What Nietzsche carried out was not a mere switch to a
different
specialization, a transfer from philology to philosophy; what he accomplished was nothing less than academic suicide.
Peter-Sloterdijk-Thinker-on-Stage
And yet, with his effort- lessly effective double-natured observations as a scholarly-scientific aesthetician and an aesthetic scholar-scientist, he found himself caught in the position of rep- resenting an unclassifiable curiosity, which is at home nowhere because it could belong anywhere.
From this eccentric position, Nietzsche called attention to
? ? ? ? ? ? CENTAURIC LITERATURE
what was a cultural and psychological scandal and an aberration of perceptions: the fact that what is obvious to any impartial intelligence is marveled at as rep- resenting something exceptional, and that what could not but spontaneously result from a healthy aversion to constriction was either celebrated or berated as exceeding a limit. In light of we can remove Nietzsche's obsession with genius from his successors without What at one time could perhaps be accomplished only through the aristocratic pose of the cult of genius comes off today by way of an imperturbable lack of respect for ? In the meantime, we no longer need even a superclever theory of deprofessionalization in order to resist scientogenous "specialists" and the nonintellectual ? of the di- vision of intellectual labor. Resistance of this sort does not require any sort of expertise: of what use is Critical Theory if vigilance is enough?
But it ? an outstanding way ? literary virtue. In order to be able to con- sider the current deficiencies in critical theories as a loss we can easily ? we must perhaps simply cease to conceive of literature as a separate aesthetic world that, because of its specific characteristics ? has become a spe- cialty in itself and, with this, merely a new pigeonhole. Perhaps literature is simply, in the broadest ? the universal element within the centauric phenom- enon. It would in that case be the lingua franca for free spirits, for those who cross the borders between spheres that shift away from each other, and for de- fenders of coherence. There have been sufficient indications for a long time now that this true. Always, whenever authors inspire a dual perspective through their own ? there comes into play the literary general eloquence of in- telligent minds who seem to see the only value in limits as lying in the fact that these limits afford us the opportunity to exceed them. From E. T. A. Hoffmann to Sigmund Freud, from S0ren Kierkegaard to Theodor ? ? from Novalis to Robert from ? Heine to Alexander ? from Paul ? to Octavio ? from Bertolt Brecht to Michel Foucault, and from Walter Benjamin to Roland Barthes ? each instance, the most communicative minds have pre- sented themselves as temperaments and variations of the centauric genius.
Whatever is at stake in The Birth of Tragedy, the appearance of this archetypal centauric writing took place within a conspicuous cultural vacuum and was met by an astonishing silence on the part of the ? According to them, the book was merely a private incident, a footnote to the Wagner cult. There were isolated readers who sensed that something promising was at work in this little book, but,
its immediate effect was to make its author appear to be as far his profession was ? in the words of Professor of Bonn. But even those who sensed in this dense, moving opusculum the element that was in potential for the future would have been hard pressed to comment on what was about. Only later, when Zarathustra had won Nietzsche worldwide stature,
did what he intimated become clear. Nietzsche had constructed for himself a
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 14 ? CENTAURIC LITERATURE
stage upon which more than a Bayreuth renaissance was to be played out. It was a stage for exceptional disclosures, for cultural reevaluations of the most menacing sort, and for an unheard-of breakthrough into humanism by psychody-
The ? philologist, who those around him expected would (de- voted as he was to antiquity) carry on the cult of individuality of Weimar and Greece, raised the curtain on a stage upon which the bourgeois individual had to abandon himself to the most dangerous and at the same time most probable dis- illusionment. Suddenly, Greek antiquity was no longer a faithful mirror for hu- manistic ? nor a guarantee for reasonable moderation and proper bourgeois serenity. In one stroke, the autonomy of the classical subject was done away with. From above and from below, from the numinous and the animal realms, impersonal powers broke into the standardized form of the personality and turned it into a tumbling mat for dark and violent energies, an instrument of anonymous universal forces. Although, within the history of bourgeois culture, enthusiasm for Greece had consistently functioned as a key component in the makeup of the individual (with classical philology as the institutional support mechanism for the humanistic cult of personality), the most disquieting subver- sion of modern belief in the autonomy of the subject now arose from this, the most established of all disciplines.
Little wonder, then, that his colleagues anxiously restrained themselves. Only one man made the leap from embarrassment to outrage, restylizing and trans- forming his unwillingness to understand into a condescending
attitude. This was Ulrich von ? a doctoral candidate with the glib tongue of a professor who defended his academic inheritance before he had mastered it. Actually, he later made his career within the framework of the values he had attempted to protect from Nietzsche's subversion. The term "phi- lology of the ? which ? had coined to use against Nietzsche's book (a contemptuous reference to the Wagnerian "art of the future"), was a term of derision that became a prophecy ? not, to be sure, in the sense that Nietzsche's essay would point the way for the future study of classical languages and cultures. This term of mockery became true enough in the inversion of its meaning. Philological studies did not become more vital; rather, what was vital became more informed by philology. Through Nietzsche, a philology of the future was generated that, in an unprecedented manner, inquired into the corre- spondences between existence and language.
? ? ? ? Chapter 2
The Philology of Existence, the Dramaturgy of Force
not hurt vanity the mother of all tragedies? All the vain
are good actors: they act and they want people to
at them; all their spirit is behind this will. They enact themselves; near them I love to look at life: that cures my melancholy.
Thus Spoke Zarathustra,
"On Human Prudence"
It is characteristic of one type of important aesthetic theory that it never discusses a phenomenon without incorporating some element of what is being discussed into the discourse itself. The Birth ? Tragedy out of the Spirit of Music is not only a manifesto on the polarity between the Apollonian and Dionysian artistic
but is itself the result of the interplay of energies that are both raging and resis- tant, intoxicating and precise. It does not concern itself merely with the
rence of the Dionysian religion of art in antiquity, but instead directs itself toward a verbal passion play based on old and new heroes with neoreligious gestures ecstasy. It not only addresses the origins of tragedy in universal human
as it is manifested in ? but also presents itself as a rhetorical
which opinions that are too severe to be heard without producing despair can be voiced from beneath a toned-down veil of well-formed sentences and attestations of
Because it is a discourse on art that is nearly art itself, Nietzsche's early work has become a model for much of what has been brought forth since then in the field of aesthetic theory. It is a discourse in which subjects who have been
in science remind themselves of their ? existence. Under the pretext of a theory of antiquity, Nietzsche the philologist here devoted his attention to his
and to the passions of the present. At the
aesthetics ? ? a new art ? ? For what, if not the manifestation of his own ? can be at issue when an author ex- tends himself (with a reckless sense of superiority) beyond historical facts in order to outline a new image of Hellenic culture and its tragic psychospiritual
? ? ? ? ? looking
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 15
? ? 16 THE PHILOLOGY OF EXISTENCE, THE DRAMATURGY OF FORCE
foundation image that exhibits traces of late romanticism and manifests ? fin de ? pathos, as though it were nothing more than a matter of translating Greek mythology into the metaphysics of bourgeois pessimism, and the suffering of the heroes of antiquity into modern-day gestures of inner discord? W ithin this context, however, the historical accuracy of the representation is less important than the ? the ? ? On the path toward his inquiry into the ? ? ? stumbles upon traces of antiquity that can no longer be dealt with in philological terms. Similar to the way in which Schlie-
exhumed the true dreams of his childhood from the ruins of hills that had been buried for millennia, Nietzsche brought to light, in the course of his philo- logical ? a layer of tableaux that had been, so to ? buried alive, the truth content of which was older and more acerbic than that of self-confident research into antiquity and modern-day manifestations of individualism. It is, in both ? a matter of becoming valuable ? in an almost psychoar- chaeological sense. The singing he-goats who scream over the stage in Nietz- sche's hallucinatory vision of antiquity are less ancient satyrs in a state of orgias- tic ecstasy than exemplary modern subjects with their accursed good breeding and their cultural discontent.
Is it even possible here to persist in speaking of modern subjects? Is not the end result of Nietzsche's excavations into our cultural ? precisely the mining of the new subject by the forces inherent in the old drama? Indeed, is it not, to a lesser extent, an undermining or subversion of the subject in a psycho- analytic sense, and much more an ontological derealizing ? an inundation by impersonal ? and the reduction of the subject to an effect of antagonistic forces and the conflicting "artistic instincts of nature"? The ego -- and with it, its constitutive dream of autonomy -- would thus represent merely the irreal seam at which the ? of
delight in vision ? ? In the light of speculation of this kind, subjectivity (Subjekthaftigkeit) appears as the epiphenomenon within the inter- play between the great subjectless cosmic ? as an elusive interspace be- tween the tendencies toward self-preservation and self-annihilation that exist within a cruelly exuberant and unintentional natural
The question arises as to what manner of philology this must be to acknowl- edge no fear when it questions the most sacred tenet of modernity, the moral dogma of the autonomy of the subject. When Nietzsche claims for himself the right to formulate a theory of the drama that then expands into a protohistory of subjectivity, he has ostentatiously placed himself upon a podium that no longer resembles his academic lectern and can no longer be considered a fundamental component of his role as a bourgeois
But what kind of stage is it to which the philologist of the future ascends? Its cultural status was, in Nietzsche's time, anything but unequivocal, and has re- mained so to this day. This question cannot be answered even in terms of a quick
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? THE PHILOLOGY OF EXISTENCE, THE DRAMATURGY OF FORCE ? 17
with depth psychology and ? because these are merely descriptively positive titles for something that radically defies clear definition, something that is evasive and negative. In any case, it would appear to be a stage upon which modern individuals act out a drama that ? risking a falsely pos- itive nomenclature) could be characterized as their search for self. Elevated to such a stage, theory becomes ? porous, and is permeated with the most powerfully instinctual existential tensions of those who do their thinking upon it. Thus even philology, initially so well behaved, can become adventurous. Within this context, theory is no longer a discursive mechanism that is served and reconstructed by the functionaries of thought, but instead represents a stage upon which life is transformed into an "experiment on the part of the
He who steps out upon this stage wants to distinguish himself in a specific intention is to betray himself. But he wants to so do in order to force the dilemma, whose mask he feels himself to be, into plain view to the point at which it will betray itself. A mode of thought that has been existentially blown open in this way intends no affront toward so-called serious research, even if the its incurable ? ? understands it as such. Rather, its in- tention is to replenish the vital essence of this research. He who permits himself to think in this way does so not to get away with accomplishing less but to risk He who takes the stage as a thinker and takes a chance as a spokesman for an experimental existence must, from that point onward, assume an all-encom- passing responsibility for the immediate and the indirect truth-value of his per- formance. At the same time, he has earned the right to have everything that he brings forward used against him "before the ? him, and, at the same time, in his defense ? this right means a great deal to anyone who has placed himself, by way of a radical self-sacrifice, beyond the shallow position of
being simply either "for or
"Before the would indicate a second stage, upon which the ad- venturer of theory and the hero of thought no longer figures personally, but upon which, instead, his critics, his fans, and all those who, because of their openness to his suggestions, feel they have earned the right to hold the ground-breaking thinker accountable for his ? The extremely specific relationship be- tween Nietzsche's writing and both his contemporary public and posterity can best be characterized through the image of the dual stage ? upon which the thinker exposes and implicates himself, and the other upon which those who agree with him and follow his thought test the applicability of the protagonist's truths to their own lives.
If a dramatized reflection is really an "experiment on the part of the per- then the ? gained from this experimental arrangement must at- tract attention as the self-realizations of the thinker, while his mistakes are rec- ognized as his personal failings. Thinking on stage is more likely to generate truth by following the archaic models of the wager or divine judgment than
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 18 ? THE PHILOLOGY OF EXISTENCE, THE DRAMATURGY OF FORCE
through the modern schematic of discursive inference from principles. In accor- dance with a totally apothecary concept of truth
what appears here as truth is not what has been proved to be theoretically the most but rather what best proves itself within the context of a suc- cessful ? Whenever the thinker brings the truth about himself to light upon the stage, he reveals himself, eo ipso, in the process of becoming what he is. If he does not do so, he exposes the truth about himself and his hypothesis in that, like the heroes of antiquity, he succumbs to his dilemma and runs aground on his own inability to understand himself.
Whatever one thinks of Nietzsche, he must impress even his detractors in one respect, since, in his willingness to risk intellectual truths, he was the most au- dacious thinker of the new era. He paid the price for the danger inherent in his thinking to a degree unparalleled by almost anyone else. In his program for the stage, which was intended to lend him credibility as the new Dionysian hero, he ultimately proved himself to be above all else a hero of his own times, a hero of
Posing and reflecting upon an open stage, he submitted himself to the laws of an unrelenting self-exposure. In his attempt to become what he was, he implicated himself in the most tortuous of comedies -- so as to become what he was not: a hero, a superhuman, a "Superman" ? The greatest dis- covery made in his heroic search for truth was therefore an unintentional one: he brought to light the truth about heroism as representing the continuation of a fun- damental
The first victim of Nietzsche's debut on the stage of truth was his standing within his own profession. One ? ? ? be ? was common practice within the field of classical philology and its critical methodology, which, with its conjecturing and ? was part renunciatory and part subordinate, before one can appreciate the grotesque gap between Nietzsche's attempt to push forward and what was customary within the field.
What Nietzsche carried out was not a mere switch to a different specialization, a transfer from philology to philosophy; what he accomplished was nothing less than academic suicide. From this point forward, Nietzsche no longer addresses antiquity as a classical scholar. Whenever he does call upon the ancients, it is as a modern mystagogue and leader of orgies who always speaks from a perspective of inner simultaneity with the early Greek mysteries. Dionysus, Apollo, Ariadne, the Sphinx, the Minotaur,
that point on, these are simply mythological names for contem- porary forces and allegories for acute sensations of pain. Modernity is thus no longer merely a name given to a volcanic process of repulsion on the part of an undetermined present in the face of its own prehistory (Vorzeit); for Nietzsche, it becomes concurrently the almost accidental point of departure for the rediscov- ery of the basic truths of Greece. (As is the intellectual custom, Sigmund Freud proved himself a generation later to be the truest of Nietzsche's indirect students
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? THE PHILOLOGY OF EXISTENCE, THE DRAMATURGY OF FORCE ? 19
in that he also attempted to formulate his psychological opinions in the language of a time-obliterating modern mythology. )
But how is an "actualism" (Aktualismus) of this sort possible? How can a modern individual, contrary to all the rules of historical consciousness, want to place himself into a position of contemporaneousness with concepts that are so temporally and culturally far removed? What right does a modern thinker extinguish an interval of two thousand five hundred years so that he can about the drama of the ancient Greeks as though he were discussing an
personal experience? Two observations on Nietzsche's way of positioning himself on the stage of thought can provide us with answers to these questions.
First, even before he had voiced a single word upon the stage, Nietzsche was made ripe for it by his decision before the fact to present "something great" on the subject of the Greeks. What has been described here as his characteristic "cult of genius" refers not only to a psychic disposition on his part but also to a preliminary methodological decision on what his relationship with the historical material would be. As Faust called upon the spirit of the earth (Erdgeist), so Nietzsche calls upon the spirit of genius in early Greece to answer the question, How does one mind speak to another? And he himself provides the answer. The Greek world discusses its most puzzling mysteries to its greatest advantage with a certain professor in Basel who, because he is on scandalously intimate terms with Lady Antiquity, will one day be a former and ridiculed professor. Nietz- sche's radical "actualism" is therefore an expression of his "cult of genius" a-vis early Greek thought and poetry. The cult of genius, however, is to a sub- stantial degree one of concurrent genius ? ? and consequently it results in the conviction that anything exceptional can be understood only by its
that ? greatness can be recognized only by an equal ? depth by an equal degree of ? suffering by an equal suffering, and the heroic through an equal heroism. Nietzsche's concept of concurrent genius in any case forced the issue to such an extent that it conceived of the intellectual history of Europe as representing merely a spiritual migration on the part of the great intellects, whose path had led from Homer and Heraclitus to Kant and Schopenhauer and, through them, to Wagner and Nietzsche ? migration that always took place, of course, at the lonely heights where, aside from these thinkers, only eagles could survive.
The second prerequisite for Nietzsche's actualistic conjuring up of Hellenism lies in his historical-philosophical claims. Whenever Nietzsche takes the stage as prophetic Greek scholar, he is wearing not only the mask of the genial hero of thought but also that of a philosopher of history or, more correctly, a mythologist of history. Equipped with its powers of authority, he condenses the past two thou-
sand five hundred years ? a pathetic lack of concern ? a simple
like or circular movement. Accordingly, the initial depth of the early Greek tragic consciousness is lost in favor of a vulgar, optimistic conception of the world that succeeds in the form of a Socratic ? the ruthless insipidity of
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 20 ? THE PHILOLOGY OF EXISTENCE, THE DRAMATURGY OF FORCE
which is eventually denounced and must lead sooner or later to the rebirth of a tragic consciousness. European intellectual history thus appears as the ebb and flow of a single motif that circles around or undulates between ascent, descent, and return. Nietzsche's construction of history possesses the primitive circularity of myth. What circles is a heroic pessimism that is born and dies like a being, certain of being reborn. We observe here an archaic triad: the birth of trag- edy out of the spirit of music, the death of tragedy because of the optimistic
program of a so-called enlightenment, and the rebirth of tragedy out of spirit of German music ? which he meant the music of the present, which bore the mark of Richard
He who speaks in such mythic formulas has ceased to report as a historian on things that have actually existed. He has left the dust-gray archives and entered the arena or, to put it a better way, the maternity ward in which European culture is reborn as a tragic one. In this way, the mythologist of history is transformed into a midwife at the rebirth of phenomena that will burst forth today or, at the latest, tomorrow. Even this formulation does not go far enough: Nietzsche cannot be content to sit as a kind of tragic gynecologist before the birth canal of the intellect and wait for whatever might appear. He himself begins, surreptitiously and yet as if he were being enticed by an irresistible allure, to play the role of the one who is again giving birth. In the ardor of his prophecy, he simultaneously becomes the pregnant mother, the gynecologist, and the divine child. In repre- senting himself as the assistant present at the rebirth, Nietzsche was no doubt alluding to Wagner, the musical orgy leader, who had once again lifted the mu- sical drama of the present to tragic heights ? in making this allusion he also included himself as its ? incarnate logos and true ? in whom the master could be well
In doing ? Nietzsche drew attention not to the epic but rather to the dra- matic basic structure of modern philosophies of history. For that which occurs on the level of greatness is staged not in terms of narrative but of in terms of
However peaceful the tone might be in which one expresses these his- torical-philosophical theses, they always include the dramatic intervention of the speaker in a phenomenon that is understood as one of universal historical impor- tance. He who proclaims a theory of progress inevitably includes himself as a participant, supporter, and culmination point in the drama of progress; he who presents a theory of decline asserts himself as someone affected by that decline, whether this takes the form of lamentation, resignation, or simply standing one's ground. He who diagnoses rebirths or periods of change brings himself into play as an ? an agent of ? or even as a candidate for
And, finally, he who prophesies decline declares himself a ? a prac- titioner of euthanasia, a hired mourner, or ultimately someone who exploits the carrion of a dying culture. This was true of Spengler, who was not content with simply diagnosing the decline of the West, but who also presented himself as an
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? THE PHILOLOGY OF EXISTENCE, THE DRAMATURGY OF FORCE
fatally clever (sterbensklug) latter-day barbarian who kept a stoic, cynical watch during the death agony of European civilization.
Viewed in this light, historical-philosophical speech acts are the speech acts of a cultural orientation par excellence. The description of one's own historical sition determines the quality of one's historical pose. Where, however, should these speech acts be performed if not on the dramatic stage of thought, upon which the engaged actors themselves intervene in the fate of their culture? We are able to recognize in Nietzsche more clearly than in anyone ? Lenin being the only exception of equal stature ? fact that great historical-philo- sophical oratory allows the speaker to burst forth like a force ? whereby this oratory reaches a crisis point in a self-realization as a proclamation of self on the part of the speaker, and not without this realization being inserted most nar- rowly into the tendencies and potentiality of the moment. He who speaks like a modern mythologist of history always does so because the time for it is ripe within him. For this reason, the choice of words governed by convenience (Ge- legenheit) also comprises consistently ? (kairologische) phenom- ena, by which I mean, in the highest sense of the term, timely condensations of circumstances into phenomenological verbalizations and personifications. The thinker on the stage does not speak as a fool so much on his own initiative; rather, he speaks ? that he is pursuing his own ? the name of the "uni-
versal moment" that is being interpreted through him. The subjectivity of the speaker is elevated by this, purified of the interests of arrogance, and transformed into a phenomenon. Every essential historical moment is, ? Walter Benjamin ? "moment of danger," and it is this danger that mediates all subjectivity. Thus, one can also ? a slight taste for dark formula-
it is not the thinker who is engaging himself and thinking. Rather, it is this danger that engages itself and thinks through him.
We must be adamant on this point: from behind the camouflage of genius and a historical-mythological enthusiasm, Nietzsche is able to set about discussing his concept of Hellenism with an unrestrained sense of contemporaneity. From here on, historical references serve only as ? foundation for the performance of the most contemporary of plays. To be sure, the fable upon which Nietzsche bases his attempt is of an archetypal simplicity, as elementary as the most ancient losophy and as monotonic as archaic What is a human being? What is the world? Why must the world cause us to how can we be released from this suffering? These questions have an almost flat and superficial ring when measured against the shocking violence with which the isolated consciousness, awakened to the dilemma that is raging within it, is frightened by its own indi-
and, after having been thus frightened, no longer is anything but the craving to understand what within it is really of any consequence. Who am I? What will be my fate? Why must I be "I"? There are no other questions.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 22 ? THE PHILOLOGY OF EXISTENCE, THE DRAMATURGY OF FORCE
In the initial stages of his performance, Nietzsche is still somewhat removed from reducing his undertaking to this primary form. This does not hinder him from already expressing himself within ? with his Hellenist decorum, his Schopenhauerian vocabulary, his illusionist-rhetorical coquetry, and the edu- cated-bourgeois cast of his drapery. None of this can alter the fact that in his first book (as will be the case in general in his later literary work), the dramatic pri- mary structure of the search for the genuine self begins to function with great clarity. Motivated by a powerful need to express himself, the thinker steps out onto the stage, borne up by the certainty that his previous presentiments were sufficient to warrant making a spectacular entrance--whatever might still sepa- rate him from the latest views. Certainly, the actor does not yet know how his compulsion will express itself, and he is certain that the last word cannot be spoken for a long time ? At the same ? because he is beset by the feeling that he is pregnant with great things, he is convinced that he has said something of the utmost significance ? else can a man do who is convinced that the greatest man of his time, Richard Wagner, has acknowledged him as an equal? The drama begins as if the actor wants to say, "I am here, but I am not yet myself. I must therefore become myself. I would therefore wager that what I really have to say will be revealed as the drama runs its ? This might possibly be the fundamental formulation of that thought that is marked by the dynamic between the search for self and the attempt to release oneself from The thinker is not yet in possession of himself to such an extent that he can present himself to the world with the gesticulation of Ecce Homo, but he does promise that he will succeed in retrieving himself through a process of radical self-searching coram publico. The overall effect is as if his shadow should say to the wanderer, " I f I pursue you with a sufficient degree of intensity, I will finally possess ? Or, the reverse, as if the wanderer were to say to the shadow, "I must first jump over you before I can arrive at
As paradoxical as this all may sound, these duplications of the ego into the seeker and what is sought, the questioner and he who answers, the present self and the self that is yet to be, belong inexorably to the structure of an impassioned existential search for ? (In Chapter 3 I will comment further on the paradox- ical nature of the search as a means for avoiding the truth. )
In order to discover the truth about himself, therefore, the thinker must ini- tially proceed from himself as relentlessly as he can because, otherwise, nothing else that could be found would be available for ? for the nonobjective impulse. Like all of those who think creatively, Nietzsche must first rehearse what he has to say before he can know what he has been actually carrying within himself. This reminds us of the familiar joke: "How can I know what I am think- ing before I have heard what I am ? This makes it clear, in any case, that the joke has more descriptive power than the serious postulation that "thinking" precedes its expression. In truth, the joke illustrates in the most abbreviated form
? ? ? THE PHILOLOGY OF EXISTENCE, THE DRAMATURGY OF FORCE ? 23
the structure of the search for ? Therefore, he who seeks the truth about him- self in a positive representation must first realize himself positively in order to find anything in this realization that would permit him to discover himself. For previously there had been, for lack of expression, nothing to discover because nothing had been expressed for lack of its having been sought.
Assuming that we are now in a position appropriately to follow Nietzsche's appearance as the announcer of another Hellenism, what does he say about the Greeks and, through them, about himself? To what extent could a new approach to the psychology of the Greek populace and Greek art also bring to light any truth about the reckless Greek scholar?
One ? I believe, summarize the fundamental assertions of Nietzsche's def- inition of the world as it is introduced to us in the book on tragedy in two state- ments. The first of these would be the following: the usual individual life is a hell made up of suffering, brutality, baseness, and entanglement, for which there is no more apt assessment than the dark wisdom of the Dionysian ? that the best thing for man would be to have never been born; the next best, to die as soon as possible. The second statement would read: this life is made bearable only by intoxication and by dreams, by this twofold path to ecstasy that is open to indi- viduals for ? The Birth of Tragedy is to a great extent a paraphrase of this second statement and a fantasy on the possibility of unifying both forms of ecstasy in a single religious artistic phenomenon ? phenomenon Nietzsche identified as early Greek tragedy.
The path of intoxication is delegated to the god Dionysus and his orgiastic manifestations; the way of the dream to the god Apollo and his love for clarity, visibility, and beautiful limitation. To Dionysus belongs music and its narcotic and cathartic power; to Apollo belongs the epic Mythos with its blissful clarity and visionary ? The individual who is weighed down by everyday misery therefore has available to him these two paths for lifting himself out of his
paths that can unite to form the royal path of a single tragic art, provided one has chosen one's birth date appropriately so that one can be incar- nated either as an ancient Greek or a modern Wagnerian. Both paths, that of in- toxication and that of the ? concern themselves in different ways with the overcoming of individuation, which is the source of all suffering. Thus, intoxi- cation ? ? individual out of the limitations of his ego, in order to release him into the ocean of a cosmic unity of pain and pleasure, whereas the dream has the capacity ? the ? as necessary forms of existence under the ? ? ? beau- tiful form. The ? ? ? ? ? Apollo- nian with each other. This fusion takes place, for Nietzsche, under the Dionysian sign because it comprehends the Apollonian ele- ments of epic stage plot and the mythic fate of the ? only the
? ? ? ? ? ? ? 24 ? THE PHILOLOGY OF EXISTENCE, THE DRAMATURGY OF FORCE
dreams of the ecstatic chorus, which sees in the visible fates of the heroes ob- of the suffering god Dionysus.
In fecTTWetzsclieVTJooR~r5n~tragedy is almost always fixed to the apparent dimension of its contents and read as a Dionysian manifesto. However, a dram- aturgical reading leads with the greatest possible certainty to the opposite con- clusion. What Nietzsche brings forth upon the stage is not so much the
of ? ? ? Even this reading would seem somewhat scandalous ? the classical image of Greek culture, because it no longer recognizes the serene authority of Apollo as ? given, but instead teaches it as representing a courageous vic- tory over an alternative world of dark and obscene ? This does not alter the fact that in Nietzsche, from the dramaturgical perspective, the Apollonian world of illusion has the last ?
? ? ? ? ? ? CENTAURIC LITERATURE
what was a cultural and psychological scandal and an aberration of perceptions: the fact that what is obvious to any impartial intelligence is marveled at as rep- resenting something exceptional, and that what could not but spontaneously result from a healthy aversion to constriction was either celebrated or berated as exceeding a limit. In light of we can remove Nietzsche's obsession with genius from his successors without What at one time could perhaps be accomplished only through the aristocratic pose of the cult of genius comes off today by way of an imperturbable lack of respect for ? In the meantime, we no longer need even a superclever theory of deprofessionalization in order to resist scientogenous "specialists" and the nonintellectual ? of the di- vision of intellectual labor. Resistance of this sort does not require any sort of expertise: of what use is Critical Theory if vigilance is enough?
But it ? an outstanding way ? literary virtue. In order to be able to con- sider the current deficiencies in critical theories as a loss we can easily ? we must perhaps simply cease to conceive of literature as a separate aesthetic world that, because of its specific characteristics ? has become a spe- cialty in itself and, with this, merely a new pigeonhole. Perhaps literature is simply, in the broadest ? the universal element within the centauric phenom- enon. It would in that case be the lingua franca for free spirits, for those who cross the borders between spheres that shift away from each other, and for de- fenders of coherence. There have been sufficient indications for a long time now that this true. Always, whenever authors inspire a dual perspective through their own ? there comes into play the literary general eloquence of in- telligent minds who seem to see the only value in limits as lying in the fact that these limits afford us the opportunity to exceed them. From E. T. A. Hoffmann to Sigmund Freud, from S0ren Kierkegaard to Theodor ? ? from Novalis to Robert from ? Heine to Alexander ? from Paul ? to Octavio ? from Bertolt Brecht to Michel Foucault, and from Walter Benjamin to Roland Barthes ? each instance, the most communicative minds have pre- sented themselves as temperaments and variations of the centauric genius.
Whatever is at stake in The Birth of Tragedy, the appearance of this archetypal centauric writing took place within a conspicuous cultural vacuum and was met by an astonishing silence on the part of the ? According to them, the book was merely a private incident, a footnote to the Wagner cult. There were isolated readers who sensed that something promising was at work in this little book, but,
its immediate effect was to make its author appear to be as far his profession was ? in the words of Professor of Bonn. But even those who sensed in this dense, moving opusculum the element that was in potential for the future would have been hard pressed to comment on what was about. Only later, when Zarathustra had won Nietzsche worldwide stature,
did what he intimated become clear. Nietzsche had constructed for himself a
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 14 ? CENTAURIC LITERATURE
stage upon which more than a Bayreuth renaissance was to be played out. It was a stage for exceptional disclosures, for cultural reevaluations of the most menacing sort, and for an unheard-of breakthrough into humanism by psychody-
The ? philologist, who those around him expected would (de- voted as he was to antiquity) carry on the cult of individuality of Weimar and Greece, raised the curtain on a stage upon which the bourgeois individual had to abandon himself to the most dangerous and at the same time most probable dis- illusionment. Suddenly, Greek antiquity was no longer a faithful mirror for hu- manistic ? nor a guarantee for reasonable moderation and proper bourgeois serenity. In one stroke, the autonomy of the classical subject was done away with. From above and from below, from the numinous and the animal realms, impersonal powers broke into the standardized form of the personality and turned it into a tumbling mat for dark and violent energies, an instrument of anonymous universal forces. Although, within the history of bourgeois culture, enthusiasm for Greece had consistently functioned as a key component in the makeup of the individual (with classical philology as the institutional support mechanism for the humanistic cult of personality), the most disquieting subver- sion of modern belief in the autonomy of the subject now arose from this, the most established of all disciplines.
Little wonder, then, that his colleagues anxiously restrained themselves. Only one man made the leap from embarrassment to outrage, restylizing and trans- forming his unwillingness to understand into a condescending
attitude. This was Ulrich von ? a doctoral candidate with the glib tongue of a professor who defended his academic inheritance before he had mastered it. Actually, he later made his career within the framework of the values he had attempted to protect from Nietzsche's subversion. The term "phi- lology of the ? which ? had coined to use against Nietzsche's book (a contemptuous reference to the Wagnerian "art of the future"), was a term of derision that became a prophecy ? not, to be sure, in the sense that Nietzsche's essay would point the way for the future study of classical languages and cultures. This term of mockery became true enough in the inversion of its meaning. Philological studies did not become more vital; rather, what was vital became more informed by philology. Through Nietzsche, a philology of the future was generated that, in an unprecedented manner, inquired into the corre- spondences between existence and language.
? ? ? ? Chapter 2
The Philology of Existence, the Dramaturgy of Force
not hurt vanity the mother of all tragedies? All the vain
are good actors: they act and they want people to
at them; all their spirit is behind this will. They enact themselves; near them I love to look at life: that cures my melancholy.
Thus Spoke Zarathustra,
"On Human Prudence"
It is characteristic of one type of important aesthetic theory that it never discusses a phenomenon without incorporating some element of what is being discussed into the discourse itself. The Birth ? Tragedy out of the Spirit of Music is not only a manifesto on the polarity between the Apollonian and Dionysian artistic
but is itself the result of the interplay of energies that are both raging and resis- tant, intoxicating and precise. It does not concern itself merely with the
rence of the Dionysian religion of art in antiquity, but instead directs itself toward a verbal passion play based on old and new heroes with neoreligious gestures ecstasy. It not only addresses the origins of tragedy in universal human
as it is manifested in ? but also presents itself as a rhetorical
which opinions that are too severe to be heard without producing despair can be voiced from beneath a toned-down veil of well-formed sentences and attestations of
Because it is a discourse on art that is nearly art itself, Nietzsche's early work has become a model for much of what has been brought forth since then in the field of aesthetic theory. It is a discourse in which subjects who have been
in science remind themselves of their ? existence. Under the pretext of a theory of antiquity, Nietzsche the philologist here devoted his attention to his
and to the passions of the present. At the
aesthetics ? ? a new art ? ? For what, if not the manifestation of his own ? can be at issue when an author ex- tends himself (with a reckless sense of superiority) beyond historical facts in order to outline a new image of Hellenic culture and its tragic psychospiritual
? ? ? ? ? looking
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 15
? ? 16 THE PHILOLOGY OF EXISTENCE, THE DRAMATURGY OF FORCE
foundation image that exhibits traces of late romanticism and manifests ? fin de ? pathos, as though it were nothing more than a matter of translating Greek mythology into the metaphysics of bourgeois pessimism, and the suffering of the heroes of antiquity into modern-day gestures of inner discord? W ithin this context, however, the historical accuracy of the representation is less important than the ? the ? ? On the path toward his inquiry into the ? ? ? stumbles upon traces of antiquity that can no longer be dealt with in philological terms. Similar to the way in which Schlie-
exhumed the true dreams of his childhood from the ruins of hills that had been buried for millennia, Nietzsche brought to light, in the course of his philo- logical ? a layer of tableaux that had been, so to ? buried alive, the truth content of which was older and more acerbic than that of self-confident research into antiquity and modern-day manifestations of individualism. It is, in both ? a matter of becoming valuable ? in an almost psychoar- chaeological sense. The singing he-goats who scream over the stage in Nietz- sche's hallucinatory vision of antiquity are less ancient satyrs in a state of orgias- tic ecstasy than exemplary modern subjects with their accursed good breeding and their cultural discontent.
Is it even possible here to persist in speaking of modern subjects? Is not the end result of Nietzsche's excavations into our cultural ? precisely the mining of the new subject by the forces inherent in the old drama? Indeed, is it not, to a lesser extent, an undermining or subversion of the subject in a psycho- analytic sense, and much more an ontological derealizing ? an inundation by impersonal ? and the reduction of the subject to an effect of antagonistic forces and the conflicting "artistic instincts of nature"? The ego -- and with it, its constitutive dream of autonomy -- would thus represent merely the irreal seam at which the ? of
delight in vision ? ? In the light of speculation of this kind, subjectivity (Subjekthaftigkeit) appears as the epiphenomenon within the inter- play between the great subjectless cosmic ? as an elusive interspace be- tween the tendencies toward self-preservation and self-annihilation that exist within a cruelly exuberant and unintentional natural
The question arises as to what manner of philology this must be to acknowl- edge no fear when it questions the most sacred tenet of modernity, the moral dogma of the autonomy of the subject. When Nietzsche claims for himself the right to formulate a theory of the drama that then expands into a protohistory of subjectivity, he has ostentatiously placed himself upon a podium that no longer resembles his academic lectern and can no longer be considered a fundamental component of his role as a bourgeois
But what kind of stage is it to which the philologist of the future ascends? Its cultural status was, in Nietzsche's time, anything but unequivocal, and has re- mained so to this day. This question cannot be answered even in terms of a quick
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? THE PHILOLOGY OF EXISTENCE, THE DRAMATURGY OF FORCE ? 17
with depth psychology and ? because these are merely descriptively positive titles for something that radically defies clear definition, something that is evasive and negative. In any case, it would appear to be a stage upon which modern individuals act out a drama that ? risking a falsely pos- itive nomenclature) could be characterized as their search for self. Elevated to such a stage, theory becomes ? porous, and is permeated with the most powerfully instinctual existential tensions of those who do their thinking upon it. Thus even philology, initially so well behaved, can become adventurous. Within this context, theory is no longer a discursive mechanism that is served and reconstructed by the functionaries of thought, but instead represents a stage upon which life is transformed into an "experiment on the part of the
He who steps out upon this stage wants to distinguish himself in a specific intention is to betray himself. But he wants to so do in order to force the dilemma, whose mask he feels himself to be, into plain view to the point at which it will betray itself. A mode of thought that has been existentially blown open in this way intends no affront toward so-called serious research, even if the its incurable ? ? understands it as such. Rather, its in- tention is to replenish the vital essence of this research. He who permits himself to think in this way does so not to get away with accomplishing less but to risk He who takes the stage as a thinker and takes a chance as a spokesman for an experimental existence must, from that point onward, assume an all-encom- passing responsibility for the immediate and the indirect truth-value of his per- formance. At the same time, he has earned the right to have everything that he brings forward used against him "before the ? him, and, at the same time, in his defense ? this right means a great deal to anyone who has placed himself, by way of a radical self-sacrifice, beyond the shallow position of
being simply either "for or
"Before the would indicate a second stage, upon which the ad- venturer of theory and the hero of thought no longer figures personally, but upon which, instead, his critics, his fans, and all those who, because of their openness to his suggestions, feel they have earned the right to hold the ground-breaking thinker accountable for his ? The extremely specific relationship be- tween Nietzsche's writing and both his contemporary public and posterity can best be characterized through the image of the dual stage ? upon which the thinker exposes and implicates himself, and the other upon which those who agree with him and follow his thought test the applicability of the protagonist's truths to their own lives.
If a dramatized reflection is really an "experiment on the part of the per- then the ? gained from this experimental arrangement must at- tract attention as the self-realizations of the thinker, while his mistakes are rec- ognized as his personal failings. Thinking on stage is more likely to generate truth by following the archaic models of the wager or divine judgment than
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 18 ? THE PHILOLOGY OF EXISTENCE, THE DRAMATURGY OF FORCE
through the modern schematic of discursive inference from principles. In accor- dance with a totally apothecary concept of truth
what appears here as truth is not what has been proved to be theoretically the most but rather what best proves itself within the context of a suc- cessful ? Whenever the thinker brings the truth about himself to light upon the stage, he reveals himself, eo ipso, in the process of becoming what he is. If he does not do so, he exposes the truth about himself and his hypothesis in that, like the heroes of antiquity, he succumbs to his dilemma and runs aground on his own inability to understand himself.
Whatever one thinks of Nietzsche, he must impress even his detractors in one respect, since, in his willingness to risk intellectual truths, he was the most au- dacious thinker of the new era. He paid the price for the danger inherent in his thinking to a degree unparalleled by almost anyone else. In his program for the stage, which was intended to lend him credibility as the new Dionysian hero, he ultimately proved himself to be above all else a hero of his own times, a hero of
Posing and reflecting upon an open stage, he submitted himself to the laws of an unrelenting self-exposure. In his attempt to become what he was, he implicated himself in the most tortuous of comedies -- so as to become what he was not: a hero, a superhuman, a "Superman" ? The greatest dis- covery made in his heroic search for truth was therefore an unintentional one: he brought to light the truth about heroism as representing the continuation of a fun- damental
The first victim of Nietzsche's debut on the stage of truth was his standing within his own profession. One ? ? ? be ? was common practice within the field of classical philology and its critical methodology, which, with its conjecturing and ? was part renunciatory and part subordinate, before one can appreciate the grotesque gap between Nietzsche's attempt to push forward and what was customary within the field.
What Nietzsche carried out was not a mere switch to a different specialization, a transfer from philology to philosophy; what he accomplished was nothing less than academic suicide. From this point forward, Nietzsche no longer addresses antiquity as a classical scholar. Whenever he does call upon the ancients, it is as a modern mystagogue and leader of orgies who always speaks from a perspective of inner simultaneity with the early Greek mysteries. Dionysus, Apollo, Ariadne, the Sphinx, the Minotaur,
that point on, these are simply mythological names for contem- porary forces and allegories for acute sensations of pain. Modernity is thus no longer merely a name given to a volcanic process of repulsion on the part of an undetermined present in the face of its own prehistory (Vorzeit); for Nietzsche, it becomes concurrently the almost accidental point of departure for the rediscov- ery of the basic truths of Greece. (As is the intellectual custom, Sigmund Freud proved himself a generation later to be the truest of Nietzsche's indirect students
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? THE PHILOLOGY OF EXISTENCE, THE DRAMATURGY OF FORCE ? 19
in that he also attempted to formulate his psychological opinions in the language of a time-obliterating modern mythology. )
But how is an "actualism" (Aktualismus) of this sort possible? How can a modern individual, contrary to all the rules of historical consciousness, want to place himself into a position of contemporaneousness with concepts that are so temporally and culturally far removed? What right does a modern thinker extinguish an interval of two thousand five hundred years so that he can about the drama of the ancient Greeks as though he were discussing an
personal experience? Two observations on Nietzsche's way of positioning himself on the stage of thought can provide us with answers to these questions.
First, even before he had voiced a single word upon the stage, Nietzsche was made ripe for it by his decision before the fact to present "something great" on the subject of the Greeks. What has been described here as his characteristic "cult of genius" refers not only to a psychic disposition on his part but also to a preliminary methodological decision on what his relationship with the historical material would be. As Faust called upon the spirit of the earth (Erdgeist), so Nietzsche calls upon the spirit of genius in early Greece to answer the question, How does one mind speak to another? And he himself provides the answer. The Greek world discusses its most puzzling mysteries to its greatest advantage with a certain professor in Basel who, because he is on scandalously intimate terms with Lady Antiquity, will one day be a former and ridiculed professor. Nietz- sche's radical "actualism" is therefore an expression of his "cult of genius" a-vis early Greek thought and poetry. The cult of genius, however, is to a sub- stantial degree one of concurrent genius ? ? and consequently it results in the conviction that anything exceptional can be understood only by its
that ? greatness can be recognized only by an equal ? depth by an equal degree of ? suffering by an equal suffering, and the heroic through an equal heroism. Nietzsche's concept of concurrent genius in any case forced the issue to such an extent that it conceived of the intellectual history of Europe as representing merely a spiritual migration on the part of the great intellects, whose path had led from Homer and Heraclitus to Kant and Schopenhauer and, through them, to Wagner and Nietzsche ? migration that always took place, of course, at the lonely heights where, aside from these thinkers, only eagles could survive.
The second prerequisite for Nietzsche's actualistic conjuring up of Hellenism lies in his historical-philosophical claims. Whenever Nietzsche takes the stage as prophetic Greek scholar, he is wearing not only the mask of the genial hero of thought but also that of a philosopher of history or, more correctly, a mythologist of history. Equipped with its powers of authority, he condenses the past two thou-
sand five hundred years ? a pathetic lack of concern ? a simple
like or circular movement. Accordingly, the initial depth of the early Greek tragic consciousness is lost in favor of a vulgar, optimistic conception of the world that succeeds in the form of a Socratic ? the ruthless insipidity of
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 20 ? THE PHILOLOGY OF EXISTENCE, THE DRAMATURGY OF FORCE
which is eventually denounced and must lead sooner or later to the rebirth of a tragic consciousness. European intellectual history thus appears as the ebb and flow of a single motif that circles around or undulates between ascent, descent, and return. Nietzsche's construction of history possesses the primitive circularity of myth. What circles is a heroic pessimism that is born and dies like a being, certain of being reborn. We observe here an archaic triad: the birth of trag- edy out of the spirit of music, the death of tragedy because of the optimistic
program of a so-called enlightenment, and the rebirth of tragedy out of spirit of German music ? which he meant the music of the present, which bore the mark of Richard
He who speaks in such mythic formulas has ceased to report as a historian on things that have actually existed. He has left the dust-gray archives and entered the arena or, to put it a better way, the maternity ward in which European culture is reborn as a tragic one. In this way, the mythologist of history is transformed into a midwife at the rebirth of phenomena that will burst forth today or, at the latest, tomorrow. Even this formulation does not go far enough: Nietzsche cannot be content to sit as a kind of tragic gynecologist before the birth canal of the intellect and wait for whatever might appear. He himself begins, surreptitiously and yet as if he were being enticed by an irresistible allure, to play the role of the one who is again giving birth. In the ardor of his prophecy, he simultaneously becomes the pregnant mother, the gynecologist, and the divine child. In repre- senting himself as the assistant present at the rebirth, Nietzsche was no doubt alluding to Wagner, the musical orgy leader, who had once again lifted the mu- sical drama of the present to tragic heights ? in making this allusion he also included himself as its ? incarnate logos and true ? in whom the master could be well
In doing ? Nietzsche drew attention not to the epic but rather to the dra- matic basic structure of modern philosophies of history. For that which occurs on the level of greatness is staged not in terms of narrative but of in terms of
However peaceful the tone might be in which one expresses these his- torical-philosophical theses, they always include the dramatic intervention of the speaker in a phenomenon that is understood as one of universal historical impor- tance. He who proclaims a theory of progress inevitably includes himself as a participant, supporter, and culmination point in the drama of progress; he who presents a theory of decline asserts himself as someone affected by that decline, whether this takes the form of lamentation, resignation, or simply standing one's ground. He who diagnoses rebirths or periods of change brings himself into play as an ? an agent of ? or even as a candidate for
And, finally, he who prophesies decline declares himself a ? a prac- titioner of euthanasia, a hired mourner, or ultimately someone who exploits the carrion of a dying culture. This was true of Spengler, who was not content with simply diagnosing the decline of the West, but who also presented himself as an
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? THE PHILOLOGY OF EXISTENCE, THE DRAMATURGY OF FORCE
fatally clever (sterbensklug) latter-day barbarian who kept a stoic, cynical watch during the death agony of European civilization.
Viewed in this light, historical-philosophical speech acts are the speech acts of a cultural orientation par excellence. The description of one's own historical sition determines the quality of one's historical pose. Where, however, should these speech acts be performed if not on the dramatic stage of thought, upon which the engaged actors themselves intervene in the fate of their culture? We are able to recognize in Nietzsche more clearly than in anyone ? Lenin being the only exception of equal stature ? fact that great historical-philo- sophical oratory allows the speaker to burst forth like a force ? whereby this oratory reaches a crisis point in a self-realization as a proclamation of self on the part of the speaker, and not without this realization being inserted most nar- rowly into the tendencies and potentiality of the moment. He who speaks like a modern mythologist of history always does so because the time for it is ripe within him. For this reason, the choice of words governed by convenience (Ge- legenheit) also comprises consistently ? (kairologische) phenom- ena, by which I mean, in the highest sense of the term, timely condensations of circumstances into phenomenological verbalizations and personifications. The thinker on the stage does not speak as a fool so much on his own initiative; rather, he speaks ? that he is pursuing his own ? the name of the "uni-
versal moment" that is being interpreted through him. The subjectivity of the speaker is elevated by this, purified of the interests of arrogance, and transformed into a phenomenon. Every essential historical moment is, ? Walter Benjamin ? "moment of danger," and it is this danger that mediates all subjectivity. Thus, one can also ? a slight taste for dark formula-
it is not the thinker who is engaging himself and thinking. Rather, it is this danger that engages itself and thinks through him.
We must be adamant on this point: from behind the camouflage of genius and a historical-mythological enthusiasm, Nietzsche is able to set about discussing his concept of Hellenism with an unrestrained sense of contemporaneity. From here on, historical references serve only as ? foundation for the performance of the most contemporary of plays. To be sure, the fable upon which Nietzsche bases his attempt is of an archetypal simplicity, as elementary as the most ancient losophy and as monotonic as archaic What is a human being? What is the world? Why must the world cause us to how can we be released from this suffering? These questions have an almost flat and superficial ring when measured against the shocking violence with which the isolated consciousness, awakened to the dilemma that is raging within it, is frightened by its own indi-
and, after having been thus frightened, no longer is anything but the craving to understand what within it is really of any consequence. Who am I? What will be my fate? Why must I be "I"? There are no other questions.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 22 ? THE PHILOLOGY OF EXISTENCE, THE DRAMATURGY OF FORCE
In the initial stages of his performance, Nietzsche is still somewhat removed from reducing his undertaking to this primary form. This does not hinder him from already expressing himself within ? with his Hellenist decorum, his Schopenhauerian vocabulary, his illusionist-rhetorical coquetry, and the edu- cated-bourgeois cast of his drapery. None of this can alter the fact that in his first book (as will be the case in general in his later literary work), the dramatic pri- mary structure of the search for the genuine self begins to function with great clarity. Motivated by a powerful need to express himself, the thinker steps out onto the stage, borne up by the certainty that his previous presentiments were sufficient to warrant making a spectacular entrance--whatever might still sepa- rate him from the latest views. Certainly, the actor does not yet know how his compulsion will express itself, and he is certain that the last word cannot be spoken for a long time ? At the same ? because he is beset by the feeling that he is pregnant with great things, he is convinced that he has said something of the utmost significance ? else can a man do who is convinced that the greatest man of his time, Richard Wagner, has acknowledged him as an equal? The drama begins as if the actor wants to say, "I am here, but I am not yet myself. I must therefore become myself. I would therefore wager that what I really have to say will be revealed as the drama runs its ? This might possibly be the fundamental formulation of that thought that is marked by the dynamic between the search for self and the attempt to release oneself from The thinker is not yet in possession of himself to such an extent that he can present himself to the world with the gesticulation of Ecce Homo, but he does promise that he will succeed in retrieving himself through a process of radical self-searching coram publico. The overall effect is as if his shadow should say to the wanderer, " I f I pursue you with a sufficient degree of intensity, I will finally possess ? Or, the reverse, as if the wanderer were to say to the shadow, "I must first jump over you before I can arrive at
As paradoxical as this all may sound, these duplications of the ego into the seeker and what is sought, the questioner and he who answers, the present self and the self that is yet to be, belong inexorably to the structure of an impassioned existential search for ? (In Chapter 3 I will comment further on the paradox- ical nature of the search as a means for avoiding the truth. )
In order to discover the truth about himself, therefore, the thinker must ini- tially proceed from himself as relentlessly as he can because, otherwise, nothing else that could be found would be available for ? for the nonobjective impulse. Like all of those who think creatively, Nietzsche must first rehearse what he has to say before he can know what he has been actually carrying within himself. This reminds us of the familiar joke: "How can I know what I am think- ing before I have heard what I am ? This makes it clear, in any case, that the joke has more descriptive power than the serious postulation that "thinking" precedes its expression. In truth, the joke illustrates in the most abbreviated form
? ? ? THE PHILOLOGY OF EXISTENCE, THE DRAMATURGY OF FORCE ? 23
the structure of the search for ? Therefore, he who seeks the truth about him- self in a positive representation must first realize himself positively in order to find anything in this realization that would permit him to discover himself. For previously there had been, for lack of expression, nothing to discover because nothing had been expressed for lack of its having been sought.
Assuming that we are now in a position appropriately to follow Nietzsche's appearance as the announcer of another Hellenism, what does he say about the Greeks and, through them, about himself? To what extent could a new approach to the psychology of the Greek populace and Greek art also bring to light any truth about the reckless Greek scholar?
One ? I believe, summarize the fundamental assertions of Nietzsche's def- inition of the world as it is introduced to us in the book on tragedy in two state- ments. The first of these would be the following: the usual individual life is a hell made up of suffering, brutality, baseness, and entanglement, for which there is no more apt assessment than the dark wisdom of the Dionysian ? that the best thing for man would be to have never been born; the next best, to die as soon as possible. The second statement would read: this life is made bearable only by intoxication and by dreams, by this twofold path to ecstasy that is open to indi- viduals for ? The Birth of Tragedy is to a great extent a paraphrase of this second statement and a fantasy on the possibility of unifying both forms of ecstasy in a single religious artistic phenomenon ? phenomenon Nietzsche identified as early Greek tragedy.
The path of intoxication is delegated to the god Dionysus and his orgiastic manifestations; the way of the dream to the god Apollo and his love for clarity, visibility, and beautiful limitation. To Dionysus belongs music and its narcotic and cathartic power; to Apollo belongs the epic Mythos with its blissful clarity and visionary ? The individual who is weighed down by everyday misery therefore has available to him these two paths for lifting himself out of his
paths that can unite to form the royal path of a single tragic art, provided one has chosen one's birth date appropriately so that one can be incar- nated either as an ancient Greek or a modern Wagnerian. Both paths, that of in- toxication and that of the ? concern themselves in different ways with the overcoming of individuation, which is the source of all suffering. Thus, intoxi- cation ? ? individual out of the limitations of his ego, in order to release him into the ocean of a cosmic unity of pain and pleasure, whereas the dream has the capacity ? the ? as necessary forms of existence under the ? ? ? beau- tiful form. The ? ? ? ? ? Apollo- nian with each other. This fusion takes place, for Nietzsche, under the Dionysian sign because it comprehends the Apollonian ele- ments of epic stage plot and the mythic fate of the ? only the
? ? ? ? ? ? ? 24 ? THE PHILOLOGY OF EXISTENCE, THE DRAMATURGY OF FORCE
dreams of the ecstatic chorus, which sees in the visible fates of the heroes ob- of the suffering god Dionysus.
In fecTTWetzsclieVTJooR~r5n~tragedy is almost always fixed to the apparent dimension of its contents and read as a Dionysian manifesto. However, a dram- aturgical reading leads with the greatest possible certainty to the opposite con- clusion. What Nietzsche brings forth upon the stage is not so much the
of ? ? ? Even this reading would seem somewhat scandalous ? the classical image of Greek culture, because it no longer recognizes the serene authority of Apollo as ? given, but instead teaches it as representing a courageous vic- tory over an alternative world of dark and obscene ? This does not alter the fact that in Nietzsche, from the dramaturgical perspective, the Apollonian world of illusion has the last ?
