Back to part 6
One catches the unholiness of Christian means in flagranti by the simple process of putting the ends sought by Christianity beside the ends sought by the Code of Manu -- by putting these enormously antithetical ends under a strong light. The critic of Christianity cannot evade the necessity of making Christianity contemptible. -- A book of laws such as the Code of Manu has the same origin as every other good law-book: it epitomizes the experience, the sagacity and the ethical experimentation of long centuries; it brings things to a conclusion; it no longer creates. The prerequisite to a codification of this sort is recognition of the fact that the means which establish the authority of a slowly and painfully attained truth are fundamentally different from those which one would make use of to prove it. A law-book never recites the utility, the grounds, the casuistical antecedents of a law: for if it did so it would lose the imperative tone, the "thou shalt," on which obedience is based. The problem lies exactly here. -- At a certain point in the evolution of a people, the class within it of the greatest insight, which is to say, the greatest hindsight and foresight, declares that the series of experiences determining how all shall live -- or can live -- has come to an end. The object now is to reap as rich and as complete a harvest as possible from the days of experiment and hard experience. In consequence, the thing that is to be avoided above everything is further experimentation -- the continuation of the state in which values are fluent, and are tested, chosen and criticized ad infinitum. Against this a double wall is set up: on the one hand, revelation, which is the assumption that the reasons lying behind the laws are not of human origin, that they were not sought out and found by a slow process and after many errors, but that they are of divine ancestry, and came into being complete, perfect, without a history, as a free gift, a miracle . . . ; and on the other hand, tradition, which is the assumption that the law has stood unchanged from time immemorial, and that it is impious and a crime against one's forefathers to bring it into question. The authority of the law is thus grounded on the thesis: God gave it, and the fathers lived it. -- The higher motive of such procedure lies in the design to distract consciousness, step by step, from its concern with notions of right living (that is to say, those that have been proved to be right by wide and carefully considered experience), so that instinct attains to a perfect automatism -- a primary necessity to every sort of mastery, to every sort of perfection in the art of life. To draw up such a law-book as Manu's means to lay before a people the possibility of future mastery, of attainable perfection -- it permits them to aspire to the highest reaches of the art of life. To that end the thing must be made unconscious: that is the aim of every holy lie. -- The order of castes, the highest, the dominating law, is merely the ratification of an order of nature, of a natural law of the first rank, over which no arbitrary fiat, no "modern idea," can exert any influence. In every healthy society there are three physiological types, gravitating toward differentiation but mutually conditioning one another, and each of these has its own hygiene, its own sphere of work, its own special mastery and feeling of perfection. It is not Manu but nature that sets off in one class those who are chiefly intellectual [the Brahmans], in another those who are marked by muscular strength and temperament [the Kshatriyas], and in a third those who are distinguished in neither one way or the other, but show only mediocrity [the Vaishyas] -- the last-named represents the great majority, and the first two the select. The superior [Brahman] caste -- I call it the fewest -- has, as the most perfect, the privileges of the few: it stands for happiness, for beauty, for everything good upon earth. Only the most intellectual of men have any right to beauty, to the beautiful; only in them can goodness escape being weakness. Pulchrum est paucorum hominum [“the beautiful is found among the rarest men”]: goodness is a privilege. Nothing could be more unbecoming to them than uncouth manners or a pessimistic look, or an eye that confers ugliness -- or indignation against the general aspect of things. Indignation is the privilege of the Chandala; so is pessimism. "The world is perfect" -- so prompts the instinct of the spiritual, the instinct of the man who says yes to life. "Imperfection, what ever is inferior to us, distance, the pathos of distance, even the Chandala themselves are parts of this perfection." The most intelligent men, like the strongest, find their happiness where others would find only disaster: in the labyrinth, in being hard with themselves and with others, in effort; their delight is in self-mastery; in them asceticism becomes second nature, a necessity, an instinct. They regard a difficult task as a privilege; it is to them a recreation to play with burdens that would crush all others. . . . Knowledge -- a form of asceticism. -- They are the most honourable kind of men: but that does not prevent them being the most cheerful and most amiable. They rule, not because they want to, but because they are; they are not at liberty to play second. -- The second [Ksahtriya] caste: to this belong the guardians of the law, the keepers of order and security, the more noble warriors, above all, the king as the highest form of warrior, judge and preserver of the law. The second in rank constitute the executive arm of the intellectuals, the next to them in rank, taking from them all that is coarse in the business of ruling -- their followers, their right hand, their most apt disciples. -- In all this, I repeat, there is nothing arbitrary, nothing "made up"; whatever is to the contrary is made up -- by it nature is brought to shame. . . The order of castes, the order of rank, simply formulates the supreme law of life itself; the separation of the three types is necessary to the maintenance of society, and to the evolution of higher types, and the highest types -- the inequality of rights is essential to the existence of any rights at all. -- A right is a privilege. Every one enjoys the privileges that accord with his state of existence. Let us not underestimate the privileges of the mediocre. Life is always harder as one mounts the heights -- the cold increases, responsibility increases. A high civilization is a pyramid: it can stand only on a broad base; its primary prerequisite is a strong and soundly consolidated mediocrity. The handicrafts, commerce, agriculture, science, the greater part of art, in brief, the whole range of professional activities, are compatible only with mediocre ability and aspiration; such callings would be out of place for exceptional men; the instincts which belong to them stand as much opposed to aristocracy as to anarchism. The fact that a man is publicly useful, that he is a wheel, a function, is evidence of a natural predisposition; it is not society, but the only sort of happiness that the majority are capable of, that makes them intelligent machines. To the mediocre mediocrity is a form of happiness; they have a natural instinct for mastering one thing, for specialization. It would be altogether unworthy of a profound intellect to see anything objectionable in mediocrity in itself. It is, in fact, the first prerequisite to the appearance of the exceptional: it is a necessary condition to a high degree of civilization. When the exceptional man handles the mediocre man with more delicate fingers than he applies to himself or to his equals, this is not merely kindness of heart -- it is simply his duty. . . . [Editor’s note: the whole foregoing discussion of the Hindu caste system might also be applied to Plato’s Republic] Whom do I hate most heartily among the rabbles of today? The rabble of Socialists, the apostles to the Chandala, who undermine the workingman's instincts, his pleasure, his feeling of contentment with his petty existence -- who make him envious and teach him revenge. . . . Wrong never lies in unequal rights; it lies in the assertion of "equal" rights. . . . What is bad? But I have already answered: all that proceeds from weakness, from envy, from revenge. -- The anarchist and the Christian have the same ancestry. . . .
In point of fact, the end for which one lies makes a great difference: whether one preserves thereby or destroys. There is a perfect likeness between Christian and anarchist: their object, their instinct, points only toward destruction. One need only turn to history for a proof of this: there it appears with appalling distinctness. We have just studied a code of religious legislation whose object it was to convert the conditions which cause life to flourish nto an "eternal" social organization, -- Christianity found its mission in putting an end to such an organization, because life flourished under it. There the benefits that reason had produced during long ages of experiment and insecurity were applied to the most remote uses, and an effort was made to bring in a harvest that should be as large, as rich and as complete as possible; here, on the contrary, the harvest is poisoned overnight. . . .That which stood there aere perennis, the Imperium Romanum, the most magnificent form of organization under difficult conditions that has ever been achieved, and compared to which everything before it and after it appears as patchwork, bungling, dilletantism -- those holy anarchists made it a matter of "piety" to destroy "the world,"which is to say, the Imperium Romanum, so that in the end not a stone stood upon another -- and even Germans and other such louts were able to become its masters. . . . The Christian and the anarchist: both are decadents; both are incapable of any act that is not disintegrating, poisonous, degenerating, blood-sucking; both have an instinct of mortal hatred of everything that stands up, and is great, and has durability, and promises life a future. . . . Christianity was the vampire of the Imperium Romanum, -- overnight it destroyed the vast achievement of the Romans: the conquest of the soil for a great culture that could await its time. Can it be that this fact is not yet understood? The Imperium Romanum that we know, and that the history of the Roman provinces teaches us to know better and better, -- this most admirable of all works of art in the grand manner was merely the beginning, and the structure to follow was not to prove its worth for thousands of years. To this day, nothing on a like scale sub specie aeterni has been brought into being, or even dreamed of! -- This organization was strong enough to withstand bad emperors: the accident of personality has nothing to do with such things -- the first principle of all genuinely great architecture. But it was not strong enough to stand up against the corruptest of all forms of corruption -- against Christians. . . . These stealthy worms, which under the cover of night, mist and duplicity, crept upon every individual, sucking him dry of all earnest interest in real things, of all instinct for reality -- this cowardly, effeminate and sugar-coated gang gradually alienated all "souls," step by step, from that colossal edifice, turning against it all the meritorious, manly and noble natures that had found in the cause of Rome their own cause, their own serious purpose, their own pride. The sneakishness of hypocrisy, the secrecy of the conventicle, concepts as black as hell, such as the sacrifice of the innocent, the unio mystica in the drinking of blood, above all, the slowly rekindled fire of revenge, of Chandala revenge -- all that sort of thing became master of Rome: the same kind of religion which, in a pre-existent form, Epicurus had combatted. One has but to read Lucretius to know what Epicurus made war upon -- not paganism, but "Christianity," which is to say, the corruption of souls by means of the concepts of guilt, punishment and immortality. -- He combatted the subterranean cults, the whole of latent Christianity -- to deny immortality was already a form of genuine salvation. -- Epicurus had triumphed, and every respectable intellect in Rome was Epicurean -- when Paul appeared. . . Paul, the Chandala hatred of Rome, of "the world," in the flesh and inspired by genius -- the Jew, the eternal Jew par excellence. . . . What he saw was how, with the aid of the small sectarian Christian movement on the periphery of Judaism, a "world conflagration" might be kindled; how, with the symbol of "God on the cross," all secret seditions, all the fruits of anarchistic intrigues in the empire, might be amalgamated into one immense power. "Salvation is of the Jews." -- Christianity is the formula for outbidding and summing up the subterranean cults of all varieties, that of Osiris, that of the Great Mother, that of Mithras, for instance: in his discernment of this fact the genius of Paul showed itself. His instinct was here so sure that, with reckless violence to the truth, he put the ideas which lent fascination to every sort of Chandala religion into the mouth of the "Redeemer" as his own inventions, and not only into the mouth -- he made out of him something that even a priest of Mithras could understand. . . This was his revelation on the road to Damascus: he grasped the fact that he needed the belief in immortality in order to rob "the world" of its value, that the concept of "hell" would master Rome -- that the notion of a "beyond" is the death of life. Nihilist and Christian: they rhyme [in German], and they do more than rhyme.
The whole labour of the ancient world gone for naught: I have no word to describe the feelings that such an enormity arouses in me. -- And, considering the fact that its labour was merely preparatory, that with adamantine self-consciousness it laid only the foundations for a work to go on for thousands of years, the whole meaning of antiquity disappears! . . . To what end the Greeks? to what end the Romans? -- All the prerequisites to a learned culture, all the methods of science, were already there; man had already perfected the great and incomparable art of reading profitably -- that first necessity to the tradition of culture, the unity of the sciences; the natural sciences, in alliance with mathematics and mechanics, were on the right road, -- the sense of fact, the last and more valuable of all the senses, had its schools, and its traditions were already centuries old! Is all this properly understood? Every essential to the beginning of the work was ready; -- and the most essential, it cannot be said too often, are methods, and also the most difficult to develop, and the longest opposed by habit and laziness. What we have to day reconquered, with unspeakable self-discipline, for ourselves -- for certain bad instincts, certain Christian instincts, still lurk in our bodies -- that is to say, the keen eye for reality, the cautious hand, patience and seriousness in the smallest things, the whole integrity of knowledge -- all these things were already there, two thousand years ago! More, there was also a refined and excellent tact and taste! Not as mere brain-drilling! Not as "German" culture, with its loutish manners! But as body, as bearing, as instinct -- in short, as reality. . . All gone for naught! Overnight it became merely a memory ! -- The Greeks! The Romans! Instinctive nobility, taste, methodical inquiry, genius for organization and administration, faith in and the will to secure the future of man, a great yes to everything entering into the Imperium Romanum and palpable to all the senses, a grand style that was beyond mere art, but had become reality, truth, life . . -- All overwhelmed in a night, but not by a convulsion of nature! Not trampled to death by Teutons and others of heavy hoof! But brought to shame by crafty, sneaking, invisible, anemic vampires! Not conquered, -- only sucked dry! . . . Hidden vengefulness, petty envy, became master! Everything wretched, intrinsically ailing, and invaded by bad feelings, the whole ghetto-world of the soul, was at once on top! -- One needs but read any of the Christian agitators, for example, St. Augustine, in order to realize, in order to smell, what filthy fellows came to the top. It would be an error, however, to assume that there was any lack of understanding in the leaders of the Christian movement: -- ah, but they were clever, clever to the point of holiness, these fathers of the church! What they lacked was something quite different. Nature neglected -- perhaps forgot -- to give them even the most modest endowment of respectable, of upright, of cleanly instincts. . . Between ourselves, they are not even men. . . . If Islam despises Christianity, it has a thousandfold right to do so: Islam at least assumes that it is dealing with men. . . .
Christianity destroyed for us the whole harvest of ancient civilization, and later it also destroyed for us the whole harvest of Islamic civilization. The wonderful culture of the Moors in Spain, which was fundamentally nearer to us and appealed more to our senses and tastes than that of Rome and Greece, was trampled down (-- I do not say by what sort of feet --) Why? Because it had to thank noble and manly instincts for its origin -- because it said yes to life, even to the rare and refined luxuriousness of Moorish life! . . . The crusaders later made war on something before which it would have been more fitting for them to have grovelled in the dust -- a civilization beside which even that of our nineteenth century seems very poor and very "senile." -- What they wanted, of course, was booty: the orient was rich. . . . Let us put aside our prejudices! The crusades were a higher form of piracy, nothing more! The German nobility, which is fundamentally a Viking nobility, was in its element there: the church knew only too well how the German nobility was to be won . . . The German noble, always the "Swiss guard" of the church, always in the service of every bad instinct of the church -- but well paid. . . Consider the fact that it is precisely the aid of German swords and German blood and valour that has enabled the church to carry through its war to the death upon everything noble on earth! At this point a host of painful questions suggest themselves. The German nobility stands outside the history of the higher civilization: the reason is obvious. . . Christianity, alcohol -- the two great means of corruption. . . . Intrinsically there should be no more choice between Islam and Christianity than there is between an Arab and a Jew. The decision is already reached; nobody remains at liberty to choose here. Either a man is a Chandala or he is not. . . . "War to the knife with Rome! Peace and friendship with Islam!": this was the feeling, this was the deed, of that great free spirit, that genius among German emperors, Frederick II. What! must a German first be a genius, a free spirit, before he can feel decently? I can't make out how a German could ever feel Christian. . . .
Here it becomes necessary to call up a memory that must be a hundred times more painful to Germans. The Germans have destroyed for Europe the last great harvest of civilization that Europe was ever to reap -- the Renaissance. Is it understood at last, does anyone want to understand, what the Renaissance was? The transvaluation of Christian values, -- an attempt with all available means, all instincts and all the resources of genius to bring about a triumph of the opposite values, the more noble values. . . . This has been the one great war of the past; there has never been a more critical question than that of the Renaissance -- it is my question too -- ; there has never been a form of attack more fundamental, more direct, or more violently delivered by a whole front upon the center of the enemy! To attack at the critical place, at the very seat of Christianity, and there enthrone the more noble values -- that is to say, to insinuate them into the instincts, into the most fundamental needs and appetites of those sitting there . . . I see before me the possibility of a perfectly heavenly enchantment and spectacle : -- it seems to me to scintillate with all the vibrations of a fine and delicate beauty, and within it there is an art so divine, so infernally divine, that one might search in vain for thousands of years for another such possibility; I see a spectacle so rich in significance and at the same time so wonderfully full of paradox that it should arouse all the gods on Olympus to immortal laughter -- Cesare Borgia as Pope! . . . Am I understood? . . . Well then, that would have been the sort of triumph that I alone am longing for today -- : by it Christianity would have beenswept away! -- What happened? A German monk, Luther, came to Rome. This monk, with all the vengeful instincts of an unsuccessful priest in him, raised a rebellion against the Renaissance in Rome. . . . Instead of grasping, with profound thanksgiving, the miracle that had taken place: the conquest of Christianity at its capital -- instead of this, his hatred was stimulated by the spectacle. A religious man thinks only of himself. -- Luther saw only the corruption of the papacy at the very moment when the opposite was becoming apparent: the old corruption, the peccatum originale, Christianity itself, no longer occupied the papal chair! Instead there was life! Instead there was the triumph of life! Instead there was a great Yes to all lofty, beautiful and daring things! . . . And Luther restored the church: he attacked it. . . . The Renaissance -- an event without meaning, a great futility! -- Ah, these Germans, what they have not cost us! Futility -- that has always been the work of the Germans. -- The Reformation; Leibniz; Kant and so-called German philosophy; the war of "liberation"; the Reich -- every time a futile substitute for something that once existed, for something irrecoverable . . . These Germans, I confess, are my enemies: I despise all their uncleanliness in concept and valuation, their cowardice before every honest Yes and No. For nearly a thousand years they have tangled and confused everything their fingers have touched; they have on their conscience all the half-way measures, all the three-eighths-way measures, that Europe is sick of, -- they also have on their conscience the uncleanest variety of Christianity that exists, and the most incurable and indestructible -- Protestantism. . . . If mankind never manages to get rid of Christianity the Germans will be to blame. . . .
-- With this I come to a conclusion and pronounce my judgment. I
condemn Christianity; I bring against the Christian church the most
terrible of all the accusations that an accuser has ever had in his mouth. It
is, to me, the greatest of all imaginable corruptions; it seeks to work the
ultimate corruption, the worst possible corruption. The Christian church
has left nothing untouched by its depravity; it has turned every value into
worthlessness, and every truth into a lie, and every integrity into baseness
of soul. Let any one dare to speak to me of its "humanitarian" blessings!
Its deepest necessities range it against any effort to abolish distress; it lives
by distress; it creates distress to make itself immortal. . . . For example,
the worm of sin: it was the church that first enriched mankind with this
misery! -- The "equality of souls before God" -- this fraud, this pretext for
the rancour of all the base-minded -- this explosive concept, ending in
revolution, the modern idea, and the notion of overthrowing the whole
social order -- this is Christian dynamite. . . . The "humanitarian" blessings
of Christianity forsooth! To breed out of humanitas a self-contradiction,
an art of self-violation, a will to lie at any price, an aversion and contempt
for all good and honest instincts! All this, to me, is the "humanitarianism"
of Christianity! -- Parasitism as the only practice of the church; with its
anaemic and "holy" ideals, sucking all the blood, all the love, all the hope
out of life; the beyond as the will to deny all reality; the cross as the
distinguishing mark of the most subterranean conspiracy ever heard
of, -- against health, beauty, well-being, intellect, benevolence of soul -- against
life itself. . . .
This eternal accusation against Christianity I shall write upon all walls, wherever walls are to be found -- I have letters that even the blind will be able to see. . . . I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and petty enough, -- I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race. . . .
And mankind reckons time from the dies nefastus [“unlucky day”] when this fatality befell -- from the first day of Christianity! -- Why not rather from its last? -- From today? -- The transvaluation of all values! . . .
Return to philosophy page.