"The Genealogy of Morals"
("_Zur Genealogie der Moral_") was written by Nietzsche primarily as an
elaboration and elucidation of the philosophic points which were merely
sketched in "Beyond Good and Evil." This former work had met with small
success, and the critics, failing to understand its doctrines, read
converse meanings in it. One critic hailed Nietzsche at once as an
anarchist, and this review went far in actuating him in drawing up the
three essays which comprise the present book. As will be remembered,
several of Nietzsche's most important principles were stated and
outlined in "Beyond Good and Evil," especially his doctrine of
slave-morality and master-morality. Now he undertakes to develop this
proposition, as well as many others which he set forth provisionally
in his earlier work. This new polemic may be looked upon both as a
completing of former works and as a further preparation for "The Will
to Power." The book, a comparatively brief one (it contains barely
40,000 words), was written in a period of about two weeks during the
early part of 1887. In July the manuscript was sent to the publisher,
but was recalled for revisions and addenda; and most of Nietzsche's
summer was devoted to correcting it. Later that same year the book
appeared; and thereby its author acquired another friendly reader,
Georg Brandes, to whom, more than to any other critic, Nietzsche owes
his early recognition.
The style of "The Genealogy of Morals" is less aphoristic than any
of the books which immediately preceded or followed it. Few new
doctrines are propounded in it; and since it was for the most part
an analytic commentary on what had gone before, its expositional
needs were best met by Nietzsche's earlier style of writing. I have
spoken before of the desultory and sporadic manner in which Nietzsche
was necessitated to present his philosophy. Nowhere is his method
of work better exemplified than in this new work. Nearly every one
of his books overlaps another. Propositions are sketchily stated in
one essay, which receive elucidation only in future volumes. "Beyond
Good and Evil" was a commentary on "Thus Spake Zarathustra"; "The
Genealogy of Morals" is a commentary on the newly propounded theses in
"Beyond Good and Evil" and is in addition an elaboration of many of
the ideas which took birth as far back as "Human, All-Too-Human." Out
of "The Genealogy of Morals" in turn grew "The Antichrist" which dealt
specifically with the theological phase of the former's discussion
of general morals. And all of these books were but preparations for
"The Will to Power." For this reason it is difficult to acquire a
complete understanding of Nietzsche's philosophy unless one follows
it consecutively and chronologically. The book at present under
discussion is a most valuable one from an academic standpoint, for,
while it may not set forth any new and important doctrines, it goes
deep into the origins and history of moral concepts, and explains many
of the important conclusions in Nietzsche's moral code. It brings more
and more into prominence the main pillars of his ethical system and
explains at length the steps in the syllogism which led to his doctrine
of master-morality. It ascertains the origin of the concept of sin, and
describes the racial deterioration which has followed in the train of
Christian ideals.
In many ways this book is the profoundest of all the writings Nietzsche
left us. For the first time he separates theological and moral
prejudices and traces them to different origins. This is one of the
most important steps taken by him. By so doing he became an explorer
of entirely new fields. The moral historians and psychologists who
preceded him had considered moral precepts and Christian injunctions
as stemming from the same source: their genealogies had led them to
the same common spring. Nietzsche entered the search with new methods.
He applied the philologie test to all moral values. He brought to his
task, in addition to a historical sense, what he calls "an innate
faculty of psychological discrimination _par excellence._" He posed the
following questions, and endeavoured to answer them by inquiring into
the minutest aspects of historical conditions: "Under what conditions
did Man invent for himself those judgments of value, 'good' and 'evil'?
_And what intrinsic value do they possess in themselves?_ Have they
up to the present hindered or advanced human well-being"? Are they a
symptom of the distress, impoverishment, and degeneration of Human
Life? Or, conversely, is it in them that is manifested the fulness, the
strength, and the will of Life, its courage, its self-confidence, its
future?" In his research, Nietzsche first questioned the value of pity.
He found it to be a symptom of modern civilisation--a quality held in
contempt by the older philosophers, even by such widely dissimilar
minds as Plato, Spinoza, La Rochefoucauld and Kant--but a quality
given high place by the more modern thinkers. Despite the seemingly
apparent isolation of the problem of pity-morality, Nietzsche saw that
in truth it was a question which underlay all other moral propositions;
and, using it as a ground-work for his research, he began to question
the utility of all those values held as "good," to apply the qualities
of the "good man" to the needs of civilisation, and to inquire into the
results left upon the race by the "bad man."
So great was the misunderstanding which attached to his phrase, "beyond
good and evil," and so persistently was this phrase interpreted in
its narrow sense of "beyond good and bad," that he felt the necessity
of drawing the line of distinction between these two diametrically
opposed conceptions and of explaining the origin of each. His first
essay in "The Genealogy of Morals" is devoted to this task. At the
outset he devotes considerable space criticising the methods and
conclusions of former genealogists of morals, especially of the English
psychologists who attribute an _intrinsic_ merit to altruism because
at one time altruism possessed a utilitarian value. Herbert Spencer's
theory that "good" is the same as "purposive" brings from Nietzsche a
protest founded on the contention that because a thing was at one time
useful, and therefore "good," it does not follow that the thing is good
_in itself._ By the etymology of the descriptive words of morality,
Nietzsche traces the history of modern moral attributes through class
distinctions to their origin in the instincts of the "nobles" and the
"vulgarians." He shows the relationship between the Latin _bonus_ and
the "warrior," by deriving _bonus_ from _duonus. Bellum,_ he shows,
equals _duellum_ which equals _duen-lum,_ in which word _duonus_
is contained. Likewise, he points out the aristocratic origin of
"happiness"--a quality arising from an abundance of energy and the
consciousness of power.
"Good and evil," according to Nietzsche, is a sign of slave-morality;
while "good and bad" represents the qualities in the master-morality.
The one stands for the adopted qualities of the subservient races; the
other embodies the natural functioning of dominating races. The origin
of the "good" in these two instances is by no means the same. In the
strong man "good" represented an entirely different condition than the
"good" in the resentful and weak man; and these two "goods" arose out
of different causes. The one was spontaneous and natural--inherent in
the individual of strength: the other was a manufactured condition, an
optional selection of qualities to soften and ameliorate the conditions
of existence. "Evil" and "bad," by the same token, became attributes
originating in widely separated sources. The "evil" of the weak man was
any condition which worked against the manufactured ideals of goodness,
which brought about unhappiness--it was the beginning of the conception
of a slave-morality, a term applied to all enemies. The "bad" of the
strong man was the concept which grew directly out of his feeling for
"good," and which had no application to another individual. Thus the
ideas of "good" and "bad" are directly inherited from the nobles of the
race, and these ideas included within themselves the tendency toward
establishing social distinctions.
The second section of "The Genealogy of Morals," called "'Guilt,' 'Bad
Conscience,' and the Like," is another important document, the reading
of which is almost imperative for the student who would understand the
processes of thought which led to Nietzsche's philosophic conclusions.
In this essay Nietzsche traces the origin of sin to debt, thereby
disagreeing with all the genealogists of morals who preceded him. He
starts with the birth of memory in man and with the corresponding will
to forgetfulness, showing that out of these two mental qualities was
born responsibility. Out of responsibility in turn grew the function of
promising and the accepting of promises, which at once made possible
between individuals the relationship of "debtor" and "creditor." As
soon as this relationship was established, one man had rights over
another. The creditor could exact payment from the debtor, either in
the form of material equivalent or by inflicting an injury in which
was contained the sensation of satisfaction. Thus the creditor had the
right to punish in cases where actual repayment was impossible. And in
this idea of punishment began not only class distinction but primitive
law. Later, when the power to punish was transferred into the hands
of the community, the law of contract came into existence. Here, says
Nietzsche, we find the cradle of the whole moral world of the ideas of
"guilt," "conscience," and "duty"; and adds, "Their commencement, like
the commencement of all great things in the world, is thoroughly and
continuously saturated in blood."
Carrying out the principle underlying the relationship of debtor and
creditor we arrive at the formation of the community. In return for
protection and for communal advantages the individual pledged his good
behaviour. When he violated this contract with the community, the
community, in the guise of the defrauded creditor, took its revenge, or
exacted its payment, from the debtor, the criminal. And, as was the
case in early history, the community deprived the violator of future
advantages and protection. The debtor was divested of all rights, even
of mercy, for then there were no degrees in law-breaking. Primitive law
was martial law. Says Nietzsche, "This shows why war itself (counting
the sacrificial cult of war) has produced all the forms under which
punishment has manifested itself in history." Later, as the community
gathered strength, the offences of the individual debtors were looked
upon as less serious. Out of its security grew leniency toward the
offender: the penal code became mitigated, and, as in all powerful
nations to-day, the criminal was protected. Only when there was a
consciousness of weakness in a community did the acts of individual
offenders take on an exaggerated seriousness, and under such conditions
the law was consequently harshest. Thus, justice and the infliction of
legal penalties are direct outgrowths of the primitive relation of debt
between individuals. Herein we have the origin of guilt.
Nietzsche attempts an elaborate analysis of the history of punishment,
in an effort to ascertain its true meaning, its relation to guilt
and to the community, and its final effects on both the individual
and society. It has been impossible to present the sequence of this
analysis by direct excerpts from his own words, due to the close,
synthetic manner in which he has made his research. Therefore I offer
the following brief exposition of pages 88 to 99 inclusive, in which he
examines the causes and effects of punishment. To begin with, Nietzsche
disassociates the "origin" and the "end" of punishment, and regards
them as two separate and distinct problems. He argues that the final
utility of a thing, in the sense that revenge and deterrence are the
final utilities of punishment, is in all cases opposed to the origin of
that thing; that every force or principle is constantly being put to
new purposes by forces greater than itself, thus making it impossible
to determine its inception by the end for which it is used. Therefore
the "function" of punishing was not conceived with a view to punishing,
but may have been employed for any number of ends, according as a will
to power has overcome that function and made use of it for its own
purpose: in short; punishment, like any organ or custom or "thing,"
has passed through a series of new interpretations and adjustments and
meanings--and is _not_ a direct and logical _progress as_ to an end.
Having established this point, Nietzsche endeavours to determine
the utilisation to which the custom of punishment has been put--to
ascertain the meaning which has been interpreted into it. He finds
that even in modern times not one but many uses have been made of
punishment, and that in ancient times so diverse have been the
utilisations of punishment that it is impossible to define them all.
In fact, one cannot determine the _precise reason_ for punishment. To
emphasise this point, Nietzsche gives a long list of possible meanings.
Taking up the more popular _supposed_ utilities of punishment at the
present time--such as creating in the wrong-doer the consciousness of
guilt, which is supposed to evolve into conscience and remorse--he
shows wherein punishment fails in its object. Against this theory
of the creation of remorse, he advances psychology and shows that,
to the contrary, punishment numbs and hardens. He argues also that
punishment for the purpose of making the wrong-doer conscious of the
intrinsic reprehensibility of his crime, fails because the very act for
which he is chastened is practised in the service of justice and is
called "good." Eliminating thus the _supposed_ effects of punishment,
Nietzsche arrives at the conclusion (included in the excerpts at
the end of this chapter) that punishment makes only for caution and
secrecy, and is therefore detrimental.
In his analysis of the origin of the "bad conscience," Nietzsche lends
himself to quotation. Therefore I have been able to present in his own
words a fair _resume_ of the course pursued by him in his examination
of the history of conscience. This particular branch of his research
is carried into the formation of the "State" which, according to him,
grew out of "a herd of blonde beasts." The older theory of the state,
namely: that it originated in the adoption of a contract, is set aside
as untenable when dealing with a peoples who possessed conquerors or
masters. These masters, argues Nietzsche, had no need of contracts.
By using the "bad conscience" as a ground for inquiry, the causes for
the existence of altruism are shown to be included in the self-cruelty
which followed in the wake of the instinct for freedom. (This last
point is developed fully in the discussion of ascetic ideals which
is found at the end of the book now under consideration.) Nietzsche
traces the birth of deities back along the lines of credit and debt.
First came the fear of ancestors. Then followed the obligation to
ancestors. At length the sacrifice to ancestors marked the beginning
of a conception of duty (debt) to the supernatural. The ancestors of
powerful nations in time became heroes, and finally evolved into gods.
Later monotheism came as a natural consequence, and God became the
creditor. In the expiation of sin, as symbolised in the crucifixion
of Christianity, we have this same relationship of debtor and
creditor carried out into a more complex form through the avenues of
self-torture.
The most important essay in "The Genealogy of Morals" is the last,
called "What is the Meaning of Ascetic Ideals?" Nietzsche examines
this question in relation to the artist, to the philosopher, to the
priest, and to the race generally. In his examination of the problem in
regard to artists he uses Wagner as a basis of inquiry, comparing the
two phases of Wagner's art--the Parsifalian and the ante-Parsifalian.
Artists, asserts Nietzsche, need a support of constituted authority;
they are unable to stand alone--"standing alone is opposed to their
deepest instincts"--and so they make use of asceticism as a rampart,
as building material, to give their work authority. In his application
of the ascetic ideal to philosophers, Nietzsche presents the cases
of Schopenhauer and Kant, and concludes that asceticism in such
instances is used as an escape from torture--a means to recreation
and happiness. With the philosopher the ideal of asceticism is not
a denial of existence. Rather is it an affirmation of existence. It
permits him freedom of the intellect. It relieves him of the numerous
obligations of life. Furthermore, the philosophic spirit, in order to
establish itself, found it necessary to disguise itself as "one of the
_previously fixed_ types of the contemplative man," as a priest or
soothsayer. Only in such a religious masquerade was philosophy taken
with any seriousness or reverence.
The history of asceticism in the priest I have been able to set forth
with a certain degree of completeness in Nietzsche's own words.
The priest was the sick physician who administered to the needs of
a sick populace. His was the mission of mitigating suffering and
of performing every kind of consolation. Wherein he failed, says
Nietzsche, was in not going to the source, the cause, of suffering, but
in dealing merely with its manifestations. These manifestations were
the result of physiological depressions which prevailed at intervals
among portions of the population. These depressions were the outgrowth
of diverse causes, such as long wars, emigration to unsuitable
climates, wrong diet, miscegenation on a large scale, disease, etc.
According to Nietzsche the cure for such physiological phenomena can
be found only in the realm of moral psychology, for here the origin
is considered and administered to by disciplinary systems grounded in
true knowledge. But the method employed by the priest was far from
scientific. He combated these depressions by reducing the consciousness
of life itself to the lowest possible degree--that is, by a doctrine
of asceticism, of self-abnegation, equanimity, self-hypnotism. By
thus minimising the consciousness of life, these depressions took on
more and more the aspect of normality. The effects of this treatment,
however, were transient, for the starving of the physical desires and
the abstinence from exercising the physical impulses paved the way for
all manner of mental disorders, excesses and insanity. Herein lies
Nietzsche's explanation for religious ecstasies, hallucinations, and
sensual outbursts.
Another form of treatment devised by the ascetic priests for a
depressed people gave birth to the "blessedness" which, under the
Christian code, attaches to work. These priests attempted to turn the
attention of the people from their suffering by the establishment of
mechanical activity, namely: work, routine and obedience. The sick man
forgot himself in the labour which had received sanctification. The
priests also combated depression by permitting pleasure through the
creation and production of joy. That is, they set men to helping and
comforting each other, by instilling in them the notion of brotherly
love. Thereby the community mutually strengthened itself, and at the
same time it reaped the joy of service which had been sanctioned by the
priests. Out of this last method sprang many of the Christian virtues,
especially those which benefit others rather than oneself.
Such methods as these--devitalisation, labour, brotherly love--are
called by Nietzsche the "innocent" prescriptions in the fight against
depression. The "guilty" ones are far different, and are embodied in
the one method: the production of emotional excess. This, the priests
understood, was the most efficacious manner in overcoming protracted
depression and pain. Confronted by the query: By what means can this
emotional excess be produced? they made use of "the whole pack of
hounds that rage in the human kennel"--rage, fear, lust, revenge, hope,
despair, cruelty and the like. And once these emotional excesses became
established, the priests, when asked by the "patients" for a "cause" of
their suffering, declared it to be within the man himself, in his own
guiltiness. Thus was the sick man turned into a sinner. Here originated
also the conception of suffering as a _state of punishment,_ the fear
of retribution, the iniquitous conscience, and the hope of redemption.
Nietzsche goes further, and shows the racial and individual decadence
which has followed in the train of this system of treatment. Dr. Oscar
Levy says with justice that this last essay, considered in the light
which it throws upon the attitude of the ecclesiast to the man of
resentment and misfortune, "is one of the most valuable contributions
to sacerdotal psychology."