Man thinks woman profound--why? Because he can never fathom her depths.
Woman is not even shallow. 5
The trodden worm curls up. This testifies to its caution. It thus
reduces its chances of being trodden upon again. In the language of
morality: Humility. 5-6
The Church combats passion by means of excision of all kinds: its
practise, its "remedy," is _castration._ It never inquires "how can a
desire be spiritualised, beautified, deified?"--In all ages it has laid
the weight of discipline in the process of extirpation (the extirpation
of sensuality, pride, lust of dominion, lust of property, and
revenge).--But to attack the passions at their roots, means attacking
life itself at its source: the method of the Church is hostile to life.
27
Only degenerates find radical methods indispensable: weakness of will,
or more strictly speaking, the inability not to react to a stimulus,
is in itself simply another form of degeneracy. Radical and mortal
hostility to sensuality, remains a suspicious symptom: it justifies
one in being suspicious of the general state of one who goes to such
extremes. 27
A man is productive only in so far as he is rich in contrasted
instincts; he can remain young only on condition that his soul does not
begin to take things easy and to yearn for peace. 28-29
All naturalism is morality--that is to say, every sound morality is
ruled by a life instinct--any one of the laws of life is fulfilled by
the definite canon "thou shalt," "thou shalt not," and any sort of
obstacle or hostile element in the road of life is thus cleared away.
Conversely, the morality which is antagonistic to nature--that is to
say, almost every morality that has been taught, honoured and preached
hitherto, is directed precisely against the life-instincts.... 30
Morality, as it has been understood hitherto, is the instinct of
degeneration itself, which converts itself into an imperative: it says:
"Perish!" It is the death sentence of men who are already doomed. 31
Morality, in so far it condemns _per se,_ and _not_ out of any aim,
consideration or motive of life, is a specific error, for which no one
should feel any mercy, a degenerate idiosyncrasy, that has done an
unutterable amount of harm. 32
Every mistake is in every sense the sequel to degeneration of the
instincts to disintegration of the will. This is almost the definition
of evil. 35
Morality and religion are completely and utterly parts of the
psychology of error: in every particular case cause and effect are
confounded. 41
At present we no longer have any mercy upon the concept "free-will":
we know only too well what it is--the most egregious theological trick
that has ever existed for the purpose of making mankind "responsible"
in a theological manner--that is to say, to make mankind dependent upon
theologians. 41
The doctrine of the will was invented principally for the purpose of
punishment,--that is to say, with the intention of tracing guilt. The
whole of ancient psychology, or the psychology of the will, is the
outcome of the fact that its originators, who were the priests at the
head of ancient communities, wanted to create for themselves a right to
administer punishments--or the right for God to do so. Men were thought
of as "free" in order that they might be held guilty.... 42
The fact that no one shall any longer be made responsible, that the
nature of existence may not be traced to a _causa prima,_ that the
world is an entity neither as a sensorium nor as a spirit--_this alone
is the great deliverance,_--thus alone is the innocence of Becoming
restored. ... The concept "God" has been the greatest objection to
existence hitherto.... We deny God, we deny responsibility in God: thus
alone do we save the world. 43
Moral judgment has this in common with the religious one, that
it believes in realities which are not real. Morality is only an
interpretation of certain phenomena: or more strictly speaking, a
misinterpretation of them. Moral judgment, like the religious one,
belongs to a stage of ignorance in which even the concept of reality,
the distinction between real and imagined things, is still lacking....
44
In the early years of the Middle Ages, during which the Church was
most distinctly and above all a menagerie, the most beautiful examples
of the "blond beast" were hunted down in all directions,--the noble
Germans, for instance, were "improved." But what did this "improved"
German, who had been lured to the monastery look like after the
process? He looked like a caricature of man, like an abortion: he had
become a "sinner," he was caged up, he had been imprisoned behind a
host of appalling notions. He now lay there, sick, wretched, malevolent
even toward himself: full of hate for the instincts of life, full of
suspicion in regard to all that is still strong and happy. In short
a "Christian." In physiological terms: in a fight with an animal,
the only way of making it weak may be to make it sick. The Church
understood this: it ruined man, it made him weak,--but it laid claim to
having "improved" him. 45-46
All means which have been used heretofore with the object of making man
moral, were through and through immoral. 49
_My impossible people_--Seneca, or the toreador of virtue.--Rousseau,
or the return to nature, _in impuris naturalibus._--Schiller, or
the Moral Trumpeter of Säckingen.--Dante, or the hyæna that writes
poetry in tombs.--Kant, or _cant_ as an intelligible character.--Victor
Hugo, or the lighthouse on the sea of nonsense.--Liszt, or the
school of racing--after women.--George Sand, or _lactea ubertas,_
in plain English: the cow with plenty beautiful milk.--Michelet,
or enthusiasm in its shirt sleeves.--Carlyle, or Pessimism after
undigested meals.--John Stuart Mill, or offensive lucidity.--The
brothers Goncourt, or the two Ajaxes fighting with Homer. Music by
Offenbach.--Zola, or the love of stinking. 60
For art to be possible at all--that is to say, in order that an
æsthetic mode of action and of observation may exist, a certain
preliminary physiological state is indispensable: ecstasy. This state
of ecstasy must first have intensified the susceptibility of the whole
machine: otherwise, no art is possible. All kinds of ecstasy, however
differently produced, have this power to create art, and above all
the state dependent upon sexual excitement--this most venerable and
primitive form of ecstasy. The same applies to that ecstasy which is
the outcome of all great desires, all strong passions; the ecstasy of
the feast, of the arena, of the act of bravery, of victory, of all
extreme action; the ecstasy of cruelty; the ecstasy of destruction;
the ecstasy following upon certain meteorological influences, as for
instance that of springtime, or upon the use of narcotics; and finally
the ecstasy of will, that ecstasy which results from accumulated and
surging will-power. 68-68
What is the meaning of the antithetical concepts _Apollonian_ and
_Dionysian_ which I have introduced into the vocabulary of Æsthetic, as
representing two distinct modes of ecstasy?--Apollonian ecstasy acts
above all as a force stimulating the eye, so that it acquires the power
of vision. The painter, the sculptor, the epic poet are essentially
visionaries. In the Dionysian state, on the other hand, the whole
system of passions is stimulated and intensified, so that it discharges
itself by all the means of expression at once, and vents all its power
of representation, of imitation, of transfiguration, of transformation,
together with every kind of mimicry and histrionic display at the same
time. 67-68
As to the famous "struggle for existence," it seems to me, for the
present, to be more of an assumption than a fact. It does occur, but
as an exception. The general condition of life is not one of want or
famine, but rather of riches, of lavish luxuriance, and even of absurd
prodigality,--where there is a struggle, it is a struggle for power. 71
The most intellectual men, provided they are also the most courageous,
experience the most excruciating tragedies: but on that very account
they honour life, because it confronts them with its more formidable
antagonism. 73
When the anarchist, as the mouthpiece of the decaying strata of
society, raises his voice in splendid indignation for "right,"
"justice," "equal rights," he is only groaning under the burden of his
ignorance, which cannot understand _why_ he actually suffers,--what his
poverty consists of--the poverty of life. 86
To bewail one's lot is always despicable: it is always the outcome
of weakness. Whether one ascribes one's afflictions to others or to
_one's self,_ it is all the same. The socialist does the former, the
Christian, for instance, does the latter. That which is common to both
attitudes, or rather that which is equally ignoble in them both, is the
fact that somebody must be to _blame_ if one suffers--in short that the
sufferer drugs himself with the honey of revenge to allay his anguish.
86
Why a Beyond, if it be not a means of splashing mud over a "Here," over
this world? 87
An "altruistic" morality, a morality under which selfishness withers,
is in all circumstances a bad sign. This is true of individuals and
above all of nations. The best are lacking when selfishness begins to
be lacking. Instinctively to select that which is harmful to one, to be
_lured_ by "disinterested" motives,--these things almost provide the
formula for decadence. "Not to have one's own interests at heart"--this
is simply a moral fig-leaf concealing a very different fact, a
physiological one, to wit:--"I no longer know how to find what is to
my interest."... Disintegration of the instincts!--All is up with man
when he becomes altruistic. 87
One should die proudly when it is no longer possible to live proudly.
Death should be chosen freely,--death at the right time, faced clearly
and joyfully and embraced while one is surrounded by one's children
and other witnesses. It should be affected in such a way that a proper
farewell is still possible, that he who is about to take leave of us
is still _himself,_ and really capable not only of valuing what he has
achieved and willed in life, but also of _summing-up_ the value of life
itself. Everything precisely the opposite of the ghastly comedy which
Christianity has made of the hour of death. We should never forgive
Christianity for having so abused the weakness of the dying man as to
do violence to his conscience, or for having used his manner of dying
as a means of valuing both man and his past!--In spite of all cowardly
prejudices, it is our duty, in this respect, above all to reinstate
the proper--that is to say, the physiological, aspect of so-called
_natural_ death, which after all is perfectly "unnatural" and nothing
else than suicide. One never perishes through anybody's fault but
one's own. The only thing is that the death which takes place in the
most contemptible circumstances, the death that is not free, the death
which occurs at the wrong time, is the death of a coward. Out of the
very love one bears to life, one should wish death to be different
from this--that is to say, free, deliberate, and neither a matter of
chance nor of surprise. Finally let me whisper a word of advice to our
friends the pessimists and all other decadents. We have not the power
to prevent ourselves from being born: but this error--for sometimes it
is an error--can be rectified if we choose. The man who does away with
himself performs the most estimable of deeds: he almost deserves to
live for having done so. 88-89
The decline of the instincts of hostility and of those instincts
that arouse suspicion,--for this if anything is what constitutes our
progress--is only one of the results manifested by the general decline
in _vitality:_ it requires a hundred times more trouble and caution
to live such a dependent and senile existence. In such circumstances
everybody gives everybody else a helping hand, and, to a certain
extent, everybody is either an invalid or an invalid's attendant.
This is then called "virtue": among those men who knew a different
life--that is to say, a fuller, more prodigal, more superabundant
sort of life, it might have been called by another name,--possibly
"cowardice," or "vileness," or "old woman's morality." 91-92
Ages should be measured according to their _positive forces;_--valued
by this standard that prodigal and fateful age of the Renaissance,
appears as the last _great_ age, while we moderns with our anxious
care of ourselves and love of our neighbours, with all our unassuming
virtues of industry, equity, and scientific method--with our lust of
collection, of economy and of mechanism--represent a _weak_ age. 93
Liberalism, or, in plain English, the _transformation of mankind into
cattle._ 94
Freedom is the will to be responsible for ourselves. It is to
preserve the distance which separates us from other men. To grow more
indifferent to hardship, to severity, to privation, and even to life
itself. To be ready to sacrifice men for one's cause, one's self
included. Freedom denotes that the virile instincts which rejoice in
war and in victory, prevail over other instincts; for instance, over
the instincts of "happiness." The man who has won his freedom, and how
much more so, therefore, the spirit that has won his freedom, tramples
ruthlessly upon that contemptible kind of comfort which tea-grocers,
Christians, cows, women, Englishmen and other democrats worship in
their dreams. The free man is a _warrior._ 94-95
By showing ever more and more favour to _love-marriages,_ the very
foundation of matrimony, that which alone makes it an institution, has
been undermined. No institution ever has been nor ever will be built
upon an idiosyncrasy; as I say, marriage cannot be based upon "love."
97-98
The mere fact that there is such a thing as the question of the
working-man is due to stupidity, or at bottom to degenerate instincts
which are the cause of all the stupidity of modern times. Concerning
certain things _no questions ought to be put:_ the first imperative
principle of instinct. For the life of me I cannot see what people
want to do with the working-man of Europe; now that they have made a
question of him. He is far too comfortable to cease from questioning,
ever more and more, and with ever less modesty. After all, he has
the majority on his side. There is now not the slightest hope that
an unassuming and contented sort of man, after the style of the
Chinaman, will come into being in this quarter: and this would have
been the reasonable course, it was even a dire necessity. What has
been done? Everything has been done with the view of nipping the
very pre-requisite of this accomplishment in the bud,--with the most
frivolous thoughtlessness those self-same instincts by means of which
a working-class becomes possible, and _tolerable_ even to its members
themselves, have been destroyed root and branch. The working-man has
been declared fit for military service; he has been granted the right
of combination, and of franchise: can it be wondered at that he already
regards his condition as one of distress (expressed morally, as an
injustice)? But, again I ask, what do people want? If they desire a
certain end, then they should desire the means thereto. If they will
have slaves, then it is madness to educate them to be masters. 98-99
Great men, like great ages, are explosive material, in which a
stupendous amount of power is accumulated; the first conditions of
their existence are always historical and physiological; they are the
outcome of the fact that for long ages energy has been collected,
hoarded up, saved up and preserved for their use, and that no explosion
has taken place. When the tension in the bulk has become sufficiently
excessive, the most fortuitous stimulus suffices in order to call
"genius," "great deeds," and momentous fate into the world. 101-102
The criminal type is the type of the strong man and unfavourable
conditions, a strong man made sick. He lacks the wild and savage
state, a form of nature and existence which is freer and more
dangerous, in which everything that constitutes the shield and the
sword in the instinct of the strong man, takes a place by right.
Society puts a ban upon his virtues; the most spirited instincts
inherent in him immediately become involved with the depressing
passions, with suspicion, fear and dishonour. But this is almost the
recipe for physiological degeneration. When a man has to do that
which he is best suited to do, which he is most fond of doing, not
only clandestinely, but also with long suspense, caution and ruse, he
becomes anæmic; and inasmuch as he is always having to pay for his
instincts in the form of danger, persecution and fatalities, even his
feelings begin to turn against these instincts--he begins to regard
them as fatal. It is society, our tame, mediocre, castrated society,
in which an untutored son of nature who comes to us from his mountains
or from his adventures at sea, must necessarily degenerate into a
criminal. Or almost necessarily: for there are cases in which such a
man shows himself to be stronger than society: the Corsican Napoleon is
the most celebrated case of this. 103-104
As long as the _priest_ represented the highest type of man, every
valuable kind of man was depreciated.... The time is coming--this I
guarantee--when he will pass as the _lowest_ type, as our Chandala, as
the falsest and most disreputable kind of man. 105
Everything good is an inheritance: that which is not inherited is
imperfect, it is simply a beginning. 107
Christianity with its contempt of the body is the greatest mishap that
has ever befallen mankind. 108
I also speak of a "return to nature," although it is not a process of
going back but of going up--up into lofty, free and even terrible
nature and naturalness; such a nature as can play with great tasks and
_may_ play with them. 108
The doctrine of equality!... But there is no more deadly poison than
this for it _seems_ to proceed from the very lips of justice, whereas
in reality it draws the curtain down on all justice.... "To equals
equality, to unequals inequality"--that would be the real speech of
justice and that which follows from it. "Never make unequal things
equal." The fact that so much horror and blood are associated with this
doctrine of equality, has lent this "modern idea" _par excellence_ such
a halo of fire and glory, that the Revolution as a drama has misled
even the most noble minds. 108-109
X
"The Antichrist" ("_Der Antichrist_") was written in September, 1888,
work evidently having been begun on it as soon as "The Twilight of the
Idols" had been sent to the publisher. Its composition could not have
occupied more than a few weeks at most, for the former book was not
despatched until September 7, and the present work was completed before
October. At this time Nietzsche was working at high pressure. He must
have had some presentiment of his impending breakdown for he filled in
every available minute with ardent and rapid writing. The fall of 1888
was the most prolific period of his life. No less than four books "The
Twilight of the Idols," "The Antichrist," "Nietzsche _contra_ Wagner"
and _"Ecce Homo"_--were completed by him between the late summer and
the first of the year; and in addition to this he made many notes for
his future volumes and read and corrected a considerable amount of
proofs. "The Antichrist," however, though completed in 1888, was not
published until the end of 1894, six years after he had laid aside his
work forever, and at a time when his mind was too darkened to know or
care about the circumstances of its issuance. It appeared in Vol. XIII
of _Nietzsches Werke_ which, although published at the close of 1894,
bore the date of the following year.
"The Antichrist" which, like "Beyond Good and Evil," "The Genealogy of
Morals" and "The Twilight of the Idols," forms a part of Nietzsche's
final philosophic scheme, was intended--to judge from the evidence
contained in his notebooks--as the first division of a work to be
entitled "The Trans valuation of All Values" ("_Die Umwertung Aller
Werte_"). In fact this title and also "The Will to Power" were
considered alternately for his _magnum opus_ which he intended writing
after the completion of "The Transvaluation of All Values." He finally
decided on the latter title for his great work, although he used the
former caption as a subtitle. The complete outline for the volumes
which were to be called "The Transvaluation of All Values" and which
were to be incorporated in his final general plan, is as follows:
1. "The Antichrist. An Attempted Criticism of Christianity." ("_Der
Antichrist: Versuch einer Kritik des Christenthums._")
2. "The Free Spirit. A Criticism of Philosophy as a Nihilistic
Movement." ("_Der freie Geist: Kritik der Philosophie als einer
nihilistischen Bewegung_")
3. "The Immoralist. A Criticism of the Most Fatal Species of Ignorance,
Morality." ("_Der Immoralist: Kritik der verhängnissvollsten Art von
Unwissenheit, der Moral_")
4. "Dionysus, the Philosophy of Eternal Recurrence." ("_Dionysus,
Philosophie der ewigen Wiederkunft_")
But Nietzsche did not finish this task, although "The Antichrist" is
in the form in which he intended it to be published. Nevertheless, it
must be considered merely as a fragment of a much more extensive plan.
Though Nietzsche was far from being the first, he yet was the most
effective critic who ever waged war against Christianity. This was due
to the fact that he went about his destructive work from an entirely
new angle. Before him there had been many competent anti-Christian
writers and scientists. Even during his own time there was a large and
loud school of atheists at work undermining the foundations of Nazarene
morality. With the methods of his predecessors and contemporaries,
however, he had nothing in common. He saw that, despite the scientific
denial of the miracles of Christianity and the biological opposition
to the origin of Christian history, the theologian was always able to
reply to the denial of Christian truth with the counter-argument of
Christian practicability. Thus, while the reasoning of such men as
Darwin, Huxley and Spencer held good so far as the scientific aspects
of Christianity went, the results of Christianity were not involved.
The church, meeting the onslaughts of the "higher criticism," denied
the necessity of a literal belief in the Gospels, and asserted that,
while all the anti-Christian critics might be accurate in their purely
scientific and logical conclusions, Christianity itself as a workable
code was still efficient and deserving of consideration as the most
perfect system of conduct the world had ever known. Nietzsche therefore
did not go into the field already ploughed by Voltaire, Hume, Huxley,
Spencer, Paine and a host of lesser "free thinkers." The preliminary
battles in the great warfare against Christianity had already been won,
and he saw the futility of proceeding along historical and scientific
lines. Consequently he turned his attention to a consideration of
the _effects_ of Christian morality upon the race, to an inquiry
into the _causes_ of pity-morality, and to a comparison of moral
codes in their relation to the needs of humanity. Whether or not the
origins of Christianity conformed to biological laws did not concern
him, although he assumed as his hypothesis the conclusions of the
scientific investigators. The only way of determining the merits and
demerits of the Christian code, he argued, was to ascertain the actual
results of its application, and to compare these with the results which
had accrued from the application of hardier and healthier codes. To
this investigation Nietzsche devotes practically the whole of "The
Antichrist," although there are a few analytical passages relating to
the early dissemination of Jewish ethics. But with these passages the
student need not seriously concern himself. They are speculative and
non-essential.
Nietzsche's criticism of the effects of Christian virtues, however,
did not begin in "The Antichrist," although this book is the final
flowering of those anti-Christian ideas which cropped up continually
throughout his entire work. This religious antipathy was present even
in his early academic essays, and in "Human, All-Too-Human" we find him
well launched upon his campaign. No book of his, with the exception of
his unfinished pamphlet, "The Eternal Recurrence," is free from this
criticism. But one will find all his earlier conclusions and arguments
drawn together in a compact and complete whole in the present volume.
Nietzsche's accusation against Christianity, reduced to a few words,
is that it works against the higher development of the individual;
that, being a religion of weakness, it fails to meet the requirements
of the modern man; in short, that it is _dangerous._ This conclusion
is founded on the principle of biological monism. Nietzsche assumes
Darwin's law of the struggle for existence, and argues that the
Christian virtues oppose not only this law but the law of natural
selection as well. By this opposition the race has been weakened,
for self-sacrifice, the basis of Christian morality, detracts from
the power of the individual and consequently lessens his chances for
existence. Furthermore, the Christian ideal in itself is opposed to
progress and all that progress entails, such as science and research.
Knowledge of any kind tends to make man more independent, and thereby
reduces his need for theological supervision. As a result of the
passing over of power from the strong to the weak, in accordance with
the morality of Christianity, the strength of the race as a whole is
depleted. Furthermore, such a procedure is in direct opposition to
the laws of nature, and so long as man lives in a natural environment
the only way to insure progress is to conform to the conditions of
that environment. Nietzsche therefore makes a plea for the adoption
of other than Christian standards--standards compatible with the laws
of existence. He points out that already the race has been almost
irremediably weakened by its adherence to anti-natural doctrines,
that each day of Christian activity is another step in the complete
degeneration of man. And he asserts that the only reason the race
has maintained its power as long as it has is because the stronger
members of society, despite their voiced belief, do not live up to the
Christian code, but are continually compromising with it.
The problem of the origin of Christianity interests Nietzsche, because
he sees in it an explanation of the results which it wished to
accomplish. Christianity, says he, can be understood only in relation
to the soil out of which it grew. When the Jewish people, subjugated
and in a position of slavery, were confronted with the danger of
extermination at the hands of a stronger people, they invented a system
of conduct which would insure their continued existence. They realised
that the adherence to such virtues as retaliation, aggressiveness,
initiative, cruelty, arrogance and the like would mean death; the
stronger nations would not have countenanced such qualities in a weak
and depleted nation. As a result the Jews replaced retaliation with
"long suffering," aggressiveness with peacefulness, cruelty with
kindness, and arrogance with humility. These _negative_ virtues took
the place of positive virtues, and were turned into "beatitudes."
By thus "turning the other cheek" and "forgiving one's enemies,"
instead of resenting persecution and attempting to avenge the wrongs
perpetrated against them, they were able to prolong life. This system
of conduct, says Nietzsche, was a direct falsification of all natural
conditions and a perversion of all healthy instincts. It was the
morality of an impoverished and subservient people, and was adopted by
the Jews only when they had been stripped of their power.
Nietzsche presents a psychological history of Israel as an example of
the process by which natural values were denaturalised. The God of
Israel was Jehovah. He was the expression of the nation's consciousness
of power, of joy and of hope. Victory and salvation were expected
from him: he was the God of justice. The Assyrians and internal
anarchy changed the conditions of Israel. Jehovah was no longer able
to bring victory to his people, and consequently the nature of this
God was changed. In the hands of the priest he became a weapon, and
unhappiness was interpreted as punishment for "sins." Jehovah became a
moral dictator, and consequently morality among the Israelites ceased
to be an expression of the conditions of life and became an abstract
theory opposed to life. Nor did the Jewish priesthood stop at this. It
interpreted the whole of history with a view to showing that all sin
against Jehovah led to punishment and that all pious worship of Jehovah
resulted in reward. A moral order of the universe was thus substituted
for a natural one. To bolster up this theory a "revelation" became
necessary. Accordingly a "stupendous literary fraud" was perpetrated,
and the "holy scriptures" were "discovered" and foisted upon the
people. The priests, avid for power, made themselves indispensable
by attributing to the will of God all those acts they desired of the
people. Repentance, namely: submission to the priests, was inaugurated.
Thus Christianity, hostile to all reality and power, gained its footing.
The psychology of Christ, as set forth in "The Antichrist," and the
use made of his doctrines by those who directly followed him, form an
important part of Nietzsche's argument against Christian morality.
Christ's doctrine, according to Nietzsche, was one of immediacy. It
was a mode of conduct and not, according to the present Christian
conception, a preparation for a future world. Christ was a simple
heretic in his rebellion against the existing political order. He
represented a reactionary mode of existence---a system of conduct which
said Nay to life, a code of inaction and non-interference. His death on
the cross was meant as a supreme example and proof of this doctrine.
It remained for his disciples to attach other meanings to it. Loving
Christ as they did, and consequently blinded by that love, they were
unable to forgive his execution at the hands of the State. At the same
time they were unprepared to follow his example and to give their
own lives to the cause of his teachings. A feeling of revenge sprang
up in them, and they endeavoured to find an excuse for his death. To
what was it attributable? And the answer they found, says Nietzsche,
was "dominant Judaism, its ruling class." For the moment they failed
to realise that the "Kingdom of God," as preached by Christ, was an
earthly thing, something contained within the individual; and after the
crucifixion it was necessary for them either to follow Christ's example
or to interpret his death, a voluntary one, as a promise of future
happiness, that is, to translate his _practical_ doctrine into symbolic
terms. They unhesitatingly chose the latter.
In their search for an explanation as to how God could have allowed
his "son" to be executed, they fell upon the theory that Christ's
death was a sacrifice for their sins, an expiation for their guilt.
From that time on, says Nietzsche, "there was gradually imported into
the type of the Saviour the doctrine of the Last Judgment, and of the
'second coming,' the doctrine of sacrificial death, and the doctrine of
_Resurrection,_ by means of which the whole concept 'blessedness,' the
entire and only reality of the gospel, is conjured away--in favour of
a state _after_ death." St. Paul then rationalised the conception by
introducing into it the doctrine of personal immortality by means of
having Christ rise from the dead; and he preached this immortality as
a reward for virtue. Thus, asserts Nietzsche, Christ's effort toward a
Buddhistic movement of peace, "toward real and _not_ merely promised
_happiness on earth"_ was controverted by his posterity. Nothing of
Christ's original doctrine remained, once Paul, the forger, set to work
to twist it to his own ends. Paul went further and by changing and
falsifying it turned all Jewish history into a _prophecy_ for his own
teachings. Thus the whole doctrine of Christ, the true meaning of his
death and the realities which he taught, were altered and distorted. In
short, Christ's life was used as a means for furthering the religion of
Paul, who gave to it the name of Christianity.
A most important part of "The Antichrist" is that passage wherein
Nietzsche defines his order of castes. Every healthy society, says he,
falls naturally into three separate and distinct types. These classes
condition one another and "gravitate differently in the psychological
sense." Each type has its own work, its own duties, its own emotions,
its own compensations and mastership. The first class, comprising the
rulers, is distinguished by its intellectual superiority. It devolves
upon this class "to represent happiness, beauty and goodness on earth."
The members of this superior class are in the minority, but they are
nevertheless the creators of values. "Their delight is self-mastery:
with them asceticism becomes a second nature, a need, an instinct. They
regard a difficult task as their privilege; to play with burdens which
crush their fellows is to them a _recreation."_ They are at once the
most honourable, cheerful and gracious of all men. The second class
is composed of those who relieve the first class of their duties and
execute the will of the rulers. They are the guardians of the law, the
merchants and professional men, the warriors and the judges. In brief,
they are the executors of the race. The third class is made up of
the workers, the lowest order of man--those destined for menial and
disagreeable tasks. "The fact," says Nietzsche, "that one is publicly
useful, a wheel, a function, presupposes a certain natural destiny: it
is not _society,_ but the only kind of _happiness_ of which the great
majority are capable, that makes them intelligent machines. For the
mediocre it is a joy to be mediocre; in them mastery in one thing, a
specialty, is a natural instinct." The conception of these classes
contains the nucleus of Nietzsche's doctrine. It embodies his whole
idea of a natural aristocracy as opposed to the spurious European
aristocracy of the present day, wherein the rulers are in reality
merely members of the second class.
The charge is constantly brought against Nietzsche by the ecclesiastic
dialecticians that his criticism of Christianity is fraught with the
very nihilism against which he so eloquently argues. There is perhaps
a slight basis for such a contention if we confine ourselves strictly
to those of his utterances against the Jewish morality which appear in
his previous books. But in "The Antichrist" this does not hold true
even in the slightest manner. Nietzsche is constantly supplanting modes
of action for every Christian virtue he denies. He is as constructive
as he is destructive. "The Antichrist" contains, not only a complete
denial of all Christian morality, but a statement of a new and
consistent system of ethics based on the research of all his works.