only with theories of oratory and poetry which facilitated production,
τέχναι and _artes_ that formed real orators and poets, "while at the
present day we shall soon have theories upon which it would be as
impossible to build up a speech or a poem as it would be to form a
thunderstorm upon a brontological treatise."
61
Wolf's judgment on the amateurs of philological knowledge is
noteworthy: "If they found themselves provided by nature with a mind
corresponding to that of the ancients, or if they were capable of
adapting themselves to other points of view and other circumstances
of life, then, with even a nodding acquaintance with the best
writers, they certainly acquired more from those vigorous natures,
those splendid examples of thinking and acting, than most of those
did who during their whole life merely offered themselves to them as
interpreters."
62
Says Wolf again: "In the end, only those few ought to attain really
complete knowledge who are born with artistic talent and furnished with
scholarship, and who make use of the best opportunities of securing,
both theoretically and practically, the necessary technical knowledge."
True!
63
Instead of forming our students on the Latin models I recommend the
Greek, especially Demosthenes: simplicity! This may be seen by a
reference to Leopardi, who is perhaps the greatest stylist of the
century
64
"Classical education": what do people see in it? Something that is
useless beyond rendering a period of military service unnecessary and
securing a degree![6]
[Footnote 6: Students who pass certain examinations need only serve one
year in the German Army instead of the usual two or three.--TR.]
65
When I observe how all countries are now promoting the advancement of
classical literature I say to myself, "How harmless it must be!" and
then, "How useful it must be!" It brings these countries the reputation
of promoting "free culture." In order that this "freedom" may be
rightly estimated, just look at the philologists!
66
Classical education! Yea, if there were only as much paganism as Goethe
found and glorified in Winckelmann, even that would not be much. Now,
however, that the lying Christendom of our time has taken hold of
it, the thing becomes over-powering, and I cannot help expressing my
disgust on the point.--People firmly believe in witchcraft where this
"classical education "is concerned. They, however, who possess the
greatest knowledge of antiquity should likewise possess the greatest
amount of culture, viz., our philologists; but what is classical about
them?
67
Classical philology is the basis of the most shallow rationalism:
always having been dishonestly applied, it has gradually become quite
ineffective. Its effect is one more illusion of the modern man.
Philologists are nothing but a guild of sky-pilots who are not known
as such: this is why the State takes an interest in them. The utility
of classical education is completely used up, whilst, for example, the
history of Christianity still shows its power.
68
Philologists, when discussing their science, never get down to the root
of the subject: they never set forth philology itself as a problem. Bad
conscience? or merely thoughtlessness?
69
We learn nothing from what philologists say about philology: it is all
mere tittle-tattle--for example, Jahn's[7] "The Meaning and Place of
the Study of Antiquity in Germany." There is no feeling for what should
be protected and defended: thus speak people who have not even thought
of the possibility that any one could attack them.
[Footnote 7: Otto Jahn (1813-69), who is probably best remembered in
philological circles by his edition of Juvenal.--_TR_.]
70
Philologists are people who exploit the vaguely-felt dissatisfaction of
modern man, and his desire for "something better," in order that they
may earn their bread and butter.
I know them--I myself am one of them.
71
Our philologists stand in the same relation to true educators as
the medicine-men of the wild Indians do to true physicians. What
astonishment will be felt by a later age!
72
What they lack is a real taste for the strong and powerful
characteristics of the ancients. They turn into mere panegyrists, and
thus become ridiculous.
73
They have forgotten how to address other men; and, as they cannot speak
to the older people, they cannot do so to the young.
74
When we bring the Greeks to the knowledge of our young students, we
are treating the latter as if they were well-informed and matured
men. What, indeed, is there about the Greeks and their ways which is
suitable for the young? In the end we shall find that we can do nothing
for them beyond giving them isolated details. Are these observations
for young people? What we actually do, however, is to introduce our
young scholars to the collective wisdom of antiquity. Or do we not? The
reading of the ancients is emphasised in this way.
My belief is that we are forced to concern ourselves with antiquity at
a wrong period of our lives. At the end of the twenties its meaning
begins to dawn on one.
75
There is something disrespectful about the way in which we make
our young students known to the ancients: what is worse, it is
unpedagogical; for what can result from a mere acquaintance with
things which a youth cannot consciously esteem! Perhaps he must learn
to "_believe,_" and this is why I object to it.
76
There are matters regarding which antiquity instructs us, and about
which I should hardly care to express myself publicly.
77
All the difficulties of historical study to be elucidated by great
examples.
Why our young students are not suited to the Greeks.
The consequences of philology: Arrogant expectation.
Culture-philistinism. Superficiality.
Too high an esteem for reading and writing. Estrangement from the
nation and its needs. The philologists themselves, the historians,
philosophers, and jurists all end in smoke.
Our young students should be brought into contact with real sciences.
Likewise with real art.
In consequence, when they grew older, a desire for _real_ history would
be shown.
78
Inhumanity: even in the "Antigone," even in Goethe's "Iphigenia."
The want of "rationalism" in the Greeks.
Young people cannot understand the political affairs of antiquity.
The poetic element: a bad expectation.
79
Do the philologists know the present time? Their judgments on it as
Periclean; their mistaken judgments when they speak of Freytag's[8]
genius as resembling that of Homer, and so on; their following in the
lead of the litterateurs; their abandonment of the pagan sense, which
was exactly the classical element that Goethe discovered in Winckelmann.
[Footnote 8: Gustav Freytag: at one time a famous German novelist.
--TR.]
80
The condition of the philologists may be seen by their indifference at
the appearance of Wagner. They should have learnt even more through him
than through Goethe, and they did not even glance in his direction.
That shows that they are not actuated by any strong need, or else they
would have an instinct to tell them where their food was to be found.
81
Wagner prizes his art too highly to go and sit in a corner with it,
like Schumann. He either surrenders himself to the public ("Rienzi") or
he makes the public surrender itself to him. He educates it up to his
music. Minor artists, too, want their public, but they try to get it by
inartistic means, such as through the Press, Hanslick,[9] &c.
[Footnote 9: A well-known anti-Wagnerian musical critic of Vienna.
--TR.]
82
Wagner perfected the inner fancy of man: later generations will see a
renaissance in sculpture. Poetry must precede the plastic art.
83
I observe in philologists:
1. Want of respect for antiquity.
2. Tenderness and flowery oratory; even an apologetic tone.
3. Simplicity in their historical comments.
4. Self-conceit.
5. Under-estimation of the talented philologists.
84
Philologists appear to me to be a secret society who wish to train our
youth by means of the culture of antiquity: I could well understand
this society and their views being criticised from all sides, A great
deal would depend upon knowing what these philologists understood by
the term "culture of antiquity."--If I saw, for example, that they
were training their pupils against German philosophy and German music,
I should either set about combating them or combating the culture of
antiquity, perhaps the former, by showing that these philologists had
not understood the culture of antiquity. Now I observe:
1. A great indecision in the valuation of the culture of antiquity on
the part of philologists.
2. Something very non-ancient in themselves; something non-free.
3. Want of clearness in regard to the particular type of ancient
culture they mean.
4. Want of judgment in their methods of instruction, _e.g.,_
scholarship.
5. Classical education is served out mixed up with Christianity.
85
It is now no longer a matter of surprise to me that, with such
teachers, the education of our time should be worthless. I can never
avoid depicting this want of education in its true colours, especially
in regard to those things which ought to be learnt from antiquity if
possible, for example, writing, speaking, and so on.
86
The transmission of the emotions is hereditary: let that be recollected
when we observe the effect of the Greeks upon philologists.
87
Even in the best of cases, philologists seek for no more than mere
"rationalism" and Alexandrian culture--not Hellenism.
88
Very little can be gained by mere diligence, if the head is dull.
Philologist after philologist has swooped down on Homer in the mistaken
belief that something of him can be obtained by force. Antiquity speaks
to us when it feels a desire to do so; not when we do.
89
The inherited characteristic of our present-day philologists: a certain
sterility oi insight has resulted: for they promote the science, but
not the philologist.
90
The following is one way of carrying on classical studies, and a
frequent one: a man throws himself thoughtlessly, or is thrown, into
some special branch or other, whence he looks to the right and left and
sees a great deal that is good and new. Then, in some unguarded moment,
he asks himself: "But what the devil has all this to do with me?" In
the meantime he has grown old and has become accustomed to it all; and
therefore he continues in his rut--just as in the case of marriage.
91
In connection with the training of the modern philologist the influence
of the science of linguistics should be mentioned and judged; a
philologist should rather turn aside from it: the question of the early
beginnings of the Greeks and Romans should be nothing to him: how can
they spoil their own subject in such a way?
92
A morbid passion often makes its appearance from time to time in
connection with the oppressive uncertainty of divination, a passion for
believing and feeling sure at all costs: for example, when dealing with
Aristotle, or in the discovery of magic numbers, which, in Lachmann's
case, is almost an illness.
93
The consistency which is prized in a savant is pedantry if applied to
the Greeks.
94
(THE GREEKS AND THE PHILOLOGISTS.)
THE GREEKS: THE PHILOLOGISTS are:
render homage to beauty, babblers and triflers,
develop the body, ugly-looking creatures,
speak clearly, stammerers,
are religious transfigurers filthy pedants,
of everyday occurrences,
are listeners and observers, quibblers and scarecrows,
have an aptitude for the unfitted for the symbolical,
symbolical,
are in full possession of ardent slaves of the State,
their freedom as men,
can look innocently out Christians in disguise,
into the world,
are the pessimists of philistines.
thought.
95
Bergk's "History of Literature": Not a spark of Greek fire or Greek
sense.
96
People really do compare our own age with that of Pericles, and
congratulate themselves on the reawakening of the feeling of
patriotism: I remember a parody on the funeral oration of Pericles by
G. Freytag,[10] in which this prim and strait-laced "poet" depicted the
happiness now experienced by sixty-year-old men.--All pure and simple
caricature! So this is the result! And sorrow and irony and seclusion
are all that remain for him who has seen more of antiquity than this.
[Footnote 10: See note on p. 149.--TR.]
97
If we change a single word of Lord Bacon's we may say: infimarum
Græcorum virtutum apud philologos laus est, mediarum admiratio,
supremarum sensus nullus.
98
How can anyone glorify and venerate a whole people! It is the
individuals that count, even in the case of the Greeks.
99
There is a great deal of caricature even about the Greeks: for example,
the careful attention devoted by the Cynics to their own happiness.
100
The only thing that interests me is the relationship of the people
considered as a whole to the training of the single individuals: and in
the case of the Greeks there are some factors which are very favourable
to the development of the individual. They do not, however, arise from
the goodwill of the people, but from the struggle between the evil
instincts.
By means of happy inventions and discoveries, we can train the
individual differently and more highly than has yet been done by mere
chance and accident. There are still hopes: the breeding of superior
men.
101
The Greeks are interesting and quite disproportionately important
because they had such a host of great individuals. How was that
possible? This point must be studied.
102
The history of Greece has hitherto always been written optimistically.
103
Selected points from antiquity: the power, fire, and swing of the
feeling the ancients had for music (through the first Pythian Ode),
purity in their historical sense, gratitude for the blessings of
culture, the fire and corn feasts.
The ennoblement of jealousy: the Greeks the most jealous nation.
Suicide, hatred of old age, of penury. Empedocles on sexual love.
104
Nimble and healthy bodies, a clear and deep sense for the observation
of everyday matters, manly freedom, belief in good racial descent and
good upbringing, warlike virtues, jealousy in the ἀριστεύειν, ιdelight
in the arts, respect for leisure, a sense for free individuality, for
the symbolical.
105
The spiritual culture of Greece an aberration of the amazing political
impulse towards ἀριστεύειν. The polis utterly opposed to new education;
culture nevertheless existed.
106
When I say that, all things considered, the Greeks were more moral
than modern men: what do I mean by that? From what we can perceive
of the activities of their soul, it is clear that they had no shame,
they had no bad conscience. They were more sincere, open-hearted,
and passionate, as artists are; they exhibited a kind of child-like
_naïveté._ It thus came about that even in all their evil actions
they had a dash of purity about them, something approaching the holy.
A remarkable number of individualities: might there not have been a
higher morality in that? When we recollect that character develops
slowly, what can it be that, in the long run, breeds individuality?
Perhaps vanity, emulation? Possibly. Little inclination for
conventional things.
107
The Greeks as the geniuses among the nations.
Their childlike nature, credulousness.
Passionate. Quite unconsciously they lived in such a way as to
procreate genius. Enemies of shyness and dulness. Pain. Injudicious
actions. The nature of their intuitive insight into misery, despite
their bright and genial temperament. Profoundness in their apprehension
and glorifying of everyday things (fire, agriculture). Mendacious,
unhistorical. The significance of the polis in culture instinctively
recognised; favourable as a centre and periphery for great men (the
facility of surveying a community, and also the possibility of
addressing it as a whole). Individuality raised to the highest power
through the polis. Envy, jealousy, as among gifted people.
108
The Greeks were lacking in sobriety and caution. Over-sensibility;
abnormally active condition of the brain and the nerves; impetuosity
and fervour of the will.
109
"Invariably to see the general in the particular is the distinguishing
characteristic of genius," says Schopenhauer. Think of Pindar,
&c.--"ΣωΦροσύνη," according to Schopenhauer, has its roots in the
clearness with which the Greeks saw into themselves and into the world
at large, and thence became conscious of themselves.
The "wide separation of will and intellect" indicates the genius, and
is seen in the Greeks.
"The melancholy associated with genius is due to the fact that the
will to live, the more clearly it is illuminated by the contemplating
intellect, appreciates all the more clearly the misery of its
condition," says Schopenhauer. _Cf._ the Greeks.
110
The moderation of the Greeks in their sensual luxury, eating, and
drinking, and their pleasure therein; the Olympic plays and their
worship: that shows what they were.
In the case of the genius, "the intellect will point out the faults
which are seldom absent in an instrument that is put to a use for which
it was not intended."
"The will is often left in the lurch at an awkward moment: hence
genius, where real life is concerned is more or less unpractical--its
behaviour often reminds us of madness."
111
We contrast the Romans, with their matter-of-fact earnestness, with the
genial Greeks! Schopenhauer: "The stern, practical, earnest mode of
life which the Romans called _gravitas_ presupposes that the intellect
does not forsake the service of the will in order to roam far off among
things that have no connection with the will."
112
It would have been much better if the Greeks had been conquered by the
Persians instead of by the Romans.
113
The characteristics of the gifted man who is lacking in genius are to
be found in the average Hellene--all the dangerous characteristics of
such a disposition and character.
114
Genius makes tributaries of all partly-talented people: hence the
Persians themselves sent their ambassadors to the Greek oracles.
115
The happiest lot that can fall to the genius is to exchange doing and
acting for leisure; and this was something the Greeks knew how to
value. The blessings of labour! _Nugari_ was the Roman name for all
the exertions and aspirations of the Greeks. No happy course of life
is open to the genius; he stands in contradiction to his age and must
perforce struggle with it. Thus the Greeks: they instinctively made
the utmost exertions to secure a safe refuge for themselves (in the
_polis_). Finally, everything went to pieces in politics. They were
compelled to take up a stand against their enemies: this became ever
more and more difficult, and at last impossible.
116
Greek culture is based on the lordship of a small class over four to
nine times their number of slaves. Judged by mere numbers, Greece was
a country inhabited by barbarians. How can the ancients be thought
to be humane? There was a great contrast between the genius and the
breadwinner, the half-beast of burden. The Greeks believed in a racial
distinction. Schopenhauer wonders why Nature did not take it into her
head to invent two entirely separate species of men.
The Greeks bear the same relation to the barbarians "as free-moving or
winged animals do to the barnacles which cling tightly to the rocks and
must await what fate chooses to send them"--Schopenhauer's simile.
117
The Greeks as the only people of genius in the history of the world.
Such they are even when considered as learners; for they understand
this best of all, and can do more than merely trim and adorn themselves
with what they have borrowed, as did the Romans. The constitution of
the _polls_ is a Phœnician invention: even this has been imitated by
the Hellenes. For a long time they dabbled in everything, like joyful
dilettanti. Aphrodite is likewise Phœnician. Neither do they disavow
what has come to them through immigration and does not originally
belong to their own country.
118
The happy and comfortable constitution of the politico-social position
must not be sought among the Greeks: that is a goal which dazzles the
eyes of our dreamers of the future! It was, on the contrary, dreadful;
for this is a matter that must be judged according to the following
standard: the more spirit, the more suffering (as the Greeks themselves
prove). Whence it follows: the more stupidity, the more comfort. The
philistine of culture is the most comfortable creature the sun has ever
shone upon: and he is doubtless also in possession of the corresponding
stupidity.
119
The Greek _polis_ and the αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν grew up out of mutual enmity.
Hellenic and philanthropic are contrary adjectives, although the
ancients flattered themselves sufficiently.
Homer is, in the world of the Hellenic discord, the pan-Hellenic Greek.
The "ἀγών" of the Greeks is also manifested in the Symposium in the
shape of witty conversation.
120
Wanton, mutual annihilation inevitable: so long as a single _polis_
wished to exist--its envy for everything superior to itself, its
cupidity, the disorder of its customs, the enslavement of the women,
lack of conscience in the keeping of oaths, in murder, and in cases of
violent death.
Tremendous power of self-control: for example in a man like Socrates,
who was capable of everything evil.
121
Its noble sense of order and systematic arrangement had rendered the
Athenian state immortal.--The ten strategists in Athens! Foolish! Too
big a sacrifice on the altar of jealousy.
122
The recreations of the Spartans consisted of feasting, hunting, and
making war: their every-day life was too hard. On the whole, however,
their state is merely a caricature of the polis; a corruption of
Hellas. The breeding of the complete Spartan--but what was there great
about him that his breeding should have required such a brutal state!
123
The political defeat of Greece is the greatest failure of culture;
for it has given rise to the atrocious theory that culture cannot be
pursued unless one is at the same time armed to the teeth. The rise of
Christianity was the second greatest failure: brute force on the one
hand, and a dull intellect on the other, won a complete victory over
the aristocratic genius among the nations. To be a Philhellenist now
means to be a foe of brute force and stupid intellects. Sparta was the
ruin of Athens in so far as she compelled Athens to turn her entire
attention to politics and to act as a federal combination.
124
There are domains of thought where the _ratio_ will only give rise to
disorder; and the philologist, who possesses nothing more, is lost
through it and is unable to see the truth: _e.g.,_ in the consideration
of Greek mythology. A merely fantastic person, of course, has no claim
either: one must possess Greek imagination and also a certain amount of
Greek piety. Even the poet does not require to be too consistent, and
consistency is the last thing Greeks would understand.
125
Almost all the Greek divinities are accumulations of divinities: we
find one layer over another, soon to be hidden and smoothed down by
yet a third, and so on. It scarcely seems to me to be possible to pick
these various divinities to pieces in a scientific manner; for no good
method of doing so can be recommended: even the poor conclusion by
analogy is in this instance a very good conclusion.
126
At what a distance must one be from the Greeks to ascribe to them
such a stupidly narrow autochthony as does Ottfried Müller![11] How
Christian it is to assume, with Welcker,[12] that the Greeks were
originally monotheistic! How philologists torment themselves by
investigating the question whether Homer actually wrote, without being
able to grasp the far higher tenet that Greek art long exhibited an
inward enmity against writing, and did not wish to be read at all.
[Footnote 11: Karl Ottfried Müller (1797-1840), classical archæologist,
who devoted special attention to Greece.--TR.]
[Footnote 12: Friedrich Gottlieb Welcker (1784-1868), noted for his
ultra-profound comments on Greek poetry.--TR.]
127