Translator’s Preface) how much importance Nietzsche himself ascribed
to this doctrine, and how, until the end, he regarded it as the
inspiration which had led to his chief work, _Thus Spake Zarathustra._
For the details relating to its inception, however, I would refer the
reader to Mrs Foerster-Nietzsche’s Introduction to her brother’s chief
work, which was translated for the eleventh volume of this Edition of
the Complete Works.
In reading these notes it would be well to refer to Nietzsche’s other
utterances on the subject which are to be found at the end of vol.
ii. of the _Will to Power,_ and also, if possible, to have recourse
to the original German text. Despite the greatest care, I confess
that in some instances, I have felt a little doubt as to the precise
English equivalent for the thoughts expressed under the heading
_Eternal Recurrence;_ and, though I have attributed this difficulty to
the extreme novelty of the manner in which the subject is presented,
it is well that the reader should be aware that such doubt has been
entertained. For I disbelieve utterly in mere verbal translation,
however accurate, and would question anybody’s right to convert a
German sentence into English—even though he were so perfect in
both languages as to be almost absolutely bilingual,—if he did not
completely grasp the thought behind the sentence.
The writing of the collected Explanatory Notes to _Thus Spake
Zarathustra_, cannot be given any exact date. Some of them consist of
comments, written down by Nietzsche after the completion of the book,
and kept as the nucleus of an actual commentary to Zarathustra, which
it seems to have been his intention, one day, to write; while others
are merely memoranda and rough sketches, probably written before the
completion of the work, and which served the purpose of a draft of his
original plan. The reader who knows _Thus Spake Zarathustra_ will be
able to tell wherein the book ultimately differed from the plan visible
in these preliminary notes.
As an authoritative, though alas! all too fragmentary elucidation of a
few of the more obscure passages of Zarathustra, some of these notes
are of the greatest value; and, in paragraph 73, for instance, there
is an interpretation of the Fourth and Last Part, which I myself would
have welcomed with great enthusiasm, at the time when I was having my
first struggles with the spirit of this great German sage’s life work.
ANTHONY M. LUDOVICI.
I. ETERNAL RECURRENCE
1. THE DOCTRINE EXPOUNDED AND SUBSTANTIATED.
1.
The extent of universal energy is limited; it is not “infinite”: we
should beware of such excesses in our concepts! Consequently the number
of states, changes, combinations, and evolutions of this energy,
although it may be enormous and practically incalculable, is at any
rate definite and not unlimited. The time, however, in which this
universal energy works its changes is infinite—that is to say, energy
remains eternally the same and is eternally active:—at this moment an
infinity has already elapsed, that is to say, every possible evolution
must already have taken place. Consequently the present process of
evolution must be a repetition, as was also the one before it, as will
also be the one which will follow. And so on forwards and backwards!
Inasmuch as the entire state of all forces continually returns,
everything has existed an infinite number of times. Whether, apart from
this, anything exactly like something that formerly existed has ever
appeared, is completely beyond proof. It would seem that each complete
state of energy forms all qualities afresh even to the smallest
degree, so that two different complete states could have nothing in
common. Is it to be supposed that in one and the same complete states
two precisely similar things could appear—for instance two leaves?
I doubt it: it would take for granted that they had both had an
absolutely similar origin, and in that case we should have to assume
that right back in infinity two similar things had also existed despite
all the changes in the complete states and their creation of new
qualities—an impossible assumption.
2
Formerly it was thought that unlimited energy was a necessary corollary
to unlimited activity in time, and that this energy could be exhausted
by no form of consumption. Now it is thought that energy remains
constant and docs not require to be infinite. It is eternally active
but it is no longer able eternally to create new forms, it must repeat
itself: that is my conclusion.
3
An incalculable number of complete states of energy have existed,
but these have not been infinitely different: for if they had been,
unlimited energy would have been necessary. The energy of the universe
can only have a given number of possible qualities.
4
The endless evolution of new forms is a contradiction, for it would
imply eternally increasing energy. But whence would it grow? Whence
would it derive its nourishment and its surplus of nourishment? The
assumption that the universe is an organism contradicts the very
essence of the organic.
5
In what principle and belief is that decisive turning point in
philosophical thought best expressed which has come into being thanks
to the preponderance of the scientific spirit over the religious and
God-creating one? We insist upon the fact that the world as a sum of
energy must not be regarded as unlimited—we forbid ourselves the
concept infinite energy, because it seems incompatible with the concept
energy.
6
An unlimited number of new changes and states on the part of limited
energy is a contradiction, however extensive one may imagine it to be,
and however economical the changes may be, provided it is infinite.
We are therefore forced to conclude: (1) either that the universe
began its activity at a given moment of time and will end in a similar
fashion,—but the beginning of activity is absurd; if a state of
equilibrium had been reached it would have persisted to all eternity;
(2) Or there is no such thing as an endless number of changes, but
a circle consisting of a definite number of them which continually
recurs: activity is eternal, the number of the products and states of
energy is limited.
7
If all the possible combinations and relations of forces had not
already been exhausted, then an infinity would not yet lie behind
us. Now since infinite time must be assumed, no fresh possibility
can exist and everything must have appeared already, and moreover an
infinite number of times.
8
The present world of forces leads back to a state of greatest
simplicity in these forces: it likewise leads forwards to such a
state,—cannot and must not _both_ states be identical? No incalculable
number of states can evolve out of a system of limited forces, that
is to say, out of a given quantity of energy which may be precisely
measured. Only when we falsely assume that space is unlimited, and that
therefore energy gradually becomes dissipated, can the final state be
an unproductive and lifeless one.
9
First principles.—The last physical state of energy which we can
imagine must necessarily be the first also. The absorption of energy
in latent energy must be the cause of the production of the most vital
energy. For a highly positive state must follow a negative state Space
like matter is a subjective form, time is not. The notion of space
first arose from the assumption that space could be empty. But there is
no such thing as empty space. Everything is energy.
We cannot think of that which moves and that which is moved together,
but both these things constitute matter and space. We isolate.
10
Concerning the resurrection of the world.—Out of two negatives, when
they are forces, a positive arises. (Darkness comes of light opposed to
light, cold arises from warmth opposed to warmth, &c, &c.)
11
An uncertain state of equilibrium occurs just as seldom in nature as
two absolutely equal triangles. Consequently anything like a static
state of energy in general is impossible. If stability were possible it
would already have been reached.
12
Either complete equilibrium must in itself be an impossibility, or
the changes of energy introduce themselves in the circular process
before that equilibrium which is in itself possible has appeared.—But
it would be madness to ascribe a feeling of self-preservation to
existence! And the same applies to the conception of a contest of pain
and pleasure among atoms.
13
Physics supposes that energy may be divided up: but every one of its
possibilities must first be adjusted to reality. There can therefore
be no question of dividing energy into equal parts; in every one of
its states it manifests a certain quality, and qualities cannot be
subdivided: hence a state of equilibrium in energy is impossible.
14
If energy had ever reached a stage of equilibrium that stage would
have persisted: it has therefore never reached such a stage. The
present condition of things contradicts this assumption. If we assume
that there has ever been a state absolutely like the present one this
assumption is in no wise refuted by the present state. For, among
all the endless possibilities, this case must already have occurred,
as an infinity is already behind us. If equilibrium were possible it
would already have been reached.—And if this momentary state has
already existed then that which bore it and the previous one also would
likewise have existed and so on backwards,—and from this it follows
that it has already existed not only twice but three times,—just as it
will exist again not only twice but three times,—in fact an infinite
number of times backwards and forwards. That is to say, the whole
process of Becoming consists of a repetition of a definite number of
precisely similar states.—Clearly the human brain cannot be left to
imagine the whole series of possibilities: but in any case, quite apart
from our ability to judge or our inability to conceive the whole range
of possibilities, the present state at least is a possible one—because
it is a real one. We should therefore say: in the event of the number
of possibilities not being infinite, and assuming that in the course of
unlimited time a limited number of these must appear, all real states
must have been preceded by similar states? Because from every given
moment a whole infinity is to be calculated backwards? The stability of
forces and their equilibrium is a possible alternative: but it has not
been reached; consequently the number of possibilities is greater than
the number of real states. The fact that nothing similar recurs could
not be explained by appealing to accident, but only by supposing that a
certain intention, that no similar things should recur, were actually
inherent in the essence of energy: for, if we grant that the number of
cases is enormous, the occurrence of like cases is more probable than
absolute disparity.
15
Let us think backwards a moment If the world had a goal, this goal
must have been reached: if a certain (unintentional) final state
existed for the world, this state also would have been reached. If
it were in any way capable of a stationary or stable condition, and
if in the whole course of its existence only one second of Being, in
the strict sense of the word, had been possible, then there could
no longer be such a process as evolution, and therefore no thinking
and no observing of such a process. If on the other hand the world
were something which continually renovated itself, it would then be
understood to be something miraculous and free to create itself—in
fact something divine. Eternal renovation presupposes that energy
voluntarily increases itself, that it not only has the intention, but
also the power, to avoid repeating itself or to avoid returning into a
previous form, and that every instant it adjusts itself in every one of
its movements to prevent such a contingency,—or that it was incapable
of returning to a state it had already passed through. That would
mean that the whole sum of energy was not constant, any more than its
attributes were But a sum of energy which would be inconstant and which
would fluctuate is quite unthinkable Let us not indulge our fancy
any longer with unthinkable things in order to fall once more before
the concept of a Creator (multiplication out of nothing, reduction
out of nothing, absolute arbitrariness and freedom in growth and in
qualities):—
16
He who does not believe in the circular process of the universe must
pin his faith to an arbitrary God—thus my doctrine becomes necessary
as opposed to all that has been said hitherto in matters of Theism.
17
The hypothesis which I would oppose to that of the eternal circular
process:—Would it be just as possible to explain the laws of the
mechanical world as exceptions and seemingly as accidents among the
things of the universe, as one possibility only among an incalculable
number of possibilities? Would it be possible to regard ourselves
as accidentally thrust into this corner of the mechanical universal
arrangement?—That all chemical philosophy is likewise an exception
and an accident in the world’s economy, and finally that organic life
is a mere exception and accident in the chemical world? Should we have
to assume as the most general form of existence a world which was
not yet mechanical, which was outside all mechanical laws (although
accessible to them)?—and that as a matter of fact this world would
be the most general now and for evermore, so that the origin of the
mechanical world would be a lawless game which would ultimately acquire
such consistency as the organic laws seem to have now from our point
of view? So that all our mechanical laws would be not eternal, but
evolved, and would have survived innumerable different mechanical
laws, or that they had attained supremacy in isolated corners of the
world and not in others?—It would seem that we need caprice, actual
lawlessness, and only a capacity for law, a primeval state of stupidity
which is not even able to concern itself with mechanics? The origin of
qualities presupposes the existence of quantities, and these, for their
part, might arise from a thousand kinds of mechanical processes.
Is not the existence of some sort of irregularity and incomplete
circular form in the world about us, a sufficient refutation of
the regular circularity of everything that exists? Whence comes
this variety within the circular process? Is not everything far too
complicated to have been the outcome of unity? And are not the many
chemical laws and likewise the organic species and forms inexplicable
as the result of homogeneity? or of duality?—Supposing there were
such a thing as a regular contracting energy in all the centres of
force in the universe, the question would be, whence could the most
insignificant difference spring? For then the whole world would have
to be resolved into innumerable completely equal rings and spheres of
existence and we should have an incalculable number of exactly equal
worlds side by side. Is it necessary for me to assume this? Must I
suppose that an eternal sequence of like worlds also involves eternal
juxta-position of like worlds? But the multifariousness and disorder
in the world which we have known hitherto contradicts this; no such
universal similarity has existed in evolution, for in that case even
for our part of the cosmos a regular spherical form must have been
formed. Should the production of qualities not be subject to any strict
laws? Can it be possible that different things have been derived from
“energy”? Arbitrarily? Is the conformity to law which we observe
perhaps only a deception? Is it possible that it is not a primeval law?
Is it possible that the multifariousness of qualities even in our part
of the world is the result of the absolute occurrence of arbitrary
characteristics? But that these characteristics no longer appear in our
corner of the globe? Or that our corner of existence has adopted a rule
which we call cause and effect when all the while it is no such thing
(an arbitrary phenomenon become a rule, as for instance oxygen and
hydrogen in chemistry)??? Is this rule simply a protracted kind of mood?
18
If the universe had been able to become an organism it would have
become one already. _As_ a whole we must try and regard it in the
light of a thing _as_ remote _as possible_ from the organic. I believe
that even our chemical affinity and coherence may be perhaps recently
evolved and that these appearances only occur in certain corners of
the universe at certain epochs. Let us believe in absolute necessity
in the universe but let us guard against postulating any sort of law,
even if it be a primitive and mechanical one of our own experience,
as ruling over the whole and constituting one of its eternal
characteristics.—All chemical qualities might have been evolved and
might disappear and return. Innumerable characteristics might have been
developed which for us,—from our limited point of view in time and
space, defy observation. The transformation of a chemical quality may
perhaps now be taking place, but so slowly that it escapes our most
delicate calculations.
19
Inorganic matter, even though in most cases it may once have
been organic, can have stored up no experience,—it is always
without a pastl If the reverse were the case a repetition would be
impossible—for then matter would for ever be producing new qualities
with new pasts.
20
We must guard against ascribing any aspiration or any goal to this
circular process: Likewise we must not, from the point of view of our
own needs, regard it as either monotonous or foolish, &c. We may grant
that the greatest possible irrationality, as also its reverse, may be
an essential feature of it: but we must not value it according to this
hypothesis. Rationality or irrationality cannot stand as attributes of
the universe.—We must not think of the law of this circular process as
a thing evolved, by drawing false analogies with the circular motions
occurring _within_ the circle. There was no primitive chaos followed
gradually by a more harmonious and finally definite circular motion of
all forces: On the contrary everything is eternal and unevolved. If
there ever was a chaos of forces, then that chaos itself was eternal
and was repeated at its particular moment of time in the turn of the
world wheel. The circular process is not the outcome of evolution, it
is a primitive principle like the quantum of energy, and allows of no
exception or violation. All Becoming takes place within the circular
process and the quantum of energy which constitutes it: therefore we
must not apply ephemeral processes like those for instance of heavenly
bodies, of the ebb and flow of tides, of day and night, of the seasons,
to the drawing of analogies for characterising the eternal circular
process.
21
The “chaos of the universe,” inasmuch as it excludes any aspiration to
a goal, does not oppose the thought of the circular process: the latter
is simply an irrational necessity, absolutely free from any formal
ethical or æsthetical significance. Arbitrariness in small things as in
great is completely lacking here.
22
Let us guard against believing that the universe has a tendency to
attain to certain forms, or that it aims at becoming more beautiful,
more perfect, more complicated! All that is anthropomorphism! Anarchy,
ugliness, form—are unrelated concepts. There is no such thing as
imperfection in the realm of mechanics.
Everything has returned: Sirius, and the spider, and thy thoughts at
this moment, and this last thought of thine that all these things will
return.
23
Our whole world consists of the ashes of an incalculable number of
living creatures: and even if living matter is ever so little compared
with the whole, everything has already been transformed into life once
before and thus the process goes on. If we grant eternal time we must
assume the eternal change of matter.
24
Whoever thou mayest be, beloved stranger, whom I meet here for the
first time, avail thyself of this happy hour and of the stillness
around us, and above us, and let me tell thee something of the thought
which has suddenly risen before me like a star which would fain shed
down its rays upon thee and every one, as befits the nature of light—
25
The world of energy suffers no diminution: otherwise with eternal
time it would have grown weak and finally have perished altogether.
The world of energy suffers no stationary state, otherwise this would
already have been reached, and the clock of the universe would be at
a standstill. The world of energy does not therefore reach a state of
equilibrium; for no instant in its career has it had rest; its energy
and its movement have been the same for all time. Whatever state this
world could have reached must ere now have been attained, and not
only once but an incalculable number of times. This applies to this
very moment It has already been here once before, and several times,
and will recur in the same way, with all forces distributed as they
are to-day: and the same holds good of the moment of time which bore
the present and of that which shall be the child of the present.
Fellow-man! Your whole life, like a sandglass, will always be reversed
and will ever run out again,—a long minute of time will elapse until
all those conditions out of which you were evolved return in the wheel
of the cosmic process. And then you will find every pain and every
pleasure, every friend and every enemy, every hope and every error,
every blade of grass and every ray of sunshine once more, and the whole
fabric of things that makes up your life. This ring in which you are
but a grain will glitter afresh for ever. And in every one of these
cycles of human life there will be one hour where for the first time
one man, and then many, will perceive the mighty thought of the eternal
recurrence of all things:—and for mankind this is always the hour of
Noon.
2. THE EFFECTS OF THE DOCTRINE UPON MANKIND
26
How can we give weight to our inner life without making it evil and
fanatical towards people who think otherwise. Religious belief is
declining and man is beginning to regard himself as ephemeral and
unessential, a point of view which is making him weak; he does not
exercise so much effort in striving or enduring. What he wants is
momentary enjoyment He would make things light for himself,—and a good
deal of his spirit gets squandered in this endeavour.
27
The political mania at which I smile just as merrily as my
contemporaries smile at the religious mania of former times is above
all Materialism, a belief in the world, and in the repudiation of a
“Beyond,” of a “back-world.” The object of those who believe in the
latter is the well-being of the ephemeral individual: that is why
Socialism is its fruit; for with Socialism ephemeral individuals wish
to secure their happiness by means of socialisation. They have no
reason to wait, as those men had who believed in eternal souls, in
eternal development and eternal amelioration. My doctrine is: Live
so that thou mayest desire to live again,—that is thy duty,—for in
any case thou wilt live again He unto whom striving is the greatest
happiness, let him strive; he unto whom peace is the greatest
happiness, let him rest; he unto whom subordination, following,
obedience, is the greatest happiness, let him obey. All that is
necessary is that he should know what it is that gives him the highest
happiness, and to fight shy of no means! Eternity is at stake!
28
“But if everything is necessary, what control have I over my actions?”
Thought and faith are a form of ballast which burden thee in addition
to other burdens thou mayest have, and which are even more weighty than
the latter. Sayest thou that nutrition, the land of thy birth, air, and
society change thee and determine thee? Well, thy opinions do this to
a much greater degree, for they even prescribe thy nourishment, thy
land of adoption, thy atmosphere, and thy society for thee.—If thou
ever assimilatest the thought of thoughts it will also alter thee. The
question which thou wilt have to answer before every deed that thou
doest: “is this such a deed as I am prepared to perform an incalculable
number of times?” is the best ballast.
29