Classical
education is served out mixed up with
Christianity.
Christianity.
Nietzsche - v08 - The Case of Wagner
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.
I2 I
Its noble sense of order and systematic arrange-
ment had rendered the Athenian state immortal. —
The ten strategists in Athens! Foolish ' Too big
a sacrifice on the altar of jealousy.
I22
The recreations of the Spartans consisted of feast-
ing, hunting, and making war: their every-day life
was too hard. On the whole, however, their state is
merely a caricature of the polis; a corruption of
Hellas. The breeding of the complete Spartan–
but what was there great about him that his breed-
ing should have required such a brutal state
I23
The political defeatof Greece is the greatest failure
of culture; for it has given rise to the atrocious
theory that culture cannot be pursued unless one is
at the same time armed to the teeth. The rise of
Christianity was the second greatest failure: brute
force on the one hand, and a dull intellect on the
other, won a complete victory over the aristocratic
genius among the nations. To be a Philhellenist
now means to be a foe of brute force and stupid
intellects. Sparta was the ruin of Athens in so far
II
## p. 162 (#198) ############################################
I62 WE PHILOLOGISTS
as she compelled Athens to turn her entire attention
to politics and to act as a federal combination.
I24
There are domains of thought where the ratio
will only give rise to disorder; and the philologist,
who possesses nothing more, is lost through it and
is unable to see the truth: e. g. , in the consideration
of Greek mythology. A merely fantastic person, of
course, has no claim either: one must possess Greek
imagination and also a certain amount of Greek
piety. Even the poet does not require to be too
consistent, and consistency is the last thing Greeks
would understand.
125
Almost all the Greek divinities are accumulations
of divinities: we find one layer over another, soon to
be hidden and smoothed down by yet a third, and
so on. It scarcely seems to me to be possible to
pick these various divinities to pieces in a scientific
manner; for no good method of doing so can be
recommended: even the poor conclusion by analogy
is in this instance a very good conclusion.
I26
At what a distance must one be from the Greeks
to ascribe to them such a stupidly narrow autoch-
thony as does Ottfried Müller " How Christian it
is to assume, with Welcker,t that the Greeks were
* Karl Ottfried Müller (1797-1840), classical archaeologist,
who devoted special attention to Greece. —TR.
t Friedrich Gottlieb Welcker (1784-1868), noted for his
ultra-profound comments on Greek poetry. —TR.
## p. 163 (#199) ############################################
WE PHILOLOGISTS 163
originally monotheistic | How philologists torment
themselves by investigating the question whether
Homer actually wrote, without being able to grasp
the far higher tenet that Greek art long exhibited
an inward enmity against writing, and did not wish
to be read at all.
127
In the religious cultus an earlier degree of culture
comes to light: a remnant of former times. The ages
that celebrate it are not those which invent it; the
contrary is often the case. There are many con-
trasts to be found here. The Greek cultus takes us
back to a pre-Homeric disposition and culture. It
is almost the oldest that we know of the Greeks—
older than their mythology, which their poets have
considerably remoulded, so far as we know it—Can
this cult really be called Greek P I doubt it: they
are finishers, not inventors. They preserve by means
of this beautiful completion and adornment.
I28
It is exceedingly doubtful whether we should
draw any conclusion in regard to nationality and
relationship with other nations from languages. A
victorious language is nothing but a frequent (and
not always regular) indication of a successful cam-
paign. Where could there have been autochthonous
peoples It shows a very hazy conception of things
to talk about Greeks who never lived in Greece.
That which is really Greek is much less the result
of natural aptitude than of adapted institutions, and
also of an acquired language.
## p. 164 (#200) ############################################
164 WE PHILOLOGISTS
I29
To live on mountains, to travel a great deal, and
to move quickly from one place to another: in these
ways we can now begin to compare ourselves with
the Greek gods. We know the past, too, and we
| almost know the future. What would a Greek say,
if only he could see us!
I 30
The gods make men still more evil; this is the
nature of man. If we do not like a man, we wish
that he may become worse than he is, and then we
are glad. This forms part of the obscure philosophy
of hate—a philosophy which has never yet been
written, because it is everywhere the pudendum that
every one feels.
I31
The pan-Hellenic Homer finds his delight in the
frivolity of the gods; but it is astounding how he
can also give them dignity again. This amazing
ability to raise one's self again, however, is Greek.
I32
What, then, is the origin of the envy of the gods?
people did not believe in a calm, quiet happiness,
but only in an exuberant one. This must have
caused some displeasure to the Greeks; for their
soul was only too easily wounded: it embittered
them to see a happy man. That is Greek. If a
man of distinguished talent appeared, the flock of
envious people must have become astonishingly
large. If any one met with a misfortune, they
## p. 165 (#201) ############################################
WE PHILOLOGISTS 165
would say of him: “Ah! no wonder he was too
frivolous and too well off. ” And every one of them
would have behaved exuberantly if he had possessed
the requisite talent, and would willingly have played
the rôle of the god who sent the unhappiness to men.
I33
The Greek gods did not demand any complete
changes of character, and were, generally speaking,
by no means burdensome or importunate: it was
thus possible to take them seriously and to believe
in them. At the time of Homer, indeed, the nature
of the Greek was formed: flippancy of images and
imagination was necessary to lighten the weight of
its passionate disposition and to set it free.
I34
Every religion has for its highest images an analo-
gon in the spiritual condition of those who profess
it. The God of Mohammed : the solitariness of the
desert, the distant roar of the lion, the vision of a
formidable warrior. The God of the Christians:
everything that men and women think of when they
hear the word “love. ” The God of the Greeks: a
beautiful apparition in a dream.
I 35
A great deal of intelligence must have gone to
the making up of a Greek polytheism: the expendi-
ture of intelligence is much less lavish when people
have only one God.
136
Greek morality is not based on religion, but on
the polis.
## p. 166 (#202) ############################################
|
I66 we PHILOLOGISTs
There were only priests of the individual gods;
not representatives of the whole religion: i. e. , no
guild of priests. Likewise no Holy Writ.
I37
The “lighthearted" gods: this is the highest
adornment which has ever been bestowed upon the
world—with the feeling, How difficult it is to live!
138
If the Greeks let their “reason” speak, their life
seems to them bitter and terrible. They are not
deceived. But they play round life with lies:
Simonides advises them to treat life as they would
a play; earnestness was only too well known to
them in the form of pain. The misery of men is
a pleasure to the gods when they hear the poets
singing of it. Well did the Greeks know that only
through art could even misery itself become a source
of pleasure; vide tragaediam.
I39
It is quite untrue to say that the Greeks only took
this life into their consideration—they suffered also
from thoughts of death and Hell. But no “repent-
ance” or contrition.
I4O
The incarnate appearance of gods, as in Sappho's
invocation to Aphrodite, must not be taken as poetic
licence: they are frequently hallucinations. Wecon-
ceive of a great many things, including the will to
die, too superficially as rhetorical.
## p. 167 (#203) ############################################
WE PHILOLOGISTS 167
I4 I
The “martyr” is Hellenic: Prometheus, Hercules.
The hero-myth became pan-Hellenic: a poet must
have had a hand in that
I42
How realistic the Greeks were even in the domain
of pure inventions ! They poetised reality, not
yearning to lift themselves out of it.
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.
I2 I
Its noble sense of order and systematic arrange-
ment had rendered the Athenian state immortal. —
The ten strategists in Athens! Foolish ' Too big
a sacrifice on the altar of jealousy.
I22
The recreations of the Spartans consisted of feast-
ing, hunting, and making war: their every-day life
was too hard. On the whole, however, their state is
merely a caricature of the polis; a corruption of
Hellas. The breeding of the complete Spartan–
but what was there great about him that his breed-
ing should have required such a brutal state
I23
The political defeatof Greece is the greatest failure
of culture; for it has given rise to the atrocious
theory that culture cannot be pursued unless one is
at the same time armed to the teeth. The rise of
Christianity was the second greatest failure: brute
force on the one hand, and a dull intellect on the
other, won a complete victory over the aristocratic
genius among the nations. To be a Philhellenist
now means to be a foe of brute force and stupid
intellects. Sparta was the ruin of Athens in so far
II
## p. 162 (#198) ############################################
I62 WE PHILOLOGISTS
as she compelled Athens to turn her entire attention
to politics and to act as a federal combination.
I24
There are domains of thought where the ratio
will only give rise to disorder; and the philologist,
who possesses nothing more, is lost through it and
is unable to see the truth: e. g. , in the consideration
of Greek mythology. A merely fantastic person, of
course, has no claim either: one must possess Greek
imagination and also a certain amount of Greek
piety. Even the poet does not require to be too
consistent, and consistency is the last thing Greeks
would understand.
125
Almost all the Greek divinities are accumulations
of divinities: we find one layer over another, soon to
be hidden and smoothed down by yet a third, and
so on. It scarcely seems to me to be possible to
pick these various divinities to pieces in a scientific
manner; for no good method of doing so can be
recommended: even the poor conclusion by analogy
is in this instance a very good conclusion.
I26
At what a distance must one be from the Greeks
to ascribe to them such a stupidly narrow autoch-
thony as does Ottfried Müller " How Christian it
is to assume, with Welcker,t that the Greeks were
* Karl Ottfried Müller (1797-1840), classical archaeologist,
who devoted special attention to Greece. —TR.
t Friedrich Gottlieb Welcker (1784-1868), noted for his
ultra-profound comments on Greek poetry. —TR.
## p. 163 (#199) ############################################
WE PHILOLOGISTS 163
originally monotheistic | How philologists torment
themselves by investigating the question whether
Homer actually wrote, without being able to grasp
the far higher tenet that Greek art long exhibited
an inward enmity against writing, and did not wish
to be read at all.
127
In the religious cultus an earlier degree of culture
comes to light: a remnant of former times. The ages
that celebrate it are not those which invent it; the
contrary is often the case. There are many con-
trasts to be found here. The Greek cultus takes us
back to a pre-Homeric disposition and culture. It
is almost the oldest that we know of the Greeks—
older than their mythology, which their poets have
considerably remoulded, so far as we know it—Can
this cult really be called Greek P I doubt it: they
are finishers, not inventors. They preserve by means
of this beautiful completion and adornment.
I28
It is exceedingly doubtful whether we should
draw any conclusion in regard to nationality and
relationship with other nations from languages. A
victorious language is nothing but a frequent (and
not always regular) indication of a successful cam-
paign. Where could there have been autochthonous
peoples It shows a very hazy conception of things
to talk about Greeks who never lived in Greece.
That which is really Greek is much less the result
of natural aptitude than of adapted institutions, and
also of an acquired language.
## p. 164 (#200) ############################################
164 WE PHILOLOGISTS
I29
To live on mountains, to travel a great deal, and
to move quickly from one place to another: in these
ways we can now begin to compare ourselves with
the Greek gods. We know the past, too, and we
| almost know the future. What would a Greek say,
if only he could see us!
I 30
The gods make men still more evil; this is the
nature of man. If we do not like a man, we wish
that he may become worse than he is, and then we
are glad. This forms part of the obscure philosophy
of hate—a philosophy which has never yet been
written, because it is everywhere the pudendum that
every one feels.
I31
The pan-Hellenic Homer finds his delight in the
frivolity of the gods; but it is astounding how he
can also give them dignity again. This amazing
ability to raise one's self again, however, is Greek.
I32
What, then, is the origin of the envy of the gods?
people did not believe in a calm, quiet happiness,
but only in an exuberant one. This must have
caused some displeasure to the Greeks; for their
soul was only too easily wounded: it embittered
them to see a happy man. That is Greek. If a
man of distinguished talent appeared, the flock of
envious people must have become astonishingly
large. If any one met with a misfortune, they
## p. 165 (#201) ############################################
WE PHILOLOGISTS 165
would say of him: “Ah! no wonder he was too
frivolous and too well off. ” And every one of them
would have behaved exuberantly if he had possessed
the requisite talent, and would willingly have played
the rôle of the god who sent the unhappiness to men.
I33
The Greek gods did not demand any complete
changes of character, and were, generally speaking,
by no means burdensome or importunate: it was
thus possible to take them seriously and to believe
in them. At the time of Homer, indeed, the nature
of the Greek was formed: flippancy of images and
imagination was necessary to lighten the weight of
its passionate disposition and to set it free.
I34
Every religion has for its highest images an analo-
gon in the spiritual condition of those who profess
it. The God of Mohammed : the solitariness of the
desert, the distant roar of the lion, the vision of a
formidable warrior. The God of the Christians:
everything that men and women think of when they
hear the word “love. ” The God of the Greeks: a
beautiful apparition in a dream.
I 35
A great deal of intelligence must have gone to
the making up of a Greek polytheism: the expendi-
ture of intelligence is much less lavish when people
have only one God.
136
Greek morality is not based on religion, but on
the polis.
## p. 166 (#202) ############################################
|
I66 we PHILOLOGISTs
There were only priests of the individual gods;
not representatives of the whole religion: i. e. , no
guild of priests. Likewise no Holy Writ.
I37
The “lighthearted" gods: this is the highest
adornment which has ever been bestowed upon the
world—with the feeling, How difficult it is to live!
138
If the Greeks let their “reason” speak, their life
seems to them bitter and terrible. They are not
deceived. But they play round life with lies:
Simonides advises them to treat life as they would
a play; earnestness was only too well known to
them in the form of pain. The misery of men is
a pleasure to the gods when they hear the poets
singing of it. Well did the Greeks know that only
through art could even misery itself become a source
of pleasure; vide tragaediam.
I39
It is quite untrue to say that the Greeks only took
this life into their consideration—they suffered also
from thoughts of death and Hell. But no “repent-
ance” or contrition.
I4O
The incarnate appearance of gods, as in Sappho's
invocation to Aphrodite, must not be taken as poetic
licence: they are frequently hallucinations. Wecon-
ceive of a great many things, including the will to
die, too superficially as rhetorical.
## p. 167 (#203) ############################################
WE PHILOLOGISTS 167
I4 I
The “martyr” is Hellenic: Prometheus, Hercules.
The hero-myth became pan-Hellenic: a poet must
have had a hand in that
I42
How realistic the Greeks were even in the domain
of pure inventions ! They poetised reality, not
yearning to lift themselves out of it.
