vorstellung,
I. p. 416: “Just as in a stormy sea, unbounded in
every direction, rising and falling with howling
mountainous waves, a sailor sits in a boat and trusts
in his frail barque: so in the midst of a world of
sorrows the individual sits quietly, supported by and
trusting in his principium individuationts.” In fact,
we might say of Apollo, that in him the unshdken-
faith in this principium and the calm repose of the
man wrapt therein receive their sublimest expres-
sion; and we might consider Apollo himself as the
glorious divine image of the principium individua-
tionis, whose gestures and expression tell us of all the
joy and wisdom of “appearance,” together with its
beauty. -
In the same work Schopenhauer has depicted for
us the terrible awe which seizes upon man, when he
is suddenly unable to account for the cognitive forms
of a phenomenon, when the principle of reason, in
some one of its manifestations, seems to admit of an
exception. if we add to this awe the blissful ecstasy
2 Cf. World as Will and Idea, I. 455 ff., trans. by Haldane and
Kemp. N
Se
v
-
CHAM Gre ela tag se oe ae A
De sith te ba a - TORE of we
eam eR ea ee Ted ee en eee oe Oe ee ee ea ae
oe
&
Lnnhacietiindeetl F 23
i772 THE BIRTH ‘OF TRAGER
which rises from the innermost depths of man, aye,
of nature, at this very collapse of the principium
individuationis, we shall gain an insight into the
nature of the Dionysian, which is brought home to
us most intimately perhaps by the analogy of
drunkenness. It is either under the influence of the
narcotic draught, which we hear of in the songs of
all primitive men and peoples, or with the potent
coming of spring penetrating all nature with joy,
that these Dionysian emotions awake, which, as they
intensify, cause the subjective to vanish into com-
plete self-forgetfulness.| So also in the German
Middle Ages singing and dancing crowds, ever in-
creasing in number, were whirled from place to place
under this same Dionysian impulse. In these dan-
cers of St. John and St. Vitus, we rediscover the
Bacchic choruses of the Greeks, with their early
history in Asia Minor, as far back as Babylon and
the orgiastic Sacea. There are some, who, from
obtuseness, or lack of experience, will deprecate
(\) such phenomena as “‘folk-diseases,” with contempt
eee
. — ini = rs
a ht-astetarsiadaraci etetes heen ee TO ee a SENS RET ae a are o
. ms —_ ~ ae ee o Py a ea a 4 nor
es
yj or pity born of the consciousness of their own
! “healthy-mindedness.” But, of course, such poor
wretches can not imagine how anemic and ghastly
their so-called “healthy-mindedness” seems in con-
trast to the glowing life of the Dionysian revelers
rushing past them.
Under the charm of the Dionysian not only is the
union between man and’ man reaffirraed, but Nature
which has become estranged, hostile. or subjugated,
aa een
iB. 4
he —
of %
gos
—.TE han TH OF TRAGEDY “We
celebrates once more her reconciliation with her
prodigal son, man. Freely earth proffers her gifts,
and peacefully the beasts of prey approach from
desert and mountain. The chariot of Dionysus is
bedecked with flowers and garlands; panthers and,
tigers pass beneath his yoke. Transform Bee-
thoven’s “Hymn to Joy” into a painting; let your
imagination conceive the multitudes bowing to the
dust, awestruck—then you will be able to appreciate_.'
the Dionysian. Now the slave is free; now all the
stubborn, hostile barriers, which necessity, caprice
or “shameless fashion” have erected between man
and man, are broken down. \ Now, with the gospe
of universal harmony, each one feels himself not
only united, reconciled, blended with his neighbor,’
ut as one with him; he feels as if the veil of Maya
had been torn aside and were now merely fluttering
in tatters before the mysterious Primordial Unity,
In song and in dance man expresses himself as
member of a higher community; he has forgotten
how to walk and speak; he is about to take a danc-
ing flight into the air. His very gestures bespeak
enchantment. Just as the animals now talk, just as
the earth yields milk and honey, so from him 3
emanate supernatural sounds. He feels himself aj
god, he himself now walks about ench;.nted, in §
ecstasy, like to the gods whom he saw walking about,
in his dreams.¢ He is no longer an artist, he has be-]
come a work cf art: in these paroxysms of intoxica+
tion the artistit power of all nature reveals itself to
*
ET aE ad ee eet ee a Se em Ni Ba
an” Ayitarmncn a ae - aera Ry a ae
ite he Oe ee en ene ee oe eae et oO eeea eee
De aa ne ar oe a
al Sd
A
Fo aah cee — po
- mentees Shida’ dene te
-
aS
53
Sede een
oe eel ata
5 inh i a ENS at hres ieee ——
Bp DA Neneh, a
is
?
ia: THE BIRTH OF WRAGED®
the highest gratification of the Primordial ite
| The noblest clay, the most costly marble, mart,
here kneaded and cut, and to the sound of the
chisel strokes of the Dionysian world-artist rings
out the cry of the Eleusinian mysteries: “Do ye bow
in the dust, O millions? Do you divine your creator,
O world?”
2
Thus far we have considered the Apollonian and
its antithesis, the Dionysian, as artistic energies
which burst. forth from nature herself, without the
mediation of the human artist; energies in which
nature’s art-impulses are satisfied in the most im-
mediate and direct way: first, on the one hand, in
the pictorial world of dreams, whose completeness 1s
_not dependent upon the intellectual attitude or the
artistic culture of any single being; and, on the other
hand, as drunken reality, which likewise does not
heed the single unit, but even seeks to destroy the
“slang and redeem him by a mystic feeling of
neness. With reference to these immediate art-
states of nature, every artist is an “imitator,” that
is to say, either an Apollonian artist in dreams, or a
Dionysian artist in ecstasies, or finally—as for
example Cn. Greek tragedy—at once artist in both
dreams and ecstasies: so we may perhaps picture
him sinking down in his Dionysian drunkenness and
mystical self-abnegation, alone, anc apart from
the singing revelers, and we may imagine how now,THE BR TH OF DVAGE DY tis
through Apollonian dream-inspiration, his own
state, z.e., his oneness with the primal nature of the
universe, is revealed to him in a symbolical dream-
pict ure.
So much for these general premises and contrasts.
Let us now approach the Greeks in order to learn
how highly these art-impulses of nature were devel-
oped in them. Thus we shall be in a position to
understand and appreciate more deeply that relation
of the Greek artist to his archetypes, which, accord-
ing to the Aristotelian expression, is “the imitation
of nature.” In spite of all the dream-literature and
the numerous dream-anecdotes of the Greeks, we can
speak only conjecturally, though with reasonable
assurance, of their dreams. If we consider the in-
credibly precise and unerring plastic power of their
eyes, together with their vivid, frank delight in
colors, we can hardly refrain (to the shame of all
those born later) from assuming even for their
dreams a certain logic of line and contour, colors and
groups, a certain pictorial sequence reminding us of
their finest bas-reliefs, whose perfection would cer-
tainly justify us, if a comparison were possible, in
designating the dreaming Greeks as Homers and
Homer as a dreaming Greek: in a deeper sense than
that in which modern man, speaking of his dreams,
ventures to-compare himself with Shakespeare.
On the other hand, there is no conjecture as to the
immense gap which separates the Dionysian Greek
from the Dionysian barbarian. From all quarters
A
~~
re
a SOR lS A See Nc ae An ne BR Ei STC ar eR Estat iy 0 ern DN Bier
ptt rete '
Reem he ek ee ted ee ee he ee eae on eco ne
ead iv" er
a}
ra
j Ve .06 OTL LT AO EER AG Ea
of the Ancient World,—to say nothing here of the
modern,—from Rome to Babylon, we can point to
the existence of Dionysian festivals, types which
bear, at best, the same relation to the Greek fes-
tivals as the bearded satyr, who borrowed his name
and attributes from the goat, does to Dionysus him-
self. In nearly every case these festivals centered
in extravagant sexual licentiousness, whose waves
overwhelmed all family life and its venerable tradi-
tions; the most savage natural instincts were un-
leashed, including even that horrible mixture of
sensuality and cruelty which has always seemed to
me to be the genuine “‘witches’-brew.” For some
time, however, it would appear that the Greeks were
perfectly insulated and guarded against the feverish
excitements of these festivals by the figure of Apollo
himself rising here in full pride, who could not have
held out the Gorgon’s head to any power more
dangerous than this grotesquely uncouth Dionysian.
It is in Doric art that this majestically-rejecting atti-
tude of Apollo i is eternized. The opposition between
Apollo and Dionysus “became more hazardous and
even impossible, when, from the deepest roots of the
Hellenic nature, similar impulses finally burst forth
and made a path for themselves: the Delphic god,
by a seasonably effected reconciliation, now con-
tented himself with taking the destructive weapons
from the hands of his powerful antagonist. This
w reconciliation is the most important moment in the
history of the Greek cult: wherever we turn we note
ap MIRE eh ac le a a8 12 rare pean te to Saran a a a a a OS a en ? ae
= sf —
Fn a A at
~ ie)
ee
a:
aPra ey yO TRAGEDY ae
the revolutions resulting from this event. | The two
antagonists were reconciled; the boundary lines
thenceforth to be observed by each were sharply de-
fined, and there was to be a periodical exchange of
gifts of esteem. At bottom, however, the chasm
was not bridged over. But if we observe how, under
the pressure of this treaty of peace, the Dionysian
power revealed itself, we shall now recognize in the
Dionysian orgies of the Greeks, as compared with
the Babylonian Saczea with their reversion of man
to the tiger and the ape, the significance of festivals
of world-redemption and days of transfiguration. It \\
is with them that nature for the first time attains her
artistic stic jubilee; it i is with them that the destruction
of the p principium individuationis for the first_time
becomes an artistic phenomenonx e horrible
“witches’ brew” of sensuality and cruelty becomes
ineffective: only the curious blending and duality.
in the emotions of the Dionysian revelers remind us
—as medicines remind us of deadly poisons—of the
phenomenon that pain begets joy, that ecstasy may
wring sounds of agony from us. At the very climax
of joy there sounds a cry of horror ora yearning
lamentation foi an irretrievable loss. (i these
Greek festivals, nature seems to reveal a sentimental
trait; it is as if she were heaving a sigh at her dis-
memberment into individuals) The song and pan-
tomime of such dually-minded revelers was some-
thing new and unheard-of for the Homeric-Grecian
world: and the Dionysian music in particular excited
:
a et
SSMU Ee LUT SR tt we Se LAS AA ABEND ORGS EET RS
b _ pm
ee Fe ee tm :
a rs nn ee en nO Same Fe Oe Se ed te ee Pee ne17s THE VETRIT HOP WRAGCL OT
aol te ete ? er
awe and terror. If music, as it would seem, had
been known previously as an Apollonian art, it was
so, strictly speaking, only as the wave-beat of
rhythm, whose formative power was developed for
the representation of Apollonian states. The music
of Apollo was Doric architectonics in tones, but in
tones that were merely suggestive, such as those of
the cithara. The very element which forms the
essence of Dionysian music (and hence of music in
general) is carefully excluded as un-Apollonian:
namely, the emotional power of the tone, the uni-
form flow of the melos, and the utterly incom-
parable world of harmony. In the Dionysian
“ dithyramb man is incited to the greatest exaltation
of all his symbolic faculties; something never “before
Stexperienced struggles for utterance—the annihila-
tion of the veil of Maya, Oneness as the soul of the
race, and of nature itself.) (The essence of nature is
tow to be expressed symbolically; we need a new
.world of symbols; for once the entire symbolism of
the body is called into play, not the mere symbolism
of the lips, face, and speech, but the whole panto-
mime of dancing, forcing every member into rhyth-
mic movement. Thereupon the -vther symbolic
powers suddenly press forward, particularly those
,of music, in rhythmics, dynamics, and harmony
To grasp this collective release of all the symbolic
powers, man must have already attained that height
of self-abnegation which wills to express itself sym-
bolically through all these powers: and so the
or “Roa -
7 ——— ane 5, RS = -
my ra ERIS eh ha STA SS cnn tte ah il SE Ok ate
a
f
a
Pot
¢=s
PsTHE BLRTH-OF TRAGEDY 179
dithyrambic votary of Dionysus is understood only
by his peers! With what astonishment must the
Apollonian Greek have beheld him! With an aston-
ishment that was all the greater the more it was
mingled with the shuddering suspicion that all this
was actually not so very alien to him after all, in
fact, that it was only his Apollonian consciousness
which, like a veil, hid this Dionysian world from
his vision.
3
To understand this, it becomes necessary to level
the artistic structure of the Apollonian culture, as it
were, stone by stone, till the foundations on which
it rests become visible. First of all we see the
glorious Olympian figures of the gods, standing on
the gables of this structure. Their deeds, pictured
in brilliant reliefs, adorn its friezes. We must not
be misled by the fact that Apollo stands side by side
with the others as an individual deity, without any
claim to priority of rank. For the same impulse
which embodied itself in Apollo gave birth in general
to this entire Olympian world, and so in this sense
Apollo is its father. What terrific need was it that
could produce such an illustrious company of
Olympian beings?
He who approaches these Olympians with another
religion in his heart, seeking among them for moral
elevation, even for sanctity, for disincarnate
spirituality, for charity and benevolence, will soon
a orex.
ae
—
pA
;
a Se PT tn On ce Nr oe . oe
aa aa a a ee en Ne ea enn pe OP RO ae rete sy a
ed ee ae ae
ied
See
a
hat iM ah ’ tee ° a ee
eke he te ee etn te ee ee ee Tees
re—
=
ee ee ee ee ee
aa
cE eer daa a Sr rte trae hs Lote Skah pa
FR a Nea hl rl
ere < :
a
a,
rer:
160 PH BIRTH Or TRACES
be forced to turn his back on them, discouraged and
disappointed. For there is nothing here that sug-
gests asceticism, spirituality, or duty. We hear
nothing but the accents of an exuberant, triumphant
life, in which all things, whether good or bad, are
deified. And so the spectator may stand quite be-
wildered before this fantastic superfluity of life,
asking himself what magic potion these mad glad
men could have imbibed to make life so enjoyable
that, wherever they turned, their eyes beheld the
smile of Helen, the ideal picture of their own exist-
ence, “floating in sweet sensuality.” But to this
spectator, who has his back already turned, we must
perforce cry: ‘Go not away, but stay and hear what
Greek folk-wisdom has to say of this very life, which
with such inexplicable gayety unfolds itself before
your eyes. There is an ancient story that King
Midas hunted in the forest a long time for the wise
Silenus, the companion of Dionysus, without captur-
ing him. When Silenus at last fell into his hands,
the king asked what was the best and most desirable
of all things for man. Fixed and immovable, the
demigod said not a word; till at last, urged by the
king, he gave a shrill laugh and broke out jnto these
words: ‘Oh, wretched ephemeral race, children of
' chance and misery, why do ye compel me to tell you
what it were most expedient for you not to hear?
What is best of all is beyond your reach forever:
not to be born, not to be, to be nething. But the
second best for you—is quickly to die.’ ”
A.
joo WS
THE SOBERTH OF TRAGEDY *
How is the Olympian world. of deities related“
this folk-wisdom? Even as the\rapturous vision 6,
the tortured martyr to his suffering.
Now it is as if the Olympian magic mountain had
opened before us and revealed its roots to us. The
Greek knew and felt the terror and horror of
existence. That he might endure this texror at all,
he had to interpose between himself and\ life the
radiant dream-birth of the Olympians. That over
whelming dismay in the face of the titanic powers’of
nature, the Moira enthroned inexorably ove¢r all
knowledge, the vulture of the great lover 6t man-
kind, Prometheus, the terrible fate of the wise
(Edipus, the family curse of the Atrids which drove
Orestes to matricide: in short, that entire philosophy
of the sylvan god, with its mythical exemplars, which
caused the downfall of the melancholy Etruscans—
all this was again and again overcome by the Greeks
with the aid of the Olympian middle world of art;
or at any rate it was yeiled and withdrawn from
sight. It was out of the direst necessity to live that
the Gteeks created these gods: Perhaps we may
picture the process to ourselves somewhat as fol-
lows: out of the original Titan thearchy of terror the
Oly:npian thearchy of joy gradually evolved through
the Apollonian impulse towards beauty, just as roses
bud from thorny bushes. . How else could this
‘people, so sensitive, so vehement in its desires, so
singularly constituted for suffering, how could they
have endured existence, if it had not been revealed
On ee ER ee Tore EE
aE Ee Oe te eR ce oe Met Sen ces SANS ane erm bone Bee
ae ™~ :
Nee the al ie ee . ter . 5 oe
ss. Fa ne ee Re Nee eS om eR ae180 ThHE BIRTH OF TRAGEDY
be hem in their gods, surrounded with a higher
dory? The same impulse which calls art into being,
as the complement and consummation of existence,
seducing one to a continuation of life, was also the
(\\ cause of the Olympian world which the Hellenic
Wy “will” made/use of as a transfiguring mirror. Thus
do the gods justify the life of man, in that they
i themselves live it—the only satisfactory Theodicy!
J? | Pxisterice under the bright sunshine of such gods is
regarded as desirable in itself, and the real grief
of the Homeric men is caused by parting from it,
especialiv by early parting: so that now, reversing
the wisdom of Silenus, we might say of the Greeks
that “to die early is worst of all for them, the next
worst—some day to die at all.” Once heard, it will
ring out again; forget not the lament of the short-
lived Achilles, mourring the leaflike change and -
vicissitude of the race of men and the decline of the
heroic age. It is not unworthy of the greatest hero
to long for a continuation of life, aye,even though he
live as a slave. At the Apollonian stage of develop-
ment, the “will” longs so vehemently for this exist-
ence, the Homeric man feels himself so completely
at one with it, that lamentation itself becomes a song
of praise.
Here we should note that this| harmony which is
contemplated with such longing by modern man, in
fact, this oneness of man with nature (to express
which Schiller introduced the ‘technical term
“naive”), is by no means a simple condition, re-
Paci alta el hte eT Pee, eee "i = ——- ~~
Z i titntad ee = ert MOLES Se eo ee * sy ae aseen Se eee ee eee a ae i ates S acelaete ed -
ry é z Ne ae . Fete —~ eat — ; + a ele : -_- 2 a chs ee ee eee q
4 ; 7 : : ree seers 3 ee
2 + ‘ a
nn ho we
i
et,
et
ctTHE BIRTH OF TRAGEDY 188
sulting naturally, and as if inevitably. It is not a
condition whick, like a terrestrial paradise, must
necessarily be found at the gate of every culture.
Only a romantic age could believe this, an age which
conceived of the artist in terms of Rousseau’s Emile
and imagined that in Homer it had found such an
artist Emile, reared in Nature’s bosom. Wherever
we meet with the “naive” in art, we recognize the
highest effect of the Apollonian culture, which in the
first place has always to overthrow some Titanic
empire and slay monsters, and which, through its
otent dazzling representations and its leasurable
p => p ‘
illusions, must have trium\phed over a terrible depth
of world-contemplation anal a most keen sensitivity
to suffering. But how seld\jom do we attain to the
naive—that complete absorj}tion in the beauty of
inexpressibly sublime
appearance! And hence hovy
is Homer, who, as individual \beine, bears the same
‘relation to this Apollonian folksculture as the} indi-
vidual dream-artist does to the dream-faculty o\f the
people and of Nature in general. The Homeric
“naiveté” can be understood only as the compi'¢te
victory of the Apollonian illusion: an illusion similar
to those which Nature so frequently employs to
achieve her own ends. The true goal is veiled by a
phantasm: and while we stretch out our hands for
the latter, Nature attains the former by means of
your illusion. In the Greeks the “will” wished to
contemplate itself in the transfiguration of genius
and the worlc/of art; in order to glorify themselves,
=
aki? A
Nas ee Larne nm Ee Pat ene ee teet
ares ae
4
ya
PND eh aA 1 BOE oe ee =o a ee
at 0 a .
Seco Ee ee de ee ee te Deane oe ce ee
eet
—/ ist THE BIRTH OF TRAGEDY
its creatures had to feel themselves worthy of glory;
they had to behold themselves again in a higher
sphere, without this perfect world of contemplation
acting as a command or a reproach. Such is the
sphere of beauty, in which they saw their mirrored
images, the Olympians. With this mirroring of
beauty the Hellenic will combated its artistically
correlative talent for suffering and, for the wisdom of
suffering: and, as a monument of jits victory, we have
Homer, the naive artist.
ee p Fig
. a Setar Serge henp | _
SO ON be Bt Re Bs a ae
4
Now the dream-analogy may throw some light on
the problem of the naive artist. Let us imagine the
dreamer: in the midst of the illusion of the dream-
world and without disturbing it, he calls out to him-
self: “It is a dream, I’ will dream on.” What must
we infer? ‘That Yk experiences a deep inner joy In
dreayn-contemplation; on the other hand, to be ct
all able to dream with this inner joy in contempla-
tion, he must have completely lost sight of the wak-
ing reality and its ominous obtrusiveness. Guided
by the dream-reading Apollo, we may interpret all
these phenomena to ourselves somew hat in this way.
Though it is certain that of the two halves of our
existence, the waking and the dreaming states, the
former appeals to us as infinitely more preferable,
important, excellent and worthy of being lived, in-
deed, as that which alone is lived: yet, in relation
k
~
}
’ >
— 7 .
em ear ant teeta tlie ns " .
Rd Re a a ea a Ie i NTE thtthche in i h e TTHE*BIRTH “OF TRAGEDY 18s
to that mysterious substratum of our nature of which
we are the phenomenon, I should, paradoxical as it
may seem, maintain the very opposite estimate of the
value of dream life. For the more clearly I perceive
in nature those omnipotent art impulses, and in them
an ardent longing for release, for redemption through
release, the more I feel myself impelled to the meta-
physical assumption that the Truly-Existent and
Primal Unity, eternally suffering and divided against
itself, has need of the rapturous vision, the joyful
appearance, for its continuous salvation: which
appearance we, completely wrapt up in it and com-
posed of it, are compelled to apprehend as the True
Non-Being,—7.e., as a perpetual becoming in time,
space and causality—in other words, as empiric
reality. If, for the moment; we do not consider the
question of our own “reality,” if we conceive of our
empirical existence, and that of the world in general;
as a continuously manifested representation of the:
Primal Unity, we shall then have to look upon the’
cream as an appearance of appearance, hence as a
still higher appeasement of the primordial desire for
appearance. And that is why the innermost heart
of Nature feels that ineffable joy in the naive artist
and the naive work of art, which is likewise only
“an appearance of appearance.” In a symbolic
painting, Raphael, himself one of these immortal
“naive” ones, has represented for us this devolution
of appearance to appearance, the primitive process
of the naive artist and of Apollonian culture. In his
a a > a a te “4
ee etch te dae ee
eee tech
annaater-eneneiater tatereatel
STI
ae heats
_ —_—
“a bap Sap a Me aS Rh rita
te
Oe,
aXe
ve
>
- SS
a
rere)
vt
)
i iesieatancae de Donte Sie ie i as
6 THE BIRTH COR (DRAGCEDY
“Transfiguration,” the lower half of the picture,
with the possessed boy, the despairing bearers, the
bewildered, terrified disciples, shows us the reflection
of suffering, primal and eternal, the sole basis of the
world: the “appearance”’ here is the counter-appear-
ance of eternal contradiction, the father of things.
From this appearance now arises, like ambrosial
vapor, a new visionary world of appearances, in-
visible to those wrapt in the first appearance—a
radiant floating in purest bliss, a serene contem-
plation beaming from wide-open eyes. Here we have
presented, in the most sublime artistic symbolism,
that Apollonian world of beauty and its substratum,
the terrible wisdom of Silenus; and _ intuitively
we comprehend their necessary interdependence.
Apollo, however, again appears to us as the
apotheosis of the /principium individuationis, in
which alone is consummated the perpetually attained
goal of the Primal Unity, its redemption through
appearance. With his sublime gestures, he shows us
how necessary is the entire world of suffering, that
by means of it the individual may be impelled to
realize the redeeming vision, and then, sunk in con-
templation of it, sit quietly in his tossing barque,
amid the waves.
If we at all conceive of it as imperative and
mandatory, this apotheosis of individuation knows
but one law—the individual, 7.e., the delimiting of
the boundaries of the individual, measure in the
Hellenic sense. Apollo, as ethical: deity, exactsmeasure of his disciples, and, that to this end, he
requires self-knowledge. And so, side by side with
the esthetic necessity for beauty, there occur the
demands “know thyself” and “nothing overmuch”;
consequently pride and excess are regarded_as the
truly inimical demons of the non-Apollonian sphere,
hence as characteristics of the pre-Apollonian age—
that of the Titans; and of the extra-Apollonian world
—that of the barbarians. Because of his Titan-like
love for man, Prometheus must be torn to pieces by
vultures; because of his excessive wisdom, which
could solve the riddle of the Sphinx, (Edipus must
be plunged into a bewildering vortex of crime. Thus
did the Delphic god interpret the Greek past.
Similarly the effects wrought by the Dionysian
seemed “titan-like’ and “barbaric” to the Apol-
lonian Greek: while at the same time he could not
conceal from himself that he too was inwardly re-
Jated_to these overthrown Titans and heroes. In-
deed, he had to recognize even more than this:
despite all its beauty and moderation, his entire
existence rested on a hidden den substratum of of suffering
and of f knowledge, which. was again revealed to him
by the Dionysian. _And Jo! Apollo could not live
without Dionysus! The “titanic” and the “barbaric”
were in the last analysis as necessary as the Apol-
loniang = ¥
And now let us take this artistically limited world,
based on appearance and moderation; let us imagine
how into it there penetrated, in tones ever more
PHEtBIRTH OF TRAGEDY rer
a
a
a
t
PTI AIG I Rr Se em AE AEE BE
ie
at
Shed iy septa FW tees a - cae re Sa al
Se ehh nee ee ee Sa ee Ne ot eee See ee eee oe ra
Pe
ae
Sr a tet RST Be nt ete
ve“se THE BARTH OF TRAG BY
bewitching and alluring, the ecstatic sound of the
Dionysian festival; let us remember that in these
strains all of nature’s excess in joy, sorrow, and
knowledge become audible, even in piercing shrieks;
and finally, let us ask ourselves what significance
remains to the psalmodizing artist of Apollo, with his
phantom harp-sound, once it is compared with this
demonic folk-song! The muses of the arts of “ap-
pearance” paled before an art which, in its intoxica-
tion, spoke the truth. The wisdom of Silenus cried
“Woe! woe!” to the serene Olympians. The indi-
vidual,_v with all his restraint and proportion, suc-
cumbed to the self-oblivion of the Dionysian state,
forgetting the prece precepts of Apollo. Excess revealed
itself as truth. Contradiction, the bliss born of
pain, spoke out from the very heart of nature. And
so, wherever the Dionysian prevailed, the Apollonian
was checked and destroyed. But, on the other hand,
it is equally certain that, wherever the first Dio-
nysian onslaught was successfully withstood, the
authority and majesty of the Delphic god exhibited
itself as more rigid and menacing than ever. For to
me the Doric state and Doric art are explicable only
as a permanent citadel of the Apollonian. For an
art so defiantly prim, and so encompassed with bul-
warks, a training so warlike and rigorous, a political
structure so crttel and relentless, could endure for
any length of time only by incessant opposition to
the titanic-barbaric nature of the Dionysian.
Up to this point we have simply enlarged upon
IIE hte lar a aN ito aa eta La ren a as aE Ee eh TL et al F Se
“Rt . re ‘al — a ! vs ~~ Sm Ate a
Fa a ha wi
? er pape
i
55
7
)RV tn —
- a“
Ci \~-
\) + guy st
the observation made at the beginning of this essay:
that the Dionysian and the Apollonian, in new births
ever following and mutually augmenting one another,
controlled the Hellenic genius; that from out the age
of “bronze,” with its wars of the Titans and its
rigorous folk-philosophy, the Homeric world de-
veloped under the sway of the Apollonian impulse to
beauty; that this “naive” splendor was again over-
whelmed by the influx of the Dionysian; and that
against this new power the Apollonian rose to the
austere majesty of Doric art and the Doric view of
the world. If, then, amid the strife of these two
hostile principles, the older Hellenic history thus
falls into four great periods of art, we are now im-
pelled to inquire after the fizal goal of these develop-
ments and processes, lest perchance we should re-
gard the last-attained period, the period of Doric
art, as the climax and aim of these artistic impulses.
And here the sublime and celebrated art of Attic
tragedy and the dramatic dithyramb presents itself
as the common goal of both these tendencies, whose
mysterious union, after many and long precursory
struggles, found glorious consummation in this child,
—at once Antigone and Cassandra.
U1
We now approach the real goal of our investiga-
tion, which is directed towards acquiring a knowl-
edge of the Dionysian-Apollonian genius and its
eet
DOKI.
\ L ~
THE BIRTH “OF TRAGEDY 189”
.
)
’
‘yo le aeettee gee —— = é
are < 2 oo e a ms Pe ere a - wes nw ee ate - . .
~ a ieee ht tat ee Dek tee ee ee St ee eee ane RTS SSR ALL Ta Oe ee bate pe wind ow. - . Oe a Re ee ee ry ee . eet tn ping |
« A: 1 a ee TOI res - et pins!
ia”
Somort
= ee
Mis
ei
od
~ ha D
;
CE a erable sien a Sa i ea ean i el NE 0 aI OE ee near ak a Peo RL eae ee ea P=
+ ‘ x - = hi ll a a +> ~ ri mar A i -—
= rh
a
=
>,
~*
?
a
Pr)
Foo
\
io THE BIRTH OP TRACE EY
art-product, or at least an anticipatory. understand-
ing of its mysterious union. Here we shall first of
all inquire after the first evidence in Greece of that
new germ which subsequently developed into trag-
edy and the dramatic dithyramb. The ancients
place the faces of Homer and Archilochus as the
forefathers and torchbearers of Greek poetry side
by side on gems, sculptures, etc., with a sure feeling
that consideration should be given only to these
two thoroughly original _compeers, _from_y whom ; a
stream of fire flows over the the whole. ‘of Jater_Greek
history. Ho mer, the aged_sel f-absorbed_ dreamer,
the type of the Apollonian naive artist, now beholds
with. astonishment the passionate genius of the war-
like votary of the muses,Archilochus, passing
through life with fury and violence; and modern
esthetics, by way yof _interpretation, can_only add
(SE Pao.
that] here _ re the first ‘ ‘objective” artist confronts the
first_*‘sub} jectiv e” artist. But this interpretation
helps us but little, because we know the subjective
artist only as the poor artist, and throughout the
entire range of art we demand specially and first of
all the conquest of the Subjective, the release from
the ego and the silencing of the individual will and
desire; indeed, we find it impossible to believe in
any truly artistic production, however insignificant,
if it is without objectivity, without pure, detached
contemplation. Hence our esthetic must first solve
the problem of how the “lyrist” is possible as anTHE BIRTH OM TRAGEDY 491
artist—he who, according to the experience of all
ages, is continually saying “I” and running through
the entire chromatic scale of his passions and de-
sires. Compared with Homer, this very Archilochus
appals us by his cries of hatred and scorn, by his
drunken outbursts of desire.’ Therefore is not ha
who has been called the first subjective artist, essenr
sentially the_non-artist? But in this case, how
explain the@everence*which was shown to him—the
poet—in very remarkable utterances by the Delphic
oracle itself, -the center of ‘“‘objective” art?
Schiller has thrown some light on the poetic proc-
ess by a psychological observation, inexplicable to
himself, yet apparently valid. He admits that be-
fore the act of creation he did not perhaps have
before him or within him any series of images ac-
companied by an ordered thought-relationship; but
his condition was rather that of a musical mood.
(“With me the perception has at first no clear and
definite object; this is formed later. A certain mu-
sical mood of mind precedes, and only after this
ensues the poetical idea.’”’) Let us add to this the
natural and most important phenomenon of all an-
cient lyric poetry, the union, indeed, the identity, of
the lyrist with the musician,—compared with which
our modern lyric poetry appears like the statue of
a god without a head,—with this in mind we may
now, on the basis of our metaphysics of esthetics
set forth above, explain the lyrist to ourselves in
this manner: In the first place, as Dionysian artist
ee
~
Cie py
o"< » “a. ee “a EE = “~~ a —— - * Car, a,
he ll eT ai aia Se aa Ok a ae ee ee Sb ee be OS FL area Bie te aN ere
A a ~~ Yee
+ wy ryt Roped én ~~ a ‘ ’ are At
Set ae nent he ee ee Sa Oe ee Me ee ot We ee Te an192 Co THE BIRTH OF TRAGEDY
he has identified himself with the Primal Unity, its
pain_and contradiction Assuming that music has
& been correctly termed a repetition and a recast of
the world, we may say that he produces the copy of
this Primal Unity as snusic. Now, however, under
the Apollonian dream-inspiration, this music reveals
itself to him again as a symbolic dream-picture.
The inchoate, intangible reflection of the primordial
pain in music, with its redemiption in appearance,
now produces a second mirroring as a specific symbol
or example. The artist has already surrendered his
* subjectivity in the Dionysian process. The picture
/\; which now shows him his identity with the heart of
the world, is a dream-scene, which embodies the
primordial contradiction and primordial pain, to-
ytd with the primordial joy, of appearance. The
‘T”’ of the — therefore sounds from the depth of
ay his being: its “subjectivity,” in the sense of the
Series esthetes, is pure imagination. When Ar-
chilochus, the first Greek lyrist, proclaims to the
daughters of Lycambes both his mad love and his
contempt, it is not his passion alone which dances
before us in orgiastic frenzy; but we see Dionysus
and the Menads, we see the drunken reveler Ar-
chilochus sunk down in slumber—as Euripides de-
picts it in the Bacche, the sleep on theshigh mountain
pasture, in the noonday sun. And now Apollo ap-
proaches and touches him with the laurel. Then
the Dionyso-musical enchantment of the sleeper
seems to emit picture sparks, lyrical poems, which
Tae IITs aS SSSI Ser his a SE ee. ae eNO a hic .
s - - “4 bd toa nd . < a ea aie the ators . '
>
7%
P & ry 3 BD onan
f= cTepe) oY Or TRAG Ey . 0
in their highest form are called tragedies and dra-
matic dithyrambs.
The plastic artist, as also the epic poet, who is
related to him, is sunk in the pure contemplation of
images. The Dionysian musician is, without any
images, himself pure primordial pain and its pri-
mordial reéchoing. The lyric genius is conscious
of a world of pictures and symhols—growing out of
his state of mystical self-abnegation and oneness.
This state has a coloring, a causality and a velocity
quite different from that of the world of the plastic
artist and the epic poet. For the latter lives in these
pictures, and only in them, with joyful satisfaction.
He never grows tired of contemplating lovingly even
their minutest traits. Even the picture of the angry
Achilles is only a picture to him, whose angry ex-
pression he enjoys with the dream-joy in appear-
ance. Thus, by this mirror of appearance, he is
protected against being united and blended with his
figures. In direct contrast to this, the pictures of
the lyrist are nothing but Ais very self and, as it
were, only different projections of himself, by force
of which he, as the moving center of this world, may
say “I”: only of course this self is not the same as
that of the waking, empirically real man, but the
only truly existent and eternal self resting at the
basis of things, and with the help of whose images,
the lyric genius can penetrate to this very basis.
Now let us suppose that among these images he
also beholds himself as non-genius, 7.e., his subject,
. = , ; . < a ~ ;
as i ne OR RN Na Oe SD ot eae ea De ne ie Pe ee Se aN Ow Neen BO rm ped et Se aan ene eR nee ea nr OP on eer
t7.
-r-manconacammnasemanancy P7
RN a men re a Srl iS ASSIS a facet esc in ce as aici EE ROR
,
S em
tL cl
194 THE BIRTH’*OF TRAGEDY
the whole throng of subjective passions and agita-
tions directed to a definite object which appears real
to him. It may now seem as if the lyric genius and
the allied non-genius were one, as if the former had
of its own accord spoken that little word “I.” But
this identity is but superficial and it will no longer
be able to lead us astray, as it certainly led astray
those who designated the lyrist as the subjective
poet. For, as a matter of fact, Archilochus, the pas-
sionately inflamed, loving and hating man, is but a
vision of the genius, who by this time is no longer
merely Archilochus, but a world-genius expressing
his primordial pain symbolically in the likeness of
the man Archilochus: while the subjectively willing
and desiring man, Archilochus, can never at any
time be a poet. It is by no means necessary, how-
ever, that the lyrist should see nothing but the
phenomenon of the man Archilochus before him as
a reflection of eternal being; and tragedy shows
how far the visionary world of the lyrist may be re-
moved from this phenomenon, which, of course, is
intimately related to it.
Schopenhauer, who did not conceal from himself
the difficulty the lyrist presents in the philosophical
contemplation of art, thought he had found a solu-
tion, with which, however, I am not in entire ac-
cord. (Actually, it was in his profound metaphys-
ics of music that he alone held in his hands the
means whereby this difficulty might be definitely
removed: as I believe I have removed it here inDHE “BDIRTH OF TRAGEDY 196
his spirit and to his honor). “In contrast to our
view, he describes the peculiar nature of song as
follows * (Welt als Wille und Vorstellung, I. 295):
“Tt is the-subject of will, 7. ¢.,, his own volition,
‘which the consciousness of the singer feels; often
as a released and satisfied desire (joy), but still
oftener as a restricted desire (grief), always as an
emotion, a passion, a moved frame of mind./ Be-
sides this, however, and along with it, by the sight
of surrounding nature, the singer becomes conscious
of himself as the subject of pure will-less knowing,
whose unbroken, blissful peace now appears, in con-
trast to the stress of desire, which is always re-
stricted and always needy. The feeling of this
contrast, this alternation, is really what the lyric
as a whole expresses and what principally consti-
tutes the lyrical state of mind. In it pure knowing
comes to us as it were to deliver us from desire and
its strain; we follow, but only for an instant; desire,
the remembrance of our own personal ends, tears
us anew from peaceful contemplation; yet ever
again the next beautiful surrounding in which the
pure will-less knowledge presents itself to us, al-
lures us away from desire. Therefore, in the lvric
and the lyrical mood, desire (the personal interest
of the ends) and pure perception of the surrounding
presented are wonderfully mingled with each other;
connections between them are sought for and im-
3 World as Will and Idea, I. 322, 6th ed. of Haldane arfd
Kemp’s Trans.
2 .
, a
nit
= a
vn
pe RO ON Ree ee et a ORD Bee en et
ne, ot Be
Ee od
eo Patina ae :
cea bt CD ne ek ie ee
ae
_ ws Ag
Yo
awe THE BIRTH ‘OR TRAC HS
ite ital , dic
agined; the subjective disposition, the affection of
the will, imparts its own hue to the perceived sur-
rounding, and conversely, the surroundings com-
municate the reflex of their color to the will. The
true lyric is the expression of the whole of this
mingled and divided state of mind.”
Who could fail to recognize in this description
that lyric poetry is here characterized as an incom-
pletely attained art, which arrives at its goal infre-
quently and only as it were by leaps? Indeed, it
is described as a semiart, whose essence is said to
consist in this, that desire and pure contemplation,
1.e., the unesthetic and the esthetic condition, are
wonderfully mingled with each other. It follows
that Schopenhauer still classifies the arts as sub-
jective or objective, using the antithesis as if it were
a criterion of value. But it is our contention, on
the contrary, that this antithesis between the sub-
_ jective and the objective is especially irrelevant in
* esthetics, since the subject, the desiring individual
furthering his own egoistic ends, can be conceived
of only as the antagonist, not as the origin of art.
In so far as the subject is the artist, however, he
has. already been released from his individual will,
and has become as it were the medium through
which the one truly existent Subject celebrates his
release in appearance. For, above all, to our humil-
iation and exaltation, one thing must be clear to us.
The entire comedy of art_is neither performed for
Ko etterment or education nor are we the true
oa .
a pasie doce Seca ai a 5 oe a eS
arth el a laa a he Sega
ae a
ie nan
“= eet
bd
iTHE BIRTHIOF TRAGEDY ir
authors of this art-world. On the contrary, we may
assume that we are merely pictures and artistic pro-
jections for the true author, and that we have our
highest dignity in our significance as works of art—
for it is only as.an esthetic phenomenon that exist-
ence and the world are eternally justified—while
of course our consciousness of our own significance
hardly differs from that which the soldiers painted
on canvas have of the battle represented on it.
Thus all our knowledge of art is basically quite il-
lusory, because as knowing beings we are not one
and identical with that Being who, as the sole author
and spectator of this comedy of art, prepares a per-
petual entertainment for himself. Only in so far
as the genius in the act of artistic creation coalesces
with this primordial artist of the world, does he
catch sight of the eternal essence of art; for in this
state he is, in a marvelous manner, like the weird
picture of the fairy-tale which can turn its eyes at
will and behold itself; he is now at once subject and
object, at once poet, actor, and spectator. y
6 Fda, >
In connection with Archilochus, scholarly re-
search has discovered that he introduced the folk-
song into literature, and, on account of this, de-
served, according to the general estimate of the
Greeks, his unique position beside Homer. But
what is the folk-song in contrast to the wholly
a
a
a
pa
er
_
Na Lr Berea i OOO Sd oe ot
SUSU re gaa st ne ee ee lee,
: =< _ ete eee iain
= Ce ha en Or On ee aN Orr eee!
tOe ee Oy ee PO
ert tet P=
a
nL wa SSRN re a TSE nee or Sears a alae ats
Pedr
ms OME BERT HOOr TRAGEDY
Apollonian epos? What else but the perpetuum
vestigium of a union of the Apollonian and the
Dionysian? Its enormous diffusion among all peo-
ples, further reénforced by ever-new births, is tes-
timony to the power of this artistic dual impulse
of nature: which leaves its vestiges in the folk-song
just as the orgiastic movements of a people per-
petuate themselves in its music. - Indeed, it might
also be historically demonstrable that every period
rich in folk-songs has been most violently stirred
by Dionysian currents, which we must always con-
sider the substratum and prerequisite of the folk-
song. Bie ttse
First of all, however, we must conceive the folk-
song as the musical mirror of the world, as the
original melody, now seeking for itself a parallel
dream-phenomenon and expressing it in poetry.
Melody is therefore primary and universal, and so
may admit of several objectifications in several
texts. Likewise, in the naive estimation of the
people, it is regarded as by far the more important
and essential element. Melody generates the poem
out of itself by a continuous process. The strophic
form of- the folk-song points to the same thing; a
phenomenon which I had always beheld with aston-
ishment, until at last I found this explanation. Any
one who in accordance with this theory examines
a collection of folk-songs, such as Des Knaben
Wunderhorn, will find innumerable instances of the
way the continuously generating melody scattersRin; BERTH: OF TRAGEDY aW99
picture sparks all around, which in their variega-
tion, their abrupt change, their mad precipitation,
manifest a power quite unknown to the epic and its
steady flow. From the standpoint of the epos, this
unequal and irregular pictorial world of lyric poetry
is definitely to be condemned: and it certainly has
been thus condemned by the solemn epic rhapsodists
of the Apollonian festivals in the age of Terpander.
Accordingly, we observe that in the poetry of the
folk-song, language is strained to its utmost that it
may imitate music; and hence with Archilochus be-
gins a new world of poetry, which is basically op-
posed to the Homeric. And in saying this we have
indicated the only possible relation between poetry
and music, between word and tone: the word, the
picture, the concept here seeks an expression an-
alogous to music and now feels in itself the power
of music. In this sense we may discriminate be-
tween two main currents in the history of the lan-
guage of the Greek people, according to whether
their language imitated the world of image and-phe-
nomenon, or the world of music.) One need only
reflect more deeply on the linguistic difference with
regard to color, syntactical structure, and vocabu-
lary in Homer and Pindar, in order to understand
the significance of this contrast; indeed, it becomes
palpably clear that in the period between Homer
and Pindar there must have sounded out the orgias-
tic flute tones of Olympus, which, even in Aristotle’s
time, when music was infinitely more developed,
Py
Ciera
ree ST an
*
= CO a
EF een ere oa. Ea Soper ties eee Lend te
6 nn en OE Seen eee ee ee DAS Bae OS ET et Bn alan De
tee ae
RE) 2
"
ae
SO a a ae ae
—
re teeetiicen te topic a
" eprint onSSag ener
6 5. SSO es ar pata dietician a Se
eae
rei,
ra
200 THE BIRTH OF TRAGEDY
transported people to drunken ecstasy, and which,
in their primitive state of development, undoubtedly
incited to imitation all the poetic means of expres-
sion of contemporaneous man. I here call attention
to a familiar phenomenon of our own times, against
which our esthetic raises many objections. We
again and again have occasion to observe that a
Beethoven symphony compels its individual audi-
tors to use figurative speech in describing it, no
matter how fantastically variegated and even con-
tradictory may be the composition and make-up of
the different pictorial world produced by a piece of
music. To exercise its poor wit on such composi-
tions, and to overlook a phenomenon which is cer-
tainly worth explaining, is quite in keeping with this
esthetic. Indeed, even when the tone-poet ex-
presses his composition in pictures, when for in-
stance he designates a certain symphony as the
“pastoral” symphony, or a passage in it as the
“scene by the brook,” or another as the ‘merry
gathering of rustics,”’ these too are only symbolical
representations born of music—and not perhaps the
imitated objects of music—representations which
can teach us nothing whatsoever concerning the
Dionysian content of music, and which indeed have
no distinctive value of their own beside other pic-
torial expressions. We have now to transfer this
process of a discharge of music in pictures to some
fresh, youthful, linguistically creative people, in or-
der to get a notion of how the strophic faculty ofPASE Bh H-OP TRAGEDY 201
speech is stimulated by this new principle of the
imitation of music.
If, therefore, we may regard lyric poetry as the
fulguration of music in images and concepts, we
should now ask: “In what form does music appear
in the mirror of symbolism and conception?” IJt
appears as will, taking the term in Schopenhauer’s
sense, z.€., as the antithesis of the esthetic, purely
contemplative, and passive frame of mind. Here,
however, we must make as sharp a distinction as
possible between the concept of essence and the con-
cept of phenomenon; for music, according to its
essence, cannot possibly be will. To be will it would
have to be wholly banished from the realm of art—
for the will is the unesthetic-in-itself. Yet though
essentially it is not will, phenomenally it appears as
will. For in order to express the phenomenon of
music in images, the lyrist needs all the agitations
of passion, from the whisper of mere inclination to
the roar of madness. Impelled to speak of music
in Apollonian symbols, he conceives of all nature,
and himself therein, only as eternal Will, Desire,
Longing. But in so far as he interprets music by
means of images, he himself rests in the quiet calm
of Apollonian contemplation, though everything
around him which he beholds through the medium
of music may be confused and violent. Indeed,
when he beholds himself through this same medium,
his own image appears to him as an unsatisfied feel-
ing: his own willing, longing, moaning, rejoicing, are
ae EE tt er oan De Oe Be nO DAIS DN Or ene ORME TEE OE enn ee eaten ee eee Pee ee aia eas
Sf Oat Satie Mag _— “
ss a ee On en Ieee
oa
ee eee
Se On ae ee PONS wo402 FHE BIRTH ‘OF TRAGEPY
to him symbols by which he interprets music. This
is the phenomenon of the lyrist: as Apollonian ge-
nius he interprets music through the image of the
will, while he himself, completely released from the
desire of the will, is the pure, undimmed eye of day.
Our whole discussion insists that lyric poetry is
dependent on the spirit of music just as music itself
in its absolute sovereignty does not need the picture
and the concept, but merely exdures them as accom-
paniments. The poems of the lyrist can express
nothing which did not already lie hidden in the vast
universality and absoluteness of the music which
compelled him to figurative speech. Language can
never adequately render the cosmic symbolism of
music, because music stands in symbolic relation to
the primordial contradiction and primordial pain in
the heart of the Primal Unity, and therefore sym-
// bolizes a sphere which is beyond and before all
phenomena. Rather are all phenomena, compared
with it, merely symbols: hence J/anguage, as the or-
gan and symbol of phenomena, can never, by any
means, disclose the innermost heart of music; lan-
guage, in its attempt to imitate it, can only be m
superficial contact with music; while the deepest
significance of the latter cannot with all the elo-
quence of lyric poetry be brought one step nearer
to us.
ier een eee
— a ee .
SA ne a ac
=
=
EE TEE IRD IOS IEE AES oN AN lg BA ASIAN BROCE
AY).
7
nr
ot
i
q
:
bd Py
4
co,“HE BIRTH OF TRAGEDY
YtE;
7
We must now avail ourselves of all the principles
of art hitherto considered, in order to find our way
through the labyrinth, as we must call it, of the
origin of Greek tragedy. I do not think I am un-
reasonable in saying that the problem of this origin
has as yet not even been seriously stated, not to say
solved, however often the ragged tatters of ancient
tradition are sewn together in various combinations
and torn apart again. This tradition tells us quite
unequivocally, that tragedy arose from the tragic
chorus, and was originally only chorus and nothing
but chorus; and hence we feel it our duty to look
into the heart of this tragic chorus as being the real
proto-drama. We shall not let ourselves be at all
satisfied with that current art-lingo. which makes
the chorus the “ideal spectator,” or has it represent
the people in contrast to the aristocratic elements of
the scene. This latter explanation has a sublime
sound to many a politician. It insists that the im-
mutable moral law was embodied by the democratic
Athenians in the popular chorus, which always wins
out over the passionate excesses and extravagances
of kings. This theory may be ever so forcibly sug-
gested by one of Aristotle’s observations; still, it has
no influence on the original formation of tragedy,
inasmuch as the entire antithesis of king and people,
and, in general, the whole politico-social sphere, is
excluded from the purely religious origins of trag-
"
\
:
SA LES AO OT ENS i Oe Bc ee Om DD Br oe ne RE OO een Pee at ee eer ae carers §.- +37
BNSF ane oe Mig <2
Sy Perea te tee ee ed ee ee
RAE We oo Te ad
ceNt
eae taco a eat Sn
Sedna
ers
a
tet marcanainnonssorang 7
ri
Fe Ne pert A ba er nee ar
4 A
bush taeshe dapat deceit
ne am oe
~
—
~
Seep al
a)
artnet
sy en Se ae a —_
i
= a
y te
5
a
és
)
2702 RHE BIRTH OF TRAGEDY
to.y. With this in mind, and remembering the well-
‘known classical form of the chorus in Aéschylus
and Sophocles, we should even deem it blasphemy
to speak here of the anticipation of a “‘constitutional
popular representation.” From this blasphemy,
however, others have not shrunk. The ancient gov-
ernments knew of no constitutional representation
of the people iz praxz, and it is to be hoped that they
did not “anticipate” it in their tragedy either.
Much more famous than this political interpreta-
tion of the chorus is the theory of A. W. Schlegel,
who advises us to regard the chorus, in a manner,
as the essence and extract of the crowd of specta-
tors,—as the “ideal spectator.” This view, when
compared with the historical tradition that origin-
ally tragedy was only chorus, reveals itself for what
it is——a crude, unscientific, yet brilliant generaliza-
tion, which, however, acquires that brilliancy only
through its epigrammatic form of expression, the
deep Germanic bias in favor of anything called
“ideal,” and our momentary astonishment. For we
are certainly astonished the moment we compare our
familiar theatrical public with this chorus, and ask
ourselves whether it could ever be possible to ideal-
ize something analogous to the Greek tragic chorus
out of such a public. We tacitly deny this, and now
wonder as much at the boldness of Schlegel’s asser-
tion as at the totally different nature of the Greek
public. For hitherto we had always believed that
the true spectator, whoever he may be, must alwaysPim eybletel HOF: FRAG EI Y 648s
remain conscious that he was viewing a work of art,
and not an empirical reality. But the tragic chorus
of the Greeks is forced to recognize real beimgs in
the figures of the drama. The chorus of the Ocean-
ides really believes that it sees before it the Titan
Prometheus, and considers itself as real as the god
of the scene. And are we to designate as the highest
and purest type of spectator, one who, like the
Oceanides, regards Prometheus as real and present
in body? Is it characteristic of the ideal spectator
to run on to the stage and free the god from his tor-
ments? We had always believed in an esthetic pub-
lic, we had considered the individual spectator the
better qualified the more he was capable of viewing
a work of art as art, that is, esthetically. But now
Schlegel tells us that the perfect ideal spectator
does not at all allow the world of the drama to act
on him esthetically, but corporeally and empirically.
Oh, these Greeks! we sighed; they upset all our .
esthetics! . . . But once accustomed to it, we have
repeated Schlegel’s saying whenever the chorus
came up for discussion.
Now, the tradition which is quite explicit here,
speaks against Schlegel. The chorus as such, with-
out the stage,—the primitive form of tragedy,—and
the chorus of ideal spectators do not go together.
What kind of art would that be in which the specta-
tor does not enter as a separate concept? What
kind of art is that whose true form is identical with
the “‘spectator as such’? The spectator without the
L-
7 ” ar 7
5ST STS Se Sl A SOS BEE ah IBGE SRY TO OUEST OURO ang eur eed ELLE = 1 <
. =~ Po m
eS ee eee ae : :
SE sa Sea Ae etn ON enn eR EI Cece PCTRaT
7—~
a
cleat test tee ? 9
‘
a ee ee
=
parma
RR teat arta a ot et ae tale pride eee de
I aa Ne ce
ra
‘
206 THE BIRTH OF TRaGc fps
play is nonsense. We fear that the birth of tragedy
is to be explained neither by the high esteem for the
moral intelligence of the multitude nor by the con-
cept of the spectator minus the play. We must re-
gard the problem as too deep to be even touched by
such superficial generalizing.
An infinitely more valuable insight into the sig-
nificance of the chorus had already been displayed
by Schiller in the celebrated Preface to his Bride
of Messina, where he regards the chorus as a living
barrier which tragedy constructs round herself to
“ eut off her contact with the world of reality, and to
preserve her ideal domain and her poetical freedom.
With this, his chief weapon, Schiller combats the
ordinary conception of the natural, the illusion
usually demanded in dramatic poetry. Although it
is true that the stage day is merely artificial, the
architecture only symbolical, and the metrical lan-
guage purely ideal in character, nevertheless an erro-
neous view still prevails in the main: that we should
not excuse these conventions merely on the ground
that they constitute a poetical license. Now in real-
ity these “conventions” form the essence of all
, poetry. The introduction of the chorus, says
/ Schiller, is ‘the decisive step p by which open . and | hon-
orable . war is declared against. st all ‘naturalism. in art.
In would seem that to denigrate ‘this view of the
matter our would-be superior age has coined the dis-
dainful catchword “pseudo-idealism.” I fear, how-
ever, that we, on the other hand, with our presentThe BERTH OF THEAGEDY 207
adoration of the natural and the real, have reached
the opposite pole of all idealism, namely, in the
region of wax-work cabinets. There is an art in
these too, as certain novels much in vogue at present
evidence: but let us not disturb ourselves at the
claim that by any such art the Schiller-Goethian
‘““pseudo-idealism” has been vanquished. Ke
It is indeed an “ideal”? domain, as Schiller cor-
rectly perceived, in which the Greek satyr chorus,
the chorus of primitive tragedy, was wont to dwell.
It is a domain raised high above the actual path of
mortals. For this chorus the Greek built up the
scaffolding of a fictitious natural state and on it
placed fictitious natural beings. On this foundation
tragedy developed and so, of course, it could dis-
pense from the beginning with a painful portrayal
of reality. Yet it is no arbitrary world placed by
whim between heaven and earth; rather is it a world
with the same reality and credibility that Olympus
with its dwellers possessed for the believing Hellene.
The satyr, as the Dionysian chorist, lives in a re-
ligiously acknowledged reality under the sanction of
the myth and the cult. That tragedy should begin
with him, that he should be the voice of the Diony-
sian tragic wisdom, is just as strange a phenomenon
as the general derivation of tragedy from. the
chorus.
Perhaps we shall have a point of departure for our
inquiry, if I put forward the proposition that the
satyr, the fictitious natural being, bears the same
+
st ee SN i ek eh hs OR eye — eee oe EP
: lean linia =_— EO Da ser pa ee aes Bt Ne fart or ay Pi
— 9
YS
ast P MR Tage
nen . ae A
ete ea ad ee a ee eee ot a SE SO eee oe
Pap
om
es
aNn ae MS R
2 at a ea er)
5
——— : anne = Se = = Minna eres -
Pie SS nee een EMSS ete eshte pi eB Saree samc ie al OS ama Dee Se ae fees. = ieee
. i - “ indi ae = - ="
- a
Pree,
f
208 THEO BIRTH “OR *PRAGE DY
relation to the man of culture that Dionysian music
does to civilization. Concerning this latter, Richard
Wagner says that it is neutralized by music just as
lamplight is neutralized by the light of day. Sim-
larly, I believe, the Greek man of culture felt him-
“self neutralized in the presence of the satyric chorus:
and this is the most immediate effect of the Diony-
sian tragedy, that the state and society, and, in
general, the gulfs between man and man give way
to an overwhelming feelitig of unity leading back to
~the very heart of nature. The metaphysical com-
fort—with which, as I have here intimated, every
true tragedy leaves us—that, in spite of the flux of
phenomena, life at bottom is indestructibly power-
ful and pleasurable, appears with objective clarity
as the satyr chorus, the chorus of natural beings,
who as it were live ineradicably behind every civ-
| ilization, and who, despite the ceaseless change of
generations and the history of nations, remain the
same to all eternity.
With this chorus the deep-minded Hellene con-
soles himself, he who is so singularly constituted for
the most sensitive and grievous suffering, he who
with a piercing glance has penetrated into the very
heart of the terrible destructive processes of so-
called universal history, as also into the cruelty of
nature, and who is in danger of longing for a Bud-
dhistic negation of the will, Art saves him, and
through art life saves him—for herself.
For we must realize that in the ecstasy of theRHE IBLTRITH OF TRAGEDY 209
Dionysian state, with its annihilation of the ordi-
naty bounds and limits of existence, there is con-
tained a lethargic element, in which are submerged
all past personal experiences. It is this gulf of
oblivion that separates the world of everyday from
the world of Dionysian reality. But as soon as we
become conscious again of this everyday reality,
we feel it as nauseating and repulsive; and an
ascetic will-negating mood is the fruit of these
states. In this sense the Dionysian man resembles
Hamlet: both have for once penetrated into the true
nature of things —they have perceived, but it is ‘irk-
some for them to act: for their action cannot change
the eternal nature of things; the time is out of joint
and they regard it as shameful or ridiculous that
they should be required to set it right. Knowledge
kills action, action requires the veil of illusion—it is
this lesson which Hamlet teaches, and not the idle
wisdom of John-o’-Dreams who from too much re-
flection, from a surplus of possibilities, never ar-
rives at action at all. Not reflection, no!—true
knowledge, insight into the terrible truth, prepon- /
derate over all motives inciting to action, in Hamlet
as well as in the Dionysian man. There is no longer
any use in comfort; his longing goes beyond a world
after death, beyond the gods themselves; existence
with its glittering reflection in the gods or in an im-
mortal beyond is abjured. In the consciousness of
the truth once perceived, man now sees everywhere
only the terror or the absurdity of existence; now
Ps
es
'
Se ‘4
Ltt umeeAene
oe Sa BN on bea SOE me Oe nn eT Tt ny a ee ae
Pe ie
Shed ie ao
“ast
P
a
mah ny
—
er
cere
a eke a 5 aa. - 7 ee » . —<— a oeatn
ah Oe Te en ae ee ee et BR TEN SE aR TRE ed ee ee ee Md210° THE BIT HOP! THRAG Pb
he can understand the symbolism of Ophelia’s fate;
now he can realize the wisdom of the sylvan god
Silenus: and he is filled with loathing.
But at this juncture, when the will is most fm-
periled, art approaches, as a redeeming and healing
enchantress; she alone may transform these hor-
rible reflections on the terror and absurdity of exist-
ence into representations with which man may live.
These are the representation of the sublime as the
artistic conquest of the awful, and of the comic as
the artistic release from the nausea of the absurd.
The satyric chorus of the dithyramb is the saving
device of Greek art; the paroxysms described above
exhaust themselves in the intermediary world of
these Dionysian votaries.
8
A
Loretta fea de ee en en al ee SR Dl a a ee De Sa a a ee
The satyr, like the idyllic shepherd of our more
recent time, is the offspring of a longing for the
Primitive and the Natural; but how firmly and fear-
lessly the Greek embraced the man of the woods,
and how timorously and mawkishly modern man
dallied with the flattering picture of a sentimental,
flute-playing, soft-mannered shepherd! Nature, as
yet unchanged by knowledge, maintaining impreg-
nable barriers to culture—that is what the Greek
saw in his satyr, which nevertheless was not on this
account to be confused with the primitive cave-man.
On the contrary, the satyr was the archetype of
-—*
am An wap i CIEE Ree Sep enti eae ala
illite:
fe 4Mens GRIT HOR eG DY 211
man, the embodiment of his highest and_intensest
emotions, the ecstatic reveler enraptured by the
proximity of his god, the sympathetic companion in
whom is repeated the suffering of the god, wisdom’s
harbinger speaking from the very heart of nature,
emblem of the sexual omnipotence of nature, which
the Greek was wont to contemplate with reverence
and wonder. The satyr was something sublime and
godlike: it was inevitable that he should appear so,
especially to the sad downcast glance of the Diony-
sian man. ur counterfeit tricked-up shepherd
would have repulsed the Dionysian; but on the
naked and magnificent characters of nature his eye
dwelt with rapt satisfaction. Here the illusion of
culture was cast off from the archetype of man; here
the true man, the bearded satyr, revealed himself,
shouting joyfully to his god. I’ace to face with him
the man of culture shrank to a specious caricature.
Schiller is right also with regard to these beginnings
of tragic art: the chorus is a living bulwark against
the onslaught of reality, because it—the satyr
pl Sena existence more truthfully, more
essentially, more perfectly than the cultured man
who nore considers himself as the sole reality.
The sphere of poetry does not lie outside the world,
like some chimera of the poetic imagination; it seeks
to be the very opposite, the unvarnished expression
of truth, and for this very reason it must reject the
false finery of that supposed reality of the cultured
man. The contrast between this intrinsic truth of
: Oe ? im ba" —— — ed et he ee fe tm aoe
ace Ne Te ee te at Rt ee De eee cee eee Se ts Se Oe Oe a ne ae es en eS SOC en
ee ae
\S
& Ae
lee |22 06 | TEE BIRT HOF PRAGA
nature and the falsehood of culture, which poses as
the only reality, is similar to that existing between
the eternal heart of things, the thing in itself, and
the collective world of phenomena. And just as
tragedy, with its metaphysical comfort, points to the
eternal life of this kernel of existence, and to the
perpetual dissolution of phenomena, so the symboi-
ism of the satyr chorus already expresses figura- -
tively this primal relation between the thing in itself
; and the phenomenon. The idyllic shepherd of the
modern man is but a copy of the sum of the culture
—jllusions which he calls nature; the Dionysian
Greek desires truth and nature in their most potent
ine form—and so he sees himself metamorphosed into
the satyr.
The reveling throng of the votaries of Dionysus
rejoices under the influence of such moods and per-
ceptions, the power of which transforms them before
their own eyes, so that they imagine they behold
themselves as recreated genii of nature, as satyrs.
The latter constitution of the tragic chorus is the
artistic imitation of this natural phenomenon, which —
of course necessitated a separation of the Dionysian
spectators from the enchanted Dionysians. How-
ever, we must always remember that the public of
the Attic tragedy rediscovered itself in the chorus
of the orchestra, that there was at bottom no opposi-
tion of public and chorus: for all was but one great
sublime chorus of dancing and singing satyrs, or of
such as allowed themselves to be represented by
ae ee - p - -4
- aes SCS tr geen *
ee,
PON eR a ihe etree detergent ee — eee
Bn ay a ene a EEA Stitching 570 -n lft inci- sca ni i iI EE RE Re
“ ° = * a os < .
Pet a
¢<=
=
atePees Brn. OF TRAGEDY, Zio
the impulse to transform himself and to speak from
out the bodies and souls of others, he will be a
dramatist.
The Dionysian exciterhent is able to inspire a
whole mass of men with this artistic faculty of see-
ing themselves surrounded by such a host of spirits
with whom they know themselves to be essentially
one. This process of the tragic chorus is the
dramatic proto-phenomenon: to see yourself trans-
formed before your own eyes, and then to act as if
you had actually taken possession of another body
and another character. This process stands at the
beginning of the development of the drama. Here
we have something different from the rhapsodist,
who does not unite with his images, but, like the
painter, merely views them contemplatively, with
detachment. Here we actually have the individual
surrendering himself by the fact of his entrance
into an alien nature. Moreover, this phenomenon is
epidemic in its manifestation: a whole throng ex-
periences this metamorphosis. Hence it is that the
dithyramb is essentially different from every other
variety of choric song. The virgins, who, laurel
branches in hand, solemnly make their way to the
temple of Apollo singing a processional hymn, re-
main what they are and retain their civic names:
but the dithyrambic.chorus is a chorus of trans-
formed beings, whose civic past and social positior
are totally forgotten. They have become the time-
less servants of their god, living apart from all the
4
id
coo
nO at ert RE geen et
a
ian
ER eee ee ea See Se ee SACI
—
on)
oa
SUF ae ee :
le te ee ee re Et Ne ot Wt nn One aeeres
. ee
aay wee ie CIES ita SC IT arcmin ta i Se.
~
>A
f
THE BIRTH. OF TRAG ES
life of the community. Every other kind of choric
lyric of the Hellenes is nothing but an enormous 1n-
tensification of the Apollonian unit-singer: while in
the dithyramb we have a community of unconscious
actors, who mutually regard themselves as trans-
formed among one another.
This enchantment is the prerequisite for all dra-
matic art. Under its spell the Dionysian reveler
sees himself as a satyr, and as satyr he tn turn be-
holds the god, that is, in his transformation he sees
a new vision outside him as the Apollonian consum-
mation of his own state. With this new vision the
drama completes itself.
According to this view, we must understand
Greek tragedy as the Dionysian chorus, disburden-
ing itself again and again in an Apollonian image-
world. The choric parts, therefore, with which
tragedy is interlaced, are in a sense the maternal
womb of the entire so-called dialogue, that is, of
the whole stage-world, of the drama proper. In sev-
eral successive outbursts this primal basis of tragedy
releases this vision of the drama, which is a dream-
phenomenon throughout, and, as such, epic in
character: on the other hand, however, as the ob-
jectification of a Dionysian state, it represents not
the Apollonian redemption in appearance, but, con-
versely, the dissolution of the individual and his
unification with primordial existence. And so the
drama becomes the Apollonian embodiment of
Dionysian perceptions and influences, and therefore5
a
= ee:
om keg
Sa
THE BIRTH OF TRAGEDY We
separates itself by a tremendous gap from the epic.
The chorus of the Greek tragedy, the symbol of’
the collectively excited Dionysian throng, thus finds
its full explanation in our conception. Accustomed
as we were to the function performed by our modern
stage chorus, especially an operatic one, we could
never comprehend why the tragic chorus of the
Greeks should be older, more primitive, indeed,
more important than the “action” proper—as has
been so plainly declared by the voice of tradition:
whereas, furthermore, we could not reconcile with
this traditional primacy and primitiveness the fact
that the chorus was composed only of humble, at-
tendant beings—indeed, in the beginning, only of
goatlike satyrs; and, finally, there remained the rid-
dle of the orchestra before the scene. We have at
last realized that the scene, together with the action,
was fundamentally and originally thought of only as
a vision, that the only reality is just the chorus,
which of! itself generates the vision and celebrates
it with the entire symbolism of dancing, music, and
speech. In the vision, this chorus beholds its lord
and master Dionysus, and so it is for ever a chorus
that_Serves; it sees how he, the god, suffers snd
glorifies himself, and therefore does not itself act.
But though its attitude towards the god is through-
out the attitude of ministration, this is nevertheless
the \highest, that is, the Dionysian, expression of
Nature, and therefore, like Nature herself in a
state of transport, the chorus utters oracles and wise
cee Serceecndne det eee
OO a nd ee A eT ee ae
oe
~
eee
RCS ee ee et Sate NOR Ot Bn SEES CS Sa ot Et eR OE ee ee Sa
np
. =o fait
a‘
aia Ne AA ha tele a den aa I Ne a Re TL. a
OF rind
Se
a ear
i, > a> kay were a en
ean
i
ee
¢
¢t
22 THE BIRTH OP "ERAGE w yY
“Und sollt’ ich nicht, sehnsuchtigster Gewalt,
Ins Leben ziehn die einzigste Gestalt?” **
But now that the Socratic culture can only hold
the scepter of its infallibility with trembling hands;
now that it has been shaken from two directions—
once by the fear of its own conclusions which it at
length begins to surmise, and again, because it no
longer has its former naive confidence in the eternal
validity of its foundation—it is a sad spectacle to see
how the dance of its thought rushes longingly on
ever-new forms, to embrace them, and then, shud-
dering, lets them go suddenly as Mephistopheles
does the seductive Lamiz. It is certainly the sign of
the “breach” which all are wont to speak of as the
fundamental tragedy of modern culture that the the-
oretical man, alarmed and dissatisfied at his own
conclusions, no longer dares entrust himself to the
terrible icestream of existence: he runs timidly up
and down the bawk. So thoroughly has he been
spoiled by his optimistic views that he no longer
wants to have anything whole, with all of nature’s
cruelty attaching to it. Besides, he feels that a cul-
ture based on the principles of science must be d ~*
stroyed when it begins to grow illogical, that is, alg
, : : ral:
retreat before its own conclusions. Our art reve :s
this universal trouble: in vain does one depend imi-
21 And shall not I, by mightiest desire,
In living shape that sole fair form acquire?
Faust, Swanwick’s Trans.aad
oe!
a
ok
PHE SHER H OF TRAGEDY 293
tatively on all the great productive periods and
natures; in vain does one accumulate the entire
“World-literature” around modern man for his com-
fort; in vain does one place one’s self in the midst of
the art-styles and artists of all ages, so that one may
give names to them as Adam did to the beasts: one
still continues eternally hungry, the “critic” without
joy and energy, the Alexandrian man, who is at bot-
tom a librarian and corrector of proofs, and who,
pitiable wretch, goes blind from the dusty books and
printers’ errors.
19
We cannot indicate the essential modern content
of this Socratic culture more distinctly than by call-
ing it the culture of the opera: for it is in this de-
partment that this culture has expressed its aims and
perceptions, with special naiveté, which is surpris-
ing when we compare the genesis of the opera and
the facts of operatic development with the eternal
truths of the Apollonian and Dionysian. I call to
mind first of all the origin of the stdo rappresentativo
and the recitative. Is it credible that this thoroughly
externalized undevotional operatic music, could be
received and cherished with enthusiastic favor, as
a rebirth, as it were, of all true music, by the very
age in which had appeared the ineffably sublime and
sacred music of Palestrina? And who, on the other
hand, would think of making only the diversion-
4
PS
yo
eee a
NOW rang nwo CAS
ee
On Pa ee oe
Re I dE Rd re ee ene ce nome De
Se ee ee ae Le
Skea eke ee De ans
a
,
‘¢
¥
“y
*P
it
ty
ea a
>
e)
a
aea
ia
ae
a “a
eel tte Tn te a
a)
DD as he A a Sarl
lS ahem ee eee ae Pa oh
San neta
se-tee-paahii da rhe tena ep cacti tr etre oro Ree
4 7"
Satataitaimeed
2s
Ne eon fot
,
yoy THE BIRTH ‘Or TRAG EPs
craving luxuriousness of those Florentine circles and
the vanity of their dramatic singers responsible for
the love of the opera which spread with such rapid-
ity? That in the same age, even among the same
people, this passion for a half-musical mode of
speech should awaken alongside of the vaulted struc-
ture of Palestrina harmonies which all medieval
Christendom had been building up, I can explain to
myself only by a codperating, extra-artistic tendency
in the essence of the recitative.
The listener, who insists on distinctly hearing the
words under the music, has his desire fulfilled by the
singer in that the latter speaks rather than sings,
and by this half-song intensifies the pathetic expres-
sion of the words. By this intensification of the
pathos he facilitates the understanding of the words
and surmounts the remaining half of the music. The
specific danger now threatening him is that in some
unguarded moment he may stress the music unduly,
which would immediately entail the destruction of
the pathos of the speech and the distinctness of the
words: while, on the other hand, he feels himself
continually impelled to musical delivery and to a
virtuose exhibition of vocal talent. Here the “poet”
comes to his aid, who knows how to provide him with
abundant opportunities for lyrical interjections,
repetitions of words and sentences, etc.—at which
places the singer, now in the purely musical element,
can rest himself without paying any attention to
the words. This alternation of emotionally impres-ok BIRTH OF TRAGEDY 295
sive speech which, however, is only half sung, with
interjections which are wholly sung, an alternation
characteristic of the stilo rappresentattvo, this
rapidly changing endeavor to affect now the con-
ceptional and representative faculty of the hearer,
now his musical sense, is something so utterly un-
natural and likewise so intrinsically contradictory
both to the Apollonian and Dionysian artistic im-
pulses, that one has to infer an origin of the recita-
tive lying outside all artistic instincts. According
to this description, the recitative must be defined
as a mixture of epic and lyric delivery, not indeed
as an intrinsically stable mixture, a state not to be
attained in the case of such totally disparate ele-
ments, but as an entirely superficial mosaic conglu-
tination, such as is totally unprecedented in the do-
main of nature and experience. But this was not
the optnion of the inventors of the recttative: they
themselves, together with their age, believed rather
that the mystery of antique music has been solved
by this stilo rappresentativo, in which, so they
thought, was to be found the only explanation of the
enormous influence of an Orpheus, an Amphion, and
even of Greek tragedy. The new style was looked
upon as the reawakening of the most effective music,
the Old Greek music: indeed, in accordance with the
universal and popular conception of the Homeric
as the primitive world, they could abandon them-
selves to the dream of having descended once more
into the paradisiacal beginnings of mankind, where
4
”
’
t
ae ORE Eten ed ote ne a
oe eT a a ee to OR ot Pe at eet fe
SSE cn mm tee re
»
a
es
a
ha ta a ee ee eto Bae) LD eeee
fee
rae eel ae a i CRE bak a rr gah Serene nel ae te are a — | ae
- " remetemerhentertis 4 1
- Laer 4 | “
~ x - ry
basa tera es Toe ee ed
=
Ca nes
F
Se ER ES ARATE
‘=
‘
906 THE ‘BIRTH OF TRAGEDY
music also must have had that unsurpassed purity,
power, and innocence of which the poets, in their
pastoral plays, could give such touching accounts.
Here we can see into the internal development of
this thoroughly modern variety of art, the opera: art
here responds to a powerful need, but it is a need
the belief in the prehistoric existence of the artistic,
of an unesthetic kind: the longing for the idyllic,
good man. The recitative was regarded as the re-
discovered language of this primitve man; the opera
as the found country of this idyllically or heroically
good creature, who simultaneously with every action
follows a natural artistic impulse, who accomplishes
his speech with a little singing, in order that he may
immediately break forth into full song at the slight-
est emotional excitement. It is now a matter of in-
difference to us that the humanists of the time com-
bated the old ecclesiastical conception of man as
inherently corrupt and lost, with this newly created
picture of the paradisiacal artist: so that opera is
to be understood as the opposition dogma of the
good man, but may also, at the same time, provide a
consolation for that pessimism which, owing to the
frightful uncertainty of all conditions of life, at-
tracted precisely the serious-minded men of the
time. For us, it is enough to have perceived that
the essential charm, and therefore the genesis, of
this new art-life lies in the gratification of an alto-
gether unesthetic need, in the optimistic glorification
of man as such, in the conception of the primitivePee BERTH OF 'TRAGE DS 2357
man as the man naturally good and artistic: a prin-
ciple of the opera that has gradually changed into a
threatening and terrible demand, which, in face of
contemporary socialistic movements, we can no
longer ignore. The “good primitive man” wants his
rights: what paradisiacal prospects! Beside this I
place another equally obvious confirmation of my
view that opera is based on the same principles as
our Alexandrian culture. Opera is the birth of the
theoretical man, the critical layman, not of the art-
ist: one of the most surprising facts in the whole
history of art. It was the demand of thoroughly un-
musical hearers that before everything else the
words must be understood, so that according to
them a rebirth of music is to be expected only when
some mode of singing has been discovered in which
text-word lords over counterpoint like master over
servant. For the words, it is argued, are as much
nobler than the accompanying harmonic system as
the soul is nobler than the body. It was in accord-
ance with the laically unmusical crudeness of these
views that the combination of music, picture and
words was effected in the beginnings of the opera:
and in the spirit of this esthetic the first experiments
were made in the leading amateur circles of Florence
by the poets and singers patronized there. The man
incapable of art creates for himself a kind of art
precisely because he is the inartistic man as such.
Because he can not divine the Dionysian depth of
music, he changes his musical taste into an apprecia-
4
P
a a NE aa oe tnt RD ene ett a” eed
MS hye weet te
ened
- -
Rs"
+ Se oe - ete » «
eh Te ee ek ee eS el ee Si ol Rae et
Nf=‘
=
ees be od ee
Eh ee Sree ale een OT ee
ay :
ee Re oe ae | he
° — SO re ey | “*
5
over
sr ta
er I OT TEL =
“Sirti Winn e satire ec alle ad
te hs = = Pe
Zi le a ne aa on ‘pea
P — a \ _ <
gos THE BIRTH ‘OF TRAGEDY
tion of the understandable word-and-tone-rhetoric
of the passions in the stilo rappresentativo, and into
the voluptuousness of the lyric arts; because he is
unable to behold a vision, he forces the machinist
and the decorative artist into his service; because he
cannot comprehend the true nature of the artist,
he conjures up the “artistic primitive man” to suit
his taste, that is, the man who sings and recites
verses under the influence of passion. He dreams
himself back into a time when passion sufficed to
generate songs and poems: as if emotion had ever
been able to create anything artistic. The premise
of the opera is a false belief concerning the artistic
process, in fact, the idyllic belief that every sentient |
man is an artist. This belief would make opera the
expression of the taste of the laity in art, dictating ©
their laws with the cheerful optimism of the theo-
retical man.
Should we desire to combine the two conceptions |
just set forth as influential in the origin of opera, it
would merely remain for us to speak of an idyllic —
tendency of the opera: in which connection we may
avail ourselves exclusively of the phraseology and
illustration of Schiller. “Nature and the ideal,” he |
says, “are either objects of grief, when the former |
is represented as lost, the latter unattained; or both |
are objects of joy, in that they are represented as |
real. The first case furnishes the elegy in its nar- :
rower signification, the second the idyll in its widest |
sense.” Here we must at once call attention to the}Pik BIRTH OF TRAGHDY 3299
common characteristic of these two conceptions in
the genesis of opera, namely, that in them the ideal
is not felt as unattained or nature as lost. In con-
sonance with this sentiment, there was a primitive
age of man when he lay close to the heart of nature,
and, owing to this naturalness, had at once attained
the ideal of mankind in a paradisiacal goodness and
artistry. From this perfect primitive man all of us
were supposed to be descended. We were, in fact,
faithful copies of him; only we had to cast off some
few things in order to recognize ourselves once more
as this primitive man, on the strength of a volun-
tary renunciation of superfluous learnedness, of
Superabundant culture. It was to such a concord
of nature and the ideal, to an idyllic reality, that
the cultured Renaissance man let himself be led
back by his operatic imitation of Greek tragedy.
He made use of this tragedy as Dante made use of
Vergil, in order to be conducted to the gates of para-
dise: while from this point he continued unassisted
and passed over from an imitation of the highest
Greek art-form to a “restoration of all things,” to
an imitation of man’s original art-world. What a
cheerful confidence there is about these daring en-
deavors, in the very heart of theoretical culture! —
solely to be explained by the comforting belief, that
“man-in-himself” is the eternally virtuous hero of
the opera, the eternally fluting or singing shepherd,
who must always in the end rediscover himself as
such should he ever at any time have really lost
/
”
’
f
‘a
eee
. rt head
. _—
+ Oy rere ~ a - Re Fall 2 FE ty cae
a i nn Sa ee eet am ee eed OR ee ee
pe
‘
seria iteenedemenin re Ne a fc arnt ORD Sie et oat eo)
"as “EsSe
300 THE BIRTH ‘OF ‘TRAGEDS
himself; to be considered solely as the fruit of that
optimism, which here rises like a sweetishly seduc-
tive column of vapor out of the death of the Socratic
Se ac
= ee eae)
world-view.
Therefore, the features of the opera do not in
any sense exhibit the elegiac sorrow of an eternal
loss, but rather the cheerfulness of eternal redis-
covery, fhe indolent delight in an idyllic reality
which one can at least momentarily imagine as real.
But in this process one may some day grasp the fact
that this supposed reality is nothing but a fantas-
tically silly dawdling, at which every one who could
judge it by the terrible seriousness of true nature,
and compare it with actual primitive scenes of the
beginnings of mankind, would be impelled to call
out with loathing: Away with the phantom! Never-
theless, it would be a mistake to imagine that it is
possible merely by a vigorous shout to frighten away
such a dawdling thing as the opera, as if it were a
specter. He who would destroy the opera must
take up the struggle against Alexandrian cheerful-
ness, which expresses itself so naively therein con-
cerning its favorite conceptions; of which in fact
it is the specific form of art. But what may art it-
self expect from the operation of an art-form whose
beginnings lie entirely outside of the esthetic prov-
ince? Which has rather stolen over from a half-
moral sphere into the artistic domain, and has been
able only occasionally to deceive us as to its hybrid
origin? By what sap is this parasitic operatic-form
p A
“NORE ere ae eA —_
indi tere tag NI 5 a ea AMAIA KOS ee ee re psec —
eS sae ‘Pee Won SNE si ee a a ea se ae aclrin iceak t g pe erTe
~ vats . ay
per
<=
.Mee Big if OF TRAGEDY 301
nourished, if not by that of true art? Must we not
suppose that the highest and, indeed, the truly seri-
ous task of art,—to release the eye from its gaze into
the horrors of night and to deliver the “patient” by
the healing balm of appearance from the spasms of
the agitations of the will,—must we not suppose that
this task will degenerate under the influence of its
idyllic seductions and Alexandrian adulation to an
empty and dissipating dilettanteism? What will be-
come of the eternal truths of the Dionysian and
Apollonian in such a mélange de genres, as I have
shown to be the essence of the stilo rappresentativo?
A style in which music is regarded as the servant,
the text as the master, where music is compared
with the body, the text with the soul? where at best
the highest aim will be directed toward a paraphras-
tic tone-painting, just as formerly in the New Attic
Dithyramb? where music is completely alienated
from its true dignity of being the Dionysian mirror
of the world, so that the only thing left to it, as the
slave of phenomena, is to imitate the formal char-
acter of phenomena, and to arouse a superficial /°
pleasure in the play of lines and _ proportions.
Closely observed, this fatal influence of the opera
on music is seen to coincide exactly with the uni-
versal development of modern music; the optimism
lurking in the genesis of the opera and in the char-
acter of the culture thereby represented, has, with
alarming rapidity, succeeded in divesting music of
Its Dionyso-cosmic mission and impressing on it
. .
a o ’
NS Te nT ee ee MOR hee ce ew ee a ene OEE ee tet ae a
ee Cees
Nad ara
~
a
ean
‘~s
a
aa]
5
“See
—~
ai
, +
Pag:
ean ee oe ae lee,
gon —~ ee ae) = |
ere a acter enemies
Se Senda Sees oa aa a nee eee
P P a"
bag aent
A oe NEC rion ellie isa ha
és
]
s02 THE BERTH OF “ERAGE
a playfully formal and pleasurable character: a
change to which the only analogy perhaps is the
metamorphosis of the AZschylean man into the
cheerful Alexandrian.
If. however, in the exemplification here indicated,
we have rightly associated the disappearance of the
Dionysian spirit with a most striking, but hitherto
unexplained, transformation and degeneration of the
Hellenic man—what hopes must revive ‘n us when
the most certain auspices guarantee the reverse
process, the gradual awakening of the Dionystan
spirit in our modern world! It is impossible that
the divine strength of Heracles should languish for
ever in voluptuous bondage to Omphale. Out of
the Dionysian root of the German spirit a power has
arisen which, having nothing in common with the
primitive conditions of Socratic culture, can neither
be explained nor excused by it, but which is rather |
felt by this culture as something terribly inexplicable
and overwhelmingly hostile. I refer, of course, to
German music aS we must understand it, particu- |
larly in its vast solar orbit from Bach to Beethoven, |
from Beethoven to Wagner. Even under the most}
favorable circumstances what can the knowledge- |
craving Socratism of our days do with this demon
rising from unfathomable depths? Neither by /
means of the zigzag and arabesque work oi operatic |
melody, nor with the aid of the arithmetical count- |
ing-board of fugue and contrapuntal dialectic is the :
formula to be found, by whose thrice-powerful lightiii BIRTH OF TRAGEDY ~ 230s
one might subdue this demon and compel it to speak.
What a spectacle, when our latter-day estheticians,
with a net of “beauty” peculiar to themselves, pur-
sue and clutch at the genius of music whirling before
display activities which are not to be judged by the
standard of eternal beauty any more than by the
standard of the sublime. Let us but observe these
patrons of music at close range, as they really are,
indefatigably crying: “Beauty! beauty!” We may
discover whether they really bear the stamp of na-
ture’s darling children who are fostered and nour-
ished at the breast of the beautiful, or whether they
are not rather seeking a deceptive cloak for their
own rudeness, an esthetical pretext for their own im-
passive insipidity: I am thinking here, for instance,
of Otto Jahn. But let the liar and the hypocrite
beware of our German music: for amid all our cul-
ture it is really the only genuine, pure and purifying
fire-spirit from which and towards which, as in the
teaching of the great Heraclitus of Ephesus, all
things move in a double orbit: all that we now call
culture, education, civilization, must some day ap-
pear before the unerring judge, Dionysus.
Let us recollect further that Kant and Schopen-
hauer made it possible for the spirit of German
philosophy, streaming from similar sources, to de-
stroy scientific Socratism’s complacent delight in
existence by establishing its boundaries; how
through this delimitation was introduced an infi-
nitely profounder and more serious view of ethical
/
Py
s
$
\
ee
Sa Nc tL Bis et re
yy -
ee
er
S Sed
aod
oe
aa mm been See
_
SE TS ee nee
Co ee a .
ie abe SST en ee et ee ee beeee at
rat
oN ae et ioe
s cetherdiante tatenel
[ee
aa a ae ete
ae
—
ieee
<
~
Sa
Sn
a
~
-
+
a
¢
ine eee. Ne re te ey | hi
-* a Patan &, ee ees a
OS eh ew a
_"
Ste enema arian
B04 THE. BIRTH-Ok THAGEDY
problems and of art, which we may unhesitatingly
designate as Dionysian wisdom comprised in con-
cepts. “To what then does the mystery of this one-
ness of German music and philosophy point.if not
to a new form of existence, concerning whose charac-
ter we can only inform ourselves by surmise from
Hellenic analogies? For to us who stand on the
boundary line between two different forms of exist-
ence, the Hellenic prototype retains this immeasur-
able value, that therein all these transitions and
struggles are imprinted in a classically instructive
form: except that we, as it were, pass through the
chief epochs of the Hellenic genius, analogically in
reverse order, and seem now, for instance, to be
passing backwards from the Alexandrian age to the
period of tragedy. At the same time we have the
feeling that the birth of a tragic age simply means
a return to itself of the German spirit, a blessed
self-rediscovery after powerful intrusive influences
had for a long time compelled it, living as it did in
a helpless and unchaste barbarism, to servitude
under their form. Now at last, upon returning to
the primitive source of its being, it may venture to
stride along boldly and freely before the eyes of all
nations without being attached to the leading-strings
of a Romanic civilization: if only it can learn im-
plicitly from one people—the Greeks, from whom
to learn at all is itself a high honor and a rare dis-
tinction. And when were we in greater need of
these highest of all teachers more tham at present,ooo BRT H OF TRAGEDY 0b
when we are experiencing a rebirth of tragedy and
are in danger alike of not knowing whence it comes
and of being unable to make clear to ourselves
whither it tends.
20
Some day before an impartial judge, it may be
decided in what time and in what men the German
spirit has thus far striven most resolutely to learn
from the Greeks: and if we confidently assume that
this unique praise must be accorded to the noblest
intellectual efforts of Goethe, Schiller, and Winkel-
mann, we will certainly be compelled to add that
since their time and subsequent to the more im-
mediate consequences of their efforts, the endeavor
to attain to culture and to the Greeks by a similar
path has grown incomprehensibly feebler and fee-
bler. That we may not despair utterly of the German
spirit, must we not conclude that possibly, in some
essential matter, even these champions could not
penetrate into the core of the Hellenic nature, and
were unable to establish a permanent alliance be-
tween German and Greek culture? So that perhaps
an unconscious perception of this shortcoming might
arouse also in more serious minds the disheartening
doubt as to whether after such predecessors they
could advance still farther on this path of culture,
or could reach the goal at all. Accordingly, since
that time, we see that opinions concerning the value
—_"
Ny
A LY ORC Eee suns med etl AIO COMET
ee eee / Aa
TE el nn Le eee OR a ee SE ee OES art
od
at aoe te en Pelee ee rc be a Ene Re Ree
AsO Ore eg i~ oo
ee? ad py = So
Be Salata Nae ce fe oa Oe en a
' ™ ~ ‘ 7
OF ac pahertetetantetel dence’
rie
Pde
enn ot it
ne
5 ees “Sieg
SRI SS
n06 THE OBIRT BOOF TEAGEDY
of Greek contributions to culture have been degen-
erating in the most alarming manner; the expression
of compassionate superiority may be heard in the
most varied intellectual and non-intellectual camps;
or elsewhere a totally impotent rhetoric plays with
the phrases “Greek harmony,” “Greek beauty,”
“Greek cheerfulness.” And in those very circles
whose dignified task it might be to draw indefati-
gably from the Greek reservoir for the good of Ger-
man culture, in the teaching circles of the higher
educational institutions, they have learned best to
compromise with the Greeks easily and in good
time, often to the extent of a skeptical abandonment
of the Hellenic ideal and a total perversion of the
true purpose of antiquarian studies. If there is any
one at all in these circles who has not completely ex-
hausted himself in his endeavor to be a dependable
corrector of old texts or a natural-history micro-
scopist of language, he perhaps is also seeking to
take over Grecian antiquity “historically” along
with other antiquities, and in any case according
to the method and with the supercilious air of our
present cultured historiography. Therefore, when
the intrinsic efficiency of our higher educational in-
stitutions has perhaps never been lower or feebler
than at present; when the “journalist,” the paper
slave of the day, triumphs over the professor in all
matters pertaining to culture; and when there re-
mains to the latter only the often previously experi-
enced metamorphosis of now fluttering also like amoe mike Hn OF TRAGEDY 4a07
cheerful cultured butterfly (to use the idiom of the
journalist), with the “light elegance” peculiar to this
sphere;—under these conditions, with what a pain-
ful confusion must the cultured persons of a period
like the present gaze at the phenomenon which per-
haps is to be comprehended analogically only by
means of the profoundest principle of the hitherto
unintelligible Hellenic genius, the phenomenon of
the reawakening of the Dionysian spirit and the re-
birth of tragedy. There has never been another
art-period in which so-called culture and true art
have been so estranged and opposed, as we may ob-
serve them to be at present. We can understand
why so feeble a culture hates true art; it fears de-
struction from its hands. But must not an entire
cultural-form, namely, the Socratic-Alexandrian,
have exhausted itself after culminating in such a
daintily tapering point as our present culture? If
heroes like Goethe and Schiller could not succeed in
breaking open the enchanted gate which leads into
the Hellenic magic mountain; if with their most
dauntless striving they could not go beyond the
longing gaze which Goethe’s Iphigenia casts from
barbaric Tauris to her home across the ocean, what
could the epigones of such heroes hope for?—unless
the gate—amidst the mystic tones of reawakened
tragic music—should open for them suddenly of its
own accord, from an entirely different side, quite
overlooked in all previous cultural endeavors.
Let no one attempt to trouble our faith in an im-
/
a
= ESE
<—
ste oD
4205 See YE ATOR Oct Ow ag agg ood EAS
-
er ee eel eS . - =
tual sh Te et a Ne ST eT net eta ee Se ee Sey SS OD wn et
‘
if—
<4 me
een
ond > an a
Saas
S72
4 3
irae ee . ee to =
Neat ei DN Sa et oe ah ge gh ene i Ra aR ae r
~ ne a a s “ Pm . 4 — Saka Mt eee <
SL -tersherteatienieent ae)
So eet
a
S08 THE BYRTH OF TRG apes
pending rebirth of Hellenic antiquity; for in it
alone we find our hope of a renovation and purifi-
cation of the German spirit through the fire-magic
of music. What else shall we name, that amid the
present desolation and fatigue of culture might
awaken any comforting expectation for the future?
We look in vain for one single vigorous root, for one
spot of fruitful healthy soil: Everywhere dust,
sand, torpidity, languor! Under such circumstances
a cheerless solitary wanderer could choose for him-
self no better symbol than the Knight with Death
and the Devil, as Diirer has sketched him to us—
the mail-clad knight, grim and stern of visage, who
undisturbed by his gruesome companions, yet with-
out hope, pursues his terrible path with horse and
hound, alone. Our Schopenhauer was such a
Durerian knight: he was destitute of all hope, but
he sought the truth. We have not his equal to-day.
But how suddenly this gloomily depicted wilder-
ness of our exhausted culture changes when it is
touched by the Dionysian magic! A hurricane
seizes everything decrepit, decaying, broken, and
stunted; enwraps it whirlingly in a red cloud of
dust; and like a vulture carries it off into the air.
Confused, we look for what has vanished: for what
we see is something risen to the golden light as from
a depression, so full and green, so luxuriantly vital,
so ardent, so immeasurable. In the midst of this
exuberance of life, sorrow and joy, Tragedy sits,
in sublime ecstasy; she listens to a sad song, farfie BIRTH OF TRAGEDY 309
away—it tells of the Mothers of Being, whose names
are: Wahn, Wille, Wehe.**—Yes, my friends, have
faith with me in Dionysian life and in the rebirth
of tragedy. The time of the Socratic man is past:
crown yourselves with ivy, take the thyrsus in your
hand, and marvel not if tigers and panthers lie down
fawning at your feet. Dare now to be tragic men,
for ye shall be redeemed! Ye shall accompany the
Dionysian festive procession from India to Greece!
Arm yourselves for hard strife, but have faith in the
wonders of your god!
21
Passing back from the hortatory tones to the
mood befitting the contemplative man, I repeat that
only from the Greeks can we learn what such a sud-
den and miraculous awakening of tragedy must sig-
nify for the inner fabric of a people’s life. It is the
people of the tragic mysteries who fight the battles
with the Persians: and, conversely, the people who
waged such wars required tragedy as a necessary
healing potion. Who would have imagined that
there was still such a uniformly powerful effusion of
the simplest political sentiments, the most natural
domestic instincts and the primitive manly delight
in battle in this very people after it had been agitated
so profoundly for several generations by the most
22 Whim, will, woe.
es
o - /
I cer eaten EDT Se ent ot et
A neta tail a map
Sh cn nn EN Re ee Oe eT ee
Samals10 THE BIRTH OF TRAGEDS
é » .
> —@
a
aah ee te Nera Rea
violent convulsions of the Dionysian demon? If
with every noteworthy extension of the Dionysian
life one always perceives that the Dionysian release
from the shackles of the individual makes itself felt
first of all in an increased encroachment on the po-
litical instincts, to the extent of causing indifference,
yea, even hostility, it is certain, on the other hand,
that the state-forming Apollo is also the genius of
the principium individuationis, and that the state
and the domestic sentiment cannot survive without
an assertion of the individual personality. For any
people there is but one road leading from orgasm—
the way to Indian Buddhism, which, that its longing
for nothingness may be at all endured, requires
those rare ecstatic States raised high above space,
time, and the individual; just as these in turn de-
mand a philosophy which teaches one how to over-
come the indescribable depression of the intermedi-
ate states by means of the imagination. With the
Srcnetecelne eee
SN ae ee an
7
-
-—
rhe-taentldacins iceland a an art aa
_ —
Ce ee
same necessity, owing to the unconditional domina-
tion of political impulses, a people drifts into a path
of extremest secularization, whose most magnificent
but also most terrible expression is the Roman 7m-
perium.
Placed between India and Rome, and constrained
to a choice, misleading in either case, the Greeks
succeeded in devising in classical purity still a third
form, not indeed for long private use, but just on
that account destined for immortality.—For it holds
true in all things that those whom the gods love die
— ee
Ea a Na or a OO a ea a!
¢ cera tT mee
" ind ks ; - - ~* *
aaNet oa
“NORD aces ise
i:
ri
22 THE BIRTH OF TRAGEDY
can hardly be understood as an “imitation of-na-
ture”) and when, on the other hand, his vast
“Dionysian impulse then absorbs this entire world of
phenomena, in order to anticipate beyond it, and
through its destruction, the highest artistic primal
a joy, in the bosom of the Primal Unity. Of course,
our estheticians have nothing to say about this return
in fraternal union of the two art-deities to the
original home, nor of either the Apollonian or
Dionysian excitement of the hearer, while they never
tire of characterizing the struggle of the hero with
fate, the triumph of the moral order of the world,
or the purgation of the emotions through tragedy, as
the properly Tragic: an indefatigability which makes
me think that perhaps they are not esthetically sen-
sitive men at all, but are to be regarded merely as
moral beings when hearing tragedy. Never since
Aristotle has an explanation of the tragic effect been
offered, by which an esthetic activity of the hearer
could be inferred from artistic circumstances. . At
one time pity and terror are supposed to be forced
to an alleviating release through the serious action,
at another time we are supposed to feel elevated and
inspired at the victory of good and noble principles,
at the sacrifice of the hero in the interest of a moral
conception of the universe; and however sure I am
that for countless men precisely this, and only this,
is the effect of tragedy, it just as plainly follows that
all these men, together with their interpreting esthe-
ticlans, have had no experience of tragedy as theTHE BIRTH OBLTRAGEDY 626
highest art. The pathological. discharge, the cathar-
sis of Aristotle, which philologists are at a loss
whether to include under medicinal or moral phe-
nomena, recalls a ‘remarkable anticipation of
Goethe. “Without a lively pathological interest,”
he says, “I too have never yet succeeded: in elabo-
rating a tragic situation of any kind, and hence I
have rather avoided than sought it. Can it perhaps
have been still another of the merits of the ancients
that the deepest pathos was with them merely
esthetic play, whereas with us the truth of nature
must codperate in order to produce such a work?”
We can now answer this latter profound question in
the affirmative after our glorious experiences, in
which we have found to our astonishment in the
case of musical tragedy itself, that the deepest pathos
can in reality be merely esthetic play; and therefore
we are justified in believing that now for the first
time the proto-phenomenon of the tragic can be de-
scribed with some degree of success. He who now
still persists in talking only of those vicarious effects
proceeding from extra-esthetic spheres, and does not
feel himself raised above the pathological-moral
process may despair of his esthetic nature: for which
we recommend to him, by way of innocent equiva-
lent, the interpretation of Shakespeare after the
fashion of Gervinus, and the diligent search for
poetic justice.
Thus with the rebirth of tragedy the esthetic
hearer is also reborn, in whose place in the theater
= fos ;
a VT tela Ome - es
~~ P Le a Oe ee eee
CS ot EE a Te nee Ben Sen OS BASE OE hone OE Oe Ce en tee et ee MR Bee ee
ee ee ee Deae
-* eS ar |
——_ ~ae, = _ = - a ee i
Sr i SSI ih ae mT
- = . ae as Ls -_ . ‘ “s ’
Ste Shertletaeitet tee
TN a eee ore ee
~ an
Ee
.
64 THE BIRTH OF TRAGEDY
a curious guid pro quo was wont to sit with half-
moral and half-learned pretensions—the “critic.”
Everything in his sphere hitherto has been artificial
and merely glossed over with a semblance of life.
The performing artist in fact was at a loss as to how
to deal with a hearer who comported himself so
critically; hence he, as well as the dramatist or
operatic composer who inspired him, searched anx-
lously for the last remains of life in a being so
pretentiously barren and incapable of enjoyment.
Such “critics,” however, have hitherto constituted
the public; the student, the schoolboy, even the
most harmless female, were already unwittingly pre-
pared by education and by magazines for a similar
perception of works of art. The nobler natures
among the artists when dealing with such a public
counted upon exciting their moral-religious emo-
tions, and the appeal to the moral world-order oper-
ated vicariously, when actually some powerful artis-
tic spell should have enraptured the true hearer. Or
again, some imposing or at all events exciting trend
of the contemporary political and social world was
so vividly presented by the dramatist that the hearer
could forget his critical exhaustion and abandon
himself to similar emotions, as, in patriotic or war-
like moments, or before the tribune of parliament,
or at the condemnation of crime and vice—an es-
trangement of the true aims of art which could not
but lead directly now and then to a cult of such
tendencies. But here there took place what has al-THE BIRTH OF TRAGEDY; 626
ways taken place with factitious arts, an extraordi-
narily rapid degeneration of these tendencies, so
that, for instance, the tendency to use the theater as
a means for the moral education of the people, which
in Schiller’s time was taken seriously, is already
reckoned among the incredible antiquities of an
abandoned culture. While the critic got the upper
hand in the theater and concert-hall, the journalist
in the school, and the press in society, art degener-
ated into a trivial topic of conversation, and esthetic
criticism was used as a means of uniting a vain, dis-
tracted, selfish and moreover piteously unoriginal
society, whose character is suggested by Schopen-
hauer’s parable of the porcupines: with the result
that art has never been so much talked about and so
little esteemed. But is it still possible to have inter-
course with a man capable of conversing on Beetho-
ven or Shakespeare? Let each answer this question
according to his own feelings: he will at any rate
show by his answer his conception of “culture,” pro-
vided he at least tries to answer the question, and
has not already grown mute with astonishment.
On the other hand, many a being more nobly and
delicately endowed by nature, though he may have
gradually become a critical barbarian in the manner
described, might have something to say of the unex-
pected as well as totally unintelligible effect which a
successful performance of Lohengrin, for example,
had on him: except that perhaps every warning and
interpreting hand was lacking to guide him; so that
a
ye
~.
ee
CUESV Oey, enews!
- eS aaa
I ae ot Ee, oe Seo De
‘yS LSet Wegedhee Wines - ———
ee) en Ln ne ee a Oe ee ML ene enlectern i i ae ea ec aa ar ere rere eae ee
. ete < adiys . ° . - aie
< a
Pi
cua"
Se we rr.
= a ¢ cherie ae 9
aR
6 a Nee
na
7s
r
w2606C WE "BART H OF TRAGHDY
the incomprehensibly diffused and quite incompara-
ble sensation which then thrilled him remained iso-
lated and became extinct, like a mysterious star after
a short period of brilliance. But it was then that he
had an inkling of what the esthetic hearer is.
23
He who wishes to test himself rigorously as to
whether he is related to the true esthetic hearer, or
whether he belongs rather to the community of the
Socratic-critical men, need only examine sincerely
the feeling with which he accepts the wonder repre-
sented on the stage: whether he feels his historical
sense, which insists on strict psychological causality,
insulted by it, whether with benevolent concession
he admits the wonder as a phenomenon intelligible to
childhood, but alien to him, or whether he ex-
periences anything else from it. For in this way he
will be able to determine on the whole how capable
he is of understanding myth, the concentrated pic-
ture of the world, which, as abbreviature of phe-
nomena, cannot dispense with wonder. It is prob-
able, however, that almost every one, upon close
examination, feels so broken up by the critico-his-
torical spirit of our culture, that he can only make
the former existence of myth credible to himself by
learned means through intermediary abstractions.
Without myth, however, every culture loses its
healthy creative natural power: it is only a horizonPRE BIRTH OF TRAGEDY 827
encompassed with myths that rounds off to unity a
social movement. It is only myth that frees all the
powers of the imagination and of the Apollonian
dream from their aimless wanderings. The mythical
figures have to be the unnoticed omnipresent genii,
under whose care the young soul grows to maturity,
by the signs of which the man gives meaning to his
life and struggles: and the state itself knows no
more powerful unwritten law than the mythical
foundation which vouches for its connection with
religion and its growth from mythical ideas.
On the other hand, let us now think of the abstract
man unguided by myth, the abstract education, the
abstract morality, the abstract justice, the abstract
State: let us picture to ourselves the lawless roving
of the artistic imagination, unchecked by native
myth: let us imagine a culture which has no fixed
and sacred primitive seat, but is doomed to exhaust
all its possibilities, and to nourish itself wretchedly
on all other cultures—there we have the Present, the
result of Socratism, which is bent on the destruction
of myth. And now the mythless man remains eter-
nally hungering amid the past, and digs and grubs for
roots, though he have to dig for them even among
the remotest antiquities. The terrible historical need
of our unsatisfied modern culture, the assembling
around one of countless other cultures, the consum-
ing desire for knowledge—what does all this point
to, if not to the loss of myth, the loss of the mythical
home, the mythical maternal bosom? Let us ask
=
of wv Se ee ee Se RD Bree ett
INSP ne conttan pee ae _ . ee p NS ee Ty lB ced OE ee eee ee a oe
Ss PN FE ee TOUT ED me TT iS Ae ee ol ee cod wwnbel nee,
oe~ a
Pherae taetanhiede tee a er
a a Sn aa Sarl
PF
Pa tes
te mentiptcacie tiie eh | hi
re
> paneer iertertaeten tee ie alone ns nae
ee ee ee
Mt steely ae Na Neha LO haart tt ae comet a
r 7 : iether te aes VR
a oy
fs THE BIRTH OF TRAGER
ourselves whether the feverish and uncanny excite-
ment of this culture is anything but the eager seizing
and snatching at food of hungry man—and who
would care to contribute anything more to a culture
which cannot be satisfied no matter how much it
devours, and at whose contact the most vigorous
and wholesome nourishment habitually changes into
“history and criticism’?
We should also have to regard our German charac-
ter with sorrowful despair, if it had already become
inextricably entangled in, or even identical with this
culture, as we may observe to our horror is the case
in civilized France; and that which for a long time
was the great advantage of France and the cause of
her vast superiority, to wit, this very identity of peo-
ple and culture, might compel us at the sight thereof
to congratulate ourselves that this so questionable
culture of ours has hitherto had nothing in common
with the noble heart of our people’s character. On
the contrary, all our hopes stretch out longingly to-
wards the perception that beneath this restlessly
palpitating civilized life and educational convulsion
there is concealed a glorious, intrinsically healthy,
primitive power, which, to be sure, stirs vigorously
only at intervals in stupendous moments, and then
continues to dream of future awakening. It is from
this abyss that the German Reformation came forth:
in the choral-hymn of which the future melody of
German music first resounded. So deep, courageous,
and spiritual, so exuberantly good and tender did thisTHE BIRTH OF TRAGEDY 829
chorale of Luther sound—as the first Dionysian lur-
ing call breaking forth from dense thickets at the
approach of spring. To it responded with emula-
tive echo the solemnly wanton procession of Dio-
nysian revelers, to whom we are indebted for German
music—and to whom we shall be ‘indebted for the
rebirth of German myth.
I know that I must now lead the sympathizing and
attentive friend to an elevated position of lonesome
contemplation, where he will have but few compan-
ions, and I call out encouragingly to him that we
must hold fast to our shining guides, the Greeks.
That we might clarify our esthetic knowledge, we
previously borrowed from them the two divine forms,
each of whom rules over a separate realm of art,
and concerning whose mutual contact and exaltation
we acquired a notion through Greek tragedy.
Through a remarkable disruption of both these
primitive artistic impulses, the ruin of Greek
tragedy seemed to be necessarily brought about:
with which process a degeneration and a transforma-
tion of the Greek national character was quite in
keeping, summoning us to earnest reflection as to
how closely and necessarily art and the people, myth
and custom, tragedy and the state, are rooted to-
gether. The ruin of tragedy was.at the same time
the ruin of myth. Until then the Greeks had been
involuntarily compelled to connect all experiences at
once with their myths: indeed it was only through
this association that they could understand them, so
— M4 ei
eee
na:
Ek SEC rT oe Mn Seno RAINE NO Bn BRE SC an A Est rn fe ee RD eT rat
es eee cg cee ac ef ecm SAS Kite ENG EOS
) tema
SPS tee Wepre
\ . = 4
eo
nd ee
~~ S
=
_
- — eee
eth aah br Loe eh a
Tepe chertelstartenadd eet hoe oes
a a aa he sel
ss
é‘
$80 THE BIRTH: OF TRAGEDY
that even the most immediate present necessarily ap-
peared to: them sub specie eternt and ina certain
sense as timeless. Into this current of the timeless,
however, the state as well as art plunged in order to
find repose from the burden and eagerness of the
moment. A people—and, for that matter, also a man
—is to be valued only according to its ability to im-
press on its experiences the stamp of eternity: for it
is thus, as it were, desecularized; thus it reveals its
unconscious inner conviction of the relativity of time
and of the true, that is, the metaphysical significance
of life. The contrary happens when a people begins
to comprehend itself historically and to demolish the
mythical bulwarks surrounding it: with which there
is usually connected a marked secularization, a break
with the unconscious metaphysics of its earlier exist-
ence, with all its ethical consequences. Greek art
and especially Greek tragedy delayed above all the
annihilation of myth: it was necessary to annihilate
these also to be able to live detached from the native
soil, unbridled in the wilderness of thought, custom,
and deed. Even then this metaphysical impulse still
endeavors to create for itself a form of apotheosis
(weakened, no doubt) in the Socratism of science
that urges to life: but in its lower stage the same
impulse led only to a feverish search, which gradually
lost itself in a pandemonium of myths and supersti-
tions accumulated from all quarters: in the midst of
which, nevertheless, the Hellene sat with a yearning
heart till he contrived, as Greculus, to mask his feverPHE ‘gyri ‘OF. TRAGEDY 88)
with Greek cheerfulness and Greek levity, or to nar-
cotize himself completely with some gloomy Oriental
superstition.
We have been approaching this state in the most
striking manner since the reawakening of Alexan-
drian-Roman antiquity in the fifteenth century, after
a long, most easily describable, interlude. On the
heights there is the same exuberant love of knowl-
edge, the same insatiate happiness of the discoverer,
the same tremendous secularization, and, with these;
a homeless wandering, an eager intrusion at strange
tables, a frivolous deification of the present or a
dull senseless estrangement, all sub specie sceculi, of
the present time: which same symptoms lead one to
infer the same defect at the heart of this culture, the
destruction of myth. It seems hardly possible to
transplant a foreign myth with permanent success,
without fatally injuring the tree which may oc-
casionally be sufficiently strong and healthy to
eliminate the foreign element after a_ terrible
struggle; but which must ordinarily consume itself
in a languishing and stunted condition or in a sickly
luxuriance. So highly do we rate the pure and
vigorous kernel of the German character that from
it alone may we venture to expect this elimination of
forcibly ingrafted foreign elements, and we deem it
possible that the German spirit will reflect anew
on itself. Perhaps many will be of opinion that this
spirit must begin its struggle with the elimination
of the Romanic element. Such people may recognize
ee ene
.
7
ete ‘4
eT ie Tg 3 tO Se lin bk a AE LEGS MDT ie PO BURR OI
- For ~.
. o$ ae
=F
a gt on
.P)
/
om
ar ee aed
ies
a One OE ae
Sh je - ae e —
cere he te ee be eee eee oem6 CC TH BIRT H,OF TRsa- at
an external preparation for, and encouragement of,
this struggle in the victorious bravery and bloody
glory of the late war; but must seek the inner con-
straint in the emulative zeal to be eternally worthy
of our sublime protagonists on this path, of Luther
as well as of our great artists and poets. But let
him never think he can fight such battles without the
household gods, without his mythical home, without
a “restoration” of all things German! And if the
German should be looking around timidly for a guide
to lead him back to his long-lost home, whose
ways and paths he hardly knows any longer—let
him but listen to the ecstatic luring call of the Dio-
nysian bird, which hovers above him, and would fain
point the way for him.
eee lee
_* te ower gen Ly)
ne = Ope gerennersnd
Ct A ae ha var wat eer tartrate ee stem natant nem
sae , :
=
et
24
Among the peculiar artistic effects of musical
tragedy we had to emphasize an Apollonian dlusion,
through which we are to be saved from an immediate
oneness with the Dionysian music, while our musical
excitement is able to discharge itself on an Apol-
lonian domain and in an interposed visible middle
world. It therefore seemed to us that precisely
through this discharge this middle world of theatri-
cal procedure, the drama generally, became visible
and intelligible from within in a degree unattainable
in all other forms of Apollonian art: so that here,
where this art was as if winged and borne aloft by the
Pe en Ly 2 . = " —?
ERE AIRES TNR a se LEE
J
=
Sa aa
‘ 3
al SC nna tea een ee
a
ct
504 THE ‘BIR TH ‘OF TRAGEDY
processes coexist and are felt to coexist in the con-
templation of tragic myth; while the truly esthetic
spectators will confirm my assertion that among the
peculiar effects of tragedy this conjection is the most
noteworthy. Now let this phenomenon of the
esthetic spectator be transferred to an analogous
process in the tragic artist, and the genesis of tragic
myth will have been understood. It shares with the
Apollonian sphere of art the full delight in appear-
ance and contemplation, and at the same time it
denies this delight and finds a still higher satisfaction
in the annihilation of the visible world of appear-
ance. The substance of the tragce myth is first of all
an epic event involving the glorification of the fight-
ing hero: but how does it come about that the essen-
tially puzzling trait, the suffering of the hero, the
most painful victories, the most agonizing contrasts
of motives, in short, the exemplification of the wis-
dom of Silenus, or, in esthetic terms, the ugly and
unharmonious, are always represented anew in such
countless and popular forms, and precisely at the
most youthful and exuberant age of a people, unless
there is really a higher delight experienced in all
this?
For the fact that in life things actually take sucn
a tragic course would hardly explain the original of
a form of art; provided that art is not merely an
imitation of the reality of nature, but in fact a meta-
physical supplement to the reality of nature, placed
|\ beside it for purpose of conquest. Tragic myth, inTHE BIRTH OF TRAGEDY 3835
so far as it really belongs to art, also fully partici-
pates in this transfiguring metaphysical purpose of
art in general. What does it transfigure, however,
when it presents the phenomenal world under the
form of the suffering hero? Least of all the “real-
ity” of this phenomenal world, for it says to us:
“Look at this! Look carefully! It is your life! It
is the hour-hand of the clock of your existence!”
And myth has displayed this life, in order thereby
to transfigure it for us? If! not, how shall we ac-
count for the esthetic pleasure with which even
these representations are accompanied? I am in-
quiring concerning the esthetic pleasure, and am
well aware that besides this pleasure many of these
representations may occasionally create even a moral
delectation, perhaps in the form of pity or of a moral
triumph. But he who would derive the effect of the
tragic exclusively from these moral sources, as in-
deed was usually the case far too long in esthetics,
let him not think that he has done anything for Art
thereby; for above all Art must _insist-on_purity in
her domajin-’” The very first requirement for the ex-
planation of tragic myth is that its characteristic
pleasure must be sought in the purely esthetic
sphere, without encroaching on the domain of pity,
fear, or the morally sublime. How can the ugly and
the unharmonious (the substance of tragic myth) ex-
cite esthetic pleasure?
Here it becomes necessary to raise ourselves with
one daring bound into a metaphysics of Art. There-
w
ry
a o a ° P
tava eT ee TEM 2 a a et a
OCS MEE SS, eR St aes q Ses he Oe ae ee OO ae i ea ST oe tte een ee Fee ee ee ae ee a oii
anal
a eT bo a he ee ee Oe SR ROO EE Se RS OF mr TOR eta!