No More Learning

In short, partly from ignorance, wrong impres-
sions, and misleading conclusions; and also from
the interest which philologists have in raising their
science to a high level in the estimation of laymen.


## p. 128 (#164) ############################################

128 WE PHILOLOGISTS
Also the preference for antiquity on the part of
the artists, who involuntarily assume proportion
and moderation to be the property of all antiquity.
Purity of form. Authors likewise.
The preference for antiquity as an abbreviation
of the history of the human race, as if there were
an autochthonous creation here by which all becom-
ing might be studied.
The fact actually is that the foundations of this
preference are being removed one by one, and if
this is not remarked by philologists themselves, it
is certainly being remarked as much as it can
possibly be by people outside their circle. First
of all history had its effect, and then linguistics
brought about the greatest diversion among philo-
logists themselves, and even the desertion of many
of them. They have still the schools in their hands:
but for how long ! In the form in which it has
existed up to the present philology is dying out;
the ground has been swept from under its feet.
Whether philologists may still hope to maintain
their status is doubtful; in any case they are a
dying race.
3O
The peculiarly significant situation of philolo-
gists: a class of people to whom we entrust our
youth, and who have to investigate quite a special
antiquity. The highest value is obviously attached
to this antiquity. But if this antiquity has been
wrongly valued, then the whole foundation upon
which the high position of the philologist is based
suddenly collapses. In any case this antiquity has
.


## p. 129 (#165) ############################################

WE PHILOLOGISTS I29
been very differently valued; and our appreciation
of the philologists has constantly been guided by
it. These people have borrowed their power from
the strong prejudices in favour of antiquity, this
must be made clear.
Philologists now feel that when these prejudices
are at last refuted, and antiquity depicted in its true
colours, the favourable prejudices towards them will
diminish considerably. It is thus to the interest of
their profession not to let a clear impression of anti-
quity come to light: in particular the impression that
antiquity in its highest sense renders one “out of
season,” i. e. , an enemy to one's own time.
It is also to the interest of philologists as a class
not to let their calling as teachers be regarded from
a higher standpoint than that to which they them-
selves can correspond.
3 I
It is to be hoped that there are a few people who
look upon it as a problem why philologists should
be the teachers of our noblest youths. Perhaps the
case will not be always so—It would be much more
natural per se if our children were instructed in the
elements of geography, natural Science, political
economy, and sociology, if they were gradually led
to a consideration of life itself, and if finally, but
much later, the most noteworthy events of the past
were brought to their knowledge. A knowledge of
antiquity should be among the last subjects which
a student would take up ; and would not this posi-
tion of antiquity in the curriculum of a school be
more honourable for it than the present one? —

9


## p. 130 (#166) ############################################

I 30 WE PHILOLOGISTS
Antiquity is now used merely as a propaedeutic for
thinking, speaking, and writing; but there was a
time when it was the essence of earthly knowledge,
and people at that time wished to acquire by means
of practical learning what they now seek to acquire
merely by means of a detailed plan of study—a
plan which, corresponding to the more advanced
knowledge of the age, has entirely changed,
Thus the inner purpose of philological teaching
has been entirely altered; it was at one time material
teaching, a teaching that taught how to live; but
now it is merely formal. ”
32
If it were the task of the philologist to impart
formal education, it would be necessary for him to
teach walking, dancing, speaking, singing, acting, or
arguing: and the so-called formal teachers did im-
part their instruction this way in the second and
third centuries. But only the training of a scien-
tific man is taken into account, which results in
“formal” thinking and writing, and hardly any
speaking at all.
33
If the gymnasium is to train young men for
science, people now say there can be no more pre-
* Formal education is that which tends to develop the
critical and logical faculties, as opposed to material educa-
tion, which is intended to deal with the acquisition of know-
ledge and its valuation, e. g. , history, mathematics, &c.
“Material” education, of course, has nothing to do with
materialism. —TR.


## p. 131 (#167) ############################################

WE PHILOLOGISTS I31
liminary preparation for any particular science, so
comprehensive have all the sciences become. As a
consequence teachers have to train their students
generally, that is to say for all the sciences—for
scientificality in other words; and for that classical
studies are necessary! What a wonderful jump 1 a
most despairing justification! Whatever is, is right,”
even when it is clearly seen that the “right” on
which it has been based has turned to wrong.
34
It is accomplishments which are expected from
us after a study of the ancients: formerly, for ex-
ample, the ability to write and speak. But what is
expected now ! Thinking and deduction: but these
things are not learnt from the ancients, but at best
through the ancients, by means of science. More-
over, all historical deduction is very limited and
unsafe; natural science should be preferred.
35
It is the same with the simplicity of antiquity as
it is with the simplicity of style: it is the highest
thing which we recognise and must imitate; but it
is also the last. Let it be remembered that the
classic prose of the Greeks is also a late result.
36
What a mockery of the study of the “humanities”
lies in the fact that they were also called “belles
lettres” (bellas litteras)!
* The reference is not to Pope, but to Hegel. -TR.



## p. 132 (#168) ############################################

I32 WE PHILOLOGISTS
37
Wolf's" reasons why the Egyptians, Hebrews,
Persians, and other Oriental nations were not to be
set on the same plane with the Greeks and Romans:
“The former have either not raised themselves, or
have raised themselves only to a slight extent,
above that type of culture which should be called
a mere civilisation and bourgeois acquirement, as
opposed to the higher and true culture of the mind. ”
He then explains that this culture is spiritual and
literary: “In a well-organised nation this may be
begun earlier than order and peacefulness in the
outward life of the people (enlightenment). ”
He then contrasts the inhabitants of easternmost
Asia (“like such individuals, who are not wanting
in clean, decent, and comfortable dwellings, clothing,
and surroundings; but who never feel the necessity
for a higher enlightenment”) with the Greeks (“in
the case of the Greeks, even among the most edu-
cated inhabitants of Attica, the contrary often
happens to an astonishing degree; and the people
neglect as insignificant factors that which we,
thanks to our love of order, are in the habit of
looking upon as the foundations of mental culture
itself”).
38
Our terminology already shows how prone we
are to judge the ancients wrongly: the exaggerated
sense of literature, for example; or, as Wolf, when
* Friedrich August Wolf (1759-1824), the well-known classi-
cal scholar, now chiefly remembered by his “Prolegomena
ad Homerum. ”—TR.


## p. 133 (#169) ############################################

WE PHILOLOGISTS I33
*
speaking of the “inner history of ancient erudition,”
calls it, “the history of learned enlightenment. ”
39
According to Goethe, the ancients are “the
despair of the emulator. ” Voltaire said: “If the
admirers of Homer were honest, they would ac-
knowledge the boredom which their favourite often
causes them. ”
4O
The position we have taken up towards classical
antiquity is at bottom the profound cause of the
sterility of modern culture; for we have taken all
this modern conception of culture from the Hellen-
ised Romans. We must distinguish within the
domain of antiquity itself: when we come to
appreciate its purely productive period, we condemn
at the same time the entire Romano-Alexandrian
culture. But at the same time also we condemn
our own attitude towards antiquity, and likewise
our philology.
4 I
There has been an age-long battle between the
Germans and antiquity, i. e. , a battle against the old
culture: it is certain that precisely what is best and
deepest in the German resists it. The main point,
however, is that such resistance is only justifiable in
the case of the Romanised culture; for this culture,
even at that time, was a falling-off from something
more profound and noble. It is this latter that the
Germans are wrong in resisting.


## p. 134 (#170) ############################################

I34 WE PHILOLOGISTS
42
Everything classic was thoroughly cultivated by
Charles the Great, whilst he combated everything
heathen with the severest possible measures of
coercion. Ancient mythology was developed, but
German mythology was treated as a crime. The
feeling underlying all this, in my opinion, was that
Christianity had already overcome the old religion:
people no longer feared it, but availed themselves of
the culture that rested upon it. But the old German
gods were feared.
A great superficiality in the conception of anti-
quity—little else than an appreciation of its formal
accomplishments and its knowledge—must thereby
have been brought about. We must find out the
forces that stood in the way of increasing our in-
sight into antiquity. First of all, the culture of
antiquity is utilised as an incitement towards the
acceptance of Christianity: it became, as it were,
the premium for conversion, the gilt with which the
poisonous pill was coated before being swallowed.
Secondly, the help of ancient culture was found to
be necessary as a weapon for the intellectual pro-
tection of Christianity. Even the Reformation could
not dispense with classical studies for this purpose.
The Renaissance, on the other hand, now begins,
with a clearer sense of classical studies, which, how-
ever, are likewise looked upon from an anti-Christian
standpoint: the Renaissance shows an awakening
of honesty in the south, like the Reformation in the
north. They could not but clash; for a sincere
leaning towards antiquity renders one unchristian.


## p. 135 (#171) ############################################

WE PHILOLOGISTS I35
On the whole, however, the Church succeeded in
turning classical studies into a harmless direction:
the philologist was invented, representing a type
of learned man who was at the same time a priest or
something similar. Even in the period of the Refor-
mation people succeeded in emasculating scholar-
ship. It is on this account that Friedrich August
Wolf is noteworthy: he freed his profession from
the bonds of theology. This action of his, however,
was not fully understood; for an aggressive, active
element, such as was manifested by the poet-philo-
logists of the Renaissance, was not developed. The
freedom obtained benefited science, but not man.
43
It is truethat both humanism and rationalism have
brought antiquity into the field as an ally; and it
is therefore quite comprehensible that the opponents
of humanism should direct their attacks against
antiquity also. Antiquity, however, has been mis-
understood and falsified by humanism: it must
rather be considered as a testimony against human-
ism, against the benign nature of man, &c. The
opponents of humanism are wrong to combat anti-
quity as well; for in antiquity they have a strong
ally.
44
It is so difficult to understand the ancients.
We must wait patiently until the spirit moves us.
The human element which antiquity shows us must
not be confused with humanitarianism. This con-
trast must be strongly emphasised: philology suffers
by endeavouring to substitute the humanitarian ;


## p. 136 (#172) ############################################

136 WE PHILOLOGISTS
young men are brought forward as students of
philology in order that they may thereby become
humanitarians. A good deal of history, in my
opinion, is quite sufficient for that purpose. The
brutal and self-conscious man will be humbled when
he sees things and values changing to such an extent.
The human element among the Greeks lies with-
in a certain naïveté, through which man himself is
to be seen—state, art, society, military and civil law,
sexual relations, education, party. It is precisely
the human element which may be seen everywhere
and among all peoples; but among the Greeks it is
seen in a state of nakedness and inhumanity which
cannot be dispensed with for purposes of instruction.
In addition to this, the Greeks have created the
greatest number of individuals; and thus they give
us so much insight into men, a Greek cook is more
of a cook than any other.
45
I deplore a system of education which does not
enable people to understand Wagner, and as the
result of which Schopenhauer sounds harsh and dis-
cordant in our ears: such a system of education has
missed its aim.
46
(THE FINAL DRAFT OF THE FIRST CHAPTER. )
Il faut dire la vérité et s'immoler. —WoLTAIRE.
Let us suppose that there were freer and more
superior spirits who were dissatisfied with the educa-
tion now in vogue, and that they summoned it to
their tribunal, what would the defendant say to


## p. 137 (#173) ############################################

WE PHILOLOGISTS 137
them P In all probability something like this:
“Whether you have a right to summon anyone here
or not, I am at all events not the proper person to
be called. It is my educators to whom you should
apply. It is their duty to defend me, and I have
a right to keep silent. I am merely what they have
made me. ”
These educators would now be haled before the
tribunal, and among them an entire profession would
be observed : the philologists. This profession con-
sists in the first place of those men who make use of
their knowledge of Greek and Roman antiquity to
bring up youths of thirteen to twenty years of age,
and secondly of those men whose task it is to train
specially-gifted pupils to act as future teachers—
i. e. , as the educators of educators. Philologists of
the first type are teachers at the public schools;
those of the second are professors at the universities.
The first-named philologists are entrusted with
the care of certain specially-chosen youths, those
who, early in life, show signs of talent and a sense
of what is noble, and whose parents are prepared
to allow plenty of time and money for their educa-
tion. If other boys, who do not fulfil these three
conditions, are presented to the teachers, the teachers
have the right to refuse them. Those forming the
second class, the university professors, receive the
young men who feel themselves fitted for the highest
and most responsible of callings, that of teachers and
moulders of mankind; and these professors, too,
may refuse to have anything to do with young men
who are not adequately equipped or gifted for the
task.


## p. 138 (#174) ############################################

138 WE PHILOLOGISTS
If, then, the educational system of a period is con-
demned, a heavy censure on philologists is thereby
implied: either, as the consequence of their wrong-
headed view, they insist on giving bad education in
the belief that it is good; or they do not wish to
give this bad education, but are unable to carry the
day in favour of education which they recognise to
be better. In other words, their fault is either due
to their lack of insight or to their lack of will. In
answer to the first charge they would say that they
knew no better, and in answer to the second that
they could do no better. As, however, these philo-
logists bring up their pupils chiefly with the aid of
Greek and Roman antiquity, their want of insight in
the first case may be attributed to the fact that they
do not understand antiquity; and again to the fact
that they bring forward antiquity into the presentage
as if it were the most important of all aids to instruc-
tion, while antiquity, generally speaking, does not
assist in training, or at all events no longer does so.
On the other hand, if we reproach our professors
with their lack of will, they would be quite right in
attributing educational significance and power to
antiquity; but they themselves could not be said to
be the proper instruments by means of which anti-
quity could exhibit such power. In other words, the
professors would not be real teachers and would be
living under false colours: but how, then, could they
have reached such an irregular position? Through
a misunderstanding of themselves and their quali-
fications. In order, then, that we may ascribe to
philologists their shareinthis bad educational system
of the present time, we may sum up the different


## p. 139 (#175) ############################################

WE PHILOLOGISTS I 39
factors of their innocence and guilt in the following
sentence: the philologist, if he wishes for a verdict
of acquittal, must understand three things: antiquity, ,
the present time, and himself: his fault lies in the
fact that he either does not understand antiquity, or
the present time, or himself.
47
It is not true to say that we can attain culture
through antiquity alone. We may learn something
from it, certainly ; but not culture as the word is
now understood. Our present culture is based on
an emasculated and mendacious study of antiquity.
In order to understand how ineffectual this study
is, just look at our philologists: they, trained upon
antiquity, should be the most cultured men. Are
they P
48
Origin of the philologist. When a great work of
art is exhibited there is always some one who not
only feels its influence but wishes to perpetuate it.
The same remark applies to a great state—to every-
thing, in short, that man produces. Philologists
wish to perpetuate the influence of antiquity: and
they can set about it only as imitative artists. Why -
not as men who form their lives after antiquity?
49
The decline of the poet-scholars is due in great
part to their own corruption: their type is con-
tinually arising again; Goethe and #. - /
example, belong to it. Behind them plod the philo-
logist-savants. This type has its origin in the
sophisticism of the second century.


## p. 140 (#176) ############################################

I4O WE PHILOLOGISTS
5O
Ah, it is a sad story, the story of philology. The
disgusting erudition, the lazy, inactive passivity, the
timid submission. —Who was ever free?
5 I
When we examine the history of philology it is
borne in upon us how few really talented men have
taken part in it. Among the most celebrated philo-
logists are a few who ruined their intellect by
acquiring a smattering of many subjects, and
among the most enlightened of them were several
who could use their intellect only for childish tasks.
It is a sad story: no science, I think, has ever been
so poor in talented followers. Those whom we
might call the intellectually crippled found a suit-
able hobby in all this hair-splitting.
52
The teacher of reading and writing, and the re-
viser, were the first types of the philologist.
53
Friedrich August Wolf reminds us how appre-
hensive and feeble were the first steps taken by our
ancestors in moulding scholarship—how even the
Latin classics, for example, had to be smuggled
into the university market under all sorts of pre-
texts, as if they had been contraband goods. In
the “Göttingen Lexicon. ” of 1737, J. M. Gesner tells
us of the Odes of Horace: “ut imprimis, quid pro-
desse in severioribus studiis possint, ostendat. ”


## p. 141 (#177) ############################################

WE PHILOLOGISTS I4 I
54
I was pleased to read of Bentley: “non tam
grande pretium emendatiunculis meis statuere
soleo, ut singularem aliquam gratiam inde sperem
aut exigam. ”
Newton was surprised that men like Bentley and
Hare should quarrel about a book of ancient
comedies, since they were both theological digni-
taries.
55 -
Horace was summoned by Bentley as before a
judgment seat, the authority of which he would
have been the first to repudiate. The admiration
which a discriminating man acquires as a philologist
is in proportion to the rarity of the discrimination
to be found in philologists. Bentley's treatment of
Horace has something of the schoolmaster about it.
It would appear at first sight as if Horace himself
were not the object of discussion, but rather the
various scribes and commentators who have handed
down the text: in reality, however, it is actually
Horace who is being dealt with. It is my firm con-
viction that to have written a single line which is
deemed worthy of being commented upon by scho-
lars of a later time, far outweighs the merits of the
greatest critic. There is a profound modesty about
philologists. The improving of texts is an enter-
taining piece of work for scholars, it is a kind of
riddle-solving; but it should not be looked upon as
a very important task. It would be an argument
against antiquity if it should speak less clearly to
us because a million words stood in the way!


## p. 142 (#178) ############################################

I42 WE PHILOLOGISTS
56
A school-teacher said to Bentley: “Sir, I will
make your grandchild as great a scholar as you
are yourself. ” “How can you do that,” replied
Bentley, “when I have forgotten more than you
ever knew P”
57
Bentley's clever daughter Joanna once lamented
to her father that he had devoted his time and talents
to the criticism of the works of others instead of
writing something original. Bentley remained silent
for some time as if he were turning the matter over
in his mind. At last he said that her remark was
quite right: he himself felt that he might have
directed his gifts in some other channel. Earlier
in life, nevertheless, he had done something for the
glory of God and the improvement of his fellow-
men (referring to his “Confutation of Atheism”),
but afterwards the genius of the pagans had attracted
him, and, despairing of attaining their level in any
other way, he had mounted upon their shoulders so
that he might thus be able to look over their heads.
58
Bentley, says Wolf, both as man of letters and
individual, was misunderstood and persecuted
during the greater part of his life, or else praised
maliciously.
Markland, towards the end of his life—as was
the case with so many others like him—became
imbued with a repugnance for all scholarly reputa-
tion, to such an extent, indeed, that he partly tore


## p. 143 (#179) ############################################

WE PHILOLOGISTS I43
up and partly burnt several works which he had
long had in hand.
Wolf says: “The amount of intellectual food that
can be got from well-digested scholarship is a very
insignificant item. ”
In Winckelmann's youth there were no philologi-
cal studies apart from the ordinary bread-winning
branches of the science—people read and explained
the ancients in order to prepare themselves for the
better interpretation of the Bible and the Corpus
Juris.
59
In Wolf's estimation, a man has reached the
highest point of historical research when he is able
to take a wide and general view of the whole and
of the profoundly conceived distinctions in the de-
velopments in art and the different styles of art.
Wolf acknowledges, however, that Winckelmann
was lacking in the more common talent of philo-
logical criticism, or else he could not use it properly:
“A rare mixture of a cool head and a minute and
restless solicitude for hundreds of things which, in-
significant in themselves, were combined in his case
with a fire that swallowed up those little things, and
with a gift of divination which is a vexation and an
annoyance to the uninitiated. ”
6O
Wolf draws our attention to the fact that anti-
quity was acquainted only with theories of oratory
and poetry which facilitated production, réxval and
artes that formed real orators and poets, “while at
the present day we shall soon have theories upon


## p. 144 (#180) ############################################

I44 WE PHILOLOGISTS
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. ”
6I
Wolf's judgment on the amateurs of philological
knowledge is noteworthy: “If they found them-
selves provided by nature with a mind correspond-
ing 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 nod-
ding acquaintance with the best writers, they cer-
tainly 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 scholar-
ship, 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 Demos-
thenes: simplicity This may be seen by a refer-
ence 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


## p. 145 (#181) ############################################

WE PHILOLOGISTS I45
of military service unnecessary and securing a
degree | *
65
When I observe how all countries are now pro-
moting the advancement of classical literature I
say to myself, “How harmless it must bel" and
then, “How useful it must be l’” It brings these
countries the reputation of promoting “free culture. ”
In order that this “freedom” may be rightly esti-
mated, just look at the philologists |
66
Classical education 1 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 anti-
quity should likewise possess the greatest amount
of culture, viz. , our philologists; but what is classical
about them P
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. Philolo-
gists are nothing but a guild of sky-pilots who are
* Students who pass certain examinations need only serve
one year in the German Army instead of the usual two or
three. —TR.
IO


## p. 146 (#182) ############################################

146 WE PHILOLOGISTS
|
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 2
or merely thoughtlessness?
69
We learn nothing from what philologists say
about philology: it is all mere tittle-tattle—for
example, Jahn's. " “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.
7O
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
* Otto Jahn (1813-69), who is probably best remembered
in philological circles by his edition of Juvenal. —TR.


## p. 147 (#183) ############################################

WE PHILOLOGISTS I47
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 P In the end we
shall find that we can do nothing for them beyond
giving them isolated details. Are these observa-
tions 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 our-
selves 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


## p. 148 (#184) ############################################

148 WE PHILOLOGISTS
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 in-
structs us, and about which I should hardly care to
express myself publicly.
77
All the difficulties of historical study to be eluci-
dated 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, philo-
sophers, and jurists all end in smoke.
Our young students should be brought into con-
tact 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.


## p. 149 (#185) ############################################

WE PHILOLOGISTS I49
79
Do the philologists know the present time?
Their judgments on it as Periclean; their mistaken
judgments when they speak of Freytag's" genius as
resembling that of Homer, and so on; their fol-
lowing in the lead of the littérateurs; their abandon-
ment of the pagan sense, which was exactly the
classical element that Goethe discovered in Winckel-
mann.
8O
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.
8I
Wagner prizes his art too highly to go and sit in
a corner with it, like Schumann. He either sur-
renders himself to the public (“Rienzi”) or he
makes the public surrender itself to him. He edu-
cates 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, &c.
82
Wagner perfected the inner fancy of man: later
generations will see a renaissance in sculpture.
Poetry must precede the plastic art.
* Gustav Freytag : at one time a famous German novelist.
—TR.
+ A well-known anti-Wagnerian musical critic of Vienna.
—TR.


## p. 150 (#186) ############################################

I 50 WE PHILOLOGISTS
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 cul-
ture 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 philo-
sophy and German music, I should either set about
combating them or combating the culture of anti-
quity, perhaps the former, by showing that these
philologists had not understood the culture of anti-
quity. 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 instruc-
tion, e. g. , scholarship.
5. Classical education is served out mixed up with
Christianity.


## p. 151 (#187) ############################################

WE PHILOLOGISTS I5 I
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 of insight has re-
sulted; for they promote the science, but not the
philologist,


## p. 152 (#188) ############################################

I 52 WE PHILOLOGISTS
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 accus-
tomed to it all; and therefore he continues in his
rut—just as in the case of marriage.
9I
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,


## p. 153 (#189) ############################################

WE PHILOLOGISTS
I53
94
(THE GREEKS AND THE PHILOLOGISTS. )
THE GREEKS:
renderhomage to beauty,
develop the body,
speak clearly,
arereligious transfigurers
of everyday occur-
rences,
are listeners and ob-
servers,
have an aptitude for the
symbolical,
are in full possession of
their freedom as men,
can look innocently out
into the world,
are the pessimists of
THE PHILOLOGISTS are:
babblers and triflers,
ugly-looking creatures,
stammerers,
filthy pedants,
quibblers and scarecrows,
unfitted for the symboli-
cal,
ardent
State,
Christians in disguise,
slaves of the
philistines.
thought.
* 95
Bergk's “History of Literature”: Not a spark of
Greek fire or Greek sense.
J 96
People really do compare our own age with that
of Pericles, and congratulate themselves on the re-
awakening of the feeling of patriotism: I remember
a parody on the funeral oration of Pericles by G.
Freytag,” in which this prim and strait-laced
“poet” depicted the happiness now experienced by
sixty-year-old men. —All pure and simple carica-
* See note on p. 149. -TR,


## p. 154 (#190) ############################################

I54 WE PHILOLOGISTS
ture! 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.
97
If we change a single word of Lord Bacon's we
may say: infimarum Graecorum virtutum apud philo-
logos 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.
IOO
The only thing that interests me is the relation-
ship 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,


## p. 155 (#191) ############################################

WE PHILOLOGISTS I 55
IOI
The Greeks are interesting and quite dispro-
portionately important because they had such a
host of great individuals. How was that possible?
This point must be studied.
IO2
The history of Greece has hitherto always been
written optimistically.
IO3
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 his-
torical 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. Empe-
docles on sexual love.
IO4
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 dpurrečew,
delight in the arts, respect for leisure, a sense for
free individuality, for the symbolical.
IO5
The spiritual culture of Greece an aberration of
the amazing political impulse towards āpurrečev.
The tróAts utterly opposed to new education; culture
nevertheless existed,


## p. 156 (#192) ############################################

156 WE PHILOLOGISTS
IO6
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 activi-
ties of their soul, it is clear that they had no shame,
they had no bad conscience. They were more sin-
cere, open-hearted, and passionate, as artists are ;
they exhibited a kind of child-like maiveté. 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 indi-
viduality? Perhaps vanity, emulation ? Possibly.
Little inclination for conventional things.
Io?
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 tróAts in culture instinctively re-
cognised; 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 TóAts. Envy, jealousy, as among gifted people.
–


## p. 157 (#193) ############################################

WE PHILOLOGISTS I 57
IO8
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.
IO9
“Invariably to see the general in the particular is
the distinguishing characteristic of genius,” says
Schopenhauer. Think of Pindar, &c. —“Xopporávn,”
according to Schopenhauer, has its roots in the clear-
ness 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” indi-
cates 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, appre-
ciates all the more clearly the misery of its condi-
tion,” says Schopenhauer. Cf. the Greeks.
I IO
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 instru-
ment 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,
|
|



## p. 158 (#194) ############################################

158 WE PHILOLOGISTS
is more or less unpractical—its behaviour often re-
minds us of madness. ”
III
We contrast the Romans, with their matter-of-
fact earnestness, with the genial Greeks' Scho-
penhauer: “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. ”
II2
It would have been much better if the Greeks
had been conquered by the Persians instead of by
the Romans.
II 3
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.
II4
Genius makes tributaries of all partly-talented
people: hence the Persians themselves sent their
ambassadors to the Greek oracles.
II5
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 ! Wugari was the Roman name
for all the exertions and aspirations of the Greeks.
.


## p. 159 (#195) ############################################

WE PHILOLOGISTS I 59
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.
II6
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 in-
habited 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 bar-
barians “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.
I 17
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.



## p. 160 (#196) ############################################

I6O WE PHILOLOGISTS
|
|
The constitution of the polis is a Phoenician in-
vention: even this has been imitated by the Hellenes.
For a long time they dabbled in everything, like joy-
ful dilettanti. Aphrodite is likewise Phoenician.
Neither do they disavow what has come to them
through immigration and does not originally belong
to their own country. -*
II. 8
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 con-
trary, dreadful ; for this is a matter that must be
judged according to the following standard: the
more spirit, the more suffering (as the Greeks them-
selves 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.
II9 -
The Greek polis and the aiev dowrreóew grew up
out of mutual enmity. Hellenic and philanthropic
are contrary adjectives, although the ancients flat-
tered themselves sufficiently.
Homer is, in the world of the Hellenic discord,
the pan-Hellenic Greek. The “dyāv" of the Greeks
is also manifested in the Symposium in the shape of
witty conversation.
I2O
Wanton, mutual annihilation inevitable: so long
as a single polis wished to exist—its envy for every-


## p. 161 (#197) ############################################

WE PIHILOLOGISTS I61
thing 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 every-
thing evil.