diff options
Diffstat (limited to '34580-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 34580-h/34580-h.htm | 19601 |
1 files changed, 19601 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/34580-h/34580-h.htm b/34580-h/34580-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..34b6cee --- /dev/null +++ b/34580-h/34580-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,19601 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> + +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> + <head> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" /> + <title> + The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Ego and His Own, by Max Stirner. + </title> + <style type="text/css"> + + p { margin-top: .75em; + text-align: justify; + margin-bottom: .75em; + } + h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 { + text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ + clear: both; + } + hr { width: 33%; + margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; + clear: both; + } + + table {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;} + + body{margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; + } + + .pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ + /* visibility: hidden; */ + position: absolute; + left: 92%; + font-size: smaller; + text-align: right; + } /* page numbers */ + + .blockquot{margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%;} + + .center {text-align: center;} + .smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} + .u {text-decoration: underline;} + + .footnotes {border: dashed 1px;} + .footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;} + .footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} + .fnanchor {vertical-align: super; font-size: .8em; text-decoration: none;} + + p.author {text-align: right; margin-right: 2em;} + + .trans_notes {background:#d0d0d0; padding: 7px; border:solid black 1px;} + + </style> + </head> +<body> +<div style='text-align:center'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE EGO AND HIS OWN ***</div> + +<h1>THE EGO AND HIS<br /> +OWN</h1> + +<h3>BY</h3> + +<h2>MAX STIRNER</h2> + +<h4><span class="smcap">Translated from the German by</span><br /> + +<big>STEVEN T. BYINGTON</big><br /><br /> + +<span class="smcap">With an Introduction by</span><br /> + +<big>J. L. WALKER</big></h4> + + + +<h4><span class="smcap">New York</span><br /> +BENJ. R. TUCKER, <span class="smcap">Publisher</span><br /> +1907</h4> + + + +<hr style="width: 45%;" /> +<h5>Copyright. 1907, by<br /> +BENJAMIN R. TUCKER<br /></h5> + + + + +<hr style="width: 45%;" /> + + +<h3>TO MY SWEETHEART</h3> + +<h2>MARIE DÄHNHARDT</h2> + + +<hr style="width: 100%;" /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_v" id="Page_v">[Pg v]</a></span></p> +<h2>CONTENTS</h2> + + + +<div class='center'> +<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="Contents"> +<tr><td align='left'> </td><td align='left'><span class="smcap">Page</span></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><span class="smcap">Publisher's Preface</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_vii">vii</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><span class="smcap">Introduction</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_xii">xii</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><span class="smcap">Translator's Preface</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_xix">xix</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left' colspan='2'> </td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><span class="smcap">All Things are Nothing to Me</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_3">3</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left' colspan='2'> </td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><span class="smcap">Part First</span>: <i>MAN</i></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_7">7</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> I.—<span class="smcap">A Human Life</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_9">9</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> II.—<span class="smcap">Men of the Old Time and the New</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_17">17</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> I.—<span class="smcap">The Ancients</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_17">17</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> II.—<span class="smcap">The Moderns</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_30">30</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> § 1.—<span class="smcap">The Spirit</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_34">34</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> § 2.—<span class="smcap">The Possessed</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_42">42</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> § 3.—<span class="smcap">The Hierarchy</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_85">85</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> III.—<span class="smcap">The Free</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_127">127</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> § 1.—<span class="smcap">Political Liberalism</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_128">128</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> § 2.—<span class="smcap">Social Liberalism</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_152">152</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> § 3.—<span class="smcap">Humane Liberalism</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_163">163</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left' colspan='2'> </td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><span class="smcap">Part Second</span>: <i>I</i></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_201">201</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> I.—<span class="smcap">Ownness</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_203">203</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> II.—<span class="smcap">The Owner</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_225">225</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> I.—<span class="smcap">My Power</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_242">242</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> II.—<span class="smcap">My Intercourse</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_275">275</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> III.—<span class="smcap">My Self-enjoyment</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_425">425</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'> III.—<span class="smcap">The Unique One</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_484">484</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align='left' colspan='2'> </td></tr> +<tr><td align='left'><span class="smcap">Index</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_491">491</a></td></tr> +</table></div> + + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_vi" id="Page_vi">[Pg vi]</a></span></p> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_vii" id="Page_vii">[Pg vii]</a></span></p> +<h2>PUBLISHER'S PREFACE</h2> + + +<p>For more than twenty years I have entertained the design of +publishing an English translation of "<i>Der Einzige und sein +Eigentum</i>." When I formed this design, the number of +English-speaking persons who had ever heard of the book was +very limited. The memory of Max Stirner had been virtually +extinct for an entire generation. But in the last two decades +there has been a remarkable revival of interest both in the book +and in its author. It began in this country with a discussion in +the pages of the Anarchist periodical, "Liberty," in which +Stirner's thought was clearly expounded and vigorously championed +by Dr. James L. Walker, who adopted for this discussion +the pseudonym "Tak Kak." At that time Dr. Walker was the +chief editorial writer for the Galveston "News." Some years +later he became a practising physician in Mexico, where he died +in 1904. A series of essays which he began in an Anarchist +periodical, "Egoism," and which he lived to complete, was +published after his death in a small volume, "The Philosophy +of Egoism." It is a very able and convincing exposition of +Stirner's teachings, and almost the only one that exists in the +English language. But the chief instrument in the revival of +Stirnerism was and is the German poet, John Henry Mackay. +Very early in his career he met Stirner's name in Lange's "History +of Materialism," and was moved thereby to read his book. +The work made such an impression on him that he resolved to +devote a portion of his life to the rediscovery and rehabilitation +of the lost and forgotten genius. Through years of toil and correspondence +and travel, and triumphing over tremendous obstacles, +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_viii" id="Page_viii">[Pg viii]</a></span> +he carried his task to completion, and his biography of +Stirner appeared in Berlin in 1898. It is a tribute to the thoroughness +of Mackay's work that since its publication not one important +fact about Stirner has been discovered by anybody. +During his years of investigation Mackay's advertising for information +had created a new interest in Stirner, which was enhanced +by the sudden fame of the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche, an +author whose intellectual kinship with Stirner has been a subject +of much controversy. "<i>Der Einzige</i>," previously obtainable only +in an expensive form, was included in Philipp Reclam's Universal-Bibliothek, +and this cheap edition has enjoyed a wide and +ever-increasing circulation. During the last dozen years the +book has been translated twice into French, once into Italian, +once into Russian, and possibly into other languages. The +Scandinavian critic, Brandes, has written on Stirner. A large +and appreciative volume, entitled "<i>L'Individualisme Anarchiste: +Max Stirner</i>," from the pen of Prof. Victor Basch, of the +University of Rennes, has appeared in Paris. Another large +and sympathetic volume, "Max Stirner," written by Dr. +Anselm Ruest, has been published very recently in Berlin. Dr. +Paul Eltzbacher, in his work, "<i>Der Anarchismus</i>," gives a +chapter to Stirner, making him one of the seven typical +Anarchists, beginning with William Godwin and ending with +Tolstoi, of whom his book treats. There is hardly a notable +magazine or a review on the Continent that has not given at +least one leading article to the subject of Stirner. Upon the +initiative of Mackay and with the aid of other admirers a suitable +stone has been placed above the philosopher's previously-neglected +grave, and a memorial tablet upon the house in +Berlin where he died in 1856; and this spring another is to +be placed upon the house in Bayreuth where he was born +in 1806. As a result of these various efforts, and though but +little has been written about Stirner in the English language, +his name is now known at least to thousands in America and +England where formerly it was known only to hundreds. +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_ix" id="Page_ix">[Pg ix]</a></span> +Therefore conditions are now more favorable for the reception +of this volume than they were when I formed the design of +publishing it, more than twenty years ago.</p> + +<p>The problem of securing a reasonably good translation (for in +the case of a work presenting difficulties so enormous it was idle +to hope for an adequate translation) was finally solved by entrusting +the task to Steven T. Byington, a scholar of remarkable +attainments, whose specialty is philology, and who is +also one of the ablest workers in the propaganda of Anarchism. +But, for further security from error, it was agreed with +Mr. Byington that his translation should have the benefit of +revision by Dr. Walker, the most thorough American student of +Stirner, and by Emma Heller Schumm and George Schumm, +who are not only sympathetic with Stirner, but familiar with the +history of his time, and who enjoy a knowledge of English and +German that makes it difficult to decide which is their native +tongue. It was also agreed that, upon any point of difference +between the translator and his revisers which consultation +might fail to solve, the publisher should decide. This method +has been followed, and in a considerable number of instances it +has fallen to me to make a decision. It is only fair to say, +therefore, that the responsibility for special errors and imperfections +properly rests on my shoulders, whereas, on the other hand, +the credit for whatever general excellence the translation may +possess belongs with the same propriety to Mr. Byington and his +coadjutors. One thing is certain: its defects are due to no lack +of loving care and pains. And I think I may add with confidence, +while realizing fully how far short of perfection it necessarily +falls, that it may safely challenge comparison with the +translations that have been made into other languages.</p> + +<p>In particular, I am responsible for the admittedly erroneous +rendering of the title. "The Ego and His Own" is not an exact +English equivalent of "<i>Der Einzige und sein Eigentum</i>." But +then, there is no exact English equivalent. Perhaps the nearest +is "The Unique One and His Property." But the unique one is +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_x" id="Page_x">[Pg x]</a></span> +not strictly the <i>Einzige</i>, for uniqueness connotes not only singleness +but an admirable singleness, while Stirner's <i>Einzigkeit</i> is admirable +in his eyes only as such, it being no part of the purpose +of his book to distinguish a particular <i>Einzigkeit</i> as more excellent +than another. Moreover, "The Unique One and His Property" +has no graces to compel our forgiveness of its slight inaccuracy. +It is clumsy and unattractive. And the same objections +may be urged with still greater force against all the other renderings +that have been suggested,—"The Single One and His +Property," "The Only One and His Property," "The Lone One +and His Property," "The Unit and His Property," and, last +and least and worst, "The Individual and His Prerogative." +"The Ego and His Own," on the other hand, if not a precise +rendering, is at least an excellent title in itself; excellent by its +euphony, its monosyllabic incisiveness, and its telling—<i>Einzigkeit</i>. +Another strong argument in its favor is the emphatic correspondence +of the phrase "his own" with Mr. Byington's renderings +of the kindred words, <i>Eigenheit</i> and <i>Eigner</i>. Moreover, no +reader will be led astray who bears in mind Stirner's distinction: +"I am not an ego along with other egos, but the sole ego; +I am unique." And, to help the reader to bear this in mind, the +various renderings of the word <i>Einzige</i> that occur through the +volume are often accompanied by foot-notes showing that, in the +German, one and the same word does duty for all.</p> + +<p>If the reader finds the first quarter of this book somewhat +forbidding and obscure, he is advised nevertheless not to +falter. Close attention will master almost every difficulty, +and, if he will but give it, he will find abundant reward in what +follows. For his guidance I may specify one defect in the +author's style. When controverting a view opposite to his own, +he seldom distinguishes with sufficient clearness his statement of +his own view from his re-statement of the antagonistic view. +As a result, the reader is plunged into deeper and deeper mystification, +until something suddenly reveals the cause of his misunderstanding, +after which he must go back and read again. I +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_xi" id="Page_xi">[Pg xi]</a></span> +therefore put him on his guard. The other difficulties lie, as a +rule, in the structure of the work. As to these I can hardly do +better than translate the following passage from Prof. Basch's +book, alluded to above: "There is nothing more disconcerting +than the first approach to this strange work. Stirner does not +condescend to inform us as to the architecture of his edifice, or +furnish us the slightest guiding thread. The apparent divisions +of the book are few and misleading. From the first page to the +last a <i>unique</i> thought circulates, but it divides itself among an +infinity of vessels and arteries in each of which runs a blood so +rich in ferments that one is tempted to describe them all. There +is no progress in the development, and the repetitions are innumerable.... +The reader who is not deterred +by this oddity, or rather absence, of composition gives +proof of genuine intellectual courage. At first one seems to be +confronted with a collection of essays strung together, with a +throng of aphorisms.... But, if you read this +book several times; if, after having penetrated the intimacy of +each of its parts, you then traverse it as a whole,—gradually +the fragments weld themselves together, and Stirner's thought +is revealed in all its unity, in all its force, and in all its depth."</p> + +<p>A word about the dedication. Mackay's investigations have +brought to light that Marie Daehnhardt had nothing whatever +in common with Stirner, and so was unworthy of the honor conferred +upon her. She was no <i>Eigene</i>. I therefore reproduce the +dedication merely in the interest of historical accuracy.</p> + +<p>Happy as I am in the appearance of this book, my joy is not +unmixed with sorrow. The cherished project was as dear to the +heart of Dr. Walker as to mine, and I deeply grieve that he is +no longer with us to share our delight in the fruition. Nothing, +however, can rob us of the masterly introduction that he wrote +for this volume (in 1903, or perhaps earlier), from which I will +not longer keep the reader. This introduction, no more than +the book itself, shall that <i>Einzige</i>, Death, make his <i>Eigentum</i>.</p> + +<p> <i>February, 1907.</i></p> +<p class="author">B. R. T.</p> + + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_xii" id="Page_xii">[Pg xii]</a></span></p> +<h2>INTRODUCTION</h2> + + +<p>Fifty years sooner or later can make little difference in the +case of a book so revolutionary as this.</p> + +<p>It saw the light when a so-called revolutionary movement was +preparing in men's minds, which agitation was, however, only a +disturbance due to desires to participate in government, and to +govern and to be governed, in a manner different to that which +prevails. The "revolutionists" of 1848 were bewitched with an +idea. They were not at all the masters of ideas. Most of those +who since that time have prided themselves upon being revolutionists +have been and are likewise but the bondmen of an idea,—that +of the different lodgment of authority.</p> + +<p>The temptation is, of course, present to attempt an explanation +of the central thought of this work; but such an effort appears +to be unnecessary to one who has the volume in his hand. +The author's care in illustrating his meaning shows that he realized +how prone the possessed man is to misunderstand whatever +is not moulded according to the fashions in thinking. The +author's learning was considerable, his command of words and +ideas may never be excelled by another, and he judged it needful +to develop his argument in manifold ways. So those who enter +into the spirit of it will scarcely hope to impress others with the +same conclusion in a more summary manner. Or, if one might +deem that possible after reading Stirner, still one cannot think +that it could be done so surely. The author has made certain +work of it, even though he has to wait for his public; but still, +the reception of the book by its critics amply proves the truth of +the saying that one can give another arguments, but not understanding. +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_xiii" id="Page_xiii">[Pg xiii]</a></span> +The system-makers and system-believers thus far cannot +get it out of their heads that any discourse about the nature +of an ego must turn upon the common characteristics of egos, to +make a systematic scheme of what they share as a generality. +The critics inquire what kind of man the author is talking about. +They repeat the question: What does he believe in? They fail +to grasp the purport of the recorded answer: "I believe in myself"; +which is attributed to a common soldier long before the +time of Stirner. They ask, What is the principle of the self-conscious +egoist,—the <i>Einzige</i>? To this perplexity Stirner says: +Change the question; put "who?" instead of "what?" and an +answer can then be given by naming him!</p> + +<p>This, of course, is too simple for persons governed by ideas, +and for persons in quest of new governing ideas. They wish to +classify the man. Now, that in me which you can classify is not +my distinguishing self. "Man" is the horizon or zero of my +existence as an individual. Over that I rise as I can. At least +I am something more than "man in general." Pre-existing worship +of ideals and disrespect for self had made of the ego at the +very most a Somebody, oftener an empty vessel to be filled with +the grace or the leavings of a tyrannous doctrine; thus a Nobody. +Stirner dispels the morbid subjection, and recognizes +each one who knows and feels himself as his own property to be +neither humble Nobody nor befogged Somebody, but henceforth +flat-footed and level-headed Mr. Thisbody, who has a character +and good pleasure of his own, just as he has a name of his own.</p> + +<p>The critics who attacked this work and were answered in the +author's minor writings, rescued from oblivion by John Henry +Mackay, nearly all display the most astonishing triviality and +impotent malice.</p> + +<p>We owe to Dr. Eduard von Hartmann the unquestionable +service which he rendered by directing attention to this book in +his "<i>Philosophie des Unbewussten</i>," the first edition of which +was published in 1869, and in other writings. I do not begrudge +Dr. von Hartmann the liberty of criticism which he used; and I +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_xiv" id="Page_xiv">[Pg xiv]</a></span> +think the admirers of Stirner's teaching must quite appreciate +one thing which Von Hartmann did at a much later date. In +"<i>Der Eigene</i>" of August 10, 1896, there appeared a letter written +by him and giving, among other things, certain data from +which to judge that, when Friedrich Nietzsche wrote his later +essays, Nietzsche was not ignorant of Stirner's book.</p> + +<p>Von Hartmann wishes that Stirner had gone on and developed +his principle. Von Hartmann suggests that you and I are really +the same spirit, looking out through two pairs of eyes. Then, +one may reply, I need not concern myself about you, for in myself +I have—us; and at that rate Von Hartmann is merely accusing +himself of inconsistency: for, when Stirner wrote this book, +Von Hartmann's spirit was writing it; and it is just the pity that +Von Hartmann in his present form does not indorse what he said +in the form of Stirner,—that Stirner was different from any other +man; that his ego was not Fichte's transcendental generality, +but "this transitory ego of flesh and blood." It is not as a generality +that you and I differ, but as a couple of facts which are +not to be reasoned into one. "I" is somewise Hartmann, and +thus Hartmann is "I"; but I am not Hartmann, and Hartmann +is not—I. Neither am I the "I" of Stirner; only Stirner himself +was Stirner's "I." Note how comparatively indifferent a +matter it is with Stirner that one is an ego, but how all-important +it is that one be a self-conscious ego,—a self-conscious, self-willed +person.</p> + +<p>Those not self-conscious and self-willed are constantly acting +from self-interested motives, but clothing these in various garbs. +Watch those people closely in the light of Stirner's teaching, +and they seem to be hypocrites, they have so many good moral +and religious plans of which self-interest is at the end and bottom; +but they, we may believe, do not know that this is more +than a coincidence.</p> + +<p>In Stirner we have the philosophical foundation for political +liberty. His interest in the practical development of egoism to +the dissolution of the State and the union of free men is clear +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_xv" id="Page_xv">[Pg xv]</a></span> +and pronounced, and harmonizes perfectly with the economic +philosophy of Josiah Warren. Allowing for difference of temperament +and language, there is a substantial agreement between +Stirner and Proudhon. Each would be free, and sees in +every increase of the number of free people and their intelligence +an auxiliary force against the oppressor. But, on the +other hand, will any one for a moment seriously contend that +Nietzsche and Proudhon march together in general aim and tendency,—that +they have anything in common except the daring +to profane the shrine and sepulchre of superstition?</p> + +<p>Nietzsche has been much spoken of as a disciple of Stirner, +and, owing to favorable cullings from Nietzsche's writings, it +has occurred that one of his books has been supposed to contain +more sense than it really does—so long as one had read only the +extracts.</p> + +<p>Nietzsche cites scores or hundreds of authors. Had he read +everything, and not read Stirner?</p> + +<p>But Nietzsche is as unlike Stirner as a tight-rope performance +is unlike an algebraic equation.</p> + +<p>Stirner loved liberty for himself, and loved to see any and all +men and women taking liberty, and he had no lust of power. +Democracy to him was sham liberty, egoism the genuine liberty.</p> + +<p>Nietzsche, on the contrary, pours out his contempt upon +democracy because it is not aristocratic. He is predatory to +the point of demanding that those who must succumb to feline +rapacity shall be taught to submit with resignation. When he +speaks of "Anarchistic dogs" scouring the streets of great civilized +cities, it is true, the context shows that he means the Communists; +but his worship of Napoleon, his bathos of anxiety for +the rise of an aristocracy that shall rule Europe for thousands of +years, his idea of treating women in the oriental fashion, show +that Nietzsche has struck out in a very old path—doing the +apotheosis of tyranny. We individual egoistic Anarchists, however, +may say to the Nietzsche school, so as not to be misunderstood: +We do not ask of the Napoleons to have pity, nor of the +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_xvi" id="Page_xvi">[Pg xvi]</a></span> +predatory barons to do justice. They will find it convenient for +their own welfare to make terms with men who have learned of +Stirner what a man can be who worships nothing, bears allegiance +to nothing. To Nietzsche's rhodomontade of eagles in +baronial form, born to prey on industrial lambs, we rather tauntingly +oppose the ironical question: Where are your claws? +What if the "eagles" are found to be plain barnyard fowls on +which more silly fowls have fastened steel spurs to hack the victims, +who, however, have the power to disarm the sham +"eagles" between two suns?</p> + +<p>Stirner shows that men make their tyrants as they make their +gods, and his purpose is to unmake tyrants.</p> + +<p>Nietzsche dearly loves a tyrant.</p> + +<p>In style Stirner's work offers the greatest possible contrast to +the puerile, padded phraseology of Nietzsche's "<i>Zarathustra</i>" +and its false imagery. Who ever imagined such an unnatural +conjuncture as an eagle "toting" a serpent in friendship? which +performance is told of in bare words, but nothing comes of it. +In Stirner we are treated to an enlivening and earnest discussion +addressed to serious minds, and every reader feels that the word +is to him, for his instruction and benefit, so far as he has mental +independence and courage to take it and use it. The startling +intrepidity of this book is infused with a whole-hearted love for +all mankind, as evidenced by the fact that the author shows not +one iota of prejudice or any idea of division of men into ranks. +He would lay aside government, but would establish any regulation +deemed convenient, and for this only <i>our</i> convenience is +consulted. Thus there will be general liberty only when the disposition +toward tyranny is met by intelligent opposition that will +no longer submit to such a rule. Beyond this the manly sympathy +and philosophical bent of Stirner are such that rulership +appears by contrast a vanity, an infatuation of perverted pride. +We know not whether we more admire our author or more love +him.</p> + +<p>Stirner's attitude toward woman is not special. She is an individual +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_xvii" id="Page_xvii">[Pg xvii]</a></span> +if she can be, not handicapped by anything he says, +feels, thinks, or plans. This was more fully exemplified in his +life than even in this book; but there is not a line in the book to +put or keep woman in an inferior position to man, neither is +there anything of caste or aristocracy in the book.</p> + +<p>Likewise there is nothing of obscurantism or affected mysticism +about it. Everything in it is made as plain as the author +could make it. He who does not so is not Stirner's disciple nor +successor nor co-worker.</p> + +<p>Some one may ask: How does plumb-line Anarchism train +with the unbridled egoism proclaimed by Stirner? The plumb-line +is not a fetish, but an intellectual conviction, and egoism is +a universal fact of animal life. Nothing could seem clearer to +my mind than that the reality of egoism must first come into the +consciousness of men, before we can have the unbiased Einzige +in place of the prejudiced biped who lends himself to the support +of tyrannies a million times stronger over me than the natural +self-interest of any individual. When plumb-line doctrine +is misconceived as duty between unequal-minded men,—as a religion +of humanity,—it is indeed the confusion of trying to read +without knowing the alphabet and of putting philanthropy in +place of contract. But, if the plumb-line be scientific, it is or +can be my possession, my property, and I choose it for its use—when +circumstances admit of its use. I do not feel bound to use +it because it is scientific, in building my house; but, as my will, +to be intelligent, is not to be merely wilful, the adoption of the +plumb-line follows the discarding of incantations. There is no +plumb-line without the unvarying lead at the end of the line; +not a fluttering bird or a clawing cat.</p> + +<p>On the practical side of the question of egoism <i>versus</i> self-surrender +and for a trial of egoism in politics, this may be said: the +belief that men not moved by a sense of duty will be unkind or +unjust to others is but an indirect confession that those who hold +that belief are greatly interested in having others live for them +rather than for themselves. But I do not ask or expect so much. +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_xviii" id="Page_xviii">[Pg xviii]</a></span> +I am content if others individually live for themselves, and thus +cease in so many ways to act in opposition to my living for myself,—to +our living for ourselves.</p> + +<p>If Christianity has failed to turn the world from evil, it is not +to be dreamed that rationalism of a pious moral stamp will succeed +in the same task. Christianity, or all philanthropic love, is +tested in non-resistance. It is a dream that example will change +the hearts of rulers, tyrants, mobs. If the extremest self-surrender +fails, how can a mixture of Christian love and worldly caution +succeed? This at least must be given up. The policy of +Christ and Tolstoi can soon be tested, but Tolstoi's belief is not +satisfied with a present test and failure. He has the infatuation +of one who persists because this <i>ought</i> to be. The egoist who +thinks "I should like this to be" still has the sense to perceive +that it is not accomplished by the fact of some believing and +submitting, inasmuch as others are alert to prey upon the unresisting. +The Pharaohs we have ever with us.</p> + +<p>Several passages in this most remarkable book show the author +as a man full of sympathy. When we reflect upon his deliberately +expressed opinions and sentiments,—his spurning of +the sense of moral obligation as the last form of superstition,—may +we not be warranted in thinking that the total disappearance +of the sentimental supposition of duty liberates a quantity +of nervous energy for the purest generosity and clarifies the intellect +for the more discriminating choice of objects of merit?</p> + +<p class="author"><span class="smcap">J. L. Walker.</span></p> + + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_xix" id="Page_xix">[Pg xix]</a></span></p> +<h2>TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE</h2> + + +<p>If the style of this book is found unattractive, it will show +that I have done my work ill and not represented the author +truly; but, if it is found odd, I beg that I may not bear all the +blame. I have simply tried to reproduce the author's own mixture +of colloquialisms and technicalities, and his preference for +the precise expression of his thought rather than the word conventionally +expected.</p> + +<p>One especial feature of the style, however, gives the reason +why this preface should exist. It is characteristic of Stirner's +writing that the thread of thought is carried on largely by the +repetition of the same word in a modified form or sense. That +connection of ideas which has guided popular instinct in the +formation of words is made to suggest the line of thought which +the writer wishes to follow. If this echoing of words is missed, +the bearing of the statements on each other is in a measure lost; +and, where the ideas are very new, one cannot afford to throw +away any help in following their connection. Therefore, where +a useful echo (and there are few useless ones in the book) could +not be reproduced in English, I have generally called attention +to it in a note. My notes are distinguished from the author's by +being enclosed in brackets.</p> + +<p>One or two of such coincidences of language, occurring in +words which are prominent throughout the book, should be +borne constantly in mind as a sort of <i>Keri perpetuum</i>: for instance, +the identity in the original of the words "spirit" and +"mind," and of the phrases "supreme being" and "highest +essence." In such cases I have repeated the note where it +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_xx" id="Page_xx">[Pg xx]</a></span> +seemed that such repetition might be absolutely necessary, but +have trusted the reader to carry it in his head where a failure of +his memory would not be ruinous or likely.</p> + +<p>For the same reason,—that is, in order not to miss any indication +of the drift of the thought,—I have followed the original +in the very liberal use of italics, and in the occasional eccentric +use of a punctuation mark, as I might not have done in translating +a work of a different nature.</p> + +<p>I have set my face as a flint against the temptation to add +notes that were not part of the translation. There is no telling +how much I might have enlarged the book if I had put a note at +every sentence which deserved to have its truth brought out by +fuller elucidation,—or even at every one which I thought needed +correction. It might have been within my province, if I had +been able, to explain all the allusions to contemporary events, +but I doubt whether any one could do that properly without +having access to the files of three or four well-chosen German +newspapers of Stirner's time. The allusions are clear enough, +without names and dates, to give a vivid picture of certain +aspects of German life then. The tone of some of them is explained +by the fact that the book was published under +censorship.</p> + +<p>I have usually preferred, for the sake of the connection, to +translate Biblical quotations somewhat as they stand in the German, +rather than conform them altogether to the English Bible. +I am sometimes quite as near the original Greek as if I had followed +the current translation.</p> + +<p>Where German books are referred to, the pages cited are +those of the German editions even when (usually because of +some allusions in the text) the titles of the books are translated.</p> + +<p class="author"><span class="smcap">Steven T. Byington.</span></p> + + + + +<hr style="width: 100%;" /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_1" id="Page_1">[Pg 1]</a></span></p> +<h1>THE EGO AND HIS OWN</h1> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_2" id="Page_2">[Pg 2]</a></span></p> + + +<hr style="width: 100%;" /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">[Pg 3]</a></span></p> +<h2>All Things are Nothing to Me<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a></h2> + + +<p>What is not supposed, to be my concern<a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a>! First +and foremost, the Good Cause,<a name="FNanchor_3_3" id="FNanchor_3_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> then God's cause, the +cause of mankind, of truth, of freedom, of humanity, +of justice; further, the cause of my people, my prince, +my fatherland; finally, even the cause of Mind, and a +thousand other causes. Only <i>my</i> cause is never to be +my concern. "Shame on the egoist who thinks only +of himself!"</p> + +<p>Let us look and see, then, how they manage <i>their</i> +concerns—they for whose cause we are to labor, devote +ourselves, and grow enthusiastic.</p> + +<p>You have much profound information to give +about God, and have for thousands of years "searched +the depths of the Godhead," and looked into its heart, +so that you can doubtless tell us how God himself attends +to "God's cause," which we are called to serve. +And you do not conceal the Lord's doings, either. +Now, what is his cause? Has he, as is demanded of +us, made an alien cause, the cause of truth or love, his +own? You are shocked by this misunderstanding,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">[Pg 4]</a></span> +and you instruct us that God's cause is indeed the +cause of truth and love, but that this cause cannot be +called alien to him, because God is himself truth and +love; you are shocked by the assumption that God +could be like us poor worms in furthering an alien +cause as his own. "Should God take up the cause of +truth if he were not himself truth?" He cares only +for <i>his</i> cause, but, because he is all in all, therefore all +is <i>his</i> cause! But we, we are not all in all, and our +cause is altogether little and contemptible; therefore +we must "serve a higher cause."—Now it is clear, +God cares only for what is his, busies himself only +with himself, thinks only of himself, and has only +himself before his eyes; woe to all that is not well-pleasing +to him! He serves no higher person, and +satisfies only himself. His cause is—a purely egoistic +cause.</p> + +<p>How is it with mankind, whose cause we are to +make our own? Is its cause that of another, and does +mankind serve a higher cause? No, mankind looks +only at itself, mankind will promote the interests of +mankind only, mankind is its own cause. That it +may develop, it causes nations and individuals to wear +themselves out in its service, and, when they have accomplished +what mankind needs, it throws them on the +dung-heap of history in gratitude. Is not mankind's +cause—a purely egoistic cause?</p> + +<p>I have no need to take up each thing that wants to +throw its cause on us and show that it is occupied only +with itself, not with us, only with its good, not with +ours. Look at the rest for yourselves. Do truth, +freedom, humanity, justice, desire anything else than<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[Pg 5]</a></span> +that you grow enthusiastic and serve them?</p> + +<p>They all have an admirable time of it when they +receive zealous homage. Just observe the nation that +is defended by devoted patriots. The patriots fall in +bloody battle or in the fight with hunger and want; +what does the nation care for that? Joy the manure of +their corpses the nation comes to "its bloom!" The +individuals have died "for the great cause of the nation," +and the nation sends some words of thanks after +them and—has the profit of it. I call that a paying +kind of egoism.</p> + +<p>But only look at that Sultan who cares so lovingly +for his people. Is he not pure unselfishness itself, and +does he not hourly sacrifice himself for his people? +Oh, yes, for "his people." Just try it; show yourself +not as his, but as your own; for breaking away from +his egoism you will take a trip to jail. The Sultan +has set his cause on nothing but himself; he is to +himself all in all, he is to himself the only one, and +tolerates nobody who would dare not to be one of "his +people."</p> + +<p>And will you not learn by these brilliant examples +that the egoist gets on best? I for my part take +a lesson from them, and propose, instead of further +unselfishly serving those great egoists, rather to be the +egoist myself.</p> + +<p>God and mankind have concerned themselves for +nothing, for nothing but themselves. Let me then +likewise concern myself for <i>myself</i>, who am equally +with God the nothing of all others, who am my all, +who am the only one.<a name="FNanchor_4_4" id="FNanchor_4_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a></p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[Pg 6]</a></span></p> +<p>If God, if mankind, as you affirm, have substance +enough in themselves to be all in all to themselves, +then I feel that <i>I</i> shall still less lack that, and that I +shall have no complaint to make of my "emptiness." +I am nothing in the sense of emptiness, but I am the +creative nothing, the nothing out of which I myself as +creator create everything.</p> + +<p>Away, then, with every concern that is not altogether +my concern! You think at least the "good +cause" must be my concern? What's good, what's +bad? Why, I myself am my concern, and I am neither +good nor bad. Neither has meaning for me.</p> + +<p>The divine is God's concern; the human, man's. +My concern is neither the divine nor the human, not +the true, good, just, free, etc., but solely what is <i>mine</i>, +and it is not a general one, but is—<i>unique</i>,<a name="FNanchor_5_5" id="FNanchor_5_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> as I am +unique.</p> + +<p>Nothing is more to me than myself!</p> + + +<hr style="width: 100%;" /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[Pg 7]</a></span></p> +<h2>Part First</h2> + +<h1>Man</h1> +<hr style="width: 100%;" /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[Pg 8]</a></span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +<i>Man is to man the supreme being</i>, says Feuerbach.<br /> +<br /> +<i>Man has just been discovered</i>, says Burno Bauer.<br /> +<br /> +Then let us take a more careful look at this supreme being and<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 14em;">this new discovery.</span> +</p></div> + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</a></span></p> +<h2>I</h2> + +<h2>A HUMAN LIFE</h2> + + +<p>From the moment when he catches sight of the light +of the world a man seeks to find out <i>himself</i> and get +hold of <i>himself</i> out of its confusion, in which he, with +everything else, is tossed about in motley mixture.</p> + +<p>But everything that comes in contact with the child +defends itself in turn against his attacks, and asserts +its own persistence.</p> + +<p>Accordingly, because each thing <i>cares for itself</i> +and at the same time comes into constant collision +with other things, the <i>combat</i> of self-assertion is unavoidable.</p> + +<p><i>Victory</i> or <i>defeat</i>—between the two alternatives the +fate of the combat wavers. The victor becomes the +lord, the vanquished one the <i>subject</i>: the former exercises +<i>supremacy</i> and "rights of supremacy," the latter +fulfils in awe and deference the "duties of a subject."</p> + +<p>But both remain <i>enemies</i>, and always lie in wait: +they watch for each other's <i>weaknesses</i>—children for +those of their parents and parents for those of their +children (<i>e. g.</i> their fear); either the stick conquers +the man, or the man conquers the stick.</p> + +<p>In childhood liberation takes the direction of trying +to get to the bottom of things, to get at what is "back<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</a></span> +of" things; therefore we spy out the weak points of +everybody, for which, it is well known, children have a +sure instinct; therefore we like to smash things, like to +rummage through hidden corners, pry after what is +covered up or out of the way, and try what we can do +with everything. When we once get at what is back +of the things, we know we are safe; when, <i>e. g.</i>, we +have got at the fact that the rod is too weak against +our obduracy, then we no longer fear it, "have outgrown +it."</p> + +<p>Back of the rod, mightier than it, stands our—obduracy, +our obdurate courage. By degrees we get at +what is back of everything that was mysterious and +uncanny to us, the mysteriously-dreaded might of the +rod, the father's stern look, etc., and back of all we +find our—ataraxy, <i>i. e.</i> imperturbability, intrepidity, +our counter force, our odds of strength, our invincibility. +Before that which formerly inspired in us fear +and deference we no longer retreat shyly, but take +<i>courage</i>. Back of everything we find our <i>courage</i>, +our superiority; back of the sharp command of +parents and authorities stands, after all, our courageous +choice or our outwitting shrewdness. And the +more we feel ourselves, the smaller appears that which +before seemed invincible. And what is our trickery, +shrewdness, courage, obduracy? What else but—<i>mind!</i><a name="FNanchor_6_6" id="FNanchor_6_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a></p> + +<p>Through a considerable time we are spared a fight +that is so exhausting later—the fight against <i>reason</i>. +The fairest part of childhood passes without the ne<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</a></span>cessity +of coming to blows with reason. We care +nothing at all about it, do not meddle with it, admit +no reason. We are not to be persuaded to anything +by <i>conviction</i>, and are deaf to good arguments, principles, +etc.; on the other hand, coaxing, punishment, +and the like are hard for us to resist.</p> + +<p>This stern life-and-death combat with <i>reason</i> enter +later, and begins a new phase; in childhood we +scamper about without racking our brains much.</p> + +<p><i>Mind</i> is the name of the <i>first</i> self-discovery, the first +undeification of the divine, <i>i. e.</i> of the uncanny, the +spooks, the "powers above." Our fresh feeling of +youth, this feeling of self, now defers to nothing; the +world is discredited, for we are above it, we are <i>mind</i>.</p> + +<p>Now for the first time we see that hitherto we have +not looked at the world <i>intelligently</i> at all, but only +stared at it.</p> + +<p>We exercise the beginnings of our strength on +<i>natural powers</i>. We defer to parents as a natural +power; later we say: Father and mother are to be +forsaken, all natural power to be counted as riven. +They are vanquished. For the rational, <i>i. e.</i> "intellectual" +man there is no family as a natural power; +a renunciation of parents, brothers, etc., makes its appearance. +If these are "born again" as <i>intellectual, +rational powers</i>, they are no longer at all what they +were before.</p> + +<p>And not only parents, but <i>men in general</i>, are +conquered by the young man; they are no hindrance +to him, and are no longer regarded; for now he says: +One must obey God rather than men.</p> + +<p>From this high standpoint everything "<i>earthly</i>"<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</a></span> +recedes into contemptible remoteness; for the standby +point is—the <i>heavenly</i>.</p> + +<p>The attitude is now altogether reversed; the youth +takes up an <i>intellectual</i> position, while the boy, who +did not yet feel himself as mind, grew up in mindless +learning. The former does not try to get hold of +<i>things</i> (<i>e. g.</i> to get into his head the <i>data</i> of history), +but of the <i>thoughts</i> that lie hidden in things, and so, +<i>e. g.</i>, of the <i>spirit</i> of history. On the other hand, the +boy understands <i>connections</i> no doubt, but not ideas, +the spirit; therefore he strings together whatever can +be learned, without proceeding <i>a priori</i> and theoretically, +<i>i. e.</i> without looking for ideas.</p> + +<p>As in childhood one had to overcome the resistance +of the <i>laws of the world</i>, so now in everything that he +proposes he is met by an objection of the mind, of +reason, of his <i>own conscience</i>. "That is unreasonable, +unchristian, unpatriotic," and the like, cries conscience +to us, and—frightens us away from it. Not the might +of the avenging Eumenides, not Poseidon's wrath, not +God, far as he sees the hidden, not the father's rod of +punishment, do we fear, but—<i>conscience</i>.</p> + +<p>We "run after our thoughts" now, and follow +their commands just as before we followed parental, +human ones. Our course of action is determined by +our thoughts (ideas, conceptions, <i>faith</i>) as it is in +childhood by the commands of our parents.</p> + +<p>For all that, we were already thinking when we +were children, only our thoughts were not fleshless, +abstract, <i>absolute, i. e.</i> <span class="smcap">NOTHING BUT THOUGHTS</span>, a +heaven in themselves, a pure world of thought, <i>logical</i> +thoughts.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</a></span></p> + +<p>On the contrary, they had been only thoughts that +we had about a <i>thing</i>; we thought of the thing so or +so. Thus we may have thought "God made the +world that we see there," but we did not think of +("search") the "depths of the Godhead itself"; we +may have thought "that is the truth about the matter," +but we did not think of Truth itself, nor unite +into one sentence "God is truth." The "depths of +the Godhead, who is truth," we did not touch. Over +such purely logical, <i>i. e.</i> theological questions, "What +is truth?" Pilate does not stop, though he does not +therefore hesitate to ascertain in an individual case +"what truth there is in the thing," <i>i. e.</i> whether the +<i>thing</i> is true.</p> + +<p>Any thought bound to a <i>thing</i> is not yet <i>nothing +but a thought</i>, absolute thought.</p> + +<p>To bring to light <i>the pure thought</i>, or to be of its +party, is the delight of youth; and all the shapes of +light in the world of thought, like truth, freedom, +humanity, Man, etc., illumine and inspire the youthful +soul.</p> + +<p>But, when the spirit is recognized as the essential +thing, it still makes a difference whether the spirit is +poor or rich, and therefore one seeks to become rich +in spirit; the spirit wants to spread out so as to found +its empire—an empire that is not of this world, the +world just conquered. Thus, then, it longs to become +all in all to itself; <i>i. e.</i>, although I am spirit, I am not +yet <i>perfected</i> spirit, and must first seek the complete +spirit.</p> + +<p>But with that I, who had just now found myself as +spirit, lose myself again at once, bowing before the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</a></span> +complete spirit as one not my own but <i>supernal</i>, and +feeling my emptiness.</p> + +<p>Spirit is the essential point for everything, to be +sure; but then is every spirit the "right" spirit? +The right and true spirit is the ideal of spirit, the +"Holy Spirit." It is not my or your spirit, but just—an +ideal, supernal one, it is "God." "God is +spirit." And this supernal "Father in heaven gives +it to those that pray to him."<a name="FNanchor_7_7" id="FNanchor_7_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a></p> + +<p>The man is distinguished from the youth by the +fact that he takes the world as it is, instead of everywhere +fancying it amiss and wanting to improve it, +<i>i. e</i>. model it after his ideal; in him the view that +one must deal with the world according to his <i>interest</i>, +not according to his <i>ideals</i>, becomes confirmed.</p> + +<p>So long as one knows himself only as <i>spirit</i>, and +feels that all the value of his existence consists in being +spirit (it becomes easy for the youth to give his +life, the "bodily life," for a nothing, for the silliest +point of honor), so long it is only <i>thoughts</i> that one +has, ideas that he hopes to be able to realize some day +when he has found a sphere of action; thus one has +meanwhile only <i>ideals</i>, unexecuted ideas or thoughts.</p> + +<p>Not till one has fallen in love with his <i>corporeal</i> +self, and takes a pleasure in himself as a living flesh-and-blood +person,—but it is in mature years, in the +man, that we find it so,—not till then has one a +personal or <i>egoistic</i> interest, <i>i. e.</i> an interest not only +of our spirit, for instance, but of total satisfaction, +satisfaction of the whole chap, a <i>selfish</i> interest. Just<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</a></span> +compare a man with a youth, and see if he will not +appear to you harder, less magnanimous, more selfish. +Is he therefore worse? No, you say; he has only become +more definite, or, as you also call it, more "practical." +But the main point is this, that he makes +<i>himself</i> more the centre than does the youth, who is +infatuated about other things, <i>e. g.</i> God, fatherland, +and so on.</p> + +<p>Therefore the man shows a <i>second</i> self-discovery. +The youth found himself as <i>spirit</i> and lost himself +again in the <i>general</i> spirit, the complete, holy spirit, +Man, mankind,—in short, all ideals; the man finds +himself as <i>embodied</i> spirit.</p> + +<p>Boys had only <i>unintellectual</i> interests (<i>i. e.</i> interests +devoid of thoughts and ideas), youths only <i>intellectual</i> +ones; the man has bodily, personal, egoistic interests.</p> + +<p>If the child has not an <i>object</i> that it can occupy +itself with, it feels <i>ennui</i>; for it does not yet know how +to occupy itself with <i>itself</i>. The youth, on the contrary, +throws the object aside, because for him <i>thoughts</i> +arose out of the object; he occupies himself with his +<i>thoughts</i>, his dreams, occupies himself intellectually, or +"his mind is occupied."</p> + +<p>The young man includes everything not intellectual +under the contemptuous name of "externalities." If +he nevertheless sticks to the most trivial externalities +(<i>e. g.</i> the customs of students' clubs and other formalities), +it is because, and when, he discovers <i>mind</i> in +them, <i>i. e.</i> when they are <i>symbols</i> to him.</p> + +<p>As I find myself back of things, and that as mind, +so I must later find <i>myself</i> also back of <i>thoughts</i>,—to +wit, as their creator and <i>owner</i>. In the time of spirits<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</a></span> +thoughts grew till they overtopped my head, whose +offspring they yet were; they hovered about me and +convulsed me like fever-phantasies—an awful power. +The thoughts had become <i>corporeal</i> on their own account, +were ghosts, such as God, Emperor, Pope, +Fatherland, etc. If I destroy their corporeity, then +I take them back into mine, and say: "I alone am +corporeal." And now I take the world as what it is +to me, as <i>mine</i>, as my property; I refer all to myself.</p> + +<p>If as spirit I had thrust away the world in the +deepest contempt, so as owner I thrust spirits or ideas +away into their "vanity." They have no longer any +power over me, as no "earthly might" has power +over the spirit.</p> + +<p>The child was realistic, taken up with the things of +this world, till little by little he succeeded in getting at +what was back of these very things; the youth was +idealistic, inspired by thoughts, till he worked his way +up to where he became the man, the egoistic man, who +deals with things and thoughts according to his heart's +pleasure, and sets his personal interest above everything. +Finally, the old man? When I become one, +there will still be time enough to speak of that.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</a></span></p> +<h2>II.</h2> + +<h2>MEN OF THE OLD TIME AND THE NEW</h2> + + +<p>How each of us developed himself, what he strove +for, attained, or missed, what objects he formerly pursued +and what plans and wishes his heart is now set +on, what transformations his views have experienced, +what perturbations his principles,—in short, how he +has to-day become what yesterday or years ago he was +not,—this he brings out again from his memory with +more or less ease, and he feels with especial vividness +what changes have taken place in himself when he has +before his eyes the unrolling of another's life.</p> + +<p>Let us therefore look into the activities our fore-fathers +busied themselves with.</p> + + +<h3>I.—THE ANCIENTS</h3> + +<p>Custom having once given the name of "the +ancients" to our pre-Christian ancestors, we will not +throw it up against them that, in comparison with us +experienced people, they ought properly to be called +children, but will rather continue to honor them as our +good old fathers. But how have they come to be +antiquated, and who could displace them through his +pretended newness?</p> + +<p>We know, of course, the revolutionary innovator and<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</a></span> +disrespectful heir, who even took away the sanctity of +the fathers' sabbath to hallow his Sunday, and interrupted +the course of time to begin at himself with a +new chronology; we know him, and know that it is—the +Christian. But does he remain forever young, and +is he to-day still the new man, or will he too be superseded, +as he has superseded the "ancients"?</p> + +<p>The fathers must doubtless have themselves begotten +the young one who entombed them. Let us then peep +at this act of generation.</p> + +<p>"To the ancients the world was a truth," says +Feuerbach, but he forgets to make the important addition, +"a truth whose untruth they tried to get back +of, and at last really did." What is meant by those +words of Feuerbach will be easily recognized if they +are put alongside the Christian thesis of the "vanity +and transitoriness of the world." For, as the Christian +can never convince himself of the vanity of the +divine word, but believes in its eternal and unshakeable +truth, which, the more its depths are searched, +must all the more brilliantly come to light and +triumph, so the ancients on their side lived in the feeling +that the world and mundane relations (<i>e. g</i>. the +natural ties of blood) were the truth before which +their powerless "I" must bow. The very thing on +which the ancients set the highest value is spurned by +Christians as the valueless, and what they recognized +as truth these brand as idle lies; the high significance +of the fatherland disappears, and the Christian must +regard himself as "a stranger on earth";<a name="FNanchor_8_8" id="FNanchor_8_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> the sanc<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</a></span>tity +of funeral rites, from which sprang a work of art +like the Antigone of Sophocles, is designated as a +paltry thing ("Let the dead bury their dead"); the +infrangible truth of family ties is represented as an +untruth which one cannot promptly enough get clear +of;<a name="FNanchor_9_9" id="FNanchor_9_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> and so in everything.</p> + +<p>If we now see that to the two sides opposite things +appear as truth, to one the natural, to the other the +intellectual, to one earthly things and relations, to the +other heavenly (the heavenly fatherland, "Jerusalem +that is above," etc.), it still remains to be considered +how the new time and that undeniable reversal could +come out of antiquity. But the ancients themselves +worked toward making their truth a lie.</p> + +<p>Let us plunge at once into the midst of the most +brilliant years of the ancients, into the Periclean century. +Then the Sophistic culture was spreading, and +Greece made a pastime of what had hitherto been to +her a monstrously serious matter.</p> + +<p>The fathers had been enslaved by the undisturbed +power of existing things too long for the posterity not +to have to learn by bitter experience to <i>feel themselves</i>. +Therefore the Sophists, with courageous sauciness, +pronounce the reassuring words, "Don't be bluffed!" +and diffuse the rationalistic doctrine, "Use your +understanding, your wit, your mind, against everything; +it is by having a good and well-drilled understanding +that one gets through the world best, provides +for himself the best lot, the pleasantest <i>life</i>." +Thus they recognize in <i>mind</i> man's true weapon<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</a></span> +against the world. This is why they lay such stress on +dialectic skill, command of language, the art of disputation, +etc. They announce that mind is to be used +against everything; but they are still far removed +from the holiness of the Spirit, for to them it is a +<i>means</i>, a weapon, as trickery and defiance serve children +for the same purpose; their mind is the unbribable +<i>understanding</i>.</p> + +<p>To-day we should call that a one-sided culture of +the understanding, and add the warning, "Cultivate +not only your understanding, but also, and especially, +your heart." Socrates did the same. For, if the +heart did not become free from its natural impulses, +but remained filled with the most fortuitous contents +and, as an uncriticised <i>avidity</i>, altogether in the +power of things, <i>i. e.</i> nothing but a vessel of the most +various <i>appetites</i>,—then it was unavoidable that the +free understanding must serve the "bad heart" and +was ready to justify everything that the wicked heart +desired.</p> + +<p>Therefore Socrates says that it is not enough for one +to use his understanding in all things, but it is a +question of what <i>cause</i> one exerts it for. We should +now say, one must serve the "good cause." But +serving the good cause is—being moral. Hence +Socrates is the founder of ethics.</p> + +<p>Certainly the principle of the Sophistic doctrine +must lead to the possibility that the blindest and most +dependent slave of his desires might yet be an excellent +sophist, and, with keen understanding, trim and +expound everything in favor of his coarse heart. +What could there be for which a "good reason"<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</a></span> +might not be found, or which might not be defended +through thick and thin?</p> + +<p>Therefore Socrates says: "You must be 'pure-hearted' +if your shrewdness is to be valued." At this +point begins the second period of Greek liberation of +the mind, the period of <i>purity of heart</i>. For the first +was brought to a close by the Sophists in their proclaiming +the omnipotence of the understanding. But +the heart remained <i>worldly-minded</i>, remained a servant +of the world, always affected by worldly wishes. This +coarse heart was to be cultivated from now on—the +era of <i>culture of the heart</i>. But how is the heart to +be cultivated? What the understanding, this one side +of the mind, has reached,—to wit, the capability of +playing freely with and over every concern,—awaits +the heart also; everything <i>worldly</i> must come to grief +before it, so that at last family, commonwealth, fatherland, +and the like, are given up for the sake of the +heart, <i>i. e.</i> of <i>blessedness</i>, the heart's blessedness.</p> + +<p>Daily experience confirms the truth that the understanding +may have renounced a thing many years +before the heart has ceased to beat for it. So the +Sophistic understanding too had so far become master +over the dominant, ancient powers that they now +needed only to be driven out of the heart, in which +they dwelt unmolested, to have at last no part at all +left in man.</p> + +<p>This war is opened by Socrates, and not till the +dying day of the old world does it end in peace.</p> + +<p>The examination of the heart takes its start with +Socrates, and all the contents of the heart are sifted. +In their last and extremest struggles the ancients<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</a></span> +threw all contents out of the heart and let it no +longer beat for anything; this was the deed of the +Skeptics. The same purgation of the heart was now +achieved in the Skeptical age, as the understanding +had succeeded in establishing in the Sophistic age.</p> + +<p>The Sophistic culture has brought it to pass that +one's understanding no longer <i>stands still</i> before anything, +and the Skeptical, that his heart is no longer +<i>moved</i> by anything.</p> + +<p>So long as man is entangled in the movements of +the world and embarrassed by relations to the world,—and +he is so till the end of antiquity, because his +heart still has to struggle for independence from the +worldly,—so long he is not yet spirit; for spirit is +without body, and has no relations to the world and +corporality; for it the world does not exist, nor +natural bonds, but only the spiritual, and spiritual +bonds. Therefore man must first become so completely +unconcerned and reckless, so altogether without +relations, as the Skeptical culture presents him,—so +altogether indifferent to the world that even its falling +in ruins would not move him,—before he could feel +himself as worldless, <i>i. e.</i> as spirit. And this is the +result of the gigantic work of the ancients: that man +knows himself as a being without relations and without +a world, as <i>spirit</i>.</p> + +<p>Only now, after all worldly care has left him, is he +all in all to himself, is he only for himself, i. e. he is +spirit for the spirit, or, in plainer language, he cares +only for the spiritual.</p> + +<p>In the Christian wisdom of serpents and innocence +of doves the two sides—understanding and heart—of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</a></span> +the ancient liberation of mind are so completed that +they appear young and new again, and neither the +one nor the other lets itself be bluffed any longer by +the worldly and natural.</p> + +<p>Thus the ancients mounted to <i>spirit</i>, and strove to +become <i>spiritual</i>. But a man who wishes to be active +as spirit is drawn to quite other tasks than he was able +to set himself formerly: to tasks which really give +something to do to the spirit and not to mere sense +or acuteness,<a name="FNanchor_10_10" id="FNanchor_10_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a> which exerts itself only to become +master of <i>things</i>. The spirit busies itself solely about +the spiritual, and seeks out the "traces of mind" in +everything; to the <i>believing</i> spirit "everything comes +from God," and interests him only to the extent that +it reveals this origin; to the <i>philosophic</i> spirit everything +appears with the stamp of reason, and interests +him only so far as he is able to discover in it reason, +<i>i. e.</i> spiritual content.</p> + +<p>Not the spirit, then, which has to do with absolutely +nothing unspiritual, with no <i>thing</i>, but only with the +essence which exists behind and above things, with +<i>thoughts</i>,—not that did the ancients exert, for they +did not yet have it; no, they had only reached the +point of struggling and longing for it, and therefore +sharpened it against their too-powerful foe, the world +of sense (but what would not have been sensuous for +them, since Jehovah or the gods of the heathen were +yet far removed from the conception "God is <i>spirit</i>," +since the "heavenly fatherland" had not yet stepped +into the place of the sensuous, etc?)—they sharpened<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</a></span> +against the world of sense their <i>sense</i>, their acuteness. +To this day the Jews, those precocious children of antiquity, +have got no farther; and with all the subtlety +and strength of their prudence and understanding, +which easily becomes master of things and forces them +to obey it, they cannot discover <i>spirit</i>, which <i>takes no +account whatever of things</i>.</p> + +<p>The Christian has spiritual interests, because he allows +himself to be a <i>spiritual</i> man; the Jew does not +even understand these interests in their purity, because +he does not allow himself to assign <i>no value</i> to things. +He does not arrive at pure <i>spirituality</i>, a spirituality +such as is religiously expressed, <i>e. g.</i>, in the <i>faith</i>, of +Christians, which alone (<i>i. e.</i> without works) justifies. +Their <i>unspirituality</i> sets Jews forever apart from +Christians; for the spiritual man is incomprehensible +to the unspiritual, as the unspiritual is contemptible to +the spiritual. But the Jews have only "the spirit of +this world."</p> + +<p>The ancient acuteness and profundity lies as far +from the spirit and the spirituality of the Christian +world as earth from heaven.</p> + +<p>He who feels himself as free spirit is not oppressed +and made anxious by the things of this world, because +he does not care for them; if one is still to feel their +burden, he must be narrow enough to attach <i>weight</i> to +them,—as is evidently the case, for instance, when one +is still concerned for his "dear life." He to whom +everything centres in knowing and conducting himself +as a free spirit gives little heed to how scantily he is +supplied meanwhile, and does not reflect at all on how +he must make his arrangements to have a thoroughly<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</a></span> +free or enjoyable <i>life</i>. He is not disturbed by the inconveniences +of the life that depends on things, because +he lives only spiritually and on spiritual food, while +aside from this he only gulps things down like a +beast, hardly knowing it, and dies bodily, to be sure, +when his fodder gives out, but knows himself immortal +as spirit, and closes his eyes with an adoration or a +thought. His life is occupation with the spiritual, is—<i>thinking</i>; +the rest does not bother him; let him +busy himself with the spiritual in any way that he can +and chooses,—in devotion, in contemplation, or in +philosophic cognition,—his doing is always thinking; +and therefore Descartes, to whom this had at last become +quite clear, could lay down the proposition: "I +think, that is—I am." This means, my thinking is +my being or my life; only when I live spiritually do I +live; only as spirit am I really, or—I am spirit +through and through and nothing but spirit. Unlucky +Peter Schlemihl, who has lost his shadow, is the +portrait of this man become a spirit; for the spirit's +body is shadowless.—Over against this, how different +among the ancients! Stoutly and manfully as they +might bear themselves against the might of things, +they must yet acknowledge the might itself, and got no +farther than to protect their <i>life</i> against it as well as +possible. Only at a late hour did they recognize that +their "true life" was not that which they led in the +fight against the things of the world, but the "spiritual +life," "turned away" from these things; and, when +they saw this, they became—Christians, <i>i. e.</i> the +moderns, and innovators upon the ancients. But the +life turned away from things, the spiritual life, no<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</a></span> +longer draws any nourishment from nature, but "lives +only on thoughts," and therefore is no longer "life," +but—<i>thinking</i>.</p> + +<p>Yet it must not be supposed now that the ancients +were <i>without thoughts</i>, just as the most spiritual man +is not to be conceived of as if he could be without life. +Rather, they had their thoughts about everything, +about the world, man, the gods, etc., and showed themselves +keenly active in bringing all this to their consciousness. +But they did not know <i>thought</i>, even +though they thought of all sorts of things and "worried +themselves with their thoughts." Compare with +their position the Christian saying, "My thoughts are +not your thoughts; as the heaven is higher than the +earth, so are my thoughts higher than your thoughts," +and remember what was said above about our child-thoughts.</p> + +<p>What is antiquity seeking, then? The true <i>enjoyment +of life</i>! You will find that at bottom it is all +the same as "the true life."</p> + +<p>The Greek poet Simonides sings: "Health is the +noblest good for mortal man, the next to this is beauty, +the third riches acquired without guile, the fourth the +enjoyment of social pleasures in the company of young +friends." These are all <i>good things of life</i>, pleasures +of life. What else was Diogenes of Sinope seeking for +than the true enjoyment of life, which he discovered in +having the least possible wants? What else Aristippus, +who found it in a cheery temper under all circumstances? +They are seeking for cheery, unclouded <i>life-courage</i>, +for <i>cheeriness</i>; they are seeking to "be of +good <i>cheer</i>."<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</a></span></p> + +<p>The Stoics want to realize the <i>wise man</i>, the man +with <i>practical philosophy</i>, the man who <i>knows how to +live</i>,—a wise life, therefore; they find him in contempt +for the world, in a life without development, without +spreading out, without friendly relations with the +world, <i>i. e.</i> in the <i>isolated life</i>, in life as life, not in life +with others; only the Stoic <i>lives</i>, all else is dead for +him. The Epicureans, on the contrary, demand a moving life.</p> + +<p>The ancients, as they want to be of good cheer, desire +<i>good living</i> (the Jews especially a long life, +blessed with children and goods), <i>eudaemonia</i>, well-being +in the most various forms. Democritus, <i>e. g.</i>, +praises as such the calm of the soul in which one +"<i>lives</i> smoothly, without fear and without +excitement."</p> + +<p>So what he thinks is that with this he gets on best, +provides for himself the best lot, and gets through the +world best. But as he cannot get rid of the world,—and +in fact cannot for the very reason that his whole +activity is taken up in the effort to get rid of it, that +is, in <i>repelling the world</i> (for which it is yet necessary +that what can be and is repelled should remain existing, +otherwise there would no longer be anything to +repel),—he reaches at most an extreme degree of liberation, +and is distinguishable only in degree from the +less liberated. If he even got as far as the deadening +of the earthly sense, which at last admits only the +monotonous whisper of the word "Brahm," he nevertheless +would not be essentially distinguishable from +the <i>sensual</i> man.</p> + +<p>Even the Stoic attitude and manly virtue amounts<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</a></span> +only to this,—that one must maintain and assert himself +against the world; and the ethics of the Stoics +(their only science, since they could tell nothing about +the spirit but how it should behave toward the world, +and of nature [physics] only this, that the wise man +must assert himself against it) is not a doctrine of the +spirit, but only a doctrine of the repelling of the world +and of self-assertion against the world. And this consists +in "imperturbability and equanimity of life," and +so in the most explicit Roman virtue.</p> + +<p>The Romans too (Horace, Cicero, etc.) went no +further than this <i>practical philosophy</i>.</p> + +<p>The <i>comfort (hedone)</i> of the Epicureans is the same +<i>practical philosophy</i> the Stoics teach, only trickier, +more deceitful. They teach only another <i>behavior</i> toward +the world, exhort us only to take a shrewd attitude +toward the world; the world must be deceived, +for it is my enemy.</p> + +<p>The break with the world is completely carried +through by the Skeptics. My entire relation to the +world is "worthless and truthless." Timon says, "The +feelings and thoughts which we draw from the world +contain no truth." "What is truth?" cries Pilate. +According to Pyrrho's doctrine the world is neither +good nor bad, neither beautiful nor ugly, etc., but +these are <i>predicates</i> which I give it. Timon says that +"in itself nothing is either good or bad, but man only +<i>thinks</i> of it thus or thus"; to face the world only <i>ataraxia</i> +(unmovedness) and <i>aphasia</i> (speechlessness—or, +in other words, isolated <i>inwardness</i>) are left. There +is "no longer any truth to be recognized" in the +world; things contradict themselves; thoughts about<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</a></span> +things are without distinction (good and bad are all +the same, so that what one calls good another finds +bad); here the recognition of "truth" is at an end, +and only the <i>man without power of recognition</i>, the +<i>man</i> who finds in the world nothing to recognize, is +left, and this man just leaves the truth-vacant world +where it is and takes no account of it.</p> + +<p>So antiquity gets trough with the <i>world of things</i>, +the order of the world, the world as a whole; but to +the order of the world, or the things of this world, belong +not only nature, but all relations in which man +sees himself placed by nature, <i>e. g.</i> the family, the +community,—in short, the so-called "natural bonds." +With the <i>world of the spirit</i> Christianity then begins. +The man who still faces the world <i>armed</i> is the ancient, +the—<i>heathen</i> (to which class the Jew, too, as +non-Christian, belongs); the man who has come to be +led by nothing but his "heart's pleasure," the interest +he takes, his fellow-feeling, his—<i>spirit</i>, is the modern, +the—Christian.</p> + +<p>As the ancients worked toward the <i>conquest of the +world</i> and strove to release man from the heavy trammels +of connection with <i>other things</i>, at last they came +also to the dissolution of the State and giving preference +to everything private. Of course community, +family, etc., as <i>natural</i> relations, are burdensome hindrances +which diminish my <i>spiritual freedom</i>.</p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</a></span></p> + +<h3>II.—THE MODERNS</h3> + +<p>"If any man be in Christ, he is a <i>new creature</i>; the +old is passed away, behold, all is become <i>new</i>."<a name="FNanchor_11_11" id="FNanchor_11_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a></p> + +<p>As it was said above, "To the ancients the world +was a truth," we must say here, "To the moderns the +spirit was a truth"; but here, as there, we must not +omit the supplement, "a truth whose untruth they +tried to get back of, and at last they really do."</p> + +<p>A course similar to that which antiquity took may +be demonstrated in Christianity also, in that the <i>understanding</i> +was held a prisoner under the dominion +of the Christian dogmas up to the time preparatory to +the Reformation, but in the pre-Reformation century +asserted itself <i>sophistically</i> and played heretical pranks +with all tenets of the faith. And the talk then was, +especially in Italy and at the Roman court, "If only +the heart remains Christian-minded, the understanding +may go right on taking its pleasure."</p> + +<p>Long before the Reformation people were so thoroughly +accustomed to fine-spun "wranglings" that +the pope, and most others, looked on Luther's appearance +too as a mere "wrangling of monks" at first. +Humanism corresponds to Sophisticism, and, as in the +time of the Sophists Greek life stood in its fullest +bloom (the Periclean age), so the most brilliant things +happened in the time of Humanism, or, as one might +perhaps also say, of Machiavellianism (printing, the +New World, etc.). At this time the heart was still +far from wanting to relieve itself of its Christian<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</a></span> +contents.</p> + +<p>But finally the Reformation, like Socrates, took +hold seriously of the <i>heart</i> itself, and since then hearts +have kept growing visibly—more unchristian. As +with Luther people began to take the matter to heart, +the outcome of this step of the Reformation must be +that the heart also gets lightened of the heavy burden +of Christian faith. The heart, from day to day more +unchristian, loses the contents with which it had +busied itself, till at last nothing but empty <i>warm-heartedness</i> +is left it, the quite general love of men, the +love of Man, the consciousness of freedom, "self-consciousness."</p> + +<p>Only so is Christianity complete, because it has become +bald, withered, and void of contents. There +are now no contents whatever against which the heart +does not mutiny, unless indeed the heart unconsciously +or without "self-consciousness" lets them slip in. The +heart <i>criticises</i> to death with <i>hard-hearted</i> mercilessness +everything that wants to make its way in, and is capable +(except, as before, unconsciously or taken by +surprise) of no friendship, no love. What could there +be in men to love, since they are all alike "egoists," +none of them <i>man</i> as such, <i>i. e.</i> none <i>spirit</i> only? +The Christian loves only the spirit; but where could +one be found who should be really nothing but spirit?</p> + +<p>To have a liking for the corporeal man with hide +and hair,—why, that would no longer be a "spiritual" +warm-heartedness, it would be treason against +"pure" warm-heartedness, the "theoretical regard." +For pure warm-heartedness is by no means to be conceived +as like that kindliness that gives everybody a<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</a></span> +friendly hand-shake; on the contrary, pure warm-heartedness +is warm-hearted toward nobody, it is only +a theoretical interest, concern for man as man, not as a +person. The person is repulsive to it because of being +"egoistic," because of not being that abstraction, Man. +But it is only for the abstraction that one can have a +theoretical regard. To pure warm-heartedness or pure +theory men exist only to be criticised, scoffed at, and +thoroughly despised; to it, no less than to the fanatical +parson, they are only "filth" and other such nice +things.</p> + +<p>Pushed to this extremity of disinterested warm-heartedness, +we must finally become conscious that the spirit, +which alone the Christian loves, is nothing; in other +words, that the spirit is—a lie.</p> + +<p>What has here been set down roughly, summarily, +and doubtless as yet incomprehensibly, will, it is to be +hoped, become clear as we go on.</p> + +<p>Let us take up the inheritance left by the ancients, +and, as active workmen, do with it as much as—can +be done with it! The world lies despised at our feet, +far beneath us and our heaven, into which its mighty +arms are no longer thrust and its stupefying breath +does not come. Seductively as it may pose, it can delude +nothing but our <i>sense</i>; it cannot lead astray the +spirit—and spirit alone, after all, we really are. Having +once got <i>back</i> of things, the spirit has also got +<i>above</i> them, and become free from their bonds, emancipated +supernal, free. So speaks "spiritual +freedom."</p> + +<p>To the spirit which, after long toil, has got rid of +the world, the worldless spirit, nothing is left after the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[Pg 33]</a></span> +loss of the world and the worldly but—the spirit and +the spiritual.</p> + +<p>Yet, as it has only moved away from the world and +made of itself a being <i>free from the world</i>, without +being able really to annihilate the world, this remains +to it a stumbling-block that cannot be cleared away, a +discredited existence; and, as, on the other hand, it +knows and recognizes nothing but the spirit and the +spiritual, it must perpetually carry about with it the +longing to spiritualize the world, <i>i. e.</i> to redeem it +from the "black list." Therefore, like a youth, it +goes about with plans for the redemption or improvement +of the world.</p> + +<p>The ancients, we saw, served the natural, the +worldly, the natural order of the world, but they incessantly +asked themselves whether they could not, +then, relieve themselves of this service; and, when they +had tired themselves to death in ever-renewed attempts +at revolt, then, among their last sighs, was born to +them the <i>God</i>, the "conqueror of the world." All +their doing had been nothing but <i>wisdom of the world</i>, +an effort to get back of the world and above it. And +what is the wisdom of the many following centuries? +What did the moderns try to get back of? No +longer to get back of the world, for the ancients had +accomplished that; but back of the God whom the +ancients bequeathed to them, back of the God who "is +spirit," back of everything that is the spirit's, the +spiritual. But the activity of the spirit, which +"searches even the depths of the Godhead," is +<i>theology</i>. If the ancients have nothing to show but +wisdom of the world, the moderns never did nor do<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[Pg 34]</a></span> +make their way further than to theology. We shall +see later that even the newest revolts against God are +nothing but the extremest efforts of "theology," <i>i. e.</i> +theological insurrections.</p> + + +<h4>§ 1.—<span class="smcap">The Spirit</span></h4> + +<p>The realm of spirits is monstrously great, there is +an infinite deal of the spiritual; yet let us look and see +what the spirit, this bequest of the ancients, properly +is.</p> + +<p>Out of their birth-pangs it came forth, but they +themselves could not utter themselves as spirit; they +could give birth to it, it itself must speak. The +"born God, the Son of Man," is the first to utter the +word that the spirit, <i>i. e.</i> he, God, has to do with nothing +earthly and no earthly relationship, but solely +with the spirit and spiritual relationships.</p> + +<p>Is my courage, indestructible under all the world's +blows, my inflexibility and my obduracy, perchance +already spirit in the full sense, because the world cannot +touch it? Why, then it would not yet be at enmity +with the world, and all its action would consist +merely in not succumbing to the world! No, so long +as it does not busy itself with itself alone, so long as it +does not have to do with <i>its</i> world, the spiritual, alone, +it is not <i>free</i> spirit, but only the "spirit of this world," +the spirit fettered to it. The spirit is free spirit, <i>i. e.</i> +really spirit, only in a world of <i>its own</i>; in "this," the +world, it is a stranger. Only through a spiritual +world is the spirit really spirit, for "this" world +does not understand it and does not know how to keep<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[Pg 35]</a></span> +"the maiden from a foreign land"<a name="FNanchor_12_12" id="FNanchor_12_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a> from departing.</p> + +<p>But where is it to get this spiritual world? Where +but out of itself? It must reveal itself; and the words +that it speaks, the revelations in which it unveils itself, +these are <i>its</i> world. As a visionary lives and has <i>his</i> +world only in the visionary pictures that he himself +creates, as a crazy man generates for himself his own +dream-world, without which he could not be crazy, so +the spirit must create for itself its spirit world, and is +not spirit till it creates it.</p> + +<p>Thus its creations make it spirit, and by its creatures +we know it, the creator; in them it lives, they +are its world.</p> + +<p>Now, what is the spirit? It is the creator of a spiritual +world! Even in you and me people do not recognize +spirit till they see that we have appropriated +to ourselves something spiritual,—<i>i. e.</i>, though +thoughts may have been set before us, we have at least +brought them to life in ourselves; for, as long as we +were children, the most edifying thoughts might have +been laid before us without our wishing, or being able +to reproduce them in ourselves. So the spirit also +exists only when it creates something spiritual; it is +real only together with the spiritual, its creature.</p> + +<p>As, then, we know it by its works, the question is +what these works are. But the works or children of +the spirit are nothing else but—spirits:</p> + +<p>If I had before me Jews, Jews of the true metal, I +should have to stop here and leave them standing before +this mystery as for almost two thousand years<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[Pg 36]</a></span> +they have remained standing before it, unbelieving +and without knowledge. But, as you, my dear reader, +are at least not a full-blooded Jew,—for such a one +will not go astray as far as this,—we will still go +along a bit of road together, till perhaps you too turn +your back on me because I laugh in your face.</p> + +<p>If somebody told you you were altogether spirit, +you would take hold of your body and not believe +him, but answer: "I <i>have</i> a spirit, no doubt, but do +not exist only as spirit, but am a man with a body." +You would still distinguish <i>yourself</i> from "your spirit." +"But," replies he, "it is your destiny, even +though now you are yet going about in the fetters of +the body, to be one day a 'blessed spirit,' and, however +you may conceive of the future aspect of your +spirit, so much is yet certain, that in death you will +put off this body and yet keep yourself, <i>i. e.</i> your +spirit, for all eternity; accordingly your spirit is the +eternal and true in you, the body only a dwelling here +below, which you may leave and perhaps exchange for +another."</p> + +<p>Now you believe him! For the present, indeed, +<i>you</i> are not spirit only; but, when you emigrate from +the mortal body, as one day you must, then you will +have to help yourself without the body, and therefore +it is needful that you be prudent and care in time for +your proper self. "What should it profit a man if he +gained the whole world and yet suffered damage in +his soul?"</p> + +<p>But, even granted that doubts, raised in the course +of time against the tenets of the Christian faith, have +long since robbed you of faith in the immortality of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[Pg 37]</a></span> +your spirit, you have nevertheless left one tenet undisturbed, +and still ingenuously adhere to the one +truth, that the spirit is your better part, and that the +spiritual has greater claims on you than anything else. +Despite all your atheism, in zeal against <i>egoism</i> you +concur with the believers in immortality.</p> + +<p>But whom do you think of under the name of egoist? +A man who, instead of living to an idea,—<i>i. e.</i> +a spiritual thing—and sacrificing to it his personal +advantage, serves the latter. A good patriot, <i>e. g.</i>, +brings his sacrifice to the altar of the fatherland; but +it cannot be disputed that the fatherland is an idea, +since for beasts incapable of mind,<a name="FNanchor_13_13" id="FNanchor_13_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> or children as yet +without mind, there is no fatherland and no patriotism. +Now, if any one does not approve himself as a +good patriot, he betrays his egoism with reference to +the fatherland. And so the matter stands in innumerable +other cases: he who in human society takes the +benefit of a prerogative sins egoistically against the +idea of equality; he who exercises dominion is blamed +as an egoist against the idea of liberty,—etc.</p> + +<p>You despise the egoist because he puts the spiritual +in the background as compared with the personal, and +has his eyes on himself where you would like to see +him act to favor an idea. The distinction between +you is that he makes himself the central point, but +you the spirit; or that you cut your identity in two<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[Pg 38]</a></span> +and exalt your "proper self," the spirit, to be +ruler of the paltrier remainder, while he will hear +nothing of this cutting in two, and pursues spiritual +and material interests just <i>as he pleases</i>. You think, +to be sure, that you are falling foul of those only who +enter into no spiritual interest at all, but in fact you +curse at everybody who does not look on the spiritual +interest as his "true and highest" interest. You +carry your knightly service for this beauty so far that +you affirm her to be the only beauty of the world. +You live not to <i>yourself</i>, but to your <i>spirit</i> and to +what is the spirit's—<i>i. e.</i> ideas.</p> + +<p>As the spirit exists only in its creating of the spiritual, +let us take a look about us for its first creation. +If only it has accomplished this, there follows thenceforth +a natural propagation of creations, as according +to the myth only the first human beings needed to be +created, the rest of the race propagating of itself. +The first creation, on the other hand, must come forth +"out of nothing,"—<i>i. e.</i>, the spirit has toward its realization +nothing but itself, or rather it has not yet +even itself, but must create itself; hence its first creation +is itself, <i>the spirit</i>. Mystical as this sounds, we +yet go through it as an every-day experience. Are +you a thinking being before you think? In creating +the first thought you create yourself, the thinking +one; for you do not think before you think a thought, +<i>i. e.</i> have a thought. Is it not your singing that first +makes you a singer, your talking that makes you a +talker? Now, so too it is the production of the spiritual +that first makes you a spirit.</p> + +<p>Meantime, as you distinguish <i>yourself</i> from the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[Pg 39]</a></span> +thinker, singer, and talker, so you no less distinguish +yourself from the spirit, and feel very clearly that you +are something beside spirit. But, as in the thinking +ego hearing and sight easily vanish in the enthusiasm +of thought, so you also have been seized by the spirit-enthusiasm, +and you now long with all your might to +become wholly spirit and to be dissolved in spirit. +The spirit is your <i>ideal</i>, the unattained, the otherworldly; +spirit is the name of your—god, "God is +spirit."</p> + +<p>Against all that is not spirit you are a zealot, and +therefore you play the zealot against <i>yourself</i> who +cannot get rid of a remainder of the non-spiritual. +Instead of saying, "I am <i>more</i> than spirit," you say +with contrition, "I am less than spirit; and spirit, +pure spirit, or the spirit that is nothing but spirit, I +can only think of, but am not; and, since I am not it, +it is another, exists as another, whom I call 'God'."</p> + +<p>It lies in the nature of the case that the spirit that +is to exist as pure spirit must be an otherworldly one, +for, since I am not it, it follows that it can only be +<i>outside</i> me; since in any case a human being is not +fully comprehended in the concept "spirit," it follows +that the pure spirit, the spirit as such, can only be +outside of men, beyond the human world,—not +earthly, but heavenly.</p> + +<p>Only from this disunion in which I and the spirit +lie; only because "I" and "spirit" are not names for +one and the same thing, but different names for completely +different things; only because I am not spirit +and spirit not I,—only from this do we get a quite +tautological explanation of the necessity that the spirit<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[Pg 40]</a></span> +dwells in the other world, <i>i. e.</i> is God.</p> + +<p>But from this it also appears how thoroughly theological +is the liberation that Feuerbach<a name="FNanchor_14_14" id="FNanchor_14_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a> is laboring to +give us. What he says is that we had only mistaken +our own essence, and therefore looked for it in the +other world, but that now, when we see that God was +only our human essence, we must recognize it again as +ours and move it back out of the other world into this. +To God, who is spirit, Feuerbach gives the name +"Our Essence." Can we put up with this, that "Our +Essence" is brought into opposition to <i>us</i>,—that we +are split into an essential and an unessential self? +Do we not therewith go back into the dreary misery +of seeing ourselves banished out of ourselves?</p> + +<p>What have we gained, then, when for a variation +we have transferred into ourselves the divine outside +us? <i>Are we</i> that which is in us? As little as we are +that which is outside us. I am as little my heart as I +am my sweetheart, this "other self" of mine. Just +because we are not the spirit that dwells in us, just for +that reason we had to take it and set it outside us; it +was not we, did not coincide with us, and therefore we +could not think of it as existing otherwise than outside +us, on the other side from us, in the other world.</p> + +<p>With the strength of <i>despair</i> Feuerbach clutches at +the total substance of Christianity, not to throw it +away, no, to drag it to himself, to draw it, the long-yearned-for, +ever-distant, out of its heaven with a last +effort, and keep it by him forever. Is not that a +clutch of the uttermost despair, a clutch for life or<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[Pg 41]</a></span> +death, and is it not at the same time the Christian +yearning and hungering for the other world? The +hero wants not to go into the other world, but to draw +the other world to him, and compel it to become this +world! And since then has not all the world, with +more or less consciousness, been crying that "this +world" is the vital point, and heaven must come down +on earth and be experienced even here?</p> + +<p>Let us, in brief, set Feuerbach's theological view +and our contradiction over against each other!</p> + +<p>"The essence of man is man's supreme being;<a name="FNanchor_15_15" id="FNanchor_15_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a> now +by religion, to be sure, the <i>supreme being</i> is called +<i>God</i> and regarded as an <i>objective</i> essence, but in truth +it is only man's own essence; and therefore the turning +point of the world's history is that henceforth +no longer <i>God</i>, but man, is to appear to man as +God."<a name="FNanchor_16_16" id="FNanchor_16_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a></p> + +<p>To this we reply: The supreme being is indeed the +essence of man, but, just because it is his <i>essence</i> and +not he himself, it remains quite immaterial whether we +see it outside him and view it as "God," or find it in +him and call it "Essence of Man" or "Man." <i>I</i> am +neither God nor <i>Man</i>,<a name="FNanchor_17_17" id="FNanchor_17_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_17_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> neither the supreme essence +nor my essence, and therefore it is all one in the main +whether I think of the essence as in me or outside me. +Nay, we really do always think of the supreme being +as in both kinds of otherworldliness, the inward and<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[Pg 42]</a></span> +outward, at once; for the "Spirit of God" is, according +to the Christian view, also "our spirit," and +"dwells in us."<a name="FNanchor_18_18" id="FNanchor_18_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_18_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a> It dwells in heaven and dwells in +us; we poor things are just its "dwelling," and, if +Feuerbach goes on to destroy its heavenly dwelling +and force it to move to us bag and baggage, then we, +its earthly apartments, will be badly overcrowded.</p> + +<p>But after this digression (which, if we were at all +proposing to work by line and level, we should have +had to save for later pages in order to avoid repetition) +we return to the spirit's first creation, the spirit +itself.</p> + +<p>The spirit is something other than myself. But +this other, what is it?</p> + + +<h4>§ 2.—<span class="smcap">The Possessed.</span></h4> + +<p>Have you ever seen a spirit? "No, not I, but my +grandmother." Now, you see, it's just so with me +too; I myself haven't seen any, but my grandmother +had them running between her feet all sorts of ways, +and out of confidence in our grandmothers' honesty +we believe in the existence of spirits.</p> + +<p>But had we no grandfathers then, and did they not +shrug their shoulders every time our grandmothers +told about their ghosts? Yes, those were unbelieving +men who have harmed our good religion much, those +rationalists! We shall feel that! What else lies +at the bottom of this warm faith in ghosts, if not the +faith in "the existence of spiritual beings in general," +and is not this latter itself disastrously unsettled if<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[Pg 43]</a></span> +saucy men of the understanding may disturb the +former? The Romanticists were quite conscious what +a blow the very belief in God suffered by the laying +aside of the belief in spirits or ghosts, and they tried +to help us out of the baleful consequences not only by +their reawakened fairy world, but at last, and +especially, by the "intrusion of a higher world," by +their somnambulists, prophetesses of Prevorst, etc. +The good believers and fathers of the church did not +suspect that with the belief in ghosts the foundation +of religion was withdrawn, and that since then it had +been floating in the air. He who no longer believes +in any ghost needs only to travel on consistently in +his unbelief to see that there is no separate being at +all concealed behind things, no ghost or—what is +naively reckoned as synonymous even in our use of +words—no "<i>spirit</i>."</p> + +<p>"Spirits exist!" Look about in the world, and +say for yourself whether a spirit does not gaze upon +you out of everything. Out of the lovely little flower +there speaks to you the spirit of the Creator, who has +shaped it so wonderfully; the stars proclaim the spirit +that established their order; from the mountain-tops a +spirit of sublimity breathes down; out of the waters a +spirit of yearning murmurs up; and—out of men millions +of spirits speak. The mountains may sink, the +flowers fade, the world of stars fall in ruins, the men +die—what matters the wreck of these visible bodies? +The spirit, the "invisible spirit," abides eternally!</p> + +<p>Yes, the whole world is haunted! Only <i>is</i> +haunted? Nay, it itself "walks," it is uncanny +through and through, it is the wandering seeming<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[Pg 44]</a></span>-body +of a spirit, it is a spook. What else should a +ghost be, then, than an apparent body, but real +spirit? Well, the world is "empty," is "naught," is +only glamorous "semblance"; its truth is the spirit +alone; it is the seeming-body of a spirit.</p> + +<p>Look out near or far, a <i>ghostly</i> world surrounds +you everywhere; you are always having "apparitions" +or visions. Everything that appears to you is +only the phantasm of an indwelling spirit, is a ghostly +"apparition"; the world is to you only a "world of +appearances," behind which the spirit walks. You +"see spirits."</p> + +<p>Are you perchance thinking of comparing yourself +with the ancients, who saw gods everywhere? Gods, +my dear modern, are not spirits; gods do not degrade +the world to a semblance, and do not spiritualize it.</p> + +<p>But to you the whole world is spiritualized, and has +become an enigmatical ghost; therefore do not wonder +if you likewise find in yourself nothing but a spook. +Is not your body haunted by your spirit, and is not +the latter alone the true and real, the former only the +"transitory, naught" or a "semblance"? Are we +not all ghosts, uncanny beings that wait for "deliverance,"—to +wit, "spirits"?</p> + +<p>Since the spirit appeared in the world, since "the +Word became flesh," since then the world has been +spiritualized, enchanted, a spook.</p> + +<p>You have spirit, for you have thoughts. What are +your thoughts? "Spiritual entities." Not things, +then? "No, but the spirit of things, the main point +in all things, the inmost in them, their—idea." Consequently +what you think is not only your thought?<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[Pg 45]</a></span> +"On the contrary, it is that in the world which is +most real, that which is properly to be called true; it +is the truth itself; if I only think truly, I think the +truth. I may, to be sure, err with regard to the truth, +and <i>fail to recognize</i> it; but, if I <i>recognize</i> truly, +the object of my cognition is the truth." So, I suppose, +you strive at all times to recognize the truth? +"To me the truth is sacred. It may well happen that +I find a truth incomplete and replace it with a better, +but <i>the</i> truth I cannot abrogate. I <i>believe</i> in the +truth, therefore I search in it; nothing transcends it, it +is eternal."</p> + +<p>Sacred, eternal is the truth; it is the Sacred, the +Eternal. But you, who let yourself be filled and led +by this sacred thing, are yourself hallowed. Further, +the sacred is not for your senses,—and you never as a +sensual man discover its trace,—but for your faith, or, +more definitely still, for your <i>spirit</i>; for it itself, you +know, is a spiritual thing, a spirit,—is spirit for the +spirit.</p> + +<p>The sacred is by no means so easily to be set aside +as many at present affirm, who no longer take this +"unsuitable" word into their mouths. If even in a +single respect I am still <i>upbraided</i> as an "egoist," +there is left the thought of something else which I +should serve more than myself, and which must be to +me more important than everything; in short, somewhat +in which I should have to seek my true welfare,<a name="FNanchor_19_19" id="FNanchor_19_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_19_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a> +something—"sacred."<a name="FNanchor_20_20" id="FNanchor_20_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_20_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a> However human this sacred +thing may look, though it be the Human itself, that +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[Pg 46]</a></span>does not take away its sacredness, but at most changes +it from an unearthly to an earthly sacred thing, from +a divine one to a human.</p> + +<p>Sacred things exist only for the egoist who does not +acknowledge himself, the <i>involuntary egoist</i>, for him +who is always looking after his own and yet does not +count himself as the highest being, who serves only +himself and at the same time always thinks he is serving +a higher being, who knows nothing higher than +himself and yet is infatuated about something higher; +in short, for the egoist who would like not to be an +egoist, and abases himself (<i>i. e.</i> combats his egoism), +but at the same time abases himself only for the sake +of "being exalted," and therefore of gratifying his +egoism. Because he would like to cease to be an +egoist, he looks about in heaven and earth for higher +beings to serve and sacrifice himself to; but, however +much he shakes and disciplines himself, in the end he +does all for his own sake, and the disreputable egoism +will not come off him. On this account I call him the +involuntary egoist.</p> + +<p>His toil and care to get away from himself is nothing +but the misunderstood impulse to self-dissolution. +If you are bound to your past hour, if you must babble +to-day because you babbled yesterday,<a name="FNanchor_21_21" id="FNanchor_21_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_21_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a> if you can +not transform yourself each instant, you feel yourself<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[Pg 47]</a></span> +fettered in slavery and benumbed. Therefore over +each minute of your existence a fresh minute of the +future beckons to you, and, developing yourself, you +get away "from yourself,"—<i>i. e.</i> from the self that +was at that moment. As you are at each instant, you +are your own creature, and in this very "creature" +you do not wish to lose yourself, the creator. You +are yourself a higher being than you are, and surpass +yourself. But that <i>you</i> are the one who is higher +than you,—<i>i. e.</i> that you are not only creature, but +likewise your creator,—just this, as an involuntary +egoist, you fail to recognize; and therefore the +"higher essence" is to you—an alien<a name="FNanchor_22_22" id="FNanchor_22_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_22_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a> essence. Every +higher essence, such as truth, mankind, etc., is an +essence <i>over</i> us.</p> + +<p>Alienness is a criterion of the "sacred." In everything +sacred there lies something "uncanny," <i>i. e.</i> +strange,<a name="FNanchor_23_23" id="FNanchor_23_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_23_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a> such as we are not quite familiar and at +home in. What is sacred to me is <i>not my own</i>; and +if, <i>e. g.</i> the property of others was not sacred to me, I +should look on it as <i>mine</i>, which I should take to myself +when occasion offered. Or, on the other side, if I +regard the face of the Chinese emperor as sacred, it +remains strange to my eye, which I close at its +appearance.</p> + +<p>Why is an incontrovertible mathematical truth, +which might even be called eternal according to the +common understanding of words, not—sacred? Because +it is not revealed, or not the revelation of a +higher being. If by revealed we understand only the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[Pg 48]</a></span> +so-called religious truths, we go far astray, and entirely +fail to recognize the breadth of the concept +"higher being." Atheists keep up their scoffing at +the higher being, which was also honored under the +name of the "highest" or <i>être suprême</i>, and trample +in the dust one "proof of his existence" after another +without noticing that they themselves, out of need for +a higher being, only annihilate the old to make room +for a new. Is "Man" perchance not a higher essence +than an individual man, and must not the truths, +rights, and ideas which result from the concept of him +be honored and—counted sacred, as revelations of this +very concept? For, even though we should abrogate +again many a truth that seemed to be made manifest +by this concept, yet this would only evince a misunderstanding +on our part, without in the least degree +harming the sacred concept itself or taking their +sacredness from those truths that must rightly be +looked upon as its revelations. <i>Man</i> reaches beyond +every individual man, and yet—though he be "his +essence"—is not in fact <i>his</i> essence (which rather +would be as single<a name="FNanchor_24_24" id="FNanchor_24_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_24_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a> as he the individual himself), but +a general and "higher," yes, for atheists "the highest +essence."<a name="FNanchor_25_25" id="FNanchor_25_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_25_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a> And, as the divine revelations were not +written down by God with his own hand, but made +public through "the Lord's instruments," so also the +new highest essence does not write out its revelations +itself, but lets them come to our knowledge through +"true men." Only the new essence betrays, in fact, a +more spiritual style of conception than the old God,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[Pg 49]</a></span> +because the latter was still represented in a sort of +embodiedness or form, while the undimmed spirituality +of the new is retained, and no special material +body is fancied for it. And withal it does not lack +corporeity, which even takes on a yet more seductive +appearance because it looks more natural and mundane +and consists in nothing less than in every bodily +man,—yes, or outright in "humanity" or "all men." +Thereby the spectralness of the spirit in a seeming-body +has once again become really solid and popular.</p> + +<p>Sacred, then, is the highest essence and everything +in which this highest essence reveals or will reveal itself; +but hallowed are they who recognize this highest +essence together with its own, <i>i. e.</i> together with its +revelations. The sacred hallows in turn its reverer, +who by his worship becomes himself a saint, as likewise +what he does is saintly, a saintly walk, saintly +thoughts and actions, imaginations and aspirations, +etc.</p> + +<p>It is easily understood that the conflict over what is +revered as the highest essence can be significant only +so long as even the most embittered opponents concede +to each other the main point,—that there is a highest +essence to which worship or service is due. If one +should smile compassionately at the whole struggle +over a highest essence, as a Christian might at the war +of words between a Shiite and a Sunnite or between a +Brahman and a Buddhist, then the hypothesis of a +highest essence would be null in his eyes, and the conflict +on this basis an idle play. Whether then the one +God or the three in one, whether the Lutheran God or +the <i>être suprême</i> or not God at all, but "Man," may<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[Pg 50]</a></span> +represent the highest essence, that makes no difference +at all for him who denies the highest essence itself, for +in his eyes those servants of a highest essence are one +and all—pious people, the most raging atheist not less +than the most faith-filled Christian.</p> + +<p>In the foremost place of the sacred,<a name="FNanchor_26_26" id="FNanchor_26_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_26_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a> then, stands +the highest essence and the faith in this essence, our +"holy<a name="FNanchor_27_27" id="FNanchor_27_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_27_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a> faith."</p> + + +<h4><span class="smcap">The Spook</span></h4> + +<p>With ghosts we arrive in the spirit-realm, in the +realm of <i>essences</i>.</p> + +<p>What haunts the universe, and has its occult, "incomprehensible" +being there, is precisely the mysterious +spook that we call highest essence. And to get +to the bottom of this <i>spook</i>, to <i>comprehend</i> it, to discover +<i>reality</i> in it (to prove "the existence of God")—this +task men set to themselves for thousands of +years; with the horrible impossibility, the endless +Danaid-labor, of transforming the spook into a non-spook, +the unreal into something real, the <i>spirit</i> into +an entire and <i>corporeal</i> person,—with this they tormented +themselves to death. Behind the existing +world they sought the "thing in itself," the essence; +behind the <i>thing</i> they sought the <i>un-thing</i>.</p> + +<p>When one looks to the <i>bottom</i> of anything, <i>i. e.</i> +searches out its <i>essence</i>, one often discovers something +quite other than what it <i>seems</i> to be; honeyed speech +and a lying heart, pompous words and beggarly +thoughts, etc. By bringing the essence into promi<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[Pg 51]</a></span>nence +one degrades the hitherto misapprehended appearance +to a bare <i>semblance</i>, a deception. The +essence of the world, so attractive and splendid, is for +him who looks to the bottom of it—emptiness; emptiness +is == world's essence (world's doings). Now, he +who is religious does not occupy himself with the deceitful +semblance, with the empty appearances, but +looks upon the essence, and in the essence has—the +truth.</p> + +<p>The essences which are deduced from some appearances +are the evil essences, and conversely from others +the good. The essence of human feeling, <i>e. g.</i>, is +love; the essence of human will is the good; that of +one's thinking, the true; etc.</p> + +<p>What at first passed for existence, such as the world +and its like, appears now as bare semblance, and the +<i>truly existent</i> is much rather the essence, whose realm +is filled with gods, spirits, demons, <i>i. e.</i> with good or +bad essences. Only this inverted world, the world of +essences, truly exists now. The human heart may be +loveless, but its essence exists, God, "who is love"; +human thought may wander in error, but its essence, +truth, exists; "God is truth,"—etc.</p> + +<p>To know and acknowledge essences alone and +nothing but essences, that is religion; its realm is a +realm of essences, spooks, and ghosts.</p> + +<p>The longing to make the spook comprehensible, or +to realize <i>non-sense</i>, has brought about a <i>corporeal +ghost</i>, a ghost or spirit with a real body, an embodied +ghost. How the strongest and most talented Christians +have tortured themselves to get a conception of +this ghostly apparition! But there always remained<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[Pg 52]</a></span> +the contradiction of two natures, the divine and +human, <i>i. e.</i> the ghostly and sensual; there remained +the most wondrous spook, a thing that was not a +thing. Never yet was a ghost more soul-torturing, +and no shaman, who pricks himself to raving fury and +nerve-lacerating cramps to conjure a ghost, can endure +such soul-torment as Christians suffered from that most +incomprehensible ghost.</p> + +<p>But through Christ the truth of the matter had at +the same time come to light, that the veritable spirit +or ghost is—man. The <i>corporeal</i> or embodied spirit +is just man; he himself is the ghastly being and at the +same time the being's appearance and existence. +Henceforth man no longer, in typical cases, shudders +at ghosts <i>outside</i> him, but at himself; he is terrified at +himself. In the depth of his breast dwells the <i>spirit +of sin</i>; even the faintest <i>thought</i> (and this is itself a +spirit, you know) may be a <i>devil</i>, etc.—The ghost has +put on a body, God has become man, but now man is +himself the gruesome spook which he seeks to get back +of, to exorcise, to fathom, to bring to reality and to +speech; man is—<i>spirit</i>. What matter if the body +wither, if only the spirit is saved? everything rests on +the spirit, and the spirit's or "soul's" welfare becomes +the exclusive goal. Man has become to himself a +ghost, an uncanny spook, to which there is even assigned +a distinct seat in the body (dispute over the +seat of the soul, whether in the head, etc.).</p> + +<p>You are not to me, and I am not to you, a higher +essence. Nevertheless a higher essence may be hidden +in each of us, and call forth a mutual reverence. To +take at once the most general, Man lives in you and<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[Pg 53]</a></span> +me. If I did not see Man in you, what occasion +should I have to respect you? To be sure you are +not Man and his true and adequate form, but only a +mortal veil of his, from which he can withdraw without +himself ceasing; but yet for the present this general +and higher essence is housed in you, and you present +before me (because an imperishable spirit has in +you assumed a perishable body, so that really your +form is only an "assumed" one) a spirit that appears, +appears in you, without being bound to your body +and to this particular mode of appearance,—therefore +a spook. Hence I do not regard you as a higher +essence, but only respect that higher essence which +"walks" in you; I "respect Man in you." The +ancients did not observe anything of this sort in their +slaves, and the higher essence "Man" found as yet +little response. To make up for this, they saw in each +other ghosts of another sort. The People is a higher +essence than an individual, and, like Man or the Spirit +of Man, a spirit haunting the individual,—the Spirit +of the People. For this reason they revered this +spirit, and only so far as he served this or else a spirit +related to it (<i>e. g.</i> the Spirit of the Family, etc.) +could the individual appear significant; only for the +sake of the higher essence, the People, was consideration +allowed to the "member of the people." As you +are hallowed to us by "Man" who haunts you, so at +every time men have been hallowed by some higher +essence or other, like People, Family, and such. +Only for the sake of a higher essence has any one been +honored from of old, only as a ghost has he been regarded +in the light of a hallowed, <i>i. e.</i>, protected and<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[Pg 54]</a></span> +recognized person. If I cherish you because I hold +you dear, because in you my heart finds nourishment, +my need satisfaction, then it is not done for the sake +of a higher essence whose hallowed body you are, not +on account of my beholding in you a ghost, <i>i. e.</i> an +appearing spirit, but from egoistic pleasure; you +yourself with <i>your</i> essence are valuable to me, for your +essence is not a higher one, is not higher and more +general than you, is unique<a name="FNanchor_28_28" id="FNanchor_28_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_28_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a> like you yourself, because +it is you.</p> + +<p>But it is not only man that, "haunts"; so does +everything. The higher essence, the spirit, that walks +in everything, is at the same time bound to nothing, +and only—"appears" in it. Ghosts in every corner!</p> + +<p>Here would be the place to pass the haunting spirits +in review, if they were not to come before us again +further on in order to vanish before egoism. Hence +let only a few of them be particularized by way of example, +in order to bring us at once to our attitude +toward them.</p> + +<p>Sacred above all, <i>e. g.</i>, is the "holy Spirit," sacred +the truth, sacred are right, law, a good cause, majesty, +marriage, the common good, order, the fatherland, +etc.</p> + + +<h4><span class="smcap">Wheels in the Head.</span></h4> + +<p>Man, your head is haunted; you have wheels in +your head! You imagine great things, and depict to +yourself a whole world of gods that has an existence +for you, a spirit-realm to which you suppose yourself<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[Pg 55]</a></span> +to be called, an ideal that beckons to you. You have +a fixed idea!</p> + +<p>Do not think that I am jesting or speaking figuratively +when I regard those persons who cling to the +Higher, and (because the vast majority belongs under +this head) almost the whole world of men, as veritable +fools, fools in a madhouse. What is it, then, that is +called a "fixed idea"? An idea that has subjected +the man to itself. When you recognize, with regard +to such a fixed idea, that it is a folly, you shut its +slave up in an asylum. And is the truth of the faith, +say, which we are not to doubt; the majesty of (<i>e. g.</i>) +the people, which we are not to strike at (he who does +is guilty of—lese-majesty); virtue, against which the +censor is not to let a word pass, that morality may be +kept pure; etc.,—are these not "fixed ideas"? Is +not all the stupid chatter of (<i>e. g.</i>) most of our newspapers +the babble of fools who suffer from the fixed +idea of morality, legality, Christianity, etc., and only +seem to go about free because the madhouse in which +they walk takes in so broad a space? Touch the +fixed idea of such a fool, and you will at once have to +guard your back against the lunatic's stealthy malice. +For these great lunatics are like the little so-called +lunatics in this point too,—that they assail by stealth +him who touches their fixed idea. They first steal his +weapon, steal free speech from him, and then they fall +upon him with their nails. Every day now lays bare +the cowardice and vindictiveness of these maniacs, and +the stupid populace hurrahs for their crazy measures. +One must read the journals of this period, and must +hear the Philistines talk, to get the horrible conviction<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[Pg 56]</a></span> +that one is shut up in a house with fools. "Thou +shalt not call thy brother a fool; if thou dost—etc." +But I do not fear the curse, and I say, my brothers +are arch-fools. Whether a poor fool of the insane +asylum is possessed by the fancy that he is God the +Father, Emperor of Japan, the Holy Spirit, etc., or +whether a citizen in comfortable circumstances conceives +that it is his mission to be a good Christian, a +faithful Protestant, a loyal citizen, a virtuous man, +etc.,—both these are one and the same "fixed idea." +He who has never tried and dared not to be a good +Christian, a faithful Protestant, a virtuous man, etc., +is <i>possessed</i> and prepossessed<a name="FNanchor_29_29" id="FNanchor_29_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_29_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a> by faith, virtuousness, +etc. Just as the schoolmen philosophized only <i>inside</i> +the belief of the church; as Pope Benedict XIV wrote +fat books <i>inside</i> the papist superstition, without ever +throwing a doubt upon this belief; as authors fill +whole folios on the State without calling in question +the fixed idea of the State itself; as our newspapers +are crammed with politics because they are conjured +into the fancy that man was created to be a <i>zoon +politicon</i>,—so also subjects vegetate in subjection, virtuous +people in virtue, liberals in humanity, etc., without +ever putting to these fixed ideas of theirs the +searching knife of criticism. Undislodgeable, like a +madman's delusion, those thoughts stand on a firm +footing, and he who doubts them—lays hands on the +<i>sacred</i>! Yes, the "fixed idea," that is the truly +sacred!</p> + +<p>Is it perchance only people possessed by the devil<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[Pg 57]</a></span> +that meet us, or do we as often come upon people +<i>possessed</i> in the contrary way,—possessed by "the +good," by virtue, morality, the law, or some "principle" +or other? Possessions of the devil are not the +only ones. God works on us, and the devil does; the +former "workings of grace," the latter "workings of +the devil." Possessed<a name="FNanchor_30_30" id="FNanchor_30_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_30_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a> people are <i>set</i><a name="FNanchor_31_31" id="FNanchor_31_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_31_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a> in their +opinions.</p> + +<p>If the word "possession" displeases you, then call it +prepossession; yes, since the spirit possesses you, and +all "inspirations" come from it, call it—inspiration +and enthusiasm. I add that complete enthusiasm—for +we cannot stop with the sluggish, half-way kind—is +called fanaticism.</p> + +<p>It is precisely among cultured people that <i>fanaticism</i> +is at home; for man is cultured so far as he takes an +interest in spiritual things, and interest in spiritual +things, when it is alive, is and must be <i>fanaticism</i>; it +is a fanatical interest in the sacred (<i>fanum</i>). Observe +our liberals, look into the <i>Saechsischen Vaterlandsblaetter</i>, +hear what Schlosser says:<a name="FNanchor_32_32" id="FNanchor_32_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_32_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a> "Holbach's +company constituted a regular plot against the traditional +doctrine and the existing system, and its members +were as fanatical on behalf of their unbelief as +monks and priests, Jesuits and Pietists, Methodists, +missionary and Bible societies, commonly are for mechanical +worship and orthodoxy."</p> + +<p>Take notice how a "moral man" behaves, who to-day +often thinks he is through with God and throws +off Christianity as a bygone thing. If you ask him +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[Pg 58]</a></span>whether he has ever doubted that the copulation of +brother and sister is incest, that monogamy is the +truth of marriage, that filial piety is a sacred duty, +etc., then a moral shudder will come over him at the +conception of one's being allowed to touch his sister as +wife also, etc. And whence this shudder? Because +he <i>believes</i> in those moral commandments. This +moral <i>faith</i> is deeply rooted in his breast. Much as +he rages against the <i>pious</i> Christians, he himself has +nevertheless as thoroughly remained a Christian,—to +wit, a <i>moral</i> Christian. In the form of morality +Christianity holds him a prisoner, and a prisoner +under <i>faith</i>. Monogamy is to be something sacred, +and he who may live in bigamy is punished as a <i>criminal</i>; +he who commits incest suffers as a <i>criminal</i>. +Those who are always crying that religion is not to be +regarded in the State, and the Jew is to be a citizen +equally with the Christian, show themselves in accord +with this. Is not this of incest and monogamy a +<i>dogma of faith</i>? Touch it, and you will learn by experience +how this moral man is a <i>hero of faith</i> too, not +less than Krummacher, not less than Philip II. These +fight for the faith of the Church, he for the faith of +the State, or the moral laws of the State; for articles +of faith, both condemn him who acts otherwise than +<i>their faith</i> will allow. The brand of "crime" is +stamped upon him, and he may languish in reformatories, +in jails. Moral faith is as fanatical as religious +faith! They call that "liberty of faith" then, when +brother and sister, on account of a relation that they +should have settled with their "conscience," are +thrown into prison. "But they set a pernicious exam<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[Pg 59]</a></span>ple." +Yes, indeed: others might have taken the notion +that the State had no business to meddle with +their relation, and thereupon "purity of morals" +would go to ruin. So then the religious heroes of +faith are zealous for the "sacred God," the moral ones +for the "sacred good."</p> + +<p>Those who are zealous for something sacred often +look very little like each other. How the strictly orthodox +or old-style believers differ from the fighters +for "truth, light, and justice," from the Philalethes, +the Friends of Light, the Rationalists, etc. And yet, +how utterly unessential is this difference! If one +buffets single traditional truths (<i>e. g.</i> miracles, unlimited +power of princes, etc.), then the rationalists +buffet them too, and only the old-style believers wail. +But, if one buffets truth itself, he immediately has +both, as <i>believers</i>, for opponents. So with moralities; +the strict believers are relentless, the clearer heads are +more tolerant. But he who attacks morality itself +gets both to deal with. "Truth, morality, justice, +light, etc.," are to be and remain "sacred." What +any one finds to censure in Christianity is simply supposed +to be "unchristian" according to the view of +these rationalists; but Christianity must remain a +fixture, to buffet it is outrageous, "an outrage." +To be sure, the heretic against pure faith no longer +exposes himself to the earlier fury of persecution, but +so much the more does it now fall upon the heretic +against pure morals.</p> + +<hr style='width: 45%;' /> + +<p>Piety has for a century received so many blows, and +had to hear its superhuman essence reviled as an "in<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[Pg 60]</a></span>human" +one so often, that one cannot feel tempted to +draw the sword against it again. And yet it has almost +always been only moral opponents that have appeared +in the arena, to assail the supreme essence in +favor of—another supreme essence. So Proudhon, unabashed, +says:<a name="FNanchor_33_33" id="FNanchor_33_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_33_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a> "Man is destined to live without +religion, but the moral law is eternal and absolute. +Who would dare to-day to attack morality?" Moral +people skimmed off the best fat from religion, ate it +themselves, and are now having a tough job to get rid +of the resulting scrofula. If, therefore, we point out +that religion has not by any means been hurt in its +inmost part so long as people reproach it only with its +superhuman essence, and that it takes its final appeal +to the "spirit" alone (for God is spirit), then we +have sufficiently indicated its final accord with morality, +and can leave its stubborn conflict with the latter +lying behind us. It is a question of a supreme essence +with both, and whether this is a superhuman or a +human one can make (since it is in any case an essence +over me, a super-mine one, so to speak) but little +difference to me. In the end the relation to the +human essence, or to "Man," as soon as ever it has +shed the snake-skin of the old religion, will yet wear a +religious snake-skin again.</p> + +<p>So Feuerbach instructs us that, "if one only <i>inverts</i> +speculative philosophy, <i>i. e.</i> always makes the predicate +the subject, and so makes the subject the object +and principle, one has the undraped truth, pure and +clean."<a name="FNanchor_34_34" id="FNanchor_34_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_34_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a> Herewith, to be sure, we lose the narrow<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[Pg 61]</a></span> +religious standpoint, lose the <i>God</i>, who from this +standpoint is subject; but we take in exchange for it +the other side of the religious standpoint, the <i>moral</i> +standpoint. <i>E. g.</i>, we no longer say "God is love," +but "Love is divine." If we further put in place of +the predicate "divine" the equivalent "sacred," then, +as far as concerns the sense, all the old comes back +again. According to this, love is to be the <i>good</i> in +man, his divineness, that which does him honor, his +true <i>humanity</i> (it "makes him Man for the first +time," makes for the first time a man out of him). +So then it would be more accurately worded thus: +Love is what is <i>human</i> in man, and what is inhuman +is the loveless egoist. But precisely all that which +Christianity and with it speculative philosophy (<i>i. e.</i> +theology) offers as the good, the absolute, is to self-ownership +simply not the good (or, what means the +same, it is <i>only the good</i>). Consequently, by the +transformation of the predicate into the subject, the +Christian <i>essence</i> (and it is the predicate that contains +the essence, you know) would only be fixed yet more +oppressively. God and the divine would entwine +themselves all the more inextricably with me. To +expel God from his heaven and to rob him of his +"<i>transcendence</i>" cannot yet support a claim of complete +victory, if therein he is only chased into the human +breast and gifted with indelible <i>immanence</i>. +Now they say, "The divine is the truly human!"</p> + +<p>The same people who oppose Christianity as the basis +of the State, <i>i. e.</i> oppose the so-called Christian +State, do not tire of repeating that morality is "the +fundamental pillar of social life and of the State."<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[Pg 62]</a></span> +As if the dominion of morality were not a complete +dominion of the sacred, a "hierarchy."</p> + +<p>So we may here mention by the way that rationalist +movement which, after theologians had long insisted +that only faith was capable of grasping religious +truths, that only to believers did God reveal himself, +etc., and that therefore only the heart, the feelings, the +believing fancy was religious, broke out with the assertion +that the "natural understanding," human reason, +was also capable of discerning God. What does that +mean but that the reason laid claim to be the same +visionary as the fancy?<a name="FNanchor_35_35" id="FNanchor_35_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_35_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a> In this sense Reimarus +wrote his "Most Notable Truths of Natural Religion." +It had to come to this,—that the <i>whole</i> man with all +his faculties was found to be <i>religious</i>; heart and +affections, understanding and reason, feeling, knowledge, +and will,—in short, everything in man,—appeared +religious. Hegel has shown that even philosophy +is religious. And what is not called religion +to-day? The "religion of love," the "religion of +freedom," "political religion,"—in short, every enthusiasm. +So it is, too, in fact.</p> + +<p>To this day we use the Romance word "religion," +which expresses the concept of a condition of being +<i>bound</i>. To be sure, we remain bound, so far as religion +takes possession of our inward parts; but is the +mind also bound? On the contrary, that is free, is +sole lord, is not our mind, but absolute. Therefore +the correct affirmative translation of the word religion +would be "<i>freedom of mind</i>"! In whomsoever the +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[Pg 63]</a></span>mind is free, he is religious in just the same way as he +in whom the senses have free course is called a sensual +man. The mind binds the former, the desires the latter. +Religion, therefore, is boundness or <i>religio</i> with +reference to me,—I am bound; it is freedom with reference +to the mind,—the mind is free, or has freedom +of mind. Many know from experience how hard it +is on <i>us</i> when the desires run away with us, free and +unbridled; but that the free mind, splendid intellectuality, +enthusiasm for intellectual interests, or however +this jewel may in the most various phrase be named, +brings <i>us</i> into yet more grievous straits than even the +wildest impropriety, people will not perceive; nor can +they perceive it without being consciously egoists.</p> + +<p>Reimarus, and all who have shown that our reason, +our heart, etc., also lead to God, have therewithal +shown that we are possessed through and through. +To be sure, they vexed the theologians, from whom +they took away the prerogative of religious exaltation; +but for religion, for freedom of mind, they thereby +only conquered yet more ground. For, when the +mind is no longer limited to feeling or faith, but also, +as understanding, reason, and thought in general, belongs +to itself the mind,—when, therefore, it may take +part in the spiritual<a name="FNanchor_36_36" id="FNanchor_36_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_36_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a> and heavenly truths in the form +of understanding, etc., as well as in its other forms,—then +the whole mind is occupied only with spiritual +things, <i>i. e.</i> with itself, and is therefore free. Now we +are so through-and-through religious that "jurors," +<i>i. e.</i> "sworn men," condemn us to death, and every<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[Pg 64]</a></span> +policeman, as a good Christian, takes us to the lock-up +by virtue of an "oath of office."</p> + +<p>Morality could not come into opposition with piety +till after the time when in general the boisterous hate +of everything that looked like an "order" (decrees, +commandments, etc.) spoke out in revolt, and the personal +"absolute lord" was scoffed at and persecuted; +consequently it could arrive at independence only +through liberalism, whose first form acquired significance +in the world's history as "citizenship," and +weakened the specifically religious powers (see "Liberalism" +below). For, when morality not merely +goes alongside of piety, but stands on feet of its own, +then its principle lies no longer in the divine commandments, +but in the law of reason, from which the +commandments, so far as they are still to remain +valid, must first await justification for their validity. +In the law of reason man determines himself out of +himself, for "Man" is rational, and out of the +"essence of Man" those laws follow of necessity. +Piety and morality part company in this,—that the +former makes God the lawgiver, the latter Man.</p> + +<p>From a certain standpoint of morality people reason +about as follows: Either man is led by his sensuality, +and is, following it, <i>immoral</i>, or he is led by the good +which, taken up into the will, is called moral sentiment +(sentiment and prepossession in favor of the +good); then he shows himself <i>moral</i>. From this +point of view how, <i>e. g.</i>, can Sand's act against +Kotzebue be called immoral? What is commonly +understood by unselfish it certainly was, in the same +measure as (among other things) St. Crispin's thiev<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[Pg 65]</a></span>eries +in favor of the poor. "He should not have +murdered, for it stands written, Thou shalt not murder!" +Then to serve the good, the welfare of the +people, as Sand at least intended, or the welfare of +the poor, like Crispin,—is moral; but murder and +theft are immoral; the purpose moral, the means immoral. +Why? "Because murder, assassination, is +something absolutely bad." When the Guerrillas enticed +the enemies of the country into ravines and shot +them down unseen from the bushes, do you suppose +that was not assassination? According to the principle +of morality, which commands us to serve the +good, you could really ask only whether murder could +never in any case be a realization of the good, and +would have to endorse that murder which realized the +good. You cannot condemn Sand's deed at all; it +was moral, because in the service of the good, because +unselfish; it was an act of punishment, which the individual +inflicted, an—<i>execution</i> inflicted at the risk of +the executioner's life. What else had his scheme +been, after all, but that he wanted to suppress writings +by brute force? Are you not acquainted with the +same procedure as a "legal" and sanctioned one? +And what can be objected against it from your principle +of morality?—"But it was an illegal execution." +So the immoral thing in it was the illegality, +the disobedience to law? Then you admit that the +good is nothing else than—law, morality nothing else +than <i>loyalty</i>. And to this externality of "loyalty" +your morality must sink, to this righteousness of +works in the fulfilment of the law, only that the latter +is at once more tyrannical and more revolting than<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[Pg 66]</a></span> +the old-time righteousness of works. For in the latter +only the <i>act</i> is needed, but you require the <i>disposition</i> +too; one must carry <i>in himself</i> the law, the statute; +and he who is most legally disposed is the most moral. +Even the last vestige of cheerfulness in Catholic life +must perish in this Protestant legality. Here at last +the domination of the law is for the first time complete. +"Not I live, but the law lives in me." Thus +I have really come so far as to be only the "vessel of +its glory." "Every Prussian carries his <i>gendarme</i> in +his breast," says a high Prussian officer.</p> + +<p>Why do certain <i>opposition parties</i> fail to flourish? +Solely for the reason that they refuse to forsake the +path of morality or legality. Hence the measureless +hypocrisy of devotion, love, etc., from whose repulsiveness +one may daily get the most thorough nausea at +this rotten and hypocritical relation of a "lawful opposition."—In +the <i>moral</i> relation of love and fidelity +divided or opposed will cannot have place; the beautiful +relation is disturbed if the one wills this and the +other the reverse. But now, according to the practice +hitherto and the old prejudice of the opposition, the +moral relation is to be preserved above all. What is +then left to the opposition? Perhaps the will to have +a liberty, if the beloved one sees fit to deny it? Not +a bit! It may not <i>will</i> to have the freedom, it can +only <i>wish</i> for it, "petition" for it, lisp a "Please, +please!" What would come of it, if the opposition +really <i>willed</i>, willed with the full energy of the will? +No, it must renounce <i>will</i> in order to live to <i>love</i>, renounce +liberty—for love of morality. It may never +"claim as a right" what it is permitted only to "beg<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[Pg 67]</a></span> +as a favor." Love, devotion, etc., demand with undeviating +definiteness that there be only one will to +which the others devote themselves, which they serve, +follow, love. Whether this will is regarded as reasonable +or as unreasonable, in both cases one acts morally +when one follows it, and immorally when one breaks +away from it. The will that commands the censorship +seems to many unreasonable; but he who in a land of +censorship evades the censoring of his book acts immorally, +and he who submits it to the censorship acts +morally. If some one let his moral judgment go, and +set up <i>e. g.</i> a secret press, one would have to call him +immoral, and imprudent into the bargain if he let +himself be caught; but will such a man lay claim to a +value in the eyes of the "moral"? Perhaps!—That +is, if he fancied he was serving a "higher morality."</p> + +<p>The web of the hypocrisy of to-day hangs on the +frontiers of two domains, between which our time +swings back and forth, attaching its fine threads of +deception and self-deception. No longer vigorous +enough to serve <i>morality</i> without doubt or weakening, +not yet reckless enough to live wholly to egoism, it +trembles now toward the one and now toward the +other in the spider-web of hypocrisy, and, crippled by +the curse of <i>halfness</i>, catches only miserable, stupid +flies. If one has once dared to make a "free" motion, +immediately one waters it again with assurances +of love, and—<i>shams resignation</i>; if, on the other side, +they have had the face to reject the free motion with +<i>moral</i> appeals to confidence, etc., immediately the +moral courage also sinks, and they assure one how +they hear the free words with special pleasure, etc.;<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[Pg 68]</a></span> +they—<i>sham approval</i>. In short, people would like to +have the one, but not go without the other; they +would like to have a <i>free will</i>, but not for their lives +lack the <i>moral will</i>. Just come in contact with a servile +loyalist, you Liberals. You will sweeten every +word of freedom with a look of the most loyal confidence, +and he will clothe his servilism in the most flattering +phrases of freedom. Then you go apart, and +he, like you, thinks "I know you, fox!" He scents +the devil in you as much as you do the dark old Lord +God in him.</p> + +<p>A Nero is a "bad" man only in the eyes of the +"good"; in mine he is nothing but a <i>possessed</i> man, +as are the good too. The good see in him an arch-villain, +and relegate him to hell. Why did nothing +hinder him in his arbitrary course? Why did people +put up with so much? Do you suppose the tame +Romans, who let all their will be bound by such a +tyrant, were a hair the better? In old Rome they +would have put him to death instantly, would never +have been his slaves. But the contemporary "good" +among the Romans opposed to him only moral demands, +not their <i>will</i>; they sighed that their emperor +did not do homage to morality, like them; they themselves +remained "moral subjects," till at last one +found courage to give up "moral, obedient subjection." +And then the same "good Romans" who, as +"obedient subjects," had borne all the ignominy of +having no will, hurrahed over the nefarious, immoral +act of the rebel. Where then in the "good" was the +courage for the <i>revolution</i>, that courage which they +now praised, after another had mustered it up? The<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[Pg 69]</a></span> +good could not have this courage, for a revolution, +and an insurrection into the bargain, is always something +"immoral," which one can resolve upon only +when one ceases to be "good" and becomes either +"bad" or—neither of the two. Nero was no viler +than his time, in which one could only be one of the +two, good or bad. The judgment of his time on him +had to be that he was bad, and this in the highest +degree: not a milksop, but an arch-scoundrel. All +moral people can pronounce only this judgment on +him. Rascals such as he was are still living here and +there to-day (see <i>e. g.</i> the Memoirs of Ritter von +Lang) in the midst of the moral. It is not convenient +to live among them certainly, as one is not sure of his +life for a moment; but can you say that it is more +convenient to live among the moral? One is just as +little sure of his life there, only that one is hanged "in +the way of justice," but least of all is one sure of his +honor, and the national cockade is gone before you +can say Jack Robinson. The hard fist of morality +treats the noble nature of egoism altogether without +compassion.</p> + +<p>"But surely one cannot put a rascal and an honest +man on the same level!" Now, no human being does +that oftener than you judges of morals; yes, still more +than that, you imprison as a criminal an honest man +who speaks openly against the existing constitution, +against the hallowed institutions, etc., and you entrust +portfolios and still more important things to a +crafty rascal. So <i>in praxi</i> you have nothing to reproach +me with. "But in theory!" Now there I do +put both on the same level, as two opposite poles,—to<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[Pg 70]</a></span> +wit, both on the level of the moral law. Both have +meaning only in the "moral" world, just as in the +pre-Christian time a Jew who kept the law and one +who broke it had meaning and significance only in respect +to the Jewish law; before Jesus Christ, on the +contrary, the Pharisee was no more than the "sinner +and publican." So before self-ownership the moral +Pharisee amounts to as much as the immoral sinner.</p> + +<p>Nero became very inconvenient by his possessedness. +But a self-owning man would not sillily oppose to him +the "sacred," and whine if the tyrant does not regard +the sacred; he would oppose to him his will. How +often the sacredness of the inalienable rights of man +has been held up to their foes, and some liberty or +other shown and demonstrated to be a "sacred right +of man"! Those who do that deserve to be laughed +out of court—as they actually are,—were it not that +in truth they do, even though unconsciously, take the +road that leads to the goal. They have a presentiment +that, if only the majority is once won for that +liberty, it will also will the liberty, and will then take +what it <i>will</i> have. The sacredness of the liberty, and +all possible proofs of this sacredness, will never procure +it; lamenting and petitioning only shows beggars.</p> + +<p>The moral man is necessarily narrow in that he +knows no other enemy than the "immoral" man. +"He who is not moral is immoral!" and accordingly +reprobate, despicable, etc. Therefore the moral man +can never comprehend the egoist. Is not unwedded +cohabitation an immorality? The moral man may +turn as he pleases, he will have to stand by this verdict; +Emilia Galotti gave up her life for this moral<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[Pg 71]</a></span> +truth. And it is true, it is an immorality. A virtuous +girl may become an old maid; a virtuous man +may pass the time in fighting his natural impulses till +he has perhaps dulled them, he may castrate himself +for the sake of virtue as St. Origen did for the sake +of heaven: he thereby honors sacred wedlock, sacred +chastity, as inviolable; he is—moral. Unchastity can +never become a moral act. However indulgently the +moral man may judge and excuse him who committed +it, it remains a transgression, a sin against a moral +commandment; there clings to it an indelible stain. +As chastity once belonged to the monastic vow, so it +does to moral conduct. Chastity is a—good.—For +the egoist, on the contrary, even chastity is not a good +without which he could not get along; he cares nothing +at all about it. What now follows from this for +the judgment of the moral man? This: that he +throws the egoist into the only class of men that he +knows besides moral men, into that of the—immoral. +He cannot do otherwise; he must find the egoist immoral +in everything in which the egoist disregards +morality. If he did not find him so, then he would +already have become an apostate from morality without +confessing it to himself, he would already no +longer be a truly moral man. One should not let +himself be led astray by such phenomena, which at the +present day are certainly no longer to be classed as +rare, but should reflect that he who yields any point of +morality can as little be counted among the truly +moral as Lessing was a pious Christian when, in the +well-known parable, he compared the Christian religion, +as well as the Mohammedan and Jewish, to a<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[Pg 72]</a></span> +"counterfeit ring." Often people are already further +than they venture to confess to themselves. For +Socrates, because in culture he stood on the level of +morality, it would have been an immorality if he had +been willing to follow Crito's seductive incitement and +escape from the dungeon; to remain was the only +moral thing. But it was solely because Socrates was—a +moral man. The "unprincipled, sacrilegious" +men of the Revolution, on the contrary, had sworn +fidelity to Louis XVI, and decreed his deposition, yes, +his death; but the act was an immoral one, at which +moral persons will be horrified to all eternity.</p> + +<hr style='width: 45%;' /> + +<p>Yet all this applies, more or less, only to "civic +morality," on which the freer look down with contempt. +For it (like civism, its native ground, in general) +is still too little removed and free from the religious +heaven not to transplant the latter's laws without +criticism or further consideration to its domain instead +of producing independent doctrines of its own. +Morality cuts a quite different figure when it arrives +at the consciousness of its dignity, and raises its principle, +the essence of man, or "Man," to be the only +regulative power. Those who have worked their way +through to such a decided consciousness break entirely +with religion, whose God no longer finds any place +alongside their "Man," and, as they (see below) +themselves scuttle the ship of State, so too they crumble +away that "morality" which flourishes only in +the State, and logically have no right to use even its +name any further. For what this "critical" party +calls morality is very positively distinguished from the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[Pg 73]</a></span> +so-called "civic or political morality," and must appear +to the citizen like an "insensate and unbridled +liberty." But at bottom it has only the advantage of +the "purity of the principle," which, freed from its defilement +with the religious, has now reached universal +power in its clarified definiteness as "humanity." +Therefore one should not wonder that the name +"morality" is retained along with others, like freedom, +benevolence, self-consciousness, etc., and is only +garnished now and then with the addition, a "free" +morality,—just as, though the civic State is abused, +yet the State is to arise again as a "free State," or, if +not even so, yet as a "free society."</p> + +<p>Because this morality completed into humanity has +fully settled its accounts with the religion out of which +it historically came forth, nothing hinders it from becoming +a religion on its own account. For a distinction +prevails between religion and morality only so +long as our dealings with the world of men are regulated +and hallowed by our relation to a superhuman +being, or so long as our doing is a doing "for God's +sake." If, on the other hand, it comes to the point +that "man is to man the supreme being," then that +distinction vanishes, and morality, being removed from +its subordinate position, is completed into—religion. +For then the higher being who had hitherto been subordinated +to the highest, Man, has ascended to absolute +height, and we are related to him as one is related +to the highest being, <i>i. e.</i> religiously. Morality and +piety are now as synonymous as in the beginning of +Christianity, and it is only because the supreme being +has come to be a different one that a holy walk is no<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[Pg 74]</a></span> +longer called a "holy" one, but a "human" one. If +morality has conquered, then a complete—<i>change of +masters</i> has taken place.</p> + +<p>After the annihilation of faith Feuerbach thinks to +put in to the supposedly safe harbor of <i>love</i>. "The +first and highest law must be the love of man to man. +<i>Homo homini Deus est</i>—this is the supreme practical +maxim, this the turning point of the world's history."<a name="FNanchor_37_37" id="FNanchor_37_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_37_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a> +But, properly speaking, only the god is changed,—the +<i>deus</i>; love has remained: there love to the superhuman +God, here love to the human God, to <i>homo</i> as +<i>Deus</i>. Therefore man is to me—sacred. And everything +"truly human" is to me—sacred! "Marriage +is sacred of itself. And so it is with all moral relations. +Friendship is and must be <i>sacred</i> for you, and +property, and marriage, and the good of every man, +but sacred <i>in and of itself</i>."<a name="FNanchor_38_38" id="FNanchor_38_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_38_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a> Haven't we the priest +again there? Who is his God? Man with a great +M! What is the divine? The human! Then the +predicate has indeed only been changed into the subject, +and, instead of the sentence "God is love," they +say "love is divine"; instead of "God has become +man," "Man has become God," etc. It is nothing +more or less than a new—<i>religion</i>. "All moral relations +are ethical, are cultivated with a moral mind, +only where of themselves (without religious consecration +by the priest's blessing) they are counted <i>religious</i>." +Feuerbach's proposition, "Theology is anthropology," +means only "religion must be ethics, +ethics alone is religion."<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[Pg 75]</a></span></p> + +<p>Altogether Feuerbach accomplishes only a transposition +of subject and predicate, a giving of preference +to the latter. But, since he himself says, "Love +is not (and has never been considered by men) sacred +through being a predicate of God, but it is a predicate +of God because it is divine in and of itself," he might +judge that the fight against the predicates themselves, +against love and all sanctities, must be commenced. +How could he hope to turn men away from God when +he left them the divine? And if, as Feuerbach says, +God himself has never been the main thing to them, +but only his predicates, then he might have gone on +leaving them the tinsel longer yet, since the doll, the +real kernel, was left at any rate. He recognizes, too, +that with him it is "only a matter of annihilating an +illusion";<a name="FNanchor_39_39" id="FNanchor_39_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_39_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a> he thinks, however, that the effect of the +illusion on men is "downright ruinous, since even +love, in itself the truest, most inward sentiment, becomes +an obscure, illusory one through religiousness, +since religious love loves man<a name="FNanchor_40_40" id="FNanchor_40_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_40_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a> only for God's sake, +therefore loves man only apparently, but in truth God +only." Is this different with moral love? Does it +love the man, <i>this</i> man for <i>this</i> man's sake, or for morality's +sake, for <i>Man's</i> sake, and so—for <i>homo homini +Deus</i>—for God's sake?</p> + +<hr style='width: 45%;' /> + +<p>The wheels in the head have a number of other +formal aspects, some of which it may be useful to indicate +here.</p> + +<p>Thus <i>self-renunciation</i> is common to the holy with +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[Pg 76]</a></span>the unholy, to the pure and the impure. The impure +man <i>renounces</i> all "better feelings," all shame, even +natural timidity, and follows only the appetite that +rules him. The pure man renounces his natural relation +to the world ("renounces the world") and follows +only the "desire" which rules him. Driven by the +thirst for money, the avaricious man renounces all admonitions +of conscience, all feeling of honor, all +gentleness and all compassion; he puts all considerations +out of sight; the appetite drags him along. The +holy man behaves similarly. He makes himself the +"laughing-stock of the world," is hard-hearted and +"strictly just"; for the desire drags him along. As +the unholy man renounces <i>himself</i> before Mammon, so +the holy man renounces <i>himself</i> before God and the +divine laws. We are now living in a time when the +<i>shamelessness</i> of the holy is every day more and more +felt and uncovered, whereby it is at the same time +compelled to unveil itself, and lay itself bare, more +and more every day. Have not the shamelessness and +stupidity of the reasons with which men antagonize +the "progress of the age" long surpassed all measure +and all expectation? But it must be so. The self-renouncers +must, as holy men, take the same course +that they do as unholy men; as the latter little by +little sink to the fullest measure of self-renouncing vulgarity +and <i>lowness</i>, so the former must ascend to the +most dishonorable <i>exaltation</i>. The mammon of the +earth and the <i>God</i> of heaven both demand exactly the +same degree of—self-renunciation. The low man, like +the exalted one, reaches out for a "good,"—the +former for the material good, the latter for the ideal,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[Pg 77]</a></span> +the so-called "supreme good"; and at last both complete +each other again too, as the "materially-minded" +man sacrifices everything to an ideal phantasm, +his <i>vanity</i>, and the "spiritually-minded" man +to a material gratification, the <i>life of enjoyment</i>.</p> + +<p>Those who exhort men to "unselfishness"<a name="FNanchor_41_41" id="FNanchor_41_41"></a><a href="#Footnote_41_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a> think +they are saying an uncommon deal. What do they +understand by it? Probably something like what +they understand by "self-renunciation." But who is +this self that is to be renounced and to have no benefit? +It seems that <i>you</i> yourself are supposed to be it. +And for whose benefit is unselfish self-renunciation +recommended to you? Again for <i>your</i> benefit and +behoof, only that through unselfishness you are procuring +your "true benefit."</p> + +<p>You are to benefit <i>yourself</i>, and yet you are not +seek <i>your</i> benefit.</p> + +<p>People regard as unselfish the <i>benefactor</i> of men, a +Franke who founded the orphan asylum, an O'Connell +who works tirelessly for his Irish people; but also +the <i>fanatic</i> who, like St. Boniface, hazards his life for +the conversion of the heathen, or, like Robespierre, +sacrifices everything to virtue,—like Koerner, dies for +God, king, and fatherland. Hence, among others, +O'Connell's opponents try to trump up against him +some selfishness or mercenariness, for which the O'Connell +fund seemed to give them a foundation; for, if +they were successful in casting suspicion on his "unselfishness," +they would easily separate him from his +adherents.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[Pg 78]</a></span></p> + +<p>Yet what could they show further than that O'Connell +was working for another <i>end</i> than the ostensible +one? But, whether he may aim at making money or +at liberating the people, it still remains certain, in one +case as in the other, that he is striving for an end, and +that <i>his</i> end; selfishness here as there, only that his +national self-interest would be beneficial to <i>others too</i>, +and so would be for the <i>common</i> interest.</p> + +<p>Now, do you suppose unselfishness is unreal and +nowhere extant? On the contrary, nothing is more +ordinary! One may even call it an article of fashion +in the civilized world, which is considered so indispensable +that, if it costs too much in solid material, people +at least adorn themselves with its tinsel counterfeit +and feign it. Where does unselfishness begin? +Right where an end ceases to be <i>our</i> end and our +<i>property</i>, which we, as owners, can dispose of at pleasure; +where it becomes a fixed end or a—fixed idea; +where it begins to inspire, enthuse, fanaticize us; in +short, where it passes into our <i>stubbornness</i> and becomes +our—master. One is not unselfish so long as +he retains the end in his power; one becomes so only +at that "Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise," the +fundamental maxim of all the possessed; one becomes +so in the case of a <i>sacred</i> end, through the corresponding +sacred zeal.—</p> + +<p>I am not unselfish so long as the end remains my +<i>own</i>, and I, instead of giving myself up to be the +blind means of its fulfilment, leave it always an open +question. My zeal need not on that account be +slacker than the most fanatical, but at the same time I +remain toward it frostily cold, unbelieving, and its<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[Pg 79]</a></span> +most irreconcilable enemy; I remain its <i>judge</i>, because +I am its owner.</p> + +<p>Unselfishness grows rank as far as possessedness +reaches, as much on possessions of the devil as on those +of a good spirit: there vice, folly, etc.; here humility, +devotion, etc.</p> + +<p>Where could one look without meeting victims of +self-renunciation? There sits a girl opposite me, who +perhaps has been making bloody sacrifices to her soul +for ten years already. Over the buxom form droops a +deathly-tired head, and pale cheeks betray the slow +bleeding away of her youth. Poor child, how often +the passions may have beaten at your heart, and the +rich powers of youth have demanded their right! +When your head rolled in the soft pillow, how +awakening nature quivered through your limbs, the +blood swelled your veins, and fiery fancies poured the +gleam of voluptuousness into your eyes! Then appeared +the ghost of the soul and its eternal bliss. +You were terrified, your hands folded themselves, your +tormented eye turned its look upward, you—prayed. +The storms of nature were hushed, a calm glided over +the ocean of your appetites. Slowly the weary eyelids +sank over the life extinguished under them, the tension +crept out unperceived from the rounded limbs, +the boisterous waves dried up in the heart, the folded +hands themselves rested a powerless weight on the unresisting +bosom, one last faint "Oh dear!" moaned itself +away, and—<i>the soul was at rest</i>. You fell asleep, +to awake in the morning to a new combat and a new—prayer. +Now the habit of renunciation cools the +heat of your desire, and the roses of your youth are<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[Pg 80]</a></span> +growing pale in the—chlorosis of your heavenliness. +The soul is saved, the body may perish! O Lais, O +Ninon, how well you did to scorn this pale virtue! +One free <i>grisette</i> against a thousand virgins grown +gray in virtue!</p> + +<p>The fixed idea may also be perceived as "maxim," +"principle," "standpoint," and the like. Archimedes, +to move the earth, asked for a standpoint <i>outside</i> +it. Men sought continually for this standpoint, +and every one seized upon it as well as he was able. +This foreign standpoint is the <i>world of mind</i>, of ideas, +thoughts, concepts, essences, etc.; it is <i>heaven</i>. +Heaven is the "standpoint" from which the earth is +moved, earthly doings surveyed and—despised. To +assure to themselves heaven, to occupy the heavenly +standpoint firmly and for ever,—how painfully and +tirelessly humanity struggled for this!</p> + +<p>Christianity has aimed to deliver us from a life determined +by nature, from the appetites as actuating +us, and so has meant that man should not let himself +be determined by his appetites. This does not involve +the idea that <i>he</i> was not to <i>have</i> appetites, but +that the appetites were not to have him, that they +were not to become <i>fixed</i>, uncontrollable, indissoluble. +Now, could not what Christianity (religion) contrived +against the appetites be applied by us to its own precept +that <i>mind</i> (thought, conceptions, ideas, faith, +etc.) must determine us; could we not ask that neither +should mind, or the conception, the idea, be allowed +to determine us, to become <i>fixed</i> and inviolable or +"sacred"? Then it would end in the <i>dissolution of +mind</i>, the dissolution of all thoughts, of all concep<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[Pg 81]</a></span>tions. +As we there had to say "We are indeed to +have appetites, but the appetites are not to have us," +so we should now say "We are indeed to have <i>mind</i>, +but mind is not to have us." If the latter seems lacking +in sense, think <i>e. g.</i> of the fact that with so many +a man a thought becomes a "maxim," whereby he +himself is made prisoner to it, so that it is not he that +has the maxim, but rather it that has him. And with +the maxim he has a "permanent standpoint" again. +The doctrines of the catechism become our <i>principles</i> +before we find it out, and no longer brook rejection. +Their thought, or—mind, has the sole power, and no +protest of the "flesh" is further listened to. Nevertheless +it is only through the "flesh" that I can break +the tyranny of mind; for it is only when a man hears +his flesh along with the rest of him that he hears himself +wholly, and it is only when he wholly hears <i>himself</i> +that he is a hearing or rational<a name="FNanchor_42_42" id="FNanchor_42_42"></a><a href="#Footnote_42_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a> being. The +Christian does not hear the agony of his enthralled +nature, but lives in "humility"; therefore he does not +grumble at the wrong which befalls his <i>person</i>; he +thinks himself satisfied with the "freedom of the +spirit." But, if the flesh once takes the floor, and its +tone is "passionate," "indecorous," "not well-disposed," +"spiteful," etc. (as it cannot be otherwise), +then he thinks he hears voices of devils, voices <i>against +the spirit</i> (for decorum, passionlessness, kindly disposition, +and the like, is—spirit), and is justly zealous +against them. He could not be a Christian if he were +willing to endure them. He listens only to morality,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[Pg 82]</a></span> +and slaps immorality in the mouth; he listens only to +legality, and gags the lawless word. The <i>spirit</i> of +morality and legality holds him a prisoner; a rigid, +unbending <i>master</i>. They call that the "mastery of +the spirit,"—it is at the same time the <i>standpoint</i> of +the spirit.</p> + +<p>And now whom do the ordinary liberal gentlemen +mean to make free? Whose freedom is it that they +cry out and thirst for? The <i>spirit's</i>! That of the +spirit of morality, legality, piety, the fear of God, etc. +That is what the anti-liberal gentlemen also want, and +the whole contention between the two turns on a matter +of advantage,—whether the latter are to be the +only speakers, or the former are to receive a "share in +the enjoyment of the same advantage." The <i>spirit</i> remains +the absolute <i>lord</i> for both, and their only quarrel +is over who shall occupy the hierarchical throne +that pertains to the "Vicegerent of the Lord." The +best of it is that one can calmly look upon the stir +with the certainty that the wild beasts of history will +tear each other to pieces just like those of nature; +their putrefying corpses fertilize the ground for—our +crops.</p> + +<p>We shall come back later to many another wheel in +the head,—for instance, those of vocation, truthfulness, +love, etc.</p> + +<hr style='width: 45%;' /> + +<p>When one's own is contrasted with what is <i>imparted</i> +to him, there is no use in objecting that we cannot +have anything isolated, but receive everything as a +part of the universal order, and therefore through the +impression of what is around us, and that consequently<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[Pg 83]</a></span> +we have it as something "imparted"; for there is a +great difference between the feelings and thoughts +which are <i>aroused</i> in me by other things and those +which are <i>given</i> to me. God, immortality, freedom, +humanity, etc., are drilled into us from childhood as +thoughts and feelings which move our inner being +more or less strongly, either ruling us without our +knowing it, or sometimes in richer natures manifesting +themselves in systems and works of art; but are always +not aroused, but imparted, feelings, because we +must believe in them and cling to them. That an +Absolute existed, and that it must be taken in, felt, +and thought by us, was settled as a faith in the minds +of those who spent all the strength of their mind on +recognizing it and setting it forth. The <i>feeling</i> for +the Absolute exists there as an imparted one, and +thenceforth results only in the most manifold revelations +of its own self. So in Klopstock the religious +feeling was an imparted one, which in the "Messiad" +simply found artistic expression. If, on the other +hand, the religion with which he was confronted had +been for him only an incitation to feeling and +thought, and if he had known how to take an attitude +completely <i>his own</i> toward it, then there would have +resulted, instead of religious inspiration, a dissolution +and consumption of the religion itself. Instead of +that, he only continued in mature years his childish +feelings received in childhood, and squandered the +powers of his manhood in decking out his childish +trifles.</p> + +<p>The difference is, then, whether feelings are imparted +to me or only aroused. Those which are<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[Pg 84]</a></span> +aroused are my own, egoistic, because they are not <i>as +feelings</i> drilled into me, dictated to me, and pressed +upon me; but those which are imparted to me I receive, +with open arms,—I cherish them in me as a +heritage, cultivate them, and am <i>possessed</i> by them. +Who is there that has never, more or less consciously, +noticed that our whole education is calculated to produce +<i>feelings</i> in us, <i>i. e.</i> impart them to us, instead of +leaving their production to ourselves however they +may turn out? If we hear thee name of God, we are +to feel veneration; if we hear that of the prince's majesty, +it is to be received with reverence, deference, +submission; if we hear that of morality, we are to +think that we hear something inviolable; if we hear of +the Evil One or evil ones, we are to shudder; etc. +The intention is directed to these <i>feelings</i>, and he who +<i>e. g.</i> should hear with pleasure the deeds of the +"bad" would have to be "taught what's what" with +the rod of discipline. Thus stuffed with <i>imparted feelings</i>, +we appear before the bar of majority and are +"pronounced of age." Our equipment consists of +"elevating feelings, lofty thoughts, inspiring maxims, +eternal principles," etc. The young are of age when +they twitter like the old; they are driven through +school to learn the old song, and, when they have this +by heart, they are declared of age.</p> + +<p>We <i>must not</i> feel at every thing and every name +that comes before us what we could and would like to +feel thereat; <i>e. g.</i>, at the name of God we must think +of nothing laughable, feel nothing disrespectful, it being +prescribed and imparted to us what and how we +are to feel and think at mention of that name.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[Pg 85]</a></span></p> + +<p>That is the meaning of the <i>care of souls</i>,—that my +soul or my mind be tuned as others think right, not as +I myself would like it. How much trouble does it not +cost one, finally to secure to oneself a feeling of one's +<i>own</i> at the mention of at least this or that name, and +to laugh in the face of many who expect from us a +holy face and a composed expression at their speeches. +What is imparted is <i>alien</i> to us, is not our own, and +therefore is "sacred," and it is hard work to lay aside +the "sacred dread of it."</p> + +<p>To-day one again hears "seriousness" praised, +"seriousness in the presence of highly important subjects +and discussions," "German seriousness," etc. +This sort of seriousness proclaims clearly how old and +grave lunacy and possession have already become. +For there is nothing more serious than a lunatic when +he comes to the central point of his lunacy; then his +great earnestness incapacitates him for taking a joke. +(See madhouses.)</p> + + +<h4>§ 3.—<span class="smcap">The Hierarchy</span></h4> + +<p>The historical reflections on our Mongolism which I +propose to insert episodically at this place are not +given with the claim of thoroughness, or even of approved +soundness, but solely because it seems to me +that they may contribute toward making the rest +clear.</p> + +<p>The history of the world, whose shaping properly +belongs altogether to the Caucasian race, seems till +now to have run through two Caucasian ages, in the +first of which we had to work out and work off our<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[Pg 86]</a></span> +innate <i>negroidity</i>; this was followed in the second by +<i>Mongoloidity</i> (Chineseness), which must likewise be +terribly made an end of. Negroidity represents +<i>antiquity</i>, the time of dependence on <i>things</i> (on cocks' +eating, birds' flight, on sneezing, on thunder and +lightning, on the rustling of sacred trees, etc.); Mongoloidity +the time of dependence on thoughts, the +<i>Christian</i> time. Reserved for the future are the words +"I am owner of the world of things, and I am owner +of the world of mind."</p> + +<p>In the negroid age fall the campaigns of Sesostris +and the importance of Egypt and of northern Africa +in general. To the Mongoloid age belong the invasions +of the Huns and Mongols, up to the Russians.</p> + +<p>The value of <i>me</i> cannot possibly be rated high so +long as the hard diamond of the <i>not-me</i> bears so +enormous a price as was the case both with God and +with the world. The not-me is still too stony and +indomitable to be consumed and absorbed by me; +rather, men only creep about with extraordinary <i>bustle</i> +on this <i>immovable</i> entity, <i>i. e.</i> on this <i>substance</i>, like +parasitic animals on a body from whose juices they +draw nourishment, yet without consuming it. It is +the bustle of vermin, the assiduity of Mongolians. +Among the Chinese, we know, everything remains as +it used to be, and nothing "essential" or "substantial" +suffers a change; all the more actively do they +work away <i>at</i> that which remains, which bears the +name of the "old," "ancestors," etc.</p> + +<p>Accordingly, in our Mongolian age all change has +been only reformatory or ameliorative, not destructive +or consuming and annihilating. The substance, the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[Pg 87]</a></span> +object, <i>remains</i>. All our assiduity was only the +activity of ants and the hopping of fleas, jugglers' +tricks on the immovable tight-rope of the objective, +<i>corvée</i>-service under the lordship of the unchangeable +or "eternal." The Chinese are doubtless the most +<i>positive</i> nation, because totally buried in precepts; but +neither has the Christian age come out from the <i>positive, +i. e.</i> from "limited freedom," freedom "within +certain limits." In the most advanced stage of civilization +this activity earns the name of <i>scientific</i> activity, +of working on a motionless presupposition, a +<i>hypothesis</i> that is not to be upset.</p> + +<p>In its first and most unintelligible form morality +shows itself as <i>habit</i>. To act according to the habit +and usage (<i>morem</i>) of one's country—is to be moral +there. Therefore pure moral action, clear, unadulterated +morality, is most straightforwardly practised in +China; they keep to the old habit and usage, and hate +each innovation as a crime worthy of death. For +<i>innovation</i> is the deadly enemy of <i>habit</i>, of the <i>old</i>, of +<i>permanence</i>. In fact, too, it admits of no doubt that +through habit man secures himself against the obtrusiveness +of things, of the world, and founds a world +of his own in which alone he is and feels at home, <i>i. e.</i> +builds himself a <i>heaven</i>. Why, heaven has no other +meaning than that it is man's proper home, in which +nothing alien regulates and rules him any longer, no +influence of the earthly any longer makes him himself +alien; in short, in which the dross of the earthly is +thrown off, and the combat against the world has +found an end,—in which, therefore, nothing is any +longer <i>denied</i> him. Heaven is the end of <i>abnegation</i>,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[Pg 88]</a></span> +it is <i>free enjoyment</i>. There man no longer denies +himself anything, because nothing is any longer alien +and hostile to him. But now habit is a "second +nature," which detaches and frees man from his first +and original natural condition, in securing him +against every casualty of it. The fully elaborated +habit of the Chinese has provided for all emergencies, +and everything is "looked out for"; whatever may +come, the Chinaman always knows how he has to behave, +and does not need to decide first according to +the circumstances; no unforeseen case throws him +down from the heaven of his rest. The morally habituated +and inured Chinaman is not surprised and taken +off his guard; he behaves with equanimity (i. e. with +equal spirit or temper) toward everything, because his +temper, protected by the precaution of his traditional +usage, does not lose its balance. Hence, on the ladder +of culture or civilization humanity mounts the first +round through habit; and, as it conceives that, in +climbing to culture, it is at the same time climbing to +heaven, the realm of culture or second nature, it really +mounts the first round of the—ladder to heaven.</p> + +<p>If Mongoldom has settled the existence of spiritual +beings,—if it has created a world of spirits, a heaven,—the +Caucasians have wrestled for thousands of years +with these spiritual beings, to get to the bottom of +them. What were they doing, then, but building on +Mongolian ground? They have not built on sand, +but in the air; they have wrestled with Mongolism, +stormed the Mongolian heaven, Tien. When will +they at last annihilate this heaven? When will they +at last become <i>really Caucasians</i>, and find themselves?<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[Pg 89]</a></span> +When will the "immortality of the soul," which in +these latter days thought it was giving itself still more +security if it presented itself as "immortality of +mind," at last change to the <i>mortality of mind</i>?</p> + +<p>It was when, in the industrious struggle of the +Mongolian race, men had <i>built a heaven</i>, that those of +the Caucasian race, since in their Mongolian complexion +they have to do with heaven, took upon themselves +the opposite task, the task of storming that +heaven of custom, <i>heaven-storming</i><a name="FNanchor_43_43" id="FNanchor_43_43"></a><a href="#Footnote_43_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a> activity. To dig +under all human ordinance, in order to set up a new +and—better one on the cleared site, to wreck all +customs in order to put new and better customs in +their place, etc.,—their act is limited to this. But is +it thus already purely and really what it aspires to be, +and does it reach its final aim? No, in this creation +of a "<i>better</i>" it is tainted with Mongolism. It storms +heaven only to make a heaven again, it overthrows an +old power only to legitimate a new power, it only—<i>improves</i>. +Nevertheless the point aimed at, often as it +may vanish from the eyes at every new attempt, is the +real, complete downfall of heaven, customs, etc.,—in +short, of man secured only against the world, of the +<i>isolation</i> or <i>inwardness</i> of man. Through the heaven +of culture man seeks to isolate himself from the world, +to break its hostile power. But this isolation of +heaven must likewise be broken, and the true end of +heaven-storming is the—downfall of heaven, the annihilation +of heaven. <i>Improving</i> and <i>reforming</i> is the +Mongolism of the Caucasian, because thereby he is al<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[Pg 90]</a></span>ways +setting up again what already existed,—to wit, a +<i>precept</i>, a generality, a heaven. He harbors the most +irreconcilable enmity to heaven, and yet builds new +heavens daily; piling heaven on heaven, he only +crushes one by another; the Jews' heaven destroys the +Greeks', the Christians' the Jews', the Protestants' the +Catholics', etc.—If the <i>heaven-storming</i> men of Caucasian +blood throw on their Mongolian skin, they will +bury the emotional man under the ruins of the monstrous +world of emotion, the isolated man under his +isolated world, the paradisiacal man under his heaven. +And heaven is the <i>realm of spirits</i>, the realm <i>of freedom +of the spirit</i>.</p> + +<p>The realm of heaven, the realm of spirits and +ghosts, has found its right standing in the speculative +philosophy. Here it was stated as the realm of +thoughts, concepts, and ideas; heaven is peopled with +thoughts and ideas, and this "realm of spirits" is +then the true reality.</p> + +<p>To want to win freedom for the <i>spirit</i> is Mongolism; +freedom of the spirit is Mongolian freedom, +freedom of feeling, moral freedom, etc.</p> + +<p>We may find the word "morality" taken as synonymous +with spontaneity, self-determination. But +that is not involved in it; rather has the Caucasian +shown himself spontaneous only <i>in spite of</i> his Mongolian +morality. The Mongolian heaven, or morals,<a name="FNanchor_44_44" id="FNanchor_44_44"></a><a href="#Footnote_44_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a> +remained the strong castle, and only by storming incessantly +at this castle did the Caucasian show himself +moral; if he had not had to do with morals at all<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[Pg 91]</a></span> +any longer, if he had not had therein his indomitable, +continual enemy, the relation to morals would cease, +and consequently morality would cease. That his +spontaneity is still a moral spontaneity, therefore, is +just the Mongoloidity of it,—is a sign that in it he has +not arrived at himself. "Moral spontaneity" corresponds +entirely with "religious and orthodox philosophy," +"constitutional monarchy," "the Christian +State," "freedom within certain limits," "the limited +freedom of the press," or, in a figure, to the hero fettered +to a sick-bed.</p> + +<p>Man has not really vanquished Shamanism and its +spooks till he possesses the strength to lay aside not +only the belief in ghosts or in spirits, but also the belief +in the spirit.</p> + +<p>He who believes in a spook no more assumes the +"introduction of a higher world" than he who +believes in the spirit, and both seek behind the sensual +world a supersensual one; in short, they produce and +believe <i>another</i> world, and this other <i>world, the product +of their mind</i>, is a spiritual world; for their +senses grasp and know nothing of another, a non-sensual +world, only their spirit lives in it. Going on +from this Mongolian belief in the <i>existence of spiritual +beings</i> to the point that the <i>proper being</i> of man too +is his <i>spirit</i>, and that all care must be directed to this +alone, to the "welfare of his soul," is not hard. Influence +on the spirit, so-called "moral influence," is +hereby assured.</p> + +<p>Hence it is manifest that Mongolism represents +utter absence of any rights of the sensuous, represents +non-sensuousness and unnature, and that sin and the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[Pg 92]</a></span> +consciousness of sin was our Mongolian torment that +lasted thousands of years.</p> + +<p>But who, then, will dissolve the spirit into its <i>nothing</i>? +He who by means of the spirit set forth nature +as the <i>null</i>, finite, transitory, he alone can bring down +the spirit too to like nullity. <i>I</i> can; each one among +you can, who does his will as an absolute I; in a +word, the <i>egoist</i> can.</p> + +<hr style='width: 45%;' /> + +<p>Before the sacred, people lose all sense of power and +all confidence; they occupy a <i>powerless</i> and <i>humble</i> +attitude toward it. And yet no thing is sacred of itself, +but by my <i>declaring it sacred</i>, by my declaration, +my judgment, my bending the knee; in short, by my—conscience.</p> + +<p>Sacred is everything which for the egoist is to be +unapproachable, not to be touched, outside his <i>power</i>,—<i>i. e.</i> +above <i>him</i>; sacred, in a word, is every <i>matter +of conscience</i>, for "this is a matter of conscience to +me" means simply "I hold this sacred."</p> + +<p>For little children, just as for animals, nothing +sacred exists, because, in order to make room for this +conception, one must already have progressed so far in +understanding that he can make distinctions like +"good and bad," "warranted and unwarranted," +etc.; only at such a level of reflection or intelligence—the +proper standpoint of religion—can unnatural +(<i>i. e.</i> brought into existence by thinking) <i>reverence</i>, +"sacred dread," step into the place of natural <i>fear</i>. +To this sacred dread belongs holding something outside +oneself for mightier, greater, better warranted, +better, etc.; <i>i. e.</i> the attitude in which one acknowl<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[Pg 93]</a></span>edges +the might of something alien—not merely feels +it, then, but expressly acknowledges it, <i>i. e.</i> admits it, +yields, surrenders, lets himself be tied (devotion, +humility, servility, submission, etc.) Here walks the +whole ghostly troop of the "Christian virtues."</p> + +<p>Everything toward which you cherish any respect +or reverence deserves the name of sacred; you yourselves, +too, say that you would feel a "<i>sacred dread</i>" +of laying hands on it. And you give this tinge even +to the unholy (gallows, crime, etc.) You have a horror +of touching it. There lies in it something uncanny, +<i>i. e.</i> unfamiliar or <i>not your own</i>.</p> + +<p>"If something or other did not rank as sacred in a +man's mind, why, then all bars would be let down to +self-will, to unlimited subjectivity!" Fear makes the +beginning, and one can make himself fearful to the +coarsest man; already, therefore, a barrier against his +insolence. But in fear there always remains the attempt +to liberate oneself from what is feared, by guile, +deception, tricks, etc. In reverence,<a name="FNanchor_45_45" id="FNanchor_45_45"></a><a href="#Footnote_45_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a> on the contrary, +it is quite otherwise. Here something is not only +feared,<a name="FNanchor_46_46" id="FNanchor_46_46"></a><a href="#Footnote_46_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a> but also honored<a name="FNanchor_47_47" id="FNanchor_47_47"></a><a href="#Footnote_47_47" class="fnanchor">[47]</a>: what is feared has become +an inward power which I can no longer get clear of; I +honor it, am captivated by it and devoted to it, belong +to it; by the honor which I pay it I am completely +in its power, and do not even attempt liberation +any longer. Now I am attached to it with all +the strength of faith; I <i>believe</i>. I and what I fear +are one; "not I live, but the respected lives in me!" +Because the spirit, the infinite, does not allow of com<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[Pg 94]</a></span>ing +to any end, therefore it is stationary; it fears +<i>dying</i>, it cannot let go its dear Jesus, the greatness of +finiteness is no longer recognized by its blinded eye; +the object of fear, now raised to veneration, may no +longer be handled; reverence is made eternal, the respected +is deified. The man is now no longer employed +in creating, but in <i>learning</i> (knowing, investigating, +etc.), <i>i. e.</i> occupied with a fixed <i>object</i>, losing +himself in its depths, without return to himself. The +relation to this object is that of knowing, fathoming, +basing, etc., not that of <i>dissolution</i> (abrogation, etc.) +"Man is to be religious," that is settled; therefore +people busy themselves only with the question how +this is to be attained, what is the right meaning of +religiousness, etc. Quite otherwise when one makes +the axiom itself doubtful and calls it in question, even +though it should go to smash. Morality too is such +sacred conception; one must be moral, and must look +only for the right "how," the right way to be so. +One dares not go at morality itself with the question +whether it is not itself an illusion; it remains exalted +above all doubt, unchangeable. And so we go on +with the sacred, grade after grade, from the "holy" +to the "holy of holies."</p> + +<hr style='width: 45%;' /> + +<p>Men are sometimes divided into two classes, <i>cultured</i> +and <i>uncultured</i>. The former, so far as they were +worthy of their name, occupied themselves with +thoughts, with mind, and (because in the time since +Christ, of which the very principle is thought, they +were the ruling ones) demanded a servile respect for +the thoughts recognized by them. State, emperor,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">[Pg 95]</a></span> +church, God, morality, order, etc., are such thoughts +or spirits, that exist only for the mind. A merely living +being, an animal, cares as little for them as a +child. But the uncultured are really nothing but +children, and he who attends only to the necessities of +his life is indifferent to those spirits; but, because he +is also weak before them, he succumbs to their power, +and is ruled by—thoughts. This is the meaning of +hierarchy.</p> + +<p><i>Hierarchy is dominion of thoughts, dominion of +mind!</i></p> + +<p>We are hierarchic to this day, kept down by those +who are supported by thoughts. Thoughts are the +sacred.</p> + +<p>But the two are always clashing, now one and now +the other giving the offence; and this clash occurs, not +only in the collision of two men, but in one and the +same man. For no cultured man is so cultured as not +to find enjoyment in things too, and so be uncultured; +and no uncultured man is totally without thoughts. +In Hegel it comes to light at last what a longing for +<i>things</i> even the most cultured man has, and what a +horror of every "hollow theory" he harbors. With +him reality, the world of things, is altogether to correspond +to the thought, and no concept to be without +reality. This caused Hegel's system to be known as +the most objective, as if in it thought and thing celebrated +their union. But this was simply the extremest +case of violence on the part of thought, its highest +pitch of despotism and sole dominion, the triumph of +mind, and with it the triumph of <i>philosophy</i>. Philosophy +cannot hereafter achieve anything higher, for its<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">[Pg 96]</a></span> +highest is the <i>omnipotence of mind</i>, the almightiness of +mind.<a name="FNanchor_48_48" id="FNanchor_48_48"></a><a href="#Footnote_48_48" class="fnanchor">[48]</a></p> + +<p>Spiritual men have <i>taken into their head</i> something +that is to be realized. They have <i>concepts</i> of love, +goodness, and the like, which they would like to see +<i>realized</i>; therefore they want to set up a kingdom of +love on earth, in which no one any longer acts from +selfishness, but each one "from love." Love is to +<i>rule</i>. What they have taken into their head, what +shall we call it but—<i>fixed idea</i>? Why, "their head +is <i>haunted</i>." The most oppressive spook is <i>Man</i>. +Think of the proverb, "The road to ruin is paved +with good intentions." The intention to realize +humanity altogether in oneself, to become altogether +man, is of such ruinous kind; here belong the intentions +to become good, noble, loving, etc.</p> + +<p><a name="p7" id="p7"></a>In the sixth part of the "<i>Denkwuerdigkeiten</i>" <a href="#typos">p. 7</a>, +Bruno Bauer says: "That middle class, which was to +receive such a terrible importance for modern history +is capable of no self-sacrificing action, no enthusiasm +for an idea, no exaltation; it devotes itself to nothing +but the interests of its mediocrity; <i>i. e.</i> it remains always +limited to itself, and conquers at last only +through its bulk, with which it has succeeded in tiring +out the efforts of passion, enthusiasm, consistency,—through +its surface, into which it absorbs a part of the +new ideas." And (p. 6) "It has turned the revolutionary +ideas, for which not it, but unselfish or impassioned +men sacrificed themselves, solely to its own pro<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">[Pg 97]</a></span>fit, +has turned spirit into money.—That is, to be sure, +after it had taken away from those ideas their point, +their consistency, their destructive seriousness, fanatical +against all egoism." These people, then, are not self-sacrificing, +not enthusiastic, not idealistic, not consistent, +not zealots; they are egoists in the usual sense, +selfish people, looking out for their advantage, sober, +calculating, etc.</p> + +<p>Who, then, is "self-sacrificing"?<a name="FNanchor_49_49" id="FNanchor_49_49"></a><a href="#Footnote_49_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a> In the full +sense, surely, he who ventures everything else for <i>one +thing</i>, one object, one will, one passion, etc. Is not +the lover self-sacrificing who forsakes father and +mother, endures all dangers and privations, to reach +his goal? Or the ambitious man, who offers up all +his desires, wishes, and satisfactions to the single +passion, or the avaricious man who denies himself +everything to gather treasures, or the pleasure-seeker, +etc.? He is ruled by a passion to which he brings +the rest as sacrifices.</p> + +<p>And are these self-sacrificing people perchance not +selfish, not egoists? As they have only one ruling +passion, so they provide for only one satisfaction, but +for this the more strenuously; they are wholly absorbed +in it. Their entire activity is egoistic, but +it is a one-sided, unopened, narrow egoism; it is +possessedness.</p> + +<p>"Why, those are petty passions, by which, on the +contrary, man must not let himself be enthralled. +Man must make sacrifices for a great idea, a great +cause!" A "great idea," a "good cause," is, it may<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">[Pg 98]</a></span> +be, the honor of God, for which innumerable people +have met death; Christianity, which has found its +willing martyrs; the Holy Catholic Church, which +has greedily demanded sacrifices of heretics; liberty +and equality, which were waited on by bloody +guillotines.</p> + +<p>He who lives for a great idea, a good cause, a doctrine, +a system, a lofty calling, may not let any +worldly lusts, any self-seeking interest, spring up in +him. Here we have the concept of <i>clericalism</i>, or, as +it may also be called in its pedagogic activity, school-masterliness; +for the idealists play the schoolmaster +over us. The clergyman is especially called to live to +the idea and to work for the idea, the truly good +cause. Therefore the people feel how little it befits +him to show worldly haughtiness, to desire good living, +to join in such pleasures as dancing and gaming,—in +short, to have any other than a "sacred interest." +Hence too, doubtless, is derived the scanty +salary of teachers, who are to feel themselves repaid by +the sacredness of their calling alone, and to "renounce" +other enjoyments.</p> + +<p>Even a directory of the sacred ideas, one or more of +which man is to look upon as his calling, is not lacking. +Family, fatherland, science, etc., may find in man +a servant faithful to his calling.</p> + +<p>Here we come upon the old, old craze of the world +which has not yet learned to do without clericalism,—that +to live and work <i>for an idea</i> is man's calling, +and according to the faithfulness of its fulfilment his +<i>human</i> worth is measured.</p> + +<p>This is the dominion of the idea; in other words, it<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">[Pg 99]</a></span> +is clericalism. <i>E. g.</i>, Robespierre, St. Just, etc., were +priests through and through, inspired by the idea, enthusiasts, +consistent instruments of this idea, idealistic +men. So St. Just exclaims in a speech, "There is +something terrible in the sacred love of country; +it is so exclusive that it sacrifices everything to the +public interest without mercy, without fear, without +human consideration. It hurls Manlius down the +precipice; it sacrifices its private inclinations; it leads +Regulus to Carthage, throws a Roman into the chasm, +and sets Marat, as a victim of his devotion, in the +Pantheon."</p> + +<p>Now, over against these representatives of ideal or +sacred interests stands a world of innumerable "personal" +profane interests. No idea, no system, no +sacred cause is so great as never to be outrivaled and +modified by these personal interests. Even if they are +silent momentarily, and in times of rage and fanaticism, +yet they soon come uppermost again through +"the sound sense of the people." Those ideas do not +completely conquer till they are no longer hostile to +personal interests, <i>i. e.</i> till they satisfy egoism.</p> + +<p>The man who is just now crying herrings in front +of my window has a personal interest in good sales, +and, if his wife or anybody else wishes him the like, +this remains a personal interest all the same. If, on +the other hand, a thief deprived him of his basket, +then there would at once arise an interest of many, of +the whole city, of the whole country, or, in a word, of +all who abhor theft; an interest in which the herring-seller's +person would become indifferent, and in its +place the category of the "robbed man" would come<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">[Pg 100]</a></span> +into the foreground. But even here all might yet resolve +itself into a personal interest, each of the partakers +reflecting that he must concur in the punishment +of the thief because unpunished stealing might +otherwise become general and cause him too to lose +his own. Such a calculation, however, can hardly be +assumed on the part of many, and we shall rather +hear the cry that the thief is a "criminal." Here we +have before us a judgment, the thief's action receiving +its expression in the concept "crime." Now the +matter stands thus: even if a crime did not cause the +slightest damage either to me or to any of those in +whom I take an interest, I should nevertheless <i>denounce</i> +it. Why? Because I am enthusiastic for +<i>morality</i>, filled with the <i>idea</i> of morality; what is +hostile to it I everywhere assail. Because in his mind +theft ranks as abominable without any question, +Proudhon, <i>e. g.</i>, thinks that with the sentence +"Property is theft" he has at once put a brand on +property. In the sense of the priestly, theft is always +a <i>crime</i>, or at least a misdeed.</p> + +<p>Here the personal interest is at an end. This particular +person who has stolen the basket is perfectly +indifferent to my person; it is only the thief, this concept +of which that person presents a specimen, that I +take an interest in. The thief and man are in my +mind irreconcilable opposites; for one is not truly +man when one is a thief; one degrades <i>Man</i> or +"humanity" in himself when one steals. Dropping +out of personal concern, one gets into <i>philanthropism</i>, +friendliness to man, which is usually misunderstood as +if it was a love to men, to each individual, while it is<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">[Pg 101]</a></span> +nothing but a love of Man, the unreal concept, the +spook. It is not τους ανθρώπους, men, but +τον ανθρωπον, +Man, that the philanthropist carries in his +heart. To be sure, he cares for each individual, but +only because he wants to see his beloved ideal realized +everywhere.</p> + +<p>So there is nothing said here of care for me, you, +us; that would be personal interest, and belongs under +the head of "worldly love." Philanthropism is a +heavenly, spiritual, a—priestly love. <i>Man</i> must be +restored in us, even if thereby we poor devils should +come to grief. It is the same priestly principle as +that famous <i>fiat justitia, pereat mundus</i>; man and +justice are ideas, ghosts, for love of which everything +is sacrificed; therefore the priestly spirits are the +"self-sacrificing" ones.</p> + +<p>He who is infatuated with <i>Man</i> leaves persons out +of account so far as that infatuation extends, and +floats in an ideal, sacred interest. <i>Man</i>, you see, is +not a person, but an ideal, a spook.</p> + +<p>Now, things as different as possible can belong to +<i>Man</i> and be so regarded. If one finds Man's chief +requirement in piety, there arises religious clericalism; +if one sees it in morality, then moral clericalism raises +its head. On this account the priestly spirits of our +day want to make a "religion" of everything, a "religion +of liberty," "religion of equality," etc., and for +them every idea becomes a "sacred cause," <i>e. g.</i> even +citizenship, politics, publicity, freedom of the press, +trial by jury, etc.</p> + +<p>Now, what does "unselfishness" mean in this +sense? Having only an ideal interest, before which<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">[Pg 102]</a></span> +no respect of persons avails!</p> + +<p>The stiff head of the worldly man opposes this, but +for centuries has always been worsted at least so far as +to have to bend the unruly neck and "honor the +higher power"; clericalism pressed it down. When +the worldly egoist had shaken off a higher power +(<i>e. g.</i> the Old Testament law, the Roman pope, etc.), +then at once a seven times higher one was over him +again, <i>e. g.</i> faith in the place of the law, the transformation +of all laymen into divines in place of the +limited body of clergy, etc. His experience was like +that of the possessed man into whom seven devils +passed when he thought he had freed himself from +one.</p> + +<p>In the passage quoted above all ideality, etc., is +denied to the middle class. It certainly schemed +against the ideal consistency with which Robespierre +wanted to carry out the principle. The instinct of its +interest told it that this consistency harmonized too +little with what its mind was set on, and that it would +be acting against itself if it were willing to further the +enthusiasm for principle. Was it to behave so unselfishly +as to abandon all its aims in order to bring a +harsh theory to its triumph? It suits the priests admirably, +to be sure, when people listen to their summons, +"Cast away everything and follow me," or +"Sell all that thou hast and give to the poor, and +thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow +me." Some decided idealists obey this call; but most +act like Ananias and Sapphira, maintaining a +behavior half clerical or religious and half worldly, +serving God and Mammon.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">[Pg 103]</a></span></p> + +<p>I do not blame the middle class for not wanting to +let its aims be frustrated by Robespierre, <i>i. e.</i> for inquiring +of its egoism how far it might give the revolutionary +idea a chance. But one might blame (if +blame were in place here anyhow) those who let their +own interests be frustrated by the interests of the middle +class. However, will not they likewise sooner or +later learn to understand what is to their advantage? +August Becker says:<a name="FNanchor_50_50" id="FNanchor_50_50"></a><a href="#Footnote_50_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a> "To win the producers (proletarians) +a negation of the traditional conception of +right is by no means enough. Folks unfortunately +care little for the theoretical victory of the idea. One +must demonstrate to them <i>ad oculos</i> how this victory +can be practically utilized in life." And (p. 32): +"You must get hold of folks by their real interests if +you want to work upon them." Immediately after +this he shows how a fine looseness of morals is already +spreading among our peasants, because they prefer to +follow their real interests rather than the commands +of morality.</p> + +<p>Because the revolutionary priests or schoolmasters +served <i>Man</i>, they cut off the heads of <i>men</i>. The revolutionary +laymen, those outside the sacred circle, did +not feel any greater horror of cutting off heads, but +were less anxious about the rights of Man than about +their own.</p> + +<p>How comes it, though, that the egoism of those who +affirm personal interest, and always inquire of it, is +nevertheless forever succumbing to a priestly or +schoolmasterly (<i>i. e.</i> an ideal) interest? Their per<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">[Pg 104]</a></span>son +seems to them too small, too insignificant,—and is +so in fact,—to lay claim to everything and be able to +put itself completely in force. There is a sure sign of +this in their dividing themselves into two persons, an +eternal and a temporal, and always caring either only +for the one or only for the other, on Sunday for the +eternal, on the work-day for the temporal, in prayer +for the former, in work for the latter. They have the +priest in themselves, therefore they do not get rid of +him, but hear themselves lectured inwardly every +Sunday.</p> + +<p>How men have struggled and calculated to get at a +solution regarding these dualistic essences! Idea followed +upon idea, principle upon principle, system upon +system, and none knew how to keep down permanently +the contradiction of the "worldly" man, the +so-called "egoist." Does not this prove that all those +ideas were too feeble to take up my whole will into +themselves and satisfy it? They were and remained +hostile to me, even if the hostility lay concealed for a +considerable time. Will it be the same with <i>self-ownership</i>? +Is it too only an attempt at mediation? +Whatever principle I turned to, it might be to that of +<i>reason</i>, I always had to turn away from it again. Or +can I always be rational, arrange my life according to +reason in everything? I can, no doubt, <i>strive</i> after +rationality, I can <i>love</i> it, just as I can also love God +and every other idea. I can be a philosopher, a lover +of wisdom, as I love God. But what I love, what I +strive for, is only in my idea, my conception, my +thoughts; it is in my heart, my head, it is in me like +the heart, but it is not I, I am not it.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">[Pg 105]</a></span></p> + +<p>To the activity of priestly minds belongs especially +what one often hears called "<i>moral influence</i>."</p> + +<p>Moral influence takes its start where <i>humiliation</i> begins; +yes, it is nothing else than this humiliation itself, +the breaking and bending of the temper<a name="FNanchor_51_51" id="FNanchor_51_51"></a><a href="#Footnote_51_51" class="fnanchor">[51]</a> down +to <i>humility</i>.<a name="FNanchor_52_52" id="FNanchor_52_52"></a><a href="#Footnote_52_52" class="fnanchor">[52]</a> If I call to some one to run away when +a rock is to be blasted, I exert no moral influence by +this demand; if I say to a child "You will go hungry +if you will not eat what is put on the table," this is +not moral influence. But, if I say to it "You will +pray, honor your parents, respect the crucifix, speak +the truth, etc., for this belongs to man and is man's +calling," or even "this is God's will," then moral influence +is complete; then a man is to bend before the +<i>calling</i> of man, be tractable, become humble, give up +his will for an alien one which is set up as rule and +law; he is to <i>abase</i> himself before something <i>higher</i>: +self-abasement. "He that abaseth himself shall be +exalted." Yes, yes, children must early be <i>made</i> to +practise piety, godliness, and propriety; a person of +good breeding is one into whom "good maxims" have +been <i>instilled</i> and <i>impressed</i>, poured in through a funnel, +thrashed in and preached in.</p> + +<p>If one shrugs his shoulders at this, at once the good +wring their hands despairingly, and cry: "But, for +heaven's sake, if one is to give children no good instruction, +why, then they will run straight into the +jaws of sin, and become good-for-nothing hoodlums!" +Gently, you prophets of evil. Good-for-nothing in +your sense they certainly will become; but your sense<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">[Pg 106]</a></span> +happens to be a very good-for-nothing sense. The +impudent lads will no longer let anything be whined +and chattered into them by you, and will have no +sympathy for all the follies for which you have been +raving and driveling since the memory of man began; +they will abolish the law of inheritance, <i>i. e.</i> they will +not be willing to <i>inherit</i> your stupidities as you inherited +them from your fathers; they destroy <i>inherited +sin</i>.<a name="FNanchor_53_53" id="FNanchor_53_53"></a><a href="#Footnote_53_53" class="fnanchor">[53]</a> If you command them, "Bend before the Most +High," they will answer: "If he wants to bend us, +let him come himself and do it; we, at least, will not +bend of our own accord." And, if you threaten them +with his wrath and his punishment, they will take it +like being threatened with the bogie-man. If you are +no longer successful in making them afraid of ghosts, +then the dominion of ghosts is at an end, and nurses' +tales find no—<i>faith</i>.</p> + +<p>And is it not precisely the liberals again that press +for good education and improvement of the educational +system? For how could their liberalism, their +"liberty within the bounds of law," come about without +discipline? Even if they do not exactly educate +to the fear of God, yet they demand the <i>fear of Man</i> +all the more strictly, and awaken "enthusiasm for +the truly human calling" by discipline.</p> + +<hr style='width: 45%;' /> + +<p>A long time passed away, in which people were +satisfied with the fancy that they had the <i>truth</i>, without +thinking seriously whether perhaps they themselves +must be true to possess the truth. This time<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">[Pg 107]</a></span> +was the <i>Middle Ages</i>. With the common consciousness—<i>i. e.</i> +the consciousness which deals with things, +that consciousness which has receptivity only for +things, or for what is sensuous and sense-moving—they +thought to grasp what did not deal with things +and was not perceptible by the senses. As one does +indeed also exert his eye to see the remote, or laboriously +exercise his hand till its fingers have become +dexterous enough to press the keys correctly, so they +chastened themselves in the most manifold ways, in +order to become capable of receiving the supersensual +wholly into themselves. But what they chastened +was, after all, only the sensual man, the common consciousness, +so-called finite or objective thought. Yet +as this thought, this understanding, which Luther decries +under the name of reason, is incapable of comprehending +the divine, its chastening contributed just +as much to the understanding of the truth as if one +exercised the feet year in and year out in dancing, and +hoped that in this way they would finally learn to +play the flute. Luther, with whom the so-called Middle +Ages end, was the first who understood that the +man himself must become other than he was if he +wanted to comprehend truth,—must become as true as +truth itself. Only he who already has truth in his +belief, only he who <i>believes</i> in it, can become a partaker +of it; <i>i. e.</i>, only the believer finds it accessible +and sounds its depths. Only that organ of man which +is able to blow can attain the further capacity of flute-playing, +and only that man can become a partaker of +truth who has the right organ for it. He who is +capable of thinking only what is sensuous, objective,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">[Pg 108]</a></span> +pertaining to things, figures to himself in truth only +what pertains to things. But truth is spirit, stuff altogether +inappreciable by the senses, and therefore +only for the "higher consciousness," not for that which +is "earthly-minded."</p> + +<p>With Luther, accordingly, dawns the perception +that truth, because it is a <i>thought</i>, is only for the +<i>thinking</i> man. And this is to say that man must +henceforth take an utterly different standpoint, +viz., the heavenly, believing, scientific standpoint, +or that of <i>thought</i> in relation to its object, the—<i>thought</i>,—that +of mind in relation to mind. Consequently: +only the like apprehend the like. "You +are like the spirit that you understand."<a name="FNanchor_54_54" id="FNanchor_54_54"></a><a href="#Footnote_54_54" class="fnanchor">[54]</a></p> + +<p>Because Protestantism broke the mediæval hierarchy, +the opinion could take root that hierarchy in +general had been shattered by it, and it could be +wholly overlooked that it was precisely a "reformation," +and so a reinvigoration of the antiquated hierarchy. +That mediæval hierarchy had been only a +weakly one, as it had to let all possible barbarism of +unsanctified things run on uncoerced beside it, and it +was the Reformation that first steeled the power of +hierarchy. If Bruno Bauer thinks:<a name="FNanchor_55_55" id="FNanchor_55_55"></a><a href="#Footnote_55_55" class="fnanchor">[55]</a> "As the Reformation +was mainly the abstract rending of the religious +principle from art, State, and science, and so +its liberation from those powers with which it had +joined itself in the antiquity of the church and in the +hierarchy of the Middle Ages, so too the theological +and ecclesiastical movements which proceeded from the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">[Pg 109]</a></span> +Reformation are only the consistent carrying out of +this abstraction of the religious principle from the +other powers of humanity," I regard precisely the opposite +as correct, and think that the dominion of +spirits, or freedom of mind (which comes to the same +thing), was never before so all-embracing and all-powerful, +because the present one, instead of rending +the religious principle from art, State, and science, +lifted the latter altogether out of secularity into the +"realm of spirit" and made them religious.</p> + +<p>Luther and Descartes have been appropriately put +side by side in their "He who believes is a God" and +"I think, therefore I am" (<i>cogito, ergo sum</i>). Man's +heaven is <i>thought</i>,—mind. Everything can be +wrested from him, except thought, except faith. +<i>Particular</i> faith, like faith in Zeus, Astarte, Jehovah, +Allah, etc., may be destroyed, but faith itself is indestructible. +In thought is freedom. What I need +and what I hunger for is no longer granted to me by +any <i>grace</i>, by the Virgin Mary, by intercession of the +saints, or by the binding and loosing church, but I +procure it for myself. In short, my being (the <i>sum</i>) +is a living in the heaven of thought, of mind, a +<i>cogitare</i>. But I myself am nothing else than mind, +thinking mind (according to Descartes), believing +mind (according to Luther). My body I am not; +my flesh may <i>suffer</i> from appetites or pains. I am +not my flesh, but <i>I</i> am <i>mind</i>, only mind.</p> + +<p>This thought runs through the history of the Reformation +till to-day.</p> + +<p>Only by the more modern philosophy since +Descartes has a serious effort been made to bring<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">[Pg 110]</a></span> +Christianity to complete efficacy, by exalting the +"scientific consciousness" to be the only true and +valid one. Hence it begins with absolute <i>doubt</i>, <i>dubitare</i>, +with grinding common consciousness to atoms, +with turning away from everything that "mind," +"thought," does not legitimate. To it <i>Nature</i> counts +for nothing; the opinion of men, their "human precepts," +for nothing: and it does not rest till it has +brought reason into everything, and can say "The +real is the rational, and only the rational is the real." +Thus it has at last brought mind, reason, to victory; +and everything is mind, because everything is rational, +because all nature, as well as even the perversest opinions +of men, contains reason; for "all must serve for +the best," <i>i. e.</i> lead to the victory of reason.</p> + +<p>Descartes's <i>dubitare</i> contains the decided statement +that only <i>cogitare</i>, thought, mind—<i>is</i>. A complete +break with "common" consciousness, which ascribes +reality to <i>irrational</i> things! Only the rational is, +only mind is! This is the principle of modern philosophy, +the genuine Christian principle. Descartes in +his own time discriminated the body sharply from the +mind, and "the spirit 'tis that builds itself the body," +says Goethe.</p> + +<p>But this philosophy itself, Christian philosophy, still +does not get rid of the rational, and therefore inveighs +against the "merely subjective," against "fancies, +fortuities, arbitrariness," etc. What it wants is that +the <i>divine</i> should become visible in everything, and all +consciousness become a knowing of the divine, and +man behold God everywhere; but God never is, without +the <i>devil</i>.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">[Pg 111]</a></span></p> + +<p>For this very reason the name of philosopher is not +to be given to him who has indeed open eyes for the +things of the world, a clear and undazzled gaze, a correct +judgment about the world, but who sees in the +world just the world, in objects only objects, and, in +short, everything prosaically as it is; but he alone is a +philosopher who sees, and points out or demonstrates, +heaven in the world, the supernal in the earthly, the—<i>divine</i> +in the mundane. The former may be ever so +wise, there is no getting away from this:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +What wise men see not by their wisdom's art<br /> +Is practised simply by a childlike heart.<a name="FNanchor_56_56" id="FNanchor_56_56"></a><a href="#Footnote_56_56" class="fnanchor">[56]</a><br /> +</p></div> + +<p>It takes this childlike heart, this eye for the divine, to +make a philosopher. The first-named man has only a +"common" consciousness, but he who knows the +divine, and knows how to tell it, has a "scientific" +one. On this ground Bacon was turned out of the +realm of philosophers. And certainly what is called +English philosophy seems to have got no further than +to the discoveries of so-called "clear heads", such as +Bacon and Hume. The English did not know how to +exalt the simplicity of the childlike heart to philosophic +significance, did not know how to make—philosophers +out of childlike hearts. This is as much as +to say, their philosophy was not able to become <i>theological</i> +or <i>theology</i>, and yet it is only as theology that +it can really <i>live itself out</i>, complete itself. The field +of its battle to the death is in theology. Bacon did +not trouble himself about theological questions and +cardinal points.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">[Pg 112]</a></span></p> + +<p>Cognition has its object in life. German thought +seeks, more than that of others, to reach the beginnings +and fountain-heads of life, and sees no life till it +sees it in cognition itself. Descartes's <i>cogito, ergo +sum</i> has the meaning "One lives only when one +thinks." Thinking life is called "intellectual life"! +Only mind lives, its life is the true life. Then, just so +in nature only the "eternal laws," the mind or the +reason of nature, are its true life. In man, as in nature, +only the thought lives; everything else is dead! +To this abstraction, to the life of generalities or of +that which is <i>lifeless</i>, the history of mind had to come. +God, who is spirit, alone lives. Nothing lives but the +ghost.</p> + +<p>How can one try to assert of modern philosophy or +modern times that they have reached freedom, since +they have not freed us from the power of objectivity? +Or am I perhaps free from a despot when I am not +afraid of the personal potentate, to be sure, but of +every infraction of the loving reverence which I fancy +I owe him? The case is the same with modern times. +They only changed the <i>existing</i> objects, the real ruler, +etc., into <i>conceived</i> objects, <i>i. e.</i> into <i>ideas</i>, before +which the old respect not only was not lost, but increased +in intensity. Even if people snapped their fingers +at God and the devil in their former crass reality, +people devoted only the greater attention to their +ideas. "They are rid of the Evil One; evil is left."<a name="FNanchor_57_57" id="FNanchor_57_57"></a><a href="#Footnote_57_57" class="fnanchor">[57]</a> +The decision having once been made not to let oneself +be imposed on any longer by the extant and palpable,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">[Pg 113]</a></span> +little scruple was felt about revolting against the existing +State or overturning the existing laws; but to sin +against the <i>idea</i> of the State, not to submit to the <i>idea</i> +of law, who would have dared that? So one remained +a "citizen" and a "law-respecting," loyal +man; yes, one seemed to himself to be only so much +more law-respecting, the more rationalistically one +abrogated the former defective law in order to do homage +to the "spirit of the law." In all this the objects +had only suffered a change of form; they had remained +in their prepollence and pre-eminence; in +short, one was still involved in obedience and possessedness, +lived in <i>refection</i>, and had an object on +which one reflected, which one respected, and before +which one felt reverence and fear. One had done nothing +but transform the <i>things</i> into <i>conceptions</i> of the +things, into thoughts and ideas, whereby one's <i>dependence</i> +became all the more intimate and indissoluble. +So, <i>e. g.</i>, it is not hard to emancipate oneself from the +commands of parents, or to set aside the admonitions +of uncle and aunt, the entreaties of brother and sister; +but the renounced obedience easily gets into one's conscience, +and the less one does give way to the individual +demands, because he rationalistically, by his own +reason, recognizes them to be unreasonable, so much +the more conscientiously does he hold fast to filial +piety and family love, and so much the harder is it for +him to forgive himself a trespass against the <i>conception</i> +which he has formed of family love and of filial duty. +Released from dependence as regards the existing +family, one falls into the more binding dependence on +the idea of the family; one is ruled by the spirit of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">[Pg 114]</a></span> +the family. The family consisting of John, Maggie, +etc., whose dominion has become powerless, is only +internalized, being left as "family" in general, to +which one just applies the old saying, "We must obey +God rather than man," whose significance here is +this: "I cannot, to be sure, accommodate myself to +your senseless requirements, but, as my 'family,' you +still remain the object of my love and care"; for "the +family" is a sacred idea, which the individual must +never offend against.—And this family internalized +and desensualized into a thought, a conception, now +ranks as the "sacred," whose despotism is tenfold more +grievous because it makes a racket in my conscience. +This despotism is broken only when the conception, +family, also becomes a <i>nothing</i> to me. The Christian +dicta, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?"<a name="FNanchor_59_59" id="FNanchor_59_59"></a><a href="#Footnote_59_59" class="fnanchor">[58]</a> "I +am come to stir up a man against his father, and a +daughter against her mother,"<a name="FNanchor_58_58" id="FNanchor_58_58"></a><a href="#Footnote_58_58" class="fnanchor">[59]</a> and others, are accompanied +by something that refers us to the heavenly or +true family, and mean no more than the State's demand, +in case of a collision between it and the family, +that we obey <i>its</i> commands.</p> + +<p>The case of morality is like that of the family. +Many a man renounces morals, but with great difficulty +the conception, "morality." Morality is the +"idea" of morals, their intellectual power, their power +over the conscience; on the other hand, morals are +too material to rule the mind, and do not fetter an +"intellectual" man, a so-called independent, a +"freethinker."<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">[Pg 115]</a></span></p> + +<p>The Protestant may put it as he will, the "holy<a name="FNanchor_60_60" id="FNanchor_60_60"></a><a href="#Footnote_60_60" class="fnanchor">[60]</a> +Scripture," the "Word of God," still remains sacred<a name="FNanchor_61_61" id="FNanchor_61_61"></a><a href="#Footnote_61_61" class="fnanchor">[61]</a> +for him. He for whom this is no longer "holy" has +ceased to—be a Protestant. But herewith what is +"ordained" in it, the public authorities appointed by +God, etc., also remain sacred for him. For him these +things remain indissoluble, unapproachable, "raised +above all doubt"; and, as <i>doubt</i>, which in practice +becomes a <i>buffeting</i>, is what is most man's own, these +things remain "raised" above himself. He who cannot +<i>get away</i> from them will—<i>believe</i>; for to believe +in them is to be <i>bound</i> to them. Through the fact +that in Protestantism the <i>faith</i> became a more inward +faith, the <i>servitude</i> has also become a more inward +servitude; one has taken those sanctities up into himself, +entwined them with all his thoughts and endeavors, +made them a "<i>matter of conscience</i>," constructed +out of them a "<i>sacred duty</i>" for himself. +Therefore what the Protestant's conscience cannot get +away from is sacred to him, and <i>conscientiousness</i> most +clearly designates his character.</p> + +<p>Protestantism has actually put a man in the position +of a country governed by secret police. The spy +and eavesdropper, "conscience," watches over every +motion of the mind, and all thought and action is for +it a "matter of conscience," <i>i. e.</i> police business. +This tearing apart of man into "natural impulse" +and "conscience" (inner populace and inner police) +is what constitutes the Protestant. The reason of the +Bible (in place of the Catholic "reason of the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">[Pg 116]</a></span> +church") ranks as sacred, and this feeling and consciousness +that the word of the Bible is sacred is called—conscience. +With this, then, sacredness is "laid +upon one's conscience." If one does not free himself +from conscience, the consciousness of the sacred, he +may act unconscientiously indeed, but never +consciencelessly.</p> + +<p>The Catholic finds himself satisfied when he fulfils +the <i>command</i>; the Protestant acts according to his +"best judgment and conscience." For the Catholic is +only a <i>layman</i>; the Protestant is himself a <i>clergyman</i>.<a name="FNanchor_62_62" id="FNanchor_62_62"></a><a href="#Footnote_62_62" class="fnanchor">[62]</a> +Just this is the progress of the Reformation period +beyond the Middle Ages, and at the same time its +curse,—that <i>the spiritual</i> became complete.</p> + +<p>What else was the Jesuit moral philosophy than a +continuation of the sale of indulgences? only that the +man who was relieved of his burden of sin now gained +also an <i>insight</i> into the remission of sins, and convinced +himself how really his sin was taken from him, +since in this or that particular case (Casuists) it was +so clearly no sin at all that he committed. The sale +of indulgences had made all sins and transgressions +permissible, and silenced every movement of conscience. +All sensuality might hold sway, if it was +only purchased from the church. This favoring of +sensuality was continued by the Jesuits, while the +strictly moral, dark, fanatical, repentant, contrite, +praying Protestants (as the true completers of Christianity, +to be sure) acknowledged only the intellectual +and spiritual man. Catholicism, especially the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">[Pg 117]</a></span> +Jesuits, gave aid to egoism in this way, found involuntary +and unconscious adherents within Protestantism +itself, and saved us from the subversion and extinction +of <i>sensuality</i>. Nevertheless the Protestant spirit +spreads its dominion farther and farther; and, as, +beside it the "divine," the Jesuit spirit represents +only the "diabolic" which is inseparable from everything +divine, the latter can never assert itself alone, +but must look on and see how in France, <i>e. g.</i>, the +Philistinism of Protestantism wins at last, and mind is +on top.</p> + +<p>Protestantism is usually complimented on having +brought the mundane into repute again, <i>e. g.</i> marriage, +the State, etc. But the mundane itself as mundane, +the secular, is even more indifferent to it than to +Catholicism, which lets the profane world stand, yes, +and relishes its pleasures, while the rational, consistent +Protestant sets about annihilating the mundane +altogether, and that simply by <i>hallowing</i> it. So marriage +has been deprived of its naturalness by becoming +sacred, not in the sense of the Catholic sacrament, +where it only receives its consecration from the church +and so is unholy at bottom, but in the sense of being +something sacred in itself to begin with, a sacred relation. +Just so the State, etc. Formerly the pope +gave consecration and his blessing to it and its princes; +now the State is intrinsically sacred, majesty is +sacred without needing the priest's blessing. The order +of nature, or natural law, was altogether hallowed +as "God's ordinance." Hence it is said <i>e. g.</i> in the +Augsburg Confession, Art. 11: "So now we reasonably +abide by the saying, as the jurisconsults have<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">[Pg 118]</a></span> +wisely and rightly said: that man and woman should +be with each other is a natural law. Now, if it is a +<i>natural law, then it is God's ordinance</i>, therefore implanted +in nature, and therefore a <i>divine</i> law also." +And is it anything more than Protestantism brought +up to date, when Feuerbach pronounces moral relations +sacred, not as God's ordinance indeed, but, instead, +for the sake of the <i>spirit</i> that dwells in them? +"But marriage—as a free alliance of love, of course—is +<i>sacred of itself</i>, by the <i>nature</i> of the union that is +formed here. <i>That</i> marriage alone is a <i>religious</i> one +that is a <i>true</i> one, that corresponds to the <i>essence</i> of +marriage, love. And so it is with all moral relations. +They are <i>ethical</i>, are cultivated with a moral mind, +only where they rank as <i>religious of themselves</i>. +True friendship is only where the <i>limits</i> of friendship +are preserved with religious conscientiousness, with the +same conscientiousness with which the believer guards +the dignity of his God. Friendship is and must be +<i>sacred</i> for you, and property, and marriage, and the +good of every man, but sacred <i>in and of itself</i>."<a name="FNanchor_63_63" id="FNanchor_63_63"></a><a href="#Footnote_63_63" class="fnanchor">[63]</a></p> + +<p>That is a very essential consideration. In Catholicism +the mundane can indeed be <i>consecrated</i> or <i>hallowed</i>, +but it is not sacred without this priestly blessing; +in Protestantism, on the contrary, mundane relations +are sacred <i>of themselves</i>, sacred by their mere +existence. The Jesuit maxim, "the end hallows the +means," corresponds precisely to the consecration by +which sanctity is bestowed. No means are holy or unholy +in themselves, but their relation to the church,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">[Pg 119]</a></span> +their use for the church, hallows the means. Regicide +was named as such; if it was committed for the +church's behoof, it could be certain of being hallowed +by the church, even if the hallowing was not openly +pronounced. To the Protestant, majesty ranks as +sacred; to the Catholic only that majesty which is +consecrated by the pontiff can rank as such; and it +does rank as such to him only because the pope, even +though it be without a special act, confers this sacredness +on it once for all. If he retracted his consecration, +the king would be left only a "man of the world +or layman," an "unconsecrated" man, to the +Catholic.</p> + +<p>If the Protestant seeks to discover a sacredness in +the sensual itself, that he may then be linked only to +what is holy, the Catholic strives rather to banish the +sensual from himself into a separate domain, where it, +like the rest of nature, keeps its value for itself. The +Catholic church eliminated mundane marriage from its +consecrated order, and withdrew those who were its +own from the mundane family; the Protestant church +declared marriage and family ties to be holy, and +therefore not unsuitable for its clergymen.</p> + +<p>A Jesuit may, as a good Catholic, hallow everything. +He needs only <i>e. g.</i> to say to himself: "I as +a priest am necessary to the church, but serve it more +zealously when I appease my desires properly; consequently +I will seduce this girl, have my enemy there +poisoned, etc.; my end is holy because it is a priest's, +consequently it hallows the means." For in the end +it is still done for the benefit of the church. Why +should the Catholic priest shrink from handing Em<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">[Pg 120]</a></span>peror +Henry VII the poisoned wafer for the—church's +welfare?</p> + +<p>The genuinely—churchly Protestants inveighed +against every "innocent pleasure," because only the +sacred, the spiritual, could be innocent. What they +could not point out the holy spirit in, the Protestants +had to reject,—dancing, the theatre, ostentation (<i>e. g.</i> +in the church), and the like.</p> + +<p>Compared with this puritanical Calvinism, Lutheranism +is again more on the religious, <i>i. e.</i> spiritual, +track,—is more radical. For the former excludes at +once a great number of things as sensual and worldly, +and <i>purifies</i> the church; Lutheranism, on the contrary, +tries to bring <i>spirit</i> into all things as far as possible, +to recognize the holy spirit as an essence in +everything, and so to <i>hallow</i> everything worldly. +("No one can forbid a kiss in honor." The spirit of +honor hallows it.) Hence it was that the Lutheran +Hegel (he declares himself such in some passage or +other: he "wants to remain a Lutheran") was completely +successful in carrying the idea through everything. +In everything there is reason, <i>i. e.</i> holy spirit, +or "the real is rational." For the real is in fact +everything, as in each thing, <i>e. g.</i> each lie, the truth +can be detected: there is no absolute lie, no absolute +evil, and the like.</p> + +<p>Great "works of mind" were created almost solely +by Protestants, as they alone were the true disciples +and consummators of <i>mind</i>.</p> + +<hr style='width: 45%;' /> + +<p>How little man is able to control! He must let +the sun run its course, the sea roll its waves, the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">[Pg 121]</a></span> +mountains rise to heaven. Thus he stands powerless +before the <i>uncontrollable</i>. Can he keep off the impression +that he is <i>helpless</i> against this gigantic world? +It is a fixed <i>law</i> to which he must submit, it determines +his <i>fate</i>. Now, what did pre-Christian humanity +work toward? Toward getting rid of the irruptions +of the destinies, not letting oneself be vexed by +them. The Stoics attained this in apathy, declaring +the attacks of nature <i>indifferent</i>, and not letting themselves +be affected by them. Horace utters the famous +<i>Nil admirari</i>, by which he likewise announces the indifference +of the <i>other</i>, the world; it is not to influence +us, not to arouse our astonishment. And that +<i>impavidum ferient ruinae</i> expresses the very same <i>imperturbability</i> +as Ps. 46.3: "We do not fear, though +the earth should perish." In all this there is room +made for the Christian proposition that the world is +empty, for the Christian <i>contempt of the world</i>.</p> + +<p>The <i>imperturbable</i> spirit of "the wise man," with +which the old world worked to prepare its end, now +underwent an <i>inner perturbation</i> against which no +ataraxy, no Stoic courage, was able to protect it. +The spirit, secured against all influence of the world, +insensible to its shocks and <i>exalted</i> above its attacks, +admiring nothing, not to be disconcerted by any +downfall of the world,—foamed over irrepressibly +again, because gases (spirits) were evolved in its own +interior, and, after the <i>mechanical shock</i> that comes +from without had become ineffective, <i>chemical tensions</i>, +that agitate within, began their wonderful play.</p> + +<p>In fact, ancient history ends with this,—that <i>I</i> have +struggled till I won my ownership of the world.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">[Pg 122]</a></span> +"All things have been delivered, to me by my +Father" (Matt. 11.27). It has ceased to be overpowering, +unapproachable, sacred, divine, etc., for +me; it is <i>undeified</i>, and now I treat it so entirely as I +please that, if I cared, I could exert on it all miracle-working +power, <i>i. e.</i> power of mind,—remove mountains, +command mulberry trees to tear themselves up +and transplant themselves into the sea (Luke 17.6), +and do everything possible, <i>i. e. thinkable</i>: "All +things are possible to him who believes."<a name="FNanchor_64_64" id="FNanchor_64_64"></a><a href="#Footnote_64_64" class="fnanchor">[64]</a> I am the +<i>lord</i> of the world, mine is the "<i>glory</i>."<a name="FNanchor_65_65" id="FNanchor_65_65"></a><a href="#Footnote_65_65" class="fnanchor">[65]</a> The world +has become <i>prosaic</i>, for the divine has vanished from +it: it is my property, which I dispose of as I (to wit, +the mind) choose.</p> + +<p>When I had exalted myself to be the <i>owner of the +world</i>, egoism had won its first complete victory, had +vanquished the world, had become <i>worldless</i>, and put +the acquisitions of a long age under lock and key.</p> + +<p>The first property, the first "glory," has been +acquired!</p> + +<p>But the lord of the world is not yet lord of his +thoughts, his feelings, his will: he is not lord and +owner of the spirit, for the spirit is still sacred, the +"Holy Spirit," and the "worldless" Christian is not +able to become "godless." If the ancient struggle +was a struggle against the <i>world</i>, the mediæval +(Christian) struggle is a struggle against <i>self</i>, the +mind; the former against the outer world, the latter +against the inner world. The mediæval man is the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">[Pg 123]</a></span> +man "whose gaze is turned inward," the thinking, +meditative man.</p> + +<p>All wisdom of the ancients is <i>the science of the +world</i>, all wisdom of the moderns is <i>the science of God</i>.</p> + +<p>The heathen (Jews included) got through with the +<i>world</i>; but now the thing was to get through with +self, the <i>spirit</i>, too; <i>i. e.</i> to become spiritless or +godless.</p> + +<p>For almost two thousand years we have been working +at subjecting the Holy Spirit to ourselves, and +little by little we have torn off and trodden under foot +many bits of sacredness; but the gigantic opponent is +constantly rising anew under a changed form and +name. The spirit has not yet lost its divinity, its +holiness, its sacredness. To be sure, it has long ceased +to flutter over our heads as a dove; to be sure, it no +longer gladdens its saints alone, but lets itself be +caught by the laity too, etc.; but as spirit of humanity, +as spirit of Man, it remains still an <i>alien</i> spirit to +me or you, still far from becoming our unrestricted +<i>property</i>, which we dispose of at our pleasure. However, +one thing certainly happened, and visibly guided +the progress of post-Christian history: this one thing +was the endeavor to make the Holy Spirit <i>more human</i>, +and bring it nearer to men, or men to it. +Through this it came about that at last it could be +conceived as the "spirit of humanity," and, under different +expressions like "idea of humanity, mankind, +humaneness, general philanthropy," etc., appeared +more attractive, more familiar, and more accessible.</p> + +<p>Would not one think that now everybody could +possess the Holy Spirit, take up into himself the idea<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">[Pg 124]</a></span> +of humanity, bring mankind to form and existence in +himself?</p> + +<p>No, the spirit is not stripped of its holiness and +robbed of its unapproachableness, is not accessible to +us, not our property; for the spirit of humanity is not +<i>my</i> spirit. My <i>ideal</i> it may be, and as a thought I +call it mine; the <i>thought</i> of humanity is my property, +and I prove this sufficiently by propounding it quite +according to my views, and shaping it to-day so, +to-morrow otherwise; we represent it to ourselves in +the most manifold ways. But it is at the same time +an entail, which I cannot alienate nor get rid of.</p> + +<p>Among many transformations, the Holy Spirit became +in time the "<i>absolute idea</i>," which again in +manifold refractions split into the different ideas of +philanthropy, reasonableness, civic virtue, etc.</p> + +<p>But can I call the idea my property if it is the idea +of humanity, and can I consider the Spirit as vanquished +if I am to serve it, "sacrifice myself" to it? +Antiquity, at its close, had gained its ownership of the +world only when it had broken the world's overpoweringness +and "divinity," recognized the world's powerlessness +and "vanity."</p> + +<p>The case with regard to the <i>spirit</i> corresponds. +When I have degraded it to a <i>spook</i> and its control +over me to a <i>cranky notion</i>, then it is to be looked +upon as having lost its sacredness, its holiness, its +divinity, and then I <i>use</i> it, as one uses <i>nature</i> at +pleasure without scruple.</p> + +<p>The "nature of the case," the "concept of the relationship," +is to guide me in dealing with the case or +in contracting the relation. As if a concept of the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">[Pg 125]</a></span> +case existed on its own account, and was not rather +the concept that one forms of the case! As if a relation +which we enter into was not, by the uniqueness of +those who enter into it, itself unique! As if it depended +on how others stamp it! But, as people separated +the "essence of Man" from the real man, and +judged the latter by the former, so they also separate +his action from him, and appraise it by "human +value." <i>Concepts</i> are to decide everywhere, concepts +to regulate life, concepts to <i>rule</i>. This is the religious +world, to which Hegel gave a systematic expression, +bringing method into the nonsense and completing the +conceptual precepts into a rounded, firmly-based dogmatic. +Everything is sung according to concepts, and +the real man, <i>i. e.</i> I, am compelled to live according to +these conceptual laws. Can there be a more grievous +dominion of law, and did not Christianity confess at +the very beginning that it meant only to draw Judaism's +dominion of law tighter? ("Not a letter of +the law shall be lost!")</p> + +<p>Liberalism simply brought other concepts on the +carpet, <i>viz.</i>, human instead of divine, political instead +of ecclesiastical, "scientific" instead of doctrinal, +or, more generally, real concepts and eternal laws instead +of "crude dogmas" and precepts.</p> + +<p>Now nothing but <i>mind</i> rules in the world. An innumerable +multitude of concepts buzz about in people's +heads, and what are those doing who endeavor to +get further? They are negating these concepts to put +new ones in their place! They are saying: "You +form a false concept of right, of the State, of man, of +liberty, of truth, of marriage, etc.; the concept of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">[Pg 126]</a></span> +right, etc., is rather that one which we now set up." +Thus the confusion of concepts moves forward.</p> + +<p>The history of the world has dealt cruelly with us, +and the spirit has obtained an almighty power. You +must have regard for my miserable shoes, which could +protect your naked foot, my salt, by which your potatoes +would become palatable, and my state-carriage, +whose possession would relieve you of all need at +once; you must not reach out after them. Man is to +recognize the <i>independence</i> of all these and innumerable +other things: they are to rank in his mind as +something that cannot be seized or approached, are to +be kept away from him. He must have regard +for it, respect it; woe to him if he stretches out his +fingers desirously; we call that "being light-fingered!"</p> + +<p>How beggarly little is left us, yes, how really +nothing! Everything has been removed, we must +not venture on anything unless it is given us; we continue +to live only by the <i>grace</i> of the giver. You +must not pick up a pin, unless indeed you have got +<i>leave</i> to do so. And got it from whom? From +<i>respect</i>! Only when this lets you have it as property, +only when you can <i>respect</i> it as property, only then +may you take it. And again, you are not to conceive +a thought, speak a syllable, commit an action, that +should have their warrant in you alone, instead of receiving +it from morality or reason or humanity. +Happy <i>unconstraint</i> of the desirous man, how mercilessly +people have tried to slay you on the altar of +<i>constraint</i>!</p> + +<p>But around the altar rise the arches of a church,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">[Pg 127]</a></span> +and its walls keep moving further and further out. +What they enclose is—<i>sacred</i>. You can no longer +get to it, no longer touch it. Shrieking with the hunger +that devours you, you wander round about these +walls in search of the little that is profane, and the +circles of your course keep growing more and more extended. +Soon that church will embrace the whole +world, and you be driven out to the extreme edge; +another step, and the <i>world of the sacred</i> has conquered: +you sink into the abyss. Therefore take +courage while it is yet time, wander about no longer +in the profane where now it is dry feeding, dare the +leap, and rush in through the gates into the sanctuary +itself. If you <i>devour the sacred</i>, you have made it +your <i>own</i>! Digest the sacramental wafer, and you +are rid of it!</p> + + +<h3>III.—THE FREE</h3> + +<p>The ancients and the moderns having been presented +above in two divisions, it may seem as if the +free were here to be described in a third division as independent +and distinct. This is not so. The free are +only the more modern and most modern among the +"moderns," and are put in a separate division merely +because they belong to the present, and what is +present, above all, claims our attention here. I give +"the free" only as a translation of "the liberals," but +must with regard to the concept of freedom (as in +general with regard to so many other things whose +anticipatory introduction cannot be avoided) refer to +what comes later.</p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">[Pg 128]</a></span></p> + +<h4>§ 1.—<span class="smcap">Political Liberalism</span></h4> + +<p>After the chalice of so-called absolute monarchy had +been drained down to the dregs, in the eighteenth +century people became aware that their drink did not +taste human—too clearly aware not to begin to crave +a different cup. Since our fathers were "human +beings" after all, they at last desired also to be +regarded as such.</p> + +<p>Whoever sees in us something else than human +beings, in him we likewise will not see a human being, +but an inhuman being, and will meet him as an unhuman +being; on the other hand, whoever recognizes +us as human beings and protects us against the danger +of being treated inhumanly, him we will honor as our +true protector and guardian.</p> + +<p>Let us then hold together and protect the man in +each other; then we find the necessary protection in +our <i>holding together</i>, and in ourselves, <i>those who hold +together</i>, a fellowship of those who know their human +dignity and hold together as "human beings." Our +holding together is the <i>State</i>; we who hold together +are the <i>nation</i>.</p> + +<p>In our being together as nation or State we are +only human beings. How we deport ourselves in +other respects as individuals, and what self-seeking impulses +we may there succumb to, belongs solely +to our <i>private</i> life; our <i>public</i> or State life is a <i>purely +human</i> one. Everything un-human or "egoistic" +that clings to us is degraded to a "private matter" +and we distinguish the State definitely from "civil +society," which is the sphere of "egoism's" activity.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">[Pg 129]</a></span></p> + +<p>The true man is the nation, but the individual is +always an egoist. Therefore strip off your individuality +or isolation wherein dwells discord and egoistic +inequality, and consecrate yourselves wholly to the +true man,—the nation or the State. Then you will +rank as men, and have all that is man's; the State, +the true man, will entitle you to what belongs to it, +and give you the "rights of man"; Man gives you +his rights!</p> + +<p>So runs the speech of the commonalty.</p> + +<p>The commonalty<a name="FNanchor_66_66" id="FNanchor_66_66"></a><a href="#Footnote_66_66" class="fnanchor">[66]</a> is nothing else than the thought +that the State is all in all, the true man, and that the +individual's human value consists in being a citizen of +the State. In being a good citizen he seeks his highest +honor; beyond that he knows nothing higher +than at most the antiquated—"being a good +Christian."</p> + +<p>The commonalty developed itself in the struggle +against the privileged classes, by whom it was cavalierly +treated as "third estate" and confounded with +the <i>canaille</i>. In other words, up to this time the State +had recognized caste.<a name="FNanchor_67_67" id="FNanchor_67_67"></a><a href="#Footnote_67_67" class="fnanchor">[67]</a> The son of a nobleman was +selected for posts to which the most distinguished +commoners aspired in vain, etc. The civic feeling +revolted against this. No more distinction, no giving +preference to persons, no difference of classes! Let +all be alike! No <i>separate interest</i> is to be pursued +longer, but the <i>general interest of all</i>. The State is<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">[Pg 130]</a></span> +to be a fellowship of free and equal men, and every +one is to devote himself to the "welfare of the whole," +to be dissolved in the <i>State</i>, to make the State his end +and ideal. State! State! so ran the general cry, +and thenceforth people sought for the "right form of +State," the best constitution, and so the State in its +best conception. The thought of the State passed +into all hearts and awakened enthusiasm; to serve it, +this mundane god, became the new divine service and +worship. The properly <i>political</i> epoch had dawned. +To serve the State or the nation became the highest +ideal, the State's interest the highest interest, State +service (for which one does not by any means need to +be an official) the highest honor.</p> + +<p>So then the separate interests and personalities had +been scared away, and sacrifice for the State had become +the shibboleth. One must give up <i>himself</i>, and +live only for the State. One must act "disinterestedly," +not want to benefit <i>himself</i>, but the State. +Hereby the latter has become the true person, before +whom the individual personality vanishes; not I live, +but it lives in me. Therefore, in comparison with the +former self-seeking, this was unselfishness and <i>impersonality</i> +itself. Before this god—State—all egoism +vanished, and before it all were equal; they were +without any other distinction—men, nothing but men.</p> + +<p>The Revolution took fire from the inflammable material +of <i>property</i>. The government needed money. +Now it must prove the proposition that it is <i>absolute</i>, +and so master of all property, sole proprietor; it must +<i>take</i> to itself <i>its</i> money, which was only in the possession +of the subjects, not their property. Instead of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">[Pg 131]</a></span> +this, it calls States-general, to have this money +<i>granted</i> to it. The shrinking from strictly logical +action destroyed the illusion of an <i>absolute</i> government; +he who must have something "granted" to him +cannot be regarded as absolute. The subjects recognized +that they were <i>real proprietors</i>, and that it was +<i>their</i> money that was demanded. Those who had +hitherto been subjects attained the consciousness that +they were <i>proprietors</i>. Bailly depicts this in a few +words: "If you cannot dispose of my property without +my assent, how much less can you of my person, of all +that concerns my mental and social position? All +this is my property, like the piece of land that I till; +and I have a right, an interest, to make the laws myself." +Bailly's words sound, certainly, as if <i>every one</i> +was a proprietor now. However, instead of the government, +instead of the prince, the—<i>nation</i> now became +proprietor and master. From this time on the +ideal is spoken of as—"popular liberty"—"a free +people," etc.</p> + +<p>As early as July 8, 1789, the declaration of the +bishop of Autun and Barrère took away all semblance +of the importance of each and every <i>individual</i> in legislation; +it showed the complete <i>powerlessness</i> of the +constituents; the <i>majority of the representatives</i> has +become <i>master</i>. When on July 9 the plan for division +of the work on the constitution is proposed, Mirabeau +remarks that "the government has only power, +no rights; only in the <i>people</i> is the source of all <i>right</i> +to be found." On July 16 this same Mirabeau exclaims: +"Is not the people the source of all <i>power</i>?" +The source, therefore, of all right, and the source of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132">[Pg 132]</a></span> +all—power!<a name="FNanchor_68_68" id="FNanchor_68_68"></a><a href="#Footnote_68_68" class="fnanchor">[68]</a> By the way, here the substance of +"right" becomes visible; it is—<i>power</i>. "He who +has power has right."</p> + +<p>The commonalty is the heir of the privileged classes. +In fact, the rights of the barons, which were taken +from them as "usurpations," only passed over to the +commonalty. For the commonalty was now called the +"nation." "Into the hands of the nation" all <i>prerogatives</i> +were given back. Thereby they ceased to +be "prerogatives":<a name="FNanchor_69_69" id="FNanchor_69_69"></a><a href="#Footnote_69_69" class="fnanchor">[69]</a> they became "rights."<a name="FNanchor_70_70" id="FNanchor_70_70"></a><a href="#Footnote_70_70" class="fnanchor">[70]</a> From +this time on the nation demands tithes, compulsory +services; it has inherited the lord's court, the rights +of vert and venison, the—serfs. The night of August +4 was the death-night of privileges or "prerogatives" +(cities, communes, boards of magistrates, were also +privileged, furnished with prerogatives and seigniorial +rights), and ended with the new morning of "right," +the "rights of the State," the "rights of the nation."</p> + +<p>The monarch in the person of the "royal master" +had been a paltry monarch compared with this new +monarch, the "sovereign nation." This <i>monarchy</i> +was a thousand times severer, stricter, and more consistent. +Against the new monarch there was no +longer any right, any privilege at all; how limited +the "absolute king" of the <i>ancien régime</i> looks in +comparison! The Revolution effected the transformation +of <i>limited monarchy</i> into <i>absolute monarchy</i>. +From this time on every right that is not conferred by +this monarch is an "assumption"; but every prerog<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">[Pg 133]</a></span>ative +that he bestows, a "right." The times demanded +<i>absolute royalty</i>, absolute monarchy; therefore +down fell that so-called absolute royalty which +had so little understood how to become absolute that +it remained limited by a thousand little lords.</p> + +<p>What was longed for and striven for through thousands +of years,—to wit, to find that absolute lord beside +whom no other lords and lordlings any longer exist +to clip his power,—the <i>bourgeoisie</i> has brought to +pass. It has revealed the Lord who alone confers +"rightful titles," and without whose warrant <i>nothing +is justified</i>. "So now we know that an idol is nothing +in the world, and that there is no other god save +the one."<a name="FNanchor_71_71" id="FNanchor_71_71"></a><a href="#Footnote_71_71" class="fnanchor">[71]</a></p> + +<p>Against <i>right</i> one can no longer, as against a right, +come forward with the assertion that it is "a wrong." +One can say now only that it is a piece of nonsense, an +illusion. If one called it wrong, one would have to +set up <i>another right</i> in opposition to it, and measure +it by this. If, on the contrary, one rejects right as +such, right in and of itself, altogether, then one also +rejects the concept of wrong, and dissolves the whole +concept of right (to which the concept of wrong belongs).</p> + +<p>What is the meaning of the doctrine that we all enjoy +"equality of political rights"? Only this,—that +the State has no regard for my person, that to it +I, like every other, am only a man, without having +another significance that commands its deference. +I do not command its deference as an aristocrat, a<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">[Pg 134]</a></span> +nobleman's son, or even as heir of an official whose +office belongs to me by inheritance (as in the Middle +Ages countships, etc., and later under absolute royalty, +where hereditary offices occur). Now the State has an +innumerable multitude of rights to give away, <i>e. g.</i> +the right to lead a battalion, a company, etc.; the +right to lecture at a university; and so forth; it has +them to give away because they are its own, <i>i. e.</i> +State rights or "political" rights. Withal, it makes +no difference to it to whom it gives them, if the receiver +only fulfils the duties that spring from the delegated +rights. To it we are all of us all right, and—<i>equal</i>,—one +worth no more and no less than another. +It is indifferent to me who receives the command of the +army, says the sovereign State, provided the grantee +understands the matter properly. "Equality of political +rights" has, consequently, the meaning that every +one may acquire every right that the State has to give +away, if only he fulfils the conditions annexed thereto,—conditions +which are to be sought only in the nature +of the particular right, not in a predilection for +the person (<i>persona grata</i>): the nature of the right to +become an officer brings with it, <i>e. g.</i>, the necessity +that one possess sound limbs and a suitable measure of +knowledge, but it does not have noble birth as a condition; +if, on the other hand, even the most deserving +commoner could not reach that station, then an inequality +of political rights would exist. Among the +States of to-day one has carried out that maxim of +equality more, another less.</p> + +<p>The monarchy of estates (so I will call absolute royalty, +the time of the kings <i>before</i> the revolution) kept<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">[Pg 135]</a></span> +the individual in dependence on a lot of little monarchies. +These were fellowships (societies) like the +guilds, the nobility, the priesthood, the burgher class, +cities, communes, etc. Everywhere the individual +must regard himself <i>first</i> as a member of this little society, +and yield unconditional obedience to its spirit, +the <i>esprit de corps</i>, as his monarch. More, <i>e. g.</i>, +than the individual nobleman himself must his family, +the honor of his race, be to him. Only by means of +his <i>corporation</i>, his estate, did the individual have relation +to the greater corporation, the State,—as in +Catholicism the individual deals with God only +through the priest. To this the third estate now, +showing courage to negate <i>itself as an estate</i>, made an +end. It decided no longer to be and be called an <i>estate</i> +beside other estates, but to glorify and generalize +itself into the "<i>nation</i>." Hereby it created a much +more complete and absolute monarchy, and the entire +previously ruling <i>principle of estates</i>, the principle of +little monarchies inside the great, went down. Therefore +it cannot be said that the Revolution was a revolution +against the first two privileged estates: it was +against the little monarchies of estates in general. +But, if the estates and their despotism were broken (the +king too, we know, was only a king of estates, not a +citizen-king), the individuals freed from the inequality +of estate were left. Were they now really to be without +estate and "out of gear," no longer bound by any +estate, without a general bond of union? No, for +the third estate had declared itself the nation +only in order not to remain an estate <i>beside</i> other estates, +but to become the <i>sole estate</i>. This sole <i>estate</i><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136">[Pg 136]</a></span> +is the nation, the "<i>State</i>." What had the individual +now become? A political Protestant, for +he had come into immediate connection with his God, +the State. He was no longer, as an aristocrat, in the +monarchy of the nobility; as a mechanic, in the monarchy +of the guild; but he, like all, recognized and +acknowledged only—<i>one lord</i>, the State, as whose servants +they all received the equal title of honor, +"citizen."</p> + +<p>The <i>bourgeoisie</i> is the <i>aristocracy of</i> <span class="smcap">DESERT</span>; its +motto, "Let desert wear its crowns." It fought +against the "lazy" aristocracy, for according to it +(the industrious aristocracy acquired by industry and +desert) it is not the "born" who is free, nor yet I who +am free either, but the "deserving" man, the honest +<i>servant</i> (of his king; of the State; of the people in +constitutional States). Through <i>service</i> one acquires +freedom, <i>i. e.</i> acquires "deserts," even if one served—mammon. +One must deserve well of the State, <i>i. e.</i> +of the principle of the State, of its moral spirit. He +who <i>serves</i> this spirit of the State is a good citizen, let +him live to whatever honest branch of industry he +will. In its eyes innovators practise a "breadless +art." Only the "shopkeeper" is "practical," and the +spirit that chases after public offices is as much the +shopkeeping spirit as is that which tries in trade to +feather its nest or otherwise to become useful to itself +and anybody else.</p> + +<p>But, if the deserving count as the free (for what +does the comfortable commoner, the faithful office-holder, +lack of that freedom that his heart desires?), +then the "servants" are the—free. The obedient<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137">[Pg 137]</a></span> +servant is the free man! What glaring nonsense! +Yet this is the sense of the <i>bourgeoisie</i>, and its poet, +Goethe, as well as its philosopher, Hegel, succeeded in +glorifying the dependence of the subject on the object, +obedience to the objective world, etc. He who only +serves the cause, "devotes himself entirely to it," has +the true freedom. And among thinkers the cause was—<i>reason</i>, +that which, like State and Church, gives—general +laws, and puts the individual man in irons by +the <i>thought of humanity</i>. It determines what is +"true," according to which one must then act. No +more "rational" people than the honest servants, who +primarily are called good citizens as servants of the +State.</p> + +<p>Be rich as Crœsus or poor as Job—the State of the +commonalty leaves that to your option; but only have +a "good disposition." This it demands of you, and +counts it its most urgent task to establish this in all. +Therefore it will keep you from "evil promptings," +holding the "ill-disposed" in check and silencing +their inflammatory discourses under censors' cancelling-marks +or press-penalties and behind dungeon +walls, and will, on the other hand, appoint people of +"good disposition" as censors, and in every way have +a <i>moral influence</i> exerted on you by "well-disposed +and well-meaning" people. If it has made you deaf +to evil promptings, then it opens your ears again all +the more diligently to good <i>promptings</i>.</p> + +<p>With the time of the <i>bourgeoisie</i> begins that of <i>liberalism</i>. +People want to see what is "rational," +"suited to the times," etc., established everywhere. +The following definition of liberalism, which is sup<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138">[Pg 138]</a></span>posed +to be pronounced in its honor, characterizes it +completely: "Liberalism is nothing else than the +knowledge of reason, applied to our existing relations."<a name="FNanchor_72_72" id="FNanchor_72_72"></a><a href="#Footnote_72_72" class="fnanchor">[72]</a> +Its aim is a "rational order," a "moral behavior," +a "limited freedom," not anarchy, lawlessness, +selfhood. But, if reason rules, then the <i>person</i> +succumbs. Art has for a long time not only acknowledged +the ugly, but considered the ugly as necessary +to its existence, and taken it up into itself; it needs +the villain, etc. In the religious domain, too, the extremest +liberals go so far that they want to see the +most religious man regarded as a citizen—<i>i. e.</i> the +religious villain; they want to see no more of trials +for heresy. But against the "rational law" no one is +to rebel, otherwise he is threatened with the severest—penalty. +What is wanted is not free movement and +realization of the person or of me, but of reason,—<i>i. e.</i> +a dominion of reason, a dominion. The liberals are +<i>zealots</i>, not exactly for the faith, for God, etc., but +certainly for <i>reason</i>, their master. They brook no +lack of breeding, and therefore no self-development +and self-determination; they <i>play the guardian</i> as +effectively as the most absolute rulers.</p> + +<p>"Political liberty," what are we to understand by +that? Perhaps the individual's independence of the +State and its laws? No; on the contrary, the individual's +<i>subjection</i> in the State and to the State's laws. +But why "liberty"? Because one is no longer separated +from the State by intermediaries, but stands in +direct and immediate relation to it; because one is<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139">[Pg 139]</a></span> +a—citizen, not the subject of another, not even of the +king as a person, but only in his quality as "supreme +head of the State." Political liberty, this fundamental +doctrine of liberalism, is nothing but a second +phase of—Protestantism, and runs quite parallel +with "religious liberty."<a name="FNanchor_73_73" id="FNanchor_73_73"></a><a href="#Footnote_73_73" class="fnanchor">[73]</a> Or would it perhaps be +right to understand by the latter an independence of +religion? Anything but that. Independence of +intermediaries is all that it is intended to express, independence +of mediating priests, the abolition of the +"laity," and so direct and immediate relation to religion +or to God. Only on the supposition that one +has religion can he enjoy freedom of religion; freedom +of religion does not mean being without religion, +but inwardness of faith, unmediated intercourse with +God. To him who is "religiously free" religion is an +affair of the heart, it is to him his <i>own affair</i>, it is to +him a "sacredly serious matter." So, too, to the +"politically free" man the State is a sacredly serious +matter; it is his heart's affair, his chief affair, his own +affair.</p> + +<p>Political liberty means that the <i>polis</i>, the State, is +free; freedom of religion that religion is free, as freedom +of conscience signifies that conscience is free; +not, therefore, that I am free from the State, from religion, +from conscience, or that I am <i>rid</i> of them. It +does not mean <i>my</i> liberty, but the liberty of a power +that rules and subjugates me; it means that one of my +<i>despots</i>, like State, religion, conscience, is free. State, +religion, conscience, these despots, make me a slave,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140">[Pg 140]</a></span> +and <i>their</i> liberty is <i>my</i> slavery. That in this they +necessarily follow the principle, "the end hallows the +means," is self-evident. If the welfare of the State is +the end, war is a hallowed means; if justice is the +State's end, homicide is a hallowed means, and is +called by its sacred name, "execution," etc.; the +sacred State <i>hallows</i> everything that is serviceable +to it.</p> + +<p>"Individual liberty," over which civic liberalism +keeps jealous watch, does not by any means signify a +completely free self-determination, by which actions become +altogether <i>mine</i>, but only independence of <i>persons</i>. +Individually free is he who is responsible to no +<i>man</i>. Taken in this sense,—and we are not allowed +to understand it otherwise,—not only the ruler is individually +free, <i>i. e., irresponsible toward men</i> ("before +God," we know, he acknowledges himself responsible), +but all who are "responsible only to the law." This +kind of liberty was won through the revolutionary +movement of the century,—to wit, independence of +arbitrary will, of <i>tel est notre plaisir</i>. Hence the constitutional +prince must himself be stripped of all personality, +deprived of all individual decision, that he +may not as a person, as an <i>individual man</i>, violate +the "individual liberty" of others. The <i>personal will +of the ruler</i> has disappeared in the constitutional +prince; it is with a right feeling, therefore, that absolute +princes resist this. Nevertheless these very ones +profess to be in the best sense "Christian princes." +For this, however, they must become a <i>purely spiritual</i> +power, as the Christian is subject only to <i>spirit</i> ("God +is spirit"). The purely spiritual power is consistently<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141">[Pg 141]</a></span> +represented only by the constitutional prince, he who, +without any personal significance, stands there spiritualized +to the degree that he can rank as a sheer, +uncanny "spirit," as an <i>idea</i>. The constitutional king +is the truly <i>Christian</i> king, the genuine, consistent +carrying-out of the Christian principle. In the constitutional +monarchy individual dominion,—<i>i. e.</i>, a real +ruler that <i>wills</i>—has found its end; here, therefore, +<i>individual liberty</i> prevails, independence of every individual +dictator, of every one who could dictate to +me with a <i>tel est notre plaisir</i>. It is the completed +<i>Christian</i> State-life, a spiritualized life.</p> + +<p>The behavior of the commonalty is <i>liberal</i> through +and through. Every <i>personal</i> invasion of another's +sphere revolts the civic sense; if the citizen sees that +one is dependent on the humor, the pleasure, the will +of a man as individual (<i>i. e.</i> as not authorized by a +"higher power"), at once he brings his liberalism to +the front and shrieks about "arbitrariness." In fine, +the citizen asserts his freedom from what is called +<i>orders</i> (<i>ordonnance</i>): "No one has any business to +give me—orders!" <i>Orders</i> carries the idea that what +I am to do is another man's will, while <i>law</i> does not +express a personal authority of another. The liberty +of the commonalty is liberty or independence from the +will of another person, so-called personal or individual +liberty; for being personally free means being only +so free that no other person can dispose of mine, or +that what I may or may not do does not depend on +the personal decree of another. The liberty of the +press, for instance, is such a liberty of liberalism, liberalism +fighting only against the coercion of the cen<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142">[Pg 142]</a></span>sorship +as that of personal wilfulness, but otherwise +showing itself extremely inclined and willing to tyrannize +over the press by "press laws"; <i>i. e.</i>, the civic +liberals want liberty of writing <i>for themselves</i>; for, +as they are <i>law-abiding</i>, their writings will not bring +them under the law. Only liberal matter, <i>i. e.</i> only +lawful matter, is to be allowed to be printed; otherwise +the "press laws" threaten "press-penalties." +If one sees personal liberty assured, one does not notice +at all how, if a new issue happens to arise, the +most glaring unfreedom becomes dominant. For one +is rid of <i>orders</i> indeed, and "no one has any business +to give us orders," but one has become so much the +more submissive to the—<i>law</i>. One is enthralled now +in due legal form.</p> + +<p>In the citizen-State there are only "free people," +who are <i>compelled</i> to thousands of things (<i>e. g.</i> to deference, +to a confession of faith, and the like). But +what does that amount to? Why, it is only the—State, +the law, not any man, that compels them!</p> + +<p>What does the commonalty mean by inveighing +against every personal order, <i>i. e.</i> every order not +founded on the "cause," on "reason," etc.? It is +simply fighting in the interest of the "cause"<a name="FNanchor_74_74" id="FNanchor_74_74"></a><a href="#Footnote_74_74" class="fnanchor">[74]</a> +against the dominion of "persons"! But the mind's +cause is the rational, good, lawful, etc.; that is the +"good cause." The commonalty wants an <i>impersonal</i> +ruler.</p> + +<p>Furthermore, if the principle is this, that only the +cause is to rule man—to wit, the cause of morality,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143">[Pg 143]</a></span> +the cause of legality, etc.,—then no personal balking +of one by the other may be authorized either (as formerly, +<i>e. g.</i>, <a name="aristotocratic" id="aristotocratic"></a>the commoner was balked of the <a href="#typos">aristocratic</a> +offices, the aristocrat of common mechanical +trades, etc.); <i>i. e. free competition</i> must exist. Only +through the thing<a name="FNanchor_75_75" id="FNanchor_75_75"></a><a href="#Footnote_75_75" class="fnanchor">[75]</a> can one balk another (<i>e. g.</i> the +rich man balking the impecunious man by money, a +thing), not as a person. Henceforth only one lordship, +the lordship of the <i>State</i>, is admitted; personally +no one is any longer lord of another. Even at birth +the children belong to the State, and to the parents +only in the name of the State, which, <i>e. g.</i>, does not +allow infanticide, demands their baptism, etc.</p> + +<p>But all the State's children, furthermore, are of +quite equal account in its eyes ("civic or political +equality"), and they may see to it themselves how +they get along with each other; they may <i>compete</i>.</p> + +<p>Free competition means nothing else than that +every one can present himself, assert himself, fight, +against another. Of course the feudal party set itself +against this, as its existence depended on an absence +of competition. The contests in the time of the Restoration +in France had no other substance than this,—that +the <i>bourgeoisie</i> was struggling for free competition, +and the feudalists were seeking to bring back the +guild system.</p> + +<p>Now, free competition has won, and against the +guild system it had to win. (See below for the further +discussion.)</p> + +<p>If the Revolution ended in a reaction, this only<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_144" id="Page_144">[Pg 144]</a></span> +showed what the Revolution <i>really</i> was. For every +effort arrives at reaction when it <i>comes to discreet reflection</i>, +and storms forward in the original action only +so long as it is an <i>intoxication</i>, an "indiscretion." +"Discretion" will always be the cue of the reaction, +because discretion sets limits, and liberates what +was really wanted, <i>i. e.</i> the principle, from the initial +"unbridledness" and "unrestrainedness." Wild +young fellows, bumptious students, who set aside all +considerations, are <i>really</i> Philistines, since with them, +as with the latter, considerations form the substance +of their conduct; only that as swaggerers they are +mutinous against considerations and in negative relations +to them, but as Philistines, later, they give themselves +up to considerations and have positive relations +to them. In both cases all their doing and thinking +turns upon "considerations," but the Philistine is <i>reactionary</i> +in relation to the student; he is the wild +fellow come to discreet reflection, as the latter is the +unreflecting Philistine. Daily experience confirms +the truth of this transformation, and shows how the +swaggerers turn to Philistines in turning gray.</p> + +<p>So too the so-called reaction in Germany gives +proof that it was only the <i>discreet</i> continuation of the +warlike jubilation of liberty.</p> + +<p>The Revolution was not directed against <i>the established</i>, +but against <i>the establishment in question</i>, +against a <i>particular</i> establishment. It did away with +<i>this</i> ruler, not with <i>the</i> ruler—on the contrary, the +French were ruled most inexorably; it killed the old +vicious rulers, but wanted to confer on the virtuous +ones a securely established position, <i>i. e.</i> it simply set<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_145" id="Page_145">[Pg 145]</a></span> +virtue in the place of vice. (Vice and virtue, again, +are on their part distinguished from each other only +as a wild young fellow from a Philistine.) Etc.</p> + +<p>To this day the revolutionary principle has gone no +farther than to assail only <i>one</i> or <i>another</i> particular +establishment, <i>i. e.</i> be <i>reformatory</i>. Much as may +be <i>improved</i>, strongly as "discreet progress" may +be adhered to, always there is only a <i>new master</i> +set in the old one's place, and the overturning is a—building +up. We are still at the distinction of the +young Philistine from the old one. The Revolution +began in <i>bourgeois</i> fashion with the uprising of the +third estate, the middle class; in <i>bourgeois</i> fashion it +dries away. It was not the <i>individual man</i>—and he +alone is <i>Man</i>—that became free, but the <i>citizen</i>, the +<i>citoyen</i>, the <i>political</i> man, who for that very reason is +not <i>Man</i> but a specimen of the human species, and +more particularly a specimen of the species Citizen, a +<i>free citizen</i>.</p> + +<p>In the Revolution it was not the <i>individual</i> who +acted so as to affect the world's history, but a <i>people</i>; +the <i>nation</i>, the sovereign nation, wanted to effect +everything. A fancied <i>I</i>, an idea, such as the nation +is, appears acting; <i>i. e.</i>, the individuals contribute +themselves as tools of this idea, and act as "citizens."</p> + +<p>The commonalty has its power, and at the same +time its limits, in the <i>fundamental law of the State</i>, +in a charter, in a legitimate<a name="FNanchor_76_76" id="FNanchor_76_76"></a><a href="#Footnote_76_76" class="fnanchor">[76]</a> or "just"<a name="FNanchor_77_77" id="FNanchor_77_77"></a><a href="#Footnote_77_77" class="fnanchor">[77]</a> prince who +himself is guided, and rules, according to "rational +laws"; in short, in <i>legality</i>. The period of the +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_146" id="Page_146">[Pg 146]</a></span><i>bourgeoisie</i> is ruled by the British spirit of legality. +An assembly of provincial estates, <i>e. g.</i>, is ever recalling +that its authorization goes only so and so far, and +that it is called at all only through favor and can be +thrown out again through disfavor. It is always reminding +itself of its—<i>vocation</i>. It is certainly not +to be denied that my father begot me; but, now that +I am once begotten, surely his purposes in begetting +do not concern me a bit and, whatever he may have +<i>called</i> me to, I do what I myself will. Therefore even +a called assembly of estates, the French assembly in +the beginning of the Revolution, recognized quite +rightly that it was independent of the caller. It <i>existed</i>, +and would have been stupid if it did not avail +itself of the right of existence, but fancied itself dependent +as on a father. The called one no longer +has to ask "what did the caller want when he created +me?" but "what do I want after I have once followed +the call?" Not the caller, not the constituents, +not the charter according to which their meeting was +called out, nothing will be to him a sacred, inviolable +power. He is <i>authorized</i> for everything that is in his +power; he will know no restrictive "authorization," +will not want to be <i>loyal</i>. This, if any such thing +could be expected from chambers at all, would give a +completely <i>egoistic</i> chamber, severed from all navel-string +and without consideration. But chambers are +always devout, and therefore one cannot be surprised +if so much half-way or undecided, <i>i. e.</i> hypocritical, +"egoism" parades in them.</p> + +<p>The members of the estates are to remain within the +<i>limits</i> that are traced for them by the charter, by the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_147" id="Page_147">[Pg 147]</a></span> +king's will, and the like. If they will not or can not +do that, then they are to "step out." What dutiful +man could act otherwise, could put himself, his conviction, +and his will as the <i>first</i> thing? who could be +so immoral as to want to assert <i>himself</i>, even if the +body corporate and everything should go to ruin over +it? People keep carefully within the limits of their +<i>authorization</i>; of course one must remain within the +limits of his <i>power</i> anyhow, because no one can do +more than he can. "My power, or, if it be so, powerlessness, +be my sole limit, but authorizations +only restraining—precepts? Should I profess this +all-subversive view? No, I am a—law-abiding +citizen!"</p> + +<p>The commonalty professes a morality which is most +closely connected with its essence. The first demand +of this morality is to the effect that one should carry +on a solid business, an honorable trade, lead a moral +life. Immoral, to it, is the sharper, the demirep, the +thief, robber, and murderer, the gamester, the penniless +man without a situation, the frivolous man. The +doughty commoner designates the feeling against these +"immoral" people as his "deepest indignation." +All these lack settlement, the <i>solid</i> quality of business, +a solid, seemly life, a fixed income, etc.; in short, they +belong, because their existence does not rest on a +<i>secure basis</i>, to the dangerous "individuals or isolated +persons," to the dangerous <i>prolétariat</i>; they are "individual +bawlers" who offer no "guarantee" and +have "nothing to lose," and so nothing to risk. The +forming of family ties, <i>e. g., binds</i> a man: he who is +bound furnishes security, can be taken hold of; not<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_148" id="Page_148">[Pg 148]</a></span> +so the street-walker. The gamester stakes everything +on the game, ruins himself and others;—no guarantee. +All who appear to the commoner suspicious, +hostile, and dangerous might be comprised under the +name "vagabonds"; every vagabondish way of living +displeases him. For there are intellectual vagabonds +too, to whom the hereditary dwelling-place of their +fathers seems too cramped and oppressive for them to +be willing to satisfy themselves with the limited space +any more: instead of keeping within the limits of a +temperate style of thinking, and taking as inviolable +truth what furnishes comfort and tranquillity to thousands, +they overleap all bounds of the traditional and +run wild with their impudent criticism and untamed +mania for doubt, these extravagating vagabonds. +They form the class of the unstable, restless, changeable, +<i>i. e.</i> of the <i>prolétariat</i>, and, if they give voice +to their unsettled nature, are called "unruly fellows."</p> + +<p>Such a broad sense has the so-called <i>prolétariat</i>, or +pauperism. How much one would err if one believed +the commonalty to be desirous of doing away with +poverty (pauperism) to the best of its ability! On +the contrary, the good citizen helps himself with the +incomparably comforting conviction that "the fact is +that the good things of fortune are unequally divided +and will always remain so—according to God's wise +decree." The poverty which surrounds him in every +alley does not disturb the true commoner further than +that at most he clears his account with it by throwing +an alms, or finds work and food for an "honest and +serviceable" fellow. But so much the more does he +feel his quiet enjoyment clouded by <i>innovating</i> and<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_149" id="Page_149">[Pg 149]</a></span> +<i>discontented</i> poverty, by those poor who no longer +behave <i>quietly</i> and endure, but begin to <i>run wild</i> and +become restless. Lock up the vagabond, thrust the +breeder of unrest into the darkest dungeon! He +wants to "arouse dissatisfaction and incite people +against existing institutions" in the State—stone +him, stone him!</p> + +<p>But from these identical discontented ones comes a +reasoning somewhat as follows: It need not make +any difference to the "good citizens" who protects +them and their principles, whether an absolute king or +a constitutional one, a republic, etc., if only they are +protected. And what is their principle, whose protector +they always "love"? Not that of labor; not +that of birth either. But that of <i>mediocrity</i>, of the +golden mean: a little birth and a little labor, <i>i. e.</i>, an +<i>interest-bearing possession</i>. Possession is here the +fixed, the given, inherited (birth); interest-drawing +is the exertion about it (labor); <i>laboring capital</i>, +therefore. Only no immoderation, no ultra, no radicalism! +Right of birth certainly, but only hereditary +possessions; labor certainly, yet little or none at all of +one's own, but labor of capital and of the—subject +laborers.</p> + +<p>If an age is imbued with an error, some always derive +advantage from the error, while the rest have to +suffer from it. In the Middle Ages the error was +general among Christians that the church must have +all power, or the supreme lordship on earth; the +hierarchs believed in this "truth" not less than the +laymen, and both were spellbound in the like error. +But by it the hierarchs had the <i>advantage</i> of power,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_150" id="Page_150">[Pg 150]</a></span> +the laymen had to <i>suffer</i> subjection. However, as +the saying goes, "one learns wisdom by suffering"; +and so the laymen at last learned wisdom and no +longer believed in the mediæval "truth."—A like relation +exists between the commonalty and the laboring +class. Commoner and laborer believe in the "truth" +of <i>money</i>; they who do not possess it believe in it no +less than those who possess it: the laymen, therefore, +as well as the priests.</p> + +<p>"Money governs the world" is the keynote of the +civic epoch. A destitute aristocrat and a destitute +laborer, as "starvelings," amount to nothing so far as +political consideration is concerned; birth and labor +do not do it, but <i>money</i> brings <i>consideration</i>.<a name="FNanchor_78_78" id="FNanchor_78_78"></a><a href="#Footnote_78_78" class="fnanchor">[78]</a> The +possessors rule, but the State trains up from the destitute +its "servants," to whom, in proportion as they +are to rule (govern) in its name, it gives money +(a salary).</p> + +<p>I receive everything from the State. Have I anything +without the <i>State's assent</i>? What I have without +this it <i>takes</i> from me as soon as it discovers the +lack of a "legal title." Do I not, therefore, have +everything through its grace, its assent?</p> + +<p>On this alone, on the <i>legal title</i>, the commonalty +rests. The commoner is what he is through the <i>protection +of the State</i>, through the State's grace. He +would necessarily be afraid of losing everything if the +State's power were broken.</p> + +<p>But how is it with him who has nothing to lose, +how with the proletarian? As he has nothing to lose,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_151" id="Page_151">[Pg 151]</a></span> +he does not need the protection of the State for his +"nothing." He may gain, on the contrary, if that +protection of the State is withdrawn from the <i>protégé</i>.</p> + +<p>Therefore the non-possessor will regard the State as +a power protecting the possessor, which privileges the +latter, but does nothing for him, the non-possessor, +but to—suck his blood. The State is a—<i>commoners' +State</i>, is the estate of the commonalty. It protects +man not according to his labor, but according to his +tractableness ("loyalty"),—to wit, according to +whether the rights entrusted to him by the State are +enjoyed and managed in accordance with the will, +<i>i. e.</i> laws, of the State.</p> + +<p>Under the <i>régime</i> of the commonalty the laborers +always fall into the hands of the possessors,—<i>i. e.</i> of +those who have at their disposal some bit of the State +domains (and everything possessible is State domain, +belongs to the State, and is only a fief of the individual), +especially money and land; of the capitalists, +therefore. The laborer cannot <i>realize</i> on his labor to +the extent of the value that it has for the consumer. +"Labor is badly paid!" The capitalist has the +greatest profit from it.—Well paid, and more than +well paid, are only the labors of those who heighten +the splendor and <i>dominion</i> of the State, the labors of +high State <i>servants</i>. The State pays well that its +"good citizens," the possessors, may be able to pay +badly without danger; it secures to itself by good +payment its servants, out of whom it forms a protecting +power, a "police" (to the police belong soldiers, +officials of all kinds, <i>e. g.</i> those of justice, education, +etc.,—in short, the whole "machinery of the State")<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_152" id="Page_152">[Pg 152]</a></span> +for the "good citizens," and the "good citizens" +gladly pay high tax-rates to it in order to pay so +much lower rates to their laborers.</p> + +<p>But the class of laborers, because unprotected in +what they essentially are (for they do not enjoy the +protection of the State as laborers, but as its subjects +they have a share in the enjoyment of the police, a so-called +protection of the law), remains a power hostile +to this State, this State of possessors, this "citizen +kingship." Its principle, labor, is not recognized as +to its <i>value</i>; it is exploited,<a name="FNanchor_79_79" id="FNanchor_79_79"></a><a href="#Footnote_79_79" class="fnanchor">[79]</a> a <i>spoil</i><a name="FNanchor_80_80" id="FNanchor_80_80"></a><a href="#Footnote_80_80" class="fnanchor">[80]</a> of the possessors, +the enemy.</p> + +<p>The laborers have the most enormous power in their +hands, and, if they once became thoroughly conscious +of it and used it, nothing would withstand them; they +would only have to stop labor, regard the product +of labor as theirs, and enjoy it. This is the sense of +the labor disturbances which show themselves here and +there.</p> + +<p>The State rests on the—<i>slavery of labor</i>. If <i>labor</i> +becomes <i>free</i>, the State is lost.</p> + + +<h4>§ 2.—<span class="smcap">Social Liberalism</span></h4> + +<p>We are freeborn men, and wherever we look we see +ourselves made servants of egoists! Are we therefore +to become egoists too? Heaven forbid! we want +rather to make egoists impossible! We want to +make them all "ragamuffins"; all of us must have +nothing, that "all may have."</p> + +<p>So say the Socialists.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_153" id="Page_153">[Pg 153]</a></span></p> + +<p>Who is this person that you call "All"?—It is +"society"!—But is it corporeal, then?—<i>We</i> are its +body!—You? Why, you are not a body yourselves;—you, +sir, are corporeal to be sure, you too, and you, +but you all together are only bodies, not a body. +Accordingly the united society may indeed have bodies +at its service, but no one body of its own. Like the +"nation" of the politicians, it will turn out to be +nothing but a "spirit," its body only semblance.</p> + +<p>The freedom of man is, in political liberalism, freedom +from <i>persons</i>, from personal dominion, from the +<i>master</i>; the securing of each individual person against +other persons, personal freedom.</p> + +<p>No one has any orders to give; the law alone gives +orders.</p> + +<p>But, even if the persons have become <i>equal</i>, yet +their <i>possessions</i> have not. And yet the poor man +<i>needs</i> the rich, the rich the poor, the former the rich +man's money, the latter the poor man's labor. So no +one needs another as a <i>person</i>, but needs him as a +<i>giver</i>, and thus as one who has something to give, as +holder or possessor. So what he <i>has</i> makes the <i>man</i>. +And in <i>having</i>, or in "possessions," people are unequal.</p> + +<p>Consequently, social liberalism concludes, <i>no one +must have</i>, as according to political liberalism <i>no one +was to give orders</i>; <i>i. e.</i>, as in that case the <i>State</i> +alone obtained the command, so now <i>society</i> alone +obtains the possessions.</p> + +<p>For the State, protecting each one's person and +property against the other, <i>separates</i> them from one +another; each one <i>is</i> his special part and <i>has</i> his<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_154" id="Page_154">[Pg 154]</a></span> +special part. He who is satisfied with what he is and +has finds this state of things profitable; but he who +would like to be and have more looks around for this +"more," and finds it in the power of other <i>persons</i>. +Here he comes upon a contradiction; as a person no +one is inferior to another, and yet one person <i>has</i> +what another has not but would like to have. So, he +concludes, the one person is more than the other, after +all, for the former has what he needs, the latter has +not; the former is a rich man, the latter a poor man.</p> + +<p>He now asks himself further, are we to let what we +rightly buried come to life again? are we to let this +circuitously restored inequality of persons pass? No; +on the contrary, we must bring quite to an end what +was only half accomplished. Our freedom from +another's person still lacks the freedom from what the +other's person can command, from what he has in his +personal power,—in short, from "personal property." +Let us then do away with <i>personal property</i>. Let no +one have anything any longer, let every one be a—ragamuffin. +Let property be <i>impersonal</i>, let it belong +to—<i>society</i>.</p> + +<p>Before the supreme <i>ruler</i>, the sole <i>commander</i>, we +had all become equal, equal persons, <i>i. e.</i> nullities.</p> + +<p>Before the supreme <i>proprietor</i> we all become equal—<i>ragamuffins</i>. +For the present, one is still in another's +estimation a "ragamuffin," a "have-nothing"; +but then this estimation ceases. We are all ragamuffins +together, and as the aggregate of Communistic +society we might call ourselves a "ragamuffin crew."</p> + +<p>When the proletarian shall really have founded his +purposed "society" in which the interval between rich<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_155" id="Page_155">[Pg 155]</a></span> +and poor is to be removed, then he <i>will be</i> a ragamuffin, +for then he will feel that it amounts to something +to be a ragamuffin, and might lift "Ragamuffin" +to be an honorable form of address, just as the +Revolution did with the word "Citizen." Ragamuffin +is his ideal; we are all to become ragamuffins.</p> + +<p>This is the second robbery of the "personal" in +the interest of "humanity." Neither command nor +property is left to the individual; the State took the +former, society the latter.</p> + +<p>Because in society the most oppressive evils make +themselves felt, therefore the oppressed especially, and +consequently the members in the lower regions of +society, think they find the fault in society, and make +it their task to discover the <i>right society</i>. This is +only the old phenomenon,—that one looks for the +fault first in everything but <i>himself</i>, and consequently +in the State, in the self-seeking of the rich, +etc., which yet have precisely our fault to thank for +their existence.</p> + +<p>The reflections and conclusions of Communism look +very simple. As matters lie at this time,—in the +present situation with regard to the State, therefore,—some, +and they the majority, are at a disadvantage +compared to others, the minority. In this <i>state</i> of +things the former are in a <i>state of prosperity</i>, the latter +in a <i>state of need</i>. Hence the present <i>state</i> of +things, <i>i. e.</i> the State, must be done away with. And +what in its place? Instead of the isolated state of +prosperity—a <i>general state of prosperity</i>, a <i>prosperity +of all</i>.</p> + +<p>Through the Revolution the <i>bourgeoisie</i> became<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_156" id="Page_156">[Pg 156]</a></span> +omnipotent, and all inequality was abolished by every +one's being raised or degraded to the dignity of a +<i>citizen</i>: the common man—raised, the aristocrat—degraded; +the <i>third</i> estate became sole estate,—<i>viz.</i>, +the estate of—<i>citizens of the State</i>. Now Communism +responds: Our dignity and our essence consist not in +our being all—the <i>equal children</i> of our mother, the +State, all born with equal claim to her love and her +protection, but in our all existing <i>for each other</i>. +This is our equality, or herein we are <i>equal</i>, in that +we, I as well as you and you and all of you, are active +or "labor" each one for the rest; in that each of us is +a <i>laborer</i>, then. The point for us is not what we are +<i>for the State</i> (<i>viz.</i>, citizens), not our <i>citizenship</i> +therefore, but what we are <i>for each other</i>,—<i>viz.</i>, that +each of us exists only through the other, who, caring +for my wants, at the same time sees his own satisfied +by me. He labors, <i>e. g.</i>, for my clothing (tailor), I +for his need of amusement (comedy-writer, rope-dancer, +etc.), he for my food (farmer, etc.), I for his +instruction (scientist, etc.). It is <i>labor</i> that constitutes +our dignity and our—equality.</p> + +<p>What advantage does citizenship bring us? Burdens! +And how high is our labor appraised? As +low as possible! But labor is our sole value all the +same; that we are <i>laborers</i> is the best thing about us, +this is our significance in the world, and therefore it +must be our consideration too and must come to +receive <i>consideration</i>. What can you meet us with? +Surely nothing but—<i>labor</i> too. Only for labor or +services do we owe you a recompense, not for your +bare existence; not for what you are <i>for yourselves</i><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_157" id="Page_157">[Pg 157]</a></span> +either, but only for what you are <i>for us</i>. By what +have you claims on us? Perhaps by your high birth, +etc.? No, only by what you do for us that is desirable +or useful. Be it thus then: we are willing to be +worth to you only so much as we do for you; but you +are to be held likewise by us. <i>Services</i> determine +value,—<i>i. e.</i> those services that are worth something to +us, and consequently <i>labors for each other</i>, <i>labors for +the common good</i>. Let each one be in the other's eyes +a <i>laborer</i>. He who accomplishes something useful is +inferior to none, or—all laborers (laborers, of course, +in the sense of laborers "for the common good," <i>i. e.</i> +communistic laborers) are equal. But, as the laborer +is worth his wages,<a name="FNanchor_81_81" id="FNanchor_81_81"></a><a href="#Footnote_81_81" class="fnanchor">[81]</a> let the wages too be equal.</p> + +<p>As long as faith sufficed for man's honor and dignity, +no labor, however harassing, could be objected to +if it only did not hinder a man in his faith. Now, on +the contrary, when every one is to cultivate himself +into man, condemning a man to <i>machine-like labor</i> +amounts to the same thing as slavery. If a factory-worker +must tire himself to death twelve hours and +more, he is cut off from becoming man. Every labor +is to have the intent that the man be satisfied. +Therefore he must become a <i>master</i> in it too, <i>i. e.</i> be +able to perform it as a totality. He who in a pin-factory +only puts on the heads, only draws the wire, etc., +works, as it were, mechanically, like a machine; he +remains half-trained, does not become a master: his +labor cannot <i>satisfy</i> him, it can only <i>fatigue</i> him. +His labor is nothing taken by itself, has no object <i>in<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_158" id="Page_158">[Pg 158]</a></span> +itself</i>, is nothing complete in itself; he labors only into +another's hands, and is <i>used</i> (exploited) by this other. +For this laborer in another's service there is no <i>enjoyment +of a cultivated mind</i>, at most crude amusements: +<i>culture</i>, you see, is barred against him. To be a good +Christian one needs only to <i>believe</i>, and that can be +done under the most oppressive circumstances. Hence +the Christian-minded take care only of the oppressed +laborers' piety, their patience, submission, etc. Only +so long as the downtrodden classes were <i>Christians</i> +could they bear all their misery: for Christianity does +not let their murmurings and exasperation rise. Now +the <i>hushing</i> of desires is no longer enough, but their +<i>sating</i> is demanded. The <i>bourgeoisie</i> has proclaimed +the gospel of the <i>enjoyment of the world</i>, of material +enjoyment, and now wonders that this doctrine finds +adherents among us poor: it has shown that not faith +and poverty, but culture and possessions, make a man +blessed; we proletarians understand that too.</p> + +<p>The commonalty freed us from the orders and arbitrariness +of individuals. But that arbitrariness was +left which springs from the conjuncture of situations, +and may be called the fortuity of circumstances; favoring +<i>fortune</i>, and those "favored by fortune," still +remain.</p> + +<p>When <i>e. g.</i> a branch of industry is ruined and +thousands of laborers become breadless, people think +reasonably enough to acknowledge that it is not the +individual who must bear the blame, but that "the +evil lies in the situation."</p> + +<p>Let us change the situation then, but let us change +it thoroughly, and so that its fortuity becomes power<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_159" id="Page_159">[Pg 159]</a></span>less, +and a <i>law</i>! Let us no longer be slaves of chance! +Let us create a new order that makes an end of <i>fluctuations</i>. +Let this order then be sacred!</p> + +<p>Formerly one had to suit the <i>lords</i> to come to anything; +after the Revolution the word was "Grasp +<i>fortune</i>!" Luck-hunting or hazard-playing, civil +life was absorbed in this. Then, alongside this, the +demand that he who has obtained something shall not +frivolously stake it again.</p> + +<p>Strange and yet supremely natural contradiction. +Competition, in which alone civil or political life unrolls +itself, is a game of luck through and through, +from the speculations of the exchange down to the solicitation +of offices, the hunt for customers, looking for +work, aspiring to promotion and decorations, the +second-hand dealer's petty haggling, etc. If one succeeds +in supplanting and outbidding his rivals, then +the "lucky throw" is made; for it must be taken as a +piece of luck to begin with that the victor sees himself +equipped with an ability (even though it has been developed +by the most careful industry) against which +the others do not know how to rise, consequently that—no +abler ones are found. And now those who ply +their daily lives in the midst of these changes of fortune +without seeing any harm in it are seized with the +most virtuous indignation when their own principle +appears in naked form and "breeds misfortune" as—<i>hazard-playing</i>. +Hazard-playing, you see, is too +clear, too barefaced a competition, and, like every decided +nakedness, offends honorable modesty.</p> + +<p>The Socialists want to put a stop to this activity of +chance, and to form a society in which men are no<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_160" id="Page_160">[Pg 160]</a></span> +longer dependent on <i>fortune</i>, but free.</p> + +<p>In the most natural way in the world this endeavor +first utters itself as hatred of the "unfortunate" +against the "fortunate," <i>i. e.</i>, of those for whom fortune +has done little or nothing, against those for +whom it has done everything.</p> + +<p>But properly the ill-feeling is not directed against +the fortunate, but against <i>fortune</i>, this rotten spot of +the commonalty.</p> + +<p>As the Communists first declare free activity to be +man's essence, they, like all work-day dispositions, +need a Sunday; like all material endeavors, they need +a God, an uplifting and edification alongside their +witless "labor."</p> + +<p>That the Communist sees in you the man, the brother, +is only the Sunday side of Communism. According +to the work-day side he does not by any means +take you as man simply, but as human laborer or +laboring man. The first view has in it the liberal +principle; in the second, illiberality is concealed. If +you were a "lazybones," he would not indeed fail to +recognize the man in you, but would endeavor to +cleanse him as a "lazy man" from laziness and to +convert you to the <i>faith</i> that labor is man's "destiny +and calling."</p> + +<p>Therefore he shows a double face: with the one he +takes heed that the spiritual man be satisfied, with the +other he looks about him for means for the material +or corporeal man. He gives man a twofold <i>post</i>,—an +office of material acquisition and one of spiritual.</p> + +<p>The commonalty had <i>thrown open</i> spiritual and +material goods, and left it with each one to reach out<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_161" id="Page_161">[Pg 161]</a></span> +for them if he liked.</p> + +<p>Communism really procures them for each one, +presses them upon him, and compels him to acquire +them. It takes seriously the idea that, because only +spiritual and material goods make us men, we must +unquestionably acquire these goods in order to be +man. The commonalty made acquisition free; Communism +<i>compels</i> to acquisition, and recognizes only +the acquirer, him who practises a trade. It is not +enough that the trade is free, but you must <i>take it +up</i>.</p> + +<p>So all that is left for criticism to do is to prove +that the acquisition of these goods does not yet by any +means make us men.</p> + +<p>With the liberal commandment that every one is to +make a man of himself, or every one to make himself +man, there was posited the necessity that every one +must gain time for this labor of humanization, <i>i. e.</i> +that it should become possible for every one to labor +on <i>himself</i>.</p> + +<p>The commonalty thought it had brought this about +if it handed over everything human to competition, +but gave the individual a right to every human +thing. "Each may strive after everything!"</p> + +<p>Social liberalism finds that the matter is not settled +with the "may," because may means only "it is forbidden +to none" but not "it is made possible to every +one." Hence it affirms that the commonalty is liberal +only with the mouth and in words, supremely illiberal +in act. It on its part wants to give all of us the +<i>means</i> to be able to labor on ourselves.</p> + +<p>By the principle of labor that of fortune or compe<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_162" id="Page_162">[Pg 162]</a></span>tition +is certainly outdone. But at the same time the +laborer, in his consciousness that the essential thing in +him is "the laborer," holds himself aloof from egoism +and subjects himself to the supremacy of a society of +laborers, as the commoner clung with self-abandonment +to the competition-State. The beautiful dream +of a "social duty" still continues to be dreamed. +People think again that society <i>gives</i> what we need, +and we are <i>under obligations</i> to it on that account, +owe it everything.<a name="FNanchor_82_82" id="FNanchor_82_82"></a><a href="#Footnote_82_82" class="fnanchor">[82]</a> They are still at the point of +wanting to <i>serve</i> a "supreme giver of all good." That +society is no ego at all, which could give, bestow, or +grant, but an instrument or means, from which we +may derive benefit; that we have no social duties, but +solely interests for the pursuance of which society must +serve us; that we owe society no sacrifice, but, if we +sacrifice anything, sacrifice it to ourselves,—of this the +Socialists do not think, because they—as liberals—are +imprisoned in the religious principle, and zealously aspire +after—a sacred society, such as the State was +hitherto.</p> + +<p>Society, from which we have everything, is a new +master, a new spook, a new "supreme being," which +"takes us into its service and allegiance"!</p> + +<p>The more precise appreciation of political as well as +social liberalism must wait to find its place further on. +For the present we pass this over, in order first to +summon them before the tribunal of humane or critical +liberalism.</p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_163" id="Page_163">[Pg 163]</a></span></p> + +<h4>§ 3.—<span class="smcap">Humane Liberalism</span></h4> + +<p>As liberalism is completed in self-criticising, "critical"<a name="FNanchor_83_83" id="FNanchor_83_83"></a><a href="#Footnote_83_83" class="fnanchor">[83]</a> +liberalism, in which the critic remains a liberal +and does not go beyond the principle of liberalism, +Man,—this may distinctively be named after +Man and called the "humane."</p> + +<p>The laborer is counted as the most material and +egoistical man. He does nothing at all <i>for humanity</i>, +does everything for <i>himself</i>, for his welfare.</p> + +<p>The commonalty, because it proclaimed the freedom +of <i>Man</i> only as to his birth, had to leave him in the +claws of the un-human man (the egoist) for the rest of +life. Hence under the <i>régime</i> of political liberalism +egoism has an immense field for free utilization.</p> + +<p>The laborer will <i>utilize</i> society for his <i>egoistic</i> +ends as the commoner does the State. You have only +an egoistic end after all, your welfare! is the humane +liberal's reproach to the Socialist; take up a <i>purely +human interest</i>, then I will be your companion. +"But to this there belongs a consciousness stronger, +more comprehensive, than a <i>laborer-consciousness</i>." +"The laborer makes nothing, therefore he has nothing; +but he makes nothing because his labor is always +a labor that remains individual, calculated strictly for<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_164" id="Page_164">[Pg 164]</a></span> +his own want, a labor day by day."<a name="FNanchor_84_84" id="FNanchor_84_84"></a><a href="#Footnote_84_84" class="fnanchor">[84]</a> In opposition +to this one might, for instance, consider the fact that +Gutenberg's labor did not remain individual, but begot +innumerable children, and still lives to-day; it +was calculated for the want of humanity, and was an +eternal, imperishable labor.</p> + +<p>The humane consciousness despises the commoner-consciousness +as well as the laborer-consciousness: for +the commoner is "indignant" only at vagabonds (at +all who have "no definite occupation") and their +"immorality"; the laborer is "disgusted" by the +<i>idler</i> ("lazybones") and his "immoral," because parasitic +and unsocial, principles. To this the humane +liberal retorts: The unsettledness of many is only +your product, Philistine! But that you, proletarian, +demand the <i>grind</i> of all, and want to make <i>drudgery</i> +general, is a part, still clinging to you, of your pack-mule +life up to this time. Certainly you want to +lighten drudgery itself by <i>all</i> having to drudge equally +hard, yet only for this reason, that all may gain <i>leisure</i> +to an equal extent. But what are they to do +with their leisure? What does your "society" do, +that this leisure may be passed <i>humanly</i>? It must +leave the gained leisure to egoistic preference again, +and the very <i>gain</i> that your society furthers falls to +the egoist, as the gain of the commonalty, the <i>masterlessness +of man</i>, could not be filled with a human element +by the State, and therefore was left to arbitrary +choice.</p> + +<p>It is assuredly necessary that man be masterless: but<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_165" id="Page_165">[Pg 165]</a></span> +therefore the egoist is not to become master over man +again either, but man over the egoist. Man must assuredly +find leisure: but, if the egoist makes use of it, +it will be lost for man; therefore you ought to have +given leisure a human significance. But you laborers +undertake even your labor from an egoistic impulse, +because you want to eat, drink, live; how should you +be less egoists in leisure? You labor only because +having your time to yourselves (idling) goes well after +work done, and what you are to while away your leisure +time with is left to <i>chance</i>.</p> + +<p>But, if every door is to be bolted against egoism, it +would be necessary to strive after completely "disinterested" +action, <i>total</i> disinterestedness. This alone +is human, because only Man is disinterested, the egoist +always interested.</p> + +<hr style='width: 45%;' /> + +<p>If we let disinterestedness pass unchallenged for a +while, then we ask, do you mean not to take an interest +in anything, not to be enthusiastic for anything, +not for liberty, humanity, etc.? "Oh, yes, but that +is not an egoistic interest, not <i>interestedness</i>, but a human, +<i>i. e.</i> a—<i>theoretical</i> interest, to wit, an interest +not for an individual or individuals ('all'), but for +the <i>idea</i>, for Man!"</p> + +<p>And you do not notice that you too are enthusiastic +only for <i>your</i> idea, <i>your</i> idea of liberty?</p> + +<p>And, further, do you not notice that your disinterestedness +is again, like religious disinterestedness, a +heavenly interestedness? Certainly benefit to the individual +leaves you cold, and abstractly you could +cry <i>fiat libertas, pereat mundus</i>. You do not take<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_166" id="Page_166">[Pg 166]</a></span> +thought for the coming day either, and take no serious +care for the individual's wants anyhow, not for your +own comfort nor for that of the rest; but you make +nothing of all this, because you are a—dreamer.</p> + +<p>Do you suppose the humane liberal will be so liberal +as to aver that everything possible to man is <i>human</i>? +On the contrary! He does not, indeed, share +the Philistine's moral prejudice about the strumpet, +but "that this woman turns her body into a money-getting +machine"<a name="FNanchor_85_85" id="FNanchor_85_85"></a><a href="#Footnote_85_85" class="fnanchor">[85]</a> makes her despicable to him as +"human being." His judgment is, The strumpet is not +a human being; or, So far as a woman is a strumpet, +so far is she unhuman, dehumanized. Further: The +Jew, the Christian, the privileged person, the theologian, +etc., is not a human being; so far as you are a +Jew, etc., you are not a human being. Again the imperious +postulate: Cast from you everything peculiar, +criticise it away! Be not a Jew, not a Christian, etc., +but be a human being, nothing but a human being. +Assert your <i>humanity</i> against every restrictive specification; +make yourself, by means of it, a human being, +and <i>free</i> from those limits; make yourself a "free +man," <i>i. e.</i> recognize humanity as your all-determining +essence.</p> + +<p>I say: You are indeed more than a Jew, more than +a Christian, etc., but you are also more than a human +being. Those are all ideas, but you are corporeal. Do +you suppose, then, that you can ever become "a human +being as such"? Do you suppose our posterity +will find no prejudices and limits to clear away, for<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_167" id="Page_167">[Pg 167]</a></span> +which our powers were not sufficient? Or do you perhaps +think that in your fortieth or fiftieth year you +have come so far that the following days have nothing +more to dissipate in you, and that you are a human +being? The men of the future will yet fight their +way to many a liberty that we do not even miss. +What do you need that later liberty for? If you +meant to esteem yourself as nothing before you had become +a human being, you would have to wait till the +"last judgment," till the day when man, or humanity, +shall have attained perfection. But, as you will surely +die before that, what becomes of your prize of victory?</p> + +<p>Rather, therefore, invert the case, and say to yourself, +<i>I am a human being</i>! I do not need to begin by +producing the human being in myself, for he belongs +to me already, like all my qualities.</p> + +<p>But, asks the critic, how can one be a Jew and a +man at once? In the first place, I answer, one cannot +be either a Jew or a man at all, if "one" and Jew +or man are to mean the same; "one" always reaches +beyond those specifications, and,—let Isaacs be ever so +Jewish,—a Jew, nothing but a Jew, he cannot be, just +because he is <i>this</i> Jew. In the second place, as a Jew +one assuredly cannot be a man, if being a man means +being nothing special. But in the third place—and +this is the point—I can, as a Jew, be entirely what I—<i>can</i> +be. From Samuel or Moses, and others, you +hardly expect that they should have raised themselves +above Judaism, although you must say that they were +not yet "men." They simply were what they could +be. Is it otherwise with the Jews of to-day? Because +you have discovered the idea of humanity, does it fol<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_168" id="Page_168">[Pg 168]</a></span>low +from this that every Jew can become a convert to +it? If he can, he does not fail to, and, if he fails to, +he—cannot. What does your demand concern him? +what the <i>call</i> to be a man, which you address to him?</p> + +<hr style='width: 45%;' /> + +<p>As a universal principle, in the "human society" +which the humane liberal promises, nothing "special" +which one or another has is to find recognition, nothing +which bears the character of "private" is to have +value. In this way the circle of liberalism, which has +its good principle in man and human liberty, its bad +in the egoist and everything private, its God in the +former, its devil in the latter, rounds itself off completely; +and, if the special or private person lost his +value in the State (no personal prerogative), if in the +"laborers' or ragamuffins' society" special (private) +property is no longer recognized, so in "human society" +everything special or private will be left out +of account; and, when "pure criticism" shall have +accomplished its arduous task, then it will be known +just what we must look upon as private, and what, +"penetrated with a sense of our nothingness," we +must—let stand.</p> + +<p>Because State and society do not suffice for humane +liberalism, it negates both, and at the same time retains +them. So at one time the cry is that the task of +the day is "not a political, but a social, one," and +then again the "free State" is promised for the future. +In truth, "human society" is both,—the most general +State and the most general society. Only against the +limited State is it asserted that it makes too much stir +about spiritual private interests (<i>e. g.</i> people's religious<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_169" id="Page_169">[Pg 169]</a></span> +belief), and against limited society that it makes too +much of material private interests. Both are to leave +private interests to private people, and, as human society, +concern themselves solely about general human +interests.</p> + +<p>The politicians, thinking to abolish <i>personal will</i>, +self-will or arbitrariness, did not observe that through +<i>property</i><a name="FNanchor_86_86" id="FNanchor_86_86"></a><a href="#Footnote_86_86" class="fnanchor">[86]</a> our <i>self-will</i><a name="FNanchor_87_87" id="FNanchor_87_87"></a><a href="#Footnote_87_87" class="fnanchor">[87]</a> gained a secure place of +refuge.</p> + +<p>The Socialists, taking away <i>property</i> too, do not notice +that this secures itself a continued existence in +<i>self-ownership</i>. Is it only money and goods, then, +that are a property, or is every opinion something of +mine, something of my own?</p> + +<p>So every <i>opinion</i> must be abolished or made impersonal. +The person is entitled to no opinion, but, +as self-will was transferred to the State, property to society, +so opinion too must be transferred to something +<i>general</i>, "Man," and thereby become a general human +opinion.</p> + +<p>If opinion persists, then I have <i>my</i> God (why, God +exists only as "my God," he is an opinion or my +"faith"), and consequently <i>my</i> faith, my religion, my +thoughts, my ideals. Therefore a general human faith +must come into existence, the "<i>fanaticism of liberty</i>." +For this would be a faith that agreed with the "essence +of man," and, because only "man" is reasonable +(you and I might be very unreasonable!), a reasonable +faith.</p> + +<p>As self-will and property become <i>powerless</i>, so must<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_170" id="Page_170">[Pg 170]</a></span> +self-ownership or egoism in general.</p> + +<p>In this supreme development of "free man" egoism, +self-ownership, is combated on principle, and such subordinate +ends as the social "welfare" of the Socialists, +etc., vanish before the lofty "idea of humanity." +Everything that is not a "general human" entity is +something separate, satisfies only some or one; or, if it +satisfies all, it does this to them only as individuals, +not as men, and is therefore called "egoistic."</p> + +<p>To the Socialists <i>welfare</i> is still the supreme aim, as +free <i>rivalry</i> was the approved thing to the political +liberals; now welfare is free too, and we are free to +achieve welfare, just as he who wanted to enter into +rivalry (competition) was free to do so.</p> + +<p>But to take part in the rivalry you need only to be +<i>commoners</i>; to take part in the welfare, only to be +<i>laborers</i>. Neither reaches the point of being synonymous +with "man." It is "truly well" with man only +when he is also "intellectually free"! For man is +mind: therefore all powers that are alien to him, the +mind,—all superhuman, heavenly, unhuman powers,—must +be overthrown, and the name "man" must be +above every name.</p> + +<p>So in this end of the modern age (age of the moderns) +there returns again, as the main point, what had +been the main point at its beginning: "intellectual +liberty."</p> + +<p>To the Communist in particular the humane liberal +says: If society prescribes to you your activity, then +this is indeed free from the influence of the individual, +<i>i. e.</i> the egoist, but it still does not on that account +need to be a <i>purely human</i> activity, nor you to be a<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_171" id="Page_171">[Pg 171]</a></span> +complete organ of humanity. What kind of activity +society demands of you remains <i>accidental</i>, you know; +it might give you a place in building a temple or +something of that sort, or, even if not that, you might +yet on your own impulse be active for something foolish, +therefore unhuman; yes, more yet, you really +labor only to nourish yourself, in general to live, for +dear life's sake, not for the glorification of humanity. +Consequently free activity is not attained till you +make yourself free from all stupidities, from everything +non-human, <i>i.e</i>. egoistic (pertaining only to the +individual, not to the Man in the individual), dissipate +all untrue thoughts that obscure man or the idea +of humanity: in short, when you are not merely unhampered +in your activity, but the substance too of +your activity is only what is human, and you live and +work only for humanity. But this is not the case so +long as the aim of your effort is only your <i>welfare</i> and +that of all; what you do for the society of ragamuffins +is not yet anything done for "human society."</p> + +<p>Laboring does not alone make you a man, because +it is something formal and its object accidental; the +question is who you that labor are. As far as laboring +goes, you might do it from an egoistic (material) +impulse, merely to procure nourishment and the like; +it must be a labor furthering humanity, calculated for +the good of humanity, serving historical (<i>i. e.</i> human) +evolution,—in short, a <i>humane</i> labor. This implies +two things: one, that it be useful to humanity; next, +that it be the work of a "man." The first alone may +be the case with every labor, as even the labors of +nature, <i>e. g.</i> of animals, are utilized by humanity for<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_172" id="Page_172">[Pg 172]</a></span> +the furthering of science, etc.; the second requires +that he who labors should know the human object of +his labor; and, as he can have this consciousness only +when he <i>knows himself as man</i>, the crucial condition +is—<i>self-consciousness</i>.</p> + +<p>Unquestionably much is already attained when you +cease to be a "fragment-laborer,"<a name="FNanchor_88_88" id="FNanchor_88_88"></a><a href="#Footnote_88_88" class="fnanchor">[88]</a> yet therewith you +only get a view of the whole of your labor, and acquire +a consciousness about it, which is still far removed +from a self-consciousness, a consciousness about +your true "self" or "essence," Man. The laborer has +still remaining the desire for a "higher consciousness," +which, because the activity of labor is unable to quiet +it, he satisfies in a leisure hour. Hence leisure stands +by the side of his labor, and he sees himself compelled +to proclaim labor and idling human in one breath, +yes, to attribute the true elevation to the idler, the +leisure-enjoyer. He labors only to get rid of labor; +he wants to make labor free, only that he may be free +from labor.</p> + +<p>In fine, his work has no satisfying substance, because +it is only imposed by society, only a stint, a +task, a calling; and, conversely, his society does not +satisfy, because it gives only work.</p> + +<p>His labor ought to satisfy him as a man; instead +of that, it satisfies society; society ought to treat him +as a man, and it treats him as—a rag-tag laborer, or +a laboring ragamuffin.</p> + +<p>Labor and society are of use to him not as he needs +them as a man, but only as he needs them as an<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_173" id="Page_173">[Pg 173]</a></span> +"egoist."</p> + +<p>Such is the attitude of criticism toward labor. It +points to "mind," wages the war "of mind with the +masses,"<a name="FNanchor_89_89" id="FNanchor_89_89"></a><a href="#Footnote_89_89" class="fnanchor">[89]</a> and pronounces communistic labor unintellectual +mass-labor. Averse to labor as they are, the +masses love to make labor easy for themselves. In +literature, which is to-day furnished in mass, this aversion +to labor begets the universally-known <i>superficiality</i>, +which puts from it "the toil of research."<a name="FNanchor_90_90" id="FNanchor_90_90"></a><a href="#Footnote_90_90" class="fnanchor">[90]</a></p> + +<p>Therefore humane liberalism says: You want labor; +all right, we want it likewise, but we want it in the +fullest measure. We want it, not that we may gain +spare time, but that we may find all satisfaction in it +itself. We want labor because it is our self-development.</p> + +<p>But then the labor too must be adapted to that +end! Man is honored only by human, self-conscious +labor, only by the labor that has for its end no "egoistic" +purpose, but Man, and is Man's self-revelation; +so that the saying should be <i>laboro, ergo sum</i>, I labor, +therefore I am a man. The humane liberal wants +that labor of the <i>mind</i> which <i>works up</i> all material; +he wants the mind, that leaves no thing quiet or in its +existing condition, that acquiesces in nothing, analyzes +everything, criticises anew every result that has been +gained. This restless mind is the true laborer, it obliterates +prejudices, shatters limits and narrownesses, +and raises man above everything that would like to +dominate over him, while the Communist labors only +for himself, and not even freely, but from necessity,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_174" id="Page_174">[Pg 174]</a></span>—in +short, represents a man condemned to hard labor.</p> + +<p>The laborer of such a type is not "egoistic," because +he does not labor for individuals, neither for +himself nor for other individuals, not for <i>private</i> men +therefore, but for humanity and its progress: he does +not ease individual pains, does not care for individual +wants, but removes limits within which humanity is +pressed, dispels prejudices which dominate an entire +time, vanquishes hindrances that obstruct the path of +all, clears away errors in which men entangle themselves, +discovers truths which are found through him +for all and for all time; in short—he lives and labors +for humanity.</p> + +<p>Now, in the first place, the discoverer of a great +truth doubtless knows that it can be useful to the rest +of men, and, as a jealous withholding furnishes him no +enjoyment, he communicates it; but, even though he +has the consciousness that his communication is highly +valuable to the rest, yet he has in no wise sought and +found his truth for the sake of the rest, but for his +own sake, because he himself desired it, because darkness +and fancies left him no rest till he had procured +for himself light and enlightenment to the best of his +powers.</p> + +<p>He labors, therefore, for his own sake and for the +satisfaction of <i>his</i> want. That along with this he was +also useful to others, yes, to posterity, does not take +from his labor the <i>egoistic</i> character.</p> + +<p>In the next place, if he did labor only on his own +account, like the rest, why should his act be human, +those of the rest unhuman, <i>i. e.</i> egoistic? Perhaps, +because this book, painting, symphony, etc., is the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_175" id="Page_175">[Pg 175]</a></span> +labor of his whole being, because he has done his best +in it, has spread himself out wholly and is wholly to +be known from it, while the work of a handicraftsman +mirrors only the handicraftsman, <i>i. e.</i> the skill in +handicraft, not "the man"? In his poems we have +the whole Schiller; in so many hundred stoves, on the +other hand, we have before us only the stove-maker, +not "the man."</p> + +<p>But does this mean more than "in the one work +you see <i>me</i> as completely as possible, in the other only +my skill"? Is it not <i>me</i> again that the act expresses? +And is it not more egoistic to offer <i>oneself</i> to the +world in a work, to work out and shape <i>oneself</i>, than +to remain concealed behind one's labor? You say, to +be sure, that you are revealing Man. But the Man +that you reveal is you; you reveal only yourself, yet +with this distinction from the handicraftsman,—that +he does not understand how to compress himself into +one labor, but, in order to be known as himself, must +be searched out in his other relations of life, and that +your want, through whose satisfaction that work came +into being, was a—theoretical want.</p> + +<p>But you will reply that you reveal quite another +man, a worthier, higher, greater, a man that is more +man than that other. I will assume that you accomplish +all that is possible to man, that you bring to +pass what no other succeeds in. Wherein, then, does +your greatness consist? Precisely in this, that you +are more than other men (the "masses"), more than +<i>men</i> ordinarily are, more than "ordinary men"; precisely +in your elevation above men. You are distinguished +beyond other men not by being man, but be<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_176" id="Page_176">[Pg 176]</a></span>cause +you are a "unique"<a name="FNanchor_91_91" id="FNanchor_91_91"></a><a href="#Footnote_91_91" class="fnanchor">[91]</a> man. Doubtless you show +what a man can do; but because you, a man, do it, +this by no means shows that others, also men, are +able to do as much; you have executed it only as a +<i>unique</i> man, and are unique therein.</p> + +<p>It is not man that makes up your greatness, but +you create it, because you are more than man, and +mightier than other—men.</p> + +<p>It is believed that one cannot be more than man. +Rather, one cannot be less!</p> + +<p>It is believed further that whatever one attains is +good for Man. In so far as I remain at all times a +man—or, like Schiller, a Swabian; like Kant, a Prussian; +like Gustavus Adolphus, a near-sighted person—I +certainly become by my superior qualities a notable +man, Swabian, Prussian, or near-sighted person. +But the case is not much better with that than +with Frederick the Great's cane, which became famous +for Frederick's sake.</p> + +<p>To "Give God the glory" corresponds the modern +"Give Man the glory." But I mean to keep it for +myself.</p> + +<p>Criticism, issuing the summons to man to be "human," +enunciates the necessary condition of sociability; +for only as a man among men is one <i>companionable</i>. +Herewith it makes known its <i>social</i> object, the +establishment of "human society."</p> + +<p>Among social theories criticism is indisputably the +most complete, because it removes and deprives of +value everything that <i>separates</i> man from man: all<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_177" id="Page_177">[Pg 177]</a></span> +prerogatives, down to the prerogative of faith. In it +the love-principle of Christianity, the true social principle, +comes to the purest fulfilment, and the last possible +experiment is tried to take away exclusiveness +and repulsion from men: a fight against egoism in its +simplest and therefore hardest form, in the form of +singleness,<a name="FNanchor_92_92" id="FNanchor_92_92"></a><a href="#Footnote_92_92" class="fnanchor">[92]</a> exclusiveness, itself.</p> + +<p>"How can you live a truly social life so long as +even one exclusiveness still exists between you?"</p> + +<p>I ask conversely, How can you be truly single so +long as even one connection still exists between you? +If you are connected, you cannot leave each other; if +a "tie" clasps you, you are something only <i>with +another</i>, and twelve of you make a dozen, thousands +of you a people, millions of you humanity.</p> + +<p>"Only when you are human can you keep company +with each other as men, just as you can understand +each other as patriots only when you are patriotic!"</p> + +<p>All right; then I answer, Only when you are single +can you have intercourse with each other as what you +are.</p> + +<p>It is precisely the keenest critic who is hit hardest +by the curse of his principle. Putting from him one +exclusive thing after another, shaking off churchliness, +patriotism, etc., he undoes one tie after another and +separates himself from the churchly man, from the +patriot, etc., till at last, when all ties are undone, he +stands—alone. He, of all men, must exclude all that +have anything exclusive or private; and, when you +get to the bottom, what can be more exclusive than<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_178" id="Page_178">[Pg 178]</a></span> +the exclusive, single person himself!</p> + +<p>Or does he perhaps think that the situation would +be better if <i>all</i> became men and gave up exclusiveness? +Why, for the very reason that "all" means +"every individual" the most glaring contradiction is +still maintained, for the "individual" is exclusiveness +itself. If the humane liberal no longer concedes to +the individual anything private or exclusive, any private +thought, any private folly; if he criticises everything +away from him before his face, since his hatred +of the private is an absolute and fanatical hatred; if +he knows no tolerance toward what is private, because +everything private is <i>unhuman</i>,—yet he cannot criticise +away the private person himself, since the hardness +of the individual person resists his criticism, and +he must be satisfied with declaring this person a "private +person" and really leaving everything private to +him again.</p> + +<p>What will the society that no longer cares about +anything private do? Make the private impossible? +No, but "subordinate it to the interests of society, +and, <i>e. g.</i>, leave it to private will to institute holidays, +as many as it chooses, if only it does not come in collision +with the general interest."<a name="FNanchor_93_93" id="FNanchor_93_93"></a><a href="#Footnote_93_93" class="fnanchor">[93]</a> Everything private +is <i>left free</i>; <i>i. e.</i> it has no interest for society.</p> + +<p>"By their raising of barriers against science the +church and religiousness have declared that they are +what they always were, only that this was hidden +under another semblance when they were proclaimed +to be the basis and necessary foundation of the State<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_179" id="Page_179">[Pg 179]</a></span>——a +matter of purely private concern. Even when +they were connected with the State and made it Christian, +they were only the proof that the State had not +yet developed its general political idea, that it was +only instituting private rights——they were only the +highest expression for the fact that the State was a +private affair and had to do only with private affairs. +When the State shall at last have the courage and +strength to fulfil its general destiny and to be free; +when, therefore, it is also able to give separate interests +and private concerns their true position,—then +religion and the church will be free as they have never +been hitherto. As a matter of the most purely private +concern, and a satisfaction of purely personal +want, they will be left to themselves; and every individual, +every congregation and ecclesiastical communion, +will be able to care for the blessedness of their +souls as they choose and as they think necessary. +Every one will care for his soul's blessedness so far +as it is to him a personal want, and will accept and +pay as spiritual caretaker the one who seems to him +to offer the best guarantee for the satisfaction of his +want. Science is at last left entirely out of the +game."<a name="FNanchor_94_94" id="FNanchor_94_94"></a><a href="#Footnote_94_94" class="fnanchor">[94]</a></p> + +<p>What is to happen, though? Is social life to have +an end, and all companionableness, all fraternization, +everything that is created by the love or society principle, +to disappear?</p> + +<p>As if one will not always seek the other because he +<i>needs</i> him; as if one must not accommodate himself to<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_180" id="Page_180">[Pg 180]</a></span> +the other when he <i>needs</i> him. But the difference is +this, that then the individual really <i>unites</i> with the individual, +while formerly they were <i>bound together</i> by +a tie; son and father are bound together before +majority, after it they can come together independently; +before it they <i>belonged</i> together as members +of the family, after it they unite as egoists; sonship +and fatherhood remain, but son and father no longer +pin themselves down to these.</p> + +<p>The last privilege, in truth, is "Man"; with it all +are privileged or invested. For, as Bruno Bauer himself +says, "privilege remains even when it is extended +to all."<a name="FNanchor_95_95" id="FNanchor_95_95"></a><a href="#Footnote_95_95" class="fnanchor">[95]</a></p> + +<p>Thus liberalism runs its course in the following +transformations: "First, the individual <i>is</i> not man, +therefore his individual personality is of no account: +no personal will, no arbitrariness, no orders or +mandates!</p> + +<p>"Second, the individual <i>has</i> nothing human, therefore +no mine and thine, or property, is valid.</p> + +<p>"Third, as the individual neither is man nor has +anything human, he shall not exist at all: he shall, as +an egoist with his egoistic belongings, be annihilated +by criticism to make room for Man, 'Man, just discovered'."</p> + +<p>But, although the individual is not Man, Man is +yet present in the individual, and, like every spook +and everything divine, has its existence in him. +Hence political liberalism awards to the individual +everything that pertains to him as "a man by birth,"<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_181" id="Page_181">[Pg 181]</a></span> +as a born man, among which there are counted liberty +of conscience, the possession of goods, etc.,—in short, +the "rights of man"; Socialism grants to the individual +what pertains to him as an <i>active</i> man, as a +"laboring" man; finally, humane liberalism gives +the individual what he has as "a man," <i>i. e.</i> everything +that belongs to humanity. Accordingly the +single one<a name="FNanchor_96_96" id="FNanchor_96_96"></a><a href="#Footnote_96_96" class="fnanchor">[96]</a> has nothing at all, humanity everything; +and the necessity of the "regeneration" preached in +Christianity is demanded unambiguously and in the +completest measure. Become a new creature, become +"man"!</p> + +<p>One might even think himself reminded of the close +of the Lord's Prayer. To Man belongs the <i>lordship</i> +(the "power" or <i>dynamis</i>); therefore no individual +may be lord, but Man is the lord of individuals;—Man's +is the <i>kingdom</i>, <i>i. e.</i> the world, consequently +the individual is not to be proprietor, but Man, "all," +commands the world as property;—to Man is due renown, +<i>glorification</i> or "glory" (<i>doxa</i>) from all, for +Man or humanity is the individual's end, for which he +labors, thinks, lives, and for whose glorification he +must become "man."</p> + +<p>Hitherto men have always striven to find out a fellowship +in which their inequalities in other respects +should become "non-essential"; they strove for equalization, +consequently for <i>equality</i>, and wanted to come +all under one hat, which means nothing less than that +they were seeking for one lord, one tie, one faith +("'Tis in one God we all believe"). There cannot be<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_182" id="Page_182">[Pg 182]</a></span> +for men anything more fellowly or more equal than +Man himself, and in this fellowship the love-craving +has found its contentment: it did not rest till it had +brought on this last equalization, leveled all inequality, +laid man on the breast of man. But under this very +fellowship decay and ruin become most glaring. In +a more limited fellowship the Frenchman still stood +against the German, the Christian against the Mohammedan, +etc. Now, on the contrary, <i>man</i> stands against +men, or, as men are not man, man stands against the +un-man.</p> + +<p>The sentence "God has become man" is now followed +by the other, "Man has become I." This is +<i>the human I</i>. But we invert it and say: I was not +able to find myself so long as I sought myself as +Man. But, now that it appears that Man is aspiring +to become I and to gain a corporeity in me, I note +that, after all, everything depends on me, and Man is +lost without me. But I do not care to give myself up +to be the shrine of this most holy thing, and shall not +ask henceforward whether I am man or un-man in +what I set about; let this <i>spirit</i> keep off my neck!</p> + +<p>Humane liberalism goes to work radically. If you +want to be or have anything especial even in one +point, if you want to retain for yourself even one prerogative +above others, to claim even one right that is +not a general "right of man," you are an egoist.</p> + +<p>Very good! I do not want to have or be anything +especial above others, I do not want to claim any prerogative +against them, but—I do not measure myself +by others either, and do not want to have any <i>right</i> +whatever. I want to be all and have all that I can be<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_183" id="Page_183">[Pg 183]</a></span> +and have. Whether others are and have anything +<i>similar</i>, what do I care? The equal, the same, they +can neither be nor have. I cause no <i>detriment</i> to +them, as I cause no detriment to the rock by being +"ahead of it" in having motion. If they <i>could</i> have +it, they would have it.</p> + +<p>To cause other men no <i>detriment</i> is the point of the +demand to possess no prerogative; to renounce all +"being ahead," the strictest theory of <i>renunciation</i>. +One is not to count himself as "anything especial," +such as <i>e. g.</i> a Jew or a Christian. Well, I do not +count myself as anything especial, but as <i>unique</i>.<a name="FNanchor_97_97" id="FNanchor_97_97"></a><a href="#Footnote_97_97" class="fnanchor">[97]</a> +Doubtless I have <i>similarity</i> with others; yet that holds +good only for comparison or reflection; in fact I am +incomparable, unique. My flesh is not their flesh, my +mind is not their mind. If you bring them under the +generalities "flesh, mind," those are your <i>thoughts</i>, +which have nothing to do with <i>my</i> flesh, <i>my</i> mind, and +can least of all issue a "call" to mine.</p> + +<p>I do not want to recognize or respect in you anything, +neither the proprietor nor the ragamuffin, nor +even the man, but to <i>use you</i>. In salt I find that it +makes food palatable to me, therefore I dissolve it; in +the fish I recognize an aliment, therefore I eat it; in +you I discover the gift of making my life agreeable, +therefore I choose you as a companion. Or, in salt I +study crystallization, in the fish animality, in you +men, etc. But to me you are only what you are for +me,—to wit, my object; and, because <i>my</i> object, therefore +my property.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_184" id="Page_184">[Pg 184]</a></span></p> + +<p>In humane liberalism ragamuffinhood is completed. +We must first come down to the most ragamuffin-like, +most poverty-stricken condition if we want to arrive +at <i>ownness</i>, for we must strip off everything alien. +But nothing seems more ragamuffin-like than naked—Man.</p> + +<p>It is more than ragamuffinhood, however, when +I throw away Man too because I feel that he too is +alien to me and that I can make no pretensions on +that basis. This is no longer mere ragamuffinhood: +because even the last rag has fallen off, here stands +real nakedness, denudation of everything alien. The +ragamuffin has stripped off ragamuffinhood itself, and +therewith has ceased, to be what he was, a ragamuffin.</p> + +<p>I am no longer a ragamuffin, but have been one.</p> + +<hr style='width: 45%;' /> + +<p>Up to this time the discord could not come to an +outbreak, because properly there is current only a contention +of modern liberals with antiquated liberals, a +contention of those who understand "freedom" in a +small measure and those who want the "full measure" +of freedom; of the <i>moderate</i> and <i>measureless</i>, therefore. +Everything turns on the question, <i>how free</i> must <i>man</i> +be? That man must be free, in this all believe; therefore +all are liberal too. But the un-man<a name="FNanchor_98_98" id="FNanchor_98_98"></a><a href="#Footnote_98_98" class="fnanchor">[98]</a> who is +somewhere in every individual, how is he blocked? +flow can it be arranged not to leave the un-man free +at the same time with man?<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_185" id="Page_185">[Pg 185]</a></span></p> + +<p>Liberalism as a whole has a deadly enemy, an invincible +opposite, as God has the devil: by the side of +man stands always the un-man, the individual, the +egoist. State, society, humanity, do not master this +devil.</p> + +<p>Humane liberalism has undertaken the task of showing +the other liberals that they still do not want +"freedom."</p> + +<p>If the other liberals had before their eyes only isolated +egoism and were for the most part blind, radical +liberalism has against it egoism "in mass," throws +among the masses all who do not make the cause of +freedom their own as it does, so that now man and +un-man, rigorously separated, stand over against each +other as enemies, to wit, the "masses" and "criticism";<a name="FNanchor_99_99" id="FNanchor_99_99"></a><a href="#Footnote_99_99" class="fnanchor">[99]</a> +namely, "free, human criticism," as it is +called ("<i>Judenfrage</i>," p. 114), in opposition to crude, +<i>e. g.</i> religious, criticism.</p> + +<p>Criticism expresses the hope that it will be victorious +over all the masses and "give them a general +certificate of insolvency."<a name="FNanchor_100_100" id="FNanchor_100_100"></a><a href="#Footnote_100_100" class="fnanchor">[100]</a> So it means finally to +make itself out in the right, and to represent all contention +of the "faint-hearted and timorous" as an +egoistic <i>stubbornness</i>,<a name="FNanchor_101_101" id="FNanchor_101_101"></a><a href="#Footnote_101_101" class="fnanchor">[101]</a> as pettiness, paltriness. All +wrangling loses significance, and petty dissensions are +given up, because in criticism a common enemy enters +the field. "You are egoists altogether, one no better +than another!" Now the egoists stand together +against criticism.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_186" id="Page_186">[Pg 186]</a></span></p> + +<p>Really the egoists? No, they fight against criticism +precisely because it accuses them of egoism; they +do not plead guilty to egoism. Accordingly criticism +and the masses stand on the same basis: both fight +against egoism, both repudiate it for themselves and +charge it to each other.</p> + +<p>Criticism and the masses pursue the same goal, freedom +from egoism, and wrangle only over which of +them approaches nearest to the goal or even attains it.</p> + +<p>The Jews, the Christians, the absolutists, the men +of darkness and men of light, politicians, Communists,—all, +in short,—hold the reproach of egoism far +from them; and, as criticism brings against them this +reproach in plain terms and in the most extended +sense, all <i>justify</i> themselves against the accusation +of egoism, and combat—egoism, the same enemy with +whom criticism wages war.</p> + +<p>Both, criticism and masses, are enemies of egoists, +and both seek to liberate themselves from egoism, as +well by clearing or whitewashing <i>themselves</i> as by ascribing +it to the opposite party.</p> + +<p>The critic is the true "spokesman of the masses" +who gives them the "simple concept and the phrase" +of egoism, while the spokesmen to whom the triumph +is denied in "<i>Lit. Ztg.</i>" V. 24 were only bunglers. +He is their prince and general in the war against egoism +for freedom; what he fights against they fight +against. But at the same time he is their enemy too, +only not the enemy before them, but the friendly +enemy who wields the knout behind the timorous to +force courage into them.</p> + +<p>Hereby the opposition of criticism and the masses is<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_187" id="Page_187">[Pg 187]</a></span> +reduced to the following contradiction: "You are +egoists"! "No, we are not"! "I will prove it to +you"! "You shall have our justification"!</p> + +<p>Let us then take both for what they give themselves +out for, non-egoists, and what they take each other +for, egoists. They are egoists and are not.</p> + +<p>Properly criticism says: You must liberate your +ego from all limitedness so entirely that it becomes a +<i>human</i> ego. I say: Liberate yourself as far as you +can, and you have done your part; for it is not given +to every one to break through all limits, or, more expressively: +not to every one is that a limit which is a +limit for the rest. Consequently, do not tire yourself +with toiling at the limits of others; enough if you +tear down yours. Who has ever succeeded in tearing +down even one limit <i>for all men</i>? Are not countless +persons to-day, as at all times, running about with all +the "limitations of humanity"? He who overturns +one of <i>his</i> limits may have shown others the way and +the means; the overturning of <i>their</i> limits remains +their affair. Nobody does anything else either. To +demand of people that they become wholly men is to +call on them to cast down all human limits. That is +impossible, because <i>Man</i> has no limits. I have some +indeed, but then it is only <i>mine</i> that concern me any, +and only they can be overcome by me. A <i>human</i> +ego I cannot become, just because I am I and not +merely man.</p> + +<p>Yet let us still see whether criticism has not taught +us something that we can lay to heart! I am not +free if I am not without interests, not man if I am not +disinterested? Well, even if it makes little difference<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_188" id="Page_188">[Pg 188]</a></span> +to me to be free or man, yet I do not want to leave +unused any occasion to realize <i>myself</i> or make myself +count. Criticism offers me this occasion by the teaching +that, if anything plants itself firmly in me, and +becomes indissoluble, I become its prisoner and servant, +<i>i. e.</i> a possessed man. An interest, be it for +what it may, has kidnapped a slave in me if I cannot +get away from it, and is no longer my property, but I +I am its. Let us therefore accept criticism's lesson to +let no part of our property become stable, and to feel +comfortable only in—<i>dissolving</i> it.</p> + +<p>So, if criticism says: You are man only when you +are restlessly criticising and dissolving! then we say: +Man I am without that, and I am I likewise; therefore +I want only to be careful to secure my property +to myself; and, in order to secure it, I continually +take it back into myself, annihilate in it every movement +toward independence, and swallow it before it +can fix itself and become a "fixed idea" or a +"mania."</p> + +<p>But I do that not for the sake of my "human +calling," but because I call myself to it. I do not +strut about dissolving everything that it is possible +for a man to dissolve, and, <i>e. g.</i>, while not yet ten +years old I do not criticise the nonsense of the Commandments, +but I am man all the same, and act +humanly in just this,—that I still leave them uncriticised. +In short, I have no calling, and follow none, +not even that to be a man.</p> + +<p>Do I now reject what liberalism has won in its +various exertions? Far be the day that anything won +should be lost! Only, after "Man" has become free<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_189" id="Page_189">[Pg 189]</a></span> +through liberalism, I turn my gaze back upon myself +and confess to myself openly: What Man seems to +have gained, <i>I</i> alone have gained.</p> + +<p>Man is free when "Man is to man the supreme +being." So it belongs to the completion of liberalism +that every other supreme being be annulled, theology +overturned by anthropology, God and his grace +laughed down, "atheism" universal.</p> + +<p>The egoism of property has given up the last that it +had to give when even the "My God" has become +senseless; for God exists only when he has at heart the +individual's welfare, as the latter seeks his welfare in +him.</p> + +<p>Political liberalism abolished, the inequality of +masters and servants: it made people <i>masterless</i>, +anarchic. The master was now removed from the +individual, the "egoist," to become a ghost,—the law +or the State. Social liberalism abolishes the inequality +of possession, of the poor and rich, and makes +people <i>possessionless</i> or propertyless. Property is +withdrawn from the individual and surrendered to +ghostly society. Humane liberalism makes people +<i>godless</i>, atheistic. Therefore the individual's God, +"my God", must be put an end to. Now masterlessness +is indeed at the same time freedom from service, +possessionlessness at the same time freedom from care, +and godlessness at the same time freedom from prejudice: +for with the master the servant falls away; with +possession, the care about it; with the firmly-rooted +God, prejudice. But, since the master rises again as +State, the servant appears again as subject; since +possession becomes the property of society, care is be<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_190" id="Page_190">[Pg 190]</a></span>gotten +anew as labor; and, since God as Man becomes +a prejudice, there arises a new faith, faith in humanity +or liberty. For the individual's God the God of all, +<i>viz.</i>, "Man," is now exalted; "for it is the highest +thing in us all to be man." But, as nobody can become +entirely what the idea "man" imports, Man remains +to the individual a lofty other world, an unattained +supreme being, a God. But at the same time +this is the "true God," because he is fully adequate to +us,—to wit, our own "<i>self</i>"; we ourselves, but separated +from us and lifted above us.</p> + + +<h4><span class="smcap">Postscript</span></h4> + +<p>The foregoing review of "free human criticism" +was written by bits immediately after the appearance +of the books in question, as was also that which elsewhere +refers to writings of this tendency, and I did +little more than bring together the fragments. But +criticism is restlessly pressing forward, and thereby +makes it necessary for me to come back to it once +more, now that my book is finished, and insert this +concluding note.</p> + +<p>I have before me the latest (eighth) number of the +"<i>Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung</i>" of Bruno Bauer.</p> + +<p>There again "the general interests of society" +stand at the top. But criticism has reflected, and +given this "society" a specification by which it is +discriminated from a form which previously had still +been confused with it: the "State," in former passages +still celebrated as "free State," is quite given up because +it can in no wise fulfil the task of "human<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_191" id="Page_191">[Pg 191]</a></span> +society." Criticism only "saw itself compelled to +identify for a moment human and political affairs" in +1842; but now it has found that the State, even as +"free State," is not human society, or, as it could +likewise say, that the people is not "man." We saw +how it got through with theology and showed clearly +that God sinks into dust before Man; we see it now +come to a clearance with politics in the same way, +and show that before Man peoples and nationalities +fall: so we see how it has its explanation with Church +and State, declaring them both unhuman, and we shall +see—for it betrays this to us already—how it can also +give proof that before Man the "masses," which it +even calls a "spiritual being," appear worthless. And +how should the lesser "spiritual beings" be able to +maintain themselves before the supreme spirit? +"Man" casts down the false idols.</p> + +<p>So what the critic has in view for the present is the +scrutiny of the "masses," which he will place before +"Man" in order to combat them from the standpoint +of Man. "What is now the object of criticism?" +"The masses, a spiritual being!" These the critic +will "learn to know," and will find that they are in +contradiction with Man; he will demonstrate that +they are unhuman, and will succeed just as well in +this demonstration as in the former ones, that the +divine and the national, or the concerns of Church +and of State, were the unhuman.</p> + +<p>The masses are defined as "the most significant +product of the Revolution, as the deceived multitude +which the illusions of political Illumination, and in +general the entire Illumination movement of the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_192" id="Page_192">[Pg 192]</a></span> +eighteenth century, have given over to boundless disgruntlement." +The Revolution satisfied some by its +result, and left others unsatisfied; the satisfied part +is the commonalty (<i>bourgeoisie</i>, etc.), the unsatisfied +is the—masses. Does not the critic, so placed, himself +belong to the "masses"?</p> + +<p>But the unsatisfied are still in great mistiness, and +their discontent utters itself only in a "boundless disgruntlement." +This the likewise unsatisfied critic now +wants to master: he cannot want and attain more +than to bring that "spiritual being," the masses, out +of its disgruntlement, and to "uplift" those who were +only disgruntled, <i>i. e.</i> to give them the right attitude +toward those results of the Revolution which are to be +overcome;—he can become the head of the masses, +their decided spokesman. Therefore he wants also to +"abolish the deep chasm which parts him from the +multitude." From those who want to "uplift the +lower classes of the people" he is distinguished by +wanting to deliver from "disgruntlement," not merely +these, but himself too.</p> + +<p>But assuredly his consciousness does not deceive +him either, when he takes the masses to be the +"natural opponents of theory," and foresees that, "the +more this theory shall develop itself, so much the more +will it make the masses compact." For the critic cannot +enlighten or satisfy the masses with his <i>presupposition</i>, +Man. If over against the commonalty they are +only the "lower classes of the people," politically insignificant +masses, over against "Man" they must +still more be mere "masses," humanly insignificant—yes, +unhuman—masses, or a multitude of un-men.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_193" id="Page_193">[Pg 193]</a></span></p> + +<p>The critic clears away everything human; and, +starting from the presupposition that the human is the +true, he works against himself, denying it wherever it +had been hitherto found. He proves only that the +human is to be found nowhere except in his head, but +the unhuman everywhere. The unhuman is the real, +the extant on all hands, and by the proof that it is +"not human" the critic only enunciates plainly the +tautological sentence that it is the unhuman.</p> + +<p>But what if the unhuman, turning its back on itself +with resolute heart, should at the same time turn +away from the disturbing critic and leave him standing, +untouched and unstung by his remonstrance?</p> + +<p>"You call me the unhuman," it might say to him, +"and so I really am—for you; but I am so only because +you bring me into opposition to the human, and +I could despise myself only so long as I let myself be +hypnotized into this opposition. I was contemptible +because I sought my 'better self' outside me; I was the +unhuman because I dreamed of the 'human'; I resembled +the pious who hunger for their 'true self' and +always remain 'poor sinners'; I thought of myself +only in comparison to another; enough, I was not all +in all, was not—<i>unique</i>.<a name="FNanchor_102_102" id="FNanchor_102_102"></a><a href="#Footnote_102_102" class="fnanchor">[102]</a> But now I cease to appear +to myself as the unhuman, cease to measure myself +and let myself be measured by man, cease to recognize +anything above me: consequently—adieu, humane +critic! I only have been the unhuman, am it now no +longer, but am the unique, yes, to your loathing, the +egoistic; yet not the egoistic as it lets itself be mea<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_194" id="Page_194">[Pg 194]</a></span>sured +by the human, humane, and unselfish, but the +egoistic as the—unique."</p> + +<p>We have to pay attention to still another sentence +of the same number. "Criticism sets up no dogmas, +and wants to learn to know nothing but <i>things</i>."</p> + +<p>The critic is afraid of becoming "dogmatic" or +setting up dogmas. Of course: why, thereby he +would become the opposite of the critic,—the dogmatist; +he would now become bad, as he is good as critic, +or would become from an unselfish man an egoist, etc. +"Of all things, no dogma!" this is his—dogma. For +the critic remains on one and the same ground with +the dogmatist,—that of <i>thoughts</i>. Like the latter he +always starts from a thought, but varies in this, that +he never ceases to keep the principle-thought in the +<i>process of thinking</i>, and so does not let it become +stable. He only asserts the thought-process against +stationariness in it. From criticism no thought is +safe, since criticism is thought or the thinking mind +itself.</p> + +<p>Therefore I repeat that the religious world—and +this is the world of thoughts—reaches its completion +in criticism, where thinking extends its encroachments +over every thought, no one of which may +"egoistically" establish itself. Where would the +"purity of criticism," the purity of thinking, be left if +even one thought escaped the process of thinking? +This explains the fact that the critic has even begun +already to gibe gently here and there at the thought +of Man, of humanity and humaneness, because he suspects +that here a thought is approaching dogmatic<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_195" id="Page_195">[Pg 195]</a></span> +fixity. But yet he cannot decompose this thought +till he has found a—"higher" in which it dissolves; +for he moves only—in thoughts. This higher thought +might be enunciated as that of the movement or process +of thinking itself, <i>i. e.</i> as the thought of thinking +or of criticism.</p> + +<p>Freedom of thinking has in fact become complete +hereby, freedom of mind celebrates its triumph: for +the individual, "egoistic" thoughts have lost their +dogmatic truculence. There is nothing left but the—dogma +of free thinking or of criticism.</p> + +<p>Against everything that belongs to the world of +thought, criticism is in the right, <i>i. e.</i> in might: it is +the victor. Criticism, and criticism alone, is "up to +date." From the standpoint of thought there is no +power capable of being an overmatch for criticism's, +and it is a pleasure to see how easily and sportively +this dragon swallows all other serpents of thought. +Each serpent twists, to be sure, but criticism crushes it +in all its "turns."</p> + +<p>I am no opponent of criticism, <i>i. e.</i> I am no dogmatist, +and do not feel myself touched by the critic's +tooth with which he tears the dogmatist to pieces. If +I were a "dogmatist," I should place at the head a +dogma, <i>i. e.</i> a thought, an idea, a principle, and +should complete this as a "systematist," spinning it +out to a system, <i>i. e.</i> a structure of thought. Conversely, +if I were a critic, <i>viz.</i>, an opponent of the +dogmatist, I should carry on the fight of free thinking +against the enthralling thought, I should defend +thinking against what was thought. But I am neither +the champion of a thought nor the champion of think<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_196" id="Page_196">[Pg 196]</a></span>ing; +for "I," from whom I start, am not a thought, +nor do I consist in thinking. Against me, the unnameable, +the realm of thoughts, thinking, and mind +is shattered.</p> + +<p>Criticism is the possessed man's fight against possession +as such, against all possession: a fight which is +founded in the consciousness that everywhere possession, +or, as the critic calls it, a religious and theological +attitude, is extant. He knows that people stand +in a religious or believing attitude not only toward +God, but toward other ideas as well, like right, the +State, law, etc.; <i>i. e.</i> he recognizes possession in all +places. So he wants to break up thoughts by thinking; +but I say, only thoughtlessness really saves me +from thoughts. It it not thinking, but my thoughtlessness, +or I the unthinkable, incomprehensible, that +frees me from possession.</p> + +<p>A jerk does me the service of the most anxious +thinking, a stretching of the limbs shakes off the torment +of thoughts, a leap upward hurls from my breast +the nightmare of the religious world, a jubilant Hoopla +throws off year-long burdens. But the monstrous +significance of unthinking jubilation could not be +recognized in the long night of thinking and +believing.</p> + +<p>"What clumsiness and frivolity, to want to solve +the most difficult problems, acquit yourself of the +most comprehensive tasks, by a <i>breaking off</i>!"</p> + +<p>But have you tasks if you do not set them to yourself? +So long as you set them, you will not give +them up, and I certainly do not care if you think, +and, thinking, create a thousand thoughts. But you<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_197" id="Page_197">[Pg 197]</a></span> +who have set the tasks, are you not to be able to upset +them again? Must you be bound to these tasks, and +must they become absolute tasks?</p> + +<p>To cite only one thing, the government has been +disparaged on account of its resorting to forcible +means against thoughts, interfering against the press +by means of the police power of the censorship, and +making a personal fight out of a literary one. As if +it were solely a matter of thoughts, and as if one's +attitude toward thoughts must be unselfish, self-denying, +and self-sacrificing! Do not those thoughts +attack the governing parties themselves, and so call +out egoism? And do the thinkers not set before the +attacked ones the <i>religious</i> demand to reverence the +power of thought, of ideas? They are to succumb +voluntarily and resignedly, because the divine power +of thought, Minerva, fights on their enemies' side. +Why, that would be an act of possession, a religious +sacrifice. To be sure, the governing parties are themselves +held fast in a religious bias, and follow the leading +power of an idea or a faith; but they are at the +same time unconfessed egoists, and right here, against +the enemy, their pent-up egoism breaks loose: possessed +in their faith, they are at the same time unpossessed +by their opponents' faith, <i>i. e.</i> they are egoists +toward this. If one wants to make them a reproach, +it could only be the converse,—to wit, that they are +possessed by their ideas.</p> + +<p>Against thoughts no egoistic power is to appear, no +police power and the like. So the believers in thinking +believe. But thinking and its thoughts are not +sacred to <i>me</i>, and I defend <i>my skin</i> against them as<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_198" id="Page_198">[Pg 198]</a></span> +against other things. That may be an unreasonable +defence; but, if I am in duty bound to reason, then I, +like Abraham, must sacrifice my dearest to it!</p> + +<p>In the kingdom of thought, which, like that of +faith, is the kingdom of heaven, every one is assuredly +wrong who uses <i>unthinking</i> force, just as every one is +wrong who in the kingdom of love behaves unlovingly, +or, although he is a Christian and therefore +lives in the kingdom of love, yet acts unchristianly; +in these kingdoms, to which he supposes himself to belong +though he nevertheless throws off their laws, he +is a "sinner" or "egoist." But it is only when he becomes +a <i>criminal</i> against these kingdoms that he can +throw off their dominion.</p> + +<p>Here too the result is this, that the fight of the +thinkers against the government is indeed in the right, +<i>viz</i><i></i>., in might,—so far as it is carried on against +the government's thoughts (the government is dumb, +and does not succeed in making any literary rejoinder +to speak of), but is, on the other hand, in the wrong, +<i>viz.</i>, in impotence, so far as it does not succeed in +bringing into the field anything but thoughts against +a personal power (the egoistic power stops the +mouths of the thinkers). The theoretical fight cannot +complete the victory, and the sacred power of +thought succumbs to the might of egoism. Only the +egoistic fight, the fight of egoists on both sides, clears +up everything.</p> + +<p>This last now, to make thinking an affair of egoistic +option, an affair of the single person,<a name="FNanchor_103_103" id="FNanchor_103_103"></a><a href="#Footnote_103_103" class="fnanchor">[103]</a> a mere pas<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_199" id="Page_199">[Pg 199]</a></span>time +or hobby as it were, and to take from it the importance +of "being the last decisive power"; this +degradation and desecration of thinking; this equalization +of the unthinking and thoughtful ego; this +clumsy but real "equality,"—criticism is not able to +produce, because it itself is only the priest of thinking, +and sees nothing beyond thinking but—the deluge.</p> + +<p>Criticism does indeed affirm, <i>e. g.</i>, that free criticism +may overcome the State, but at the same time it +defends itself against the reproach which is laid upon +it by the State government, that it is "self-will and impudence"; +it thinks, then, that "self-will and impudence" +may not overcome, it alone may. The +truth is rather the reverse: the State can be really +overcome only by impudent self-will.</p> + +<p>It may now, to conclude with this, be clear that +in the critic's new change of front he has not transformed +himself, but only "made good an oversight," +"disentangled a subject," and is saying too much +when he speaks of "criticism criticising itself": it, or +rather he, has only criticised its "oversight" and +cleared it of its "inconsistencies." If he wanted to +criticise criticism, he would have to look and see if +there was anything in its presupposition.</p> + +<p>I on my part start from a presupposition in presupposing +<i>myself</i>; but my presupposition does not +struggle for its perfection like "Man struggling for +his perfection," but only serves me to enjoy it and +consume it. I consume my presupposition, and nothing +else, and exist only in consuming it. But that +presupposition is therefore not a presupposition at all: +for, as I am the Unique, I know nothing of the dual<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_200" id="Page_200">[Pg 200]</a></span>ity +of a presupposing and a presupposed ego (an "incomplete" +and a "complete" ego or man); but this, +that I consume myself, means only that I am. I do +not presuppose myself, because I am every moment +just positing or creating myself, and am I only by being +not presupposed but posited, and, again, posited +only in the moment when I posit myself; <i>i. e.</i>, I am +creator and creature in one.</p> + +<p>If the presuppositions that have hitherto been current +are to melt away in a full dissolution, they must +not be dissolved into a higher presupposition again,—<i>i. e.</i> +a thought, or thinking itself, criticism. For that +dissolution is to be for <i>my</i> good; otherwise it would +belong only in the series of the innumerable dissolutions +which, in favor of others, (<i>e. g.</i> this very Man, +God, the State, pure morality, etc.), declared old +truths to be untruths and did away with long-fostered +presuppositions.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 100%;" /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_201" id="Page_201">[Pg 201]</a></span></p> +<h2>Part Second</h2> + +<h1>I</h1> + + +<hr style="width: 100%;" /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_202" id="Page_202">[Pg 202]</a></span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>At the entrance of the modern time stands the "God-man." +At its exit will only the God in the God-man evaporate? and can +the God-man really die if only the God in him dies? They did +not think of this question, and thought they were through when +in our days they brought to a victorious end the work of the +Illumination, the vanquishing of God; they did not notice that +Man has killed God in order to become now—"sole God on +high." The <i>other world outside us</i> is indeed brushed away, +and the great undertaking of the Illuminators completed; but the +<i>other world in us</i> has become a new heaven and calls us forth to +renewed heaven-storming: God has had to give place, yet not to +us, but to—Man. How can you believe that the God-man is +dead before the Man in him, besides the God, is dead?</p></div> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_203" id="Page_203">[Pg 203]</a></span></p> +<h2>I</h2> + +<h2>OWNNESS<a name="FNanchor_104_104" id="FNanchor_104_104"></a><a href="#Footnote_104_104" class="fnanchor">[104]</a></h2> + + +<p>"Does not the spirit thirst for freedom?"—Alas, +not my spirit alone, my body too thirsts for it hourly! +When before the odorous castle-kitchen my nose tells +my palate of the savory dishes that are being prepared +therein, it feels a fearful pining at its dry bread; +when my eyes tell the hardened back about soft down +on which one may lie more delightfully than on its +compressed straw, a suppressed rage seizes it; when—but +let us not follow the pains further.—And you +call that a longing for freedom? What do you want +to become free from, then? From your hardtack and +your straw bed? Then throw them away!—But +that seems not to serve you: you want rather to have +the freedom to enjoy delicious foods and downy beds. +Are men to give you this "freedom,"—are they to +permit it to you? You do not hope that from +their philanthropy, because you know they all think<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_204" id="Page_204">[Pg 204]</a></span> +like—you: each is the nearest to himself! How, +therefore, do you mean to come to the enjoyment of +those foods and beds? Evidently not otherwise than +in making them your property!</p> + +<p>If you think it over rightly, you do not want the +freedom to have all these fine things, for with this +freedom you still do not have them; you want really +to have them, to call them <i>yours</i> and possess them as +<i>your property</i>. Of what use is a freedom to you, indeed, +if it brings in nothing? And, if you became +free from everything, you would no longer have anything; +for freedom is empty of substance. Whoso +knows not how to make use of it, for him it has no +value this useless permission; but how I make use of +it depends on my personality.<a name="FNanchor_105_105" id="FNanchor_105_105"></a><a href="#Footnote_105_105" class="fnanchor">[105]</a></p> + +<p>I have no objection to freedom, but I wish more +than freedom for you: you should not merely <i>be rid</i> +of what you do not want, you should also <i>have</i> what +you want; you should not only be a "freeman," you +should be an "owner" too.</p> + +<p>Free—from what? Oh! what is there that cannot +be shaken off? The yoke of serfdom, of sovereignty, +of aristocracy and princes, the dominion of the desires +and passions; yes, even the dominion of one's own +will, of self-will, for the completest self-denial is +nothing but freedom—freedom, to wit, from self-determination, +from one's own self. And the craving +for freedom as for something absolute, worthy of every +praise, deprived us of ownness: it created self-denial. +However, the freer I become, the more compulsion<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_205" id="Page_205">[Pg 205]</a></span> +piles up before my eyes; and the more impotent I feel +myself. The unfree son of the wilderness does not yet +feel anything of all the limits that crowd a civilized +man: he seems to himself freer than this latter. In +the measure that I conquer freedom for myself I create +for myself new bounds and new tasks: if I have invented +railroads, I feel myself weak again because I +cannot yet sail through the skies like the bird; and, if +I have solved a problem whose obscurity disturbed my +mind, at once there await me innumerable others, +whose perplexities impede my progress, dim my free +gaze, make the limits of my <i>freedom</i> painfully sensible +to me. "Now that you have become free from sin, +you have become <i>servants</i> of righteousness."<a name="FNanchor_106_106" id="FNanchor_106_106"></a><a href="#Footnote_106_106" class="fnanchor">[106]</a> Republicans +in their broad freedom, do they not become +servants of the law? How true Christian hearts at all +times longed to "become free," how they pined to see +themselves delivered from the "bonds of this earth-life"! +they looked out toward the land of freedom. +("The Jerusalem that is above is the freewoman; she +is the mother of us all." Gal. 4. 26.)</p> + +<p>Being free from anything—means only being clear +or rid. "He is free from headache" is equal to "he +is rid of it." "He is free from this prejudice" is +equal to "he has never conceived it" or "he has got +rid of it." In "less" we complete the freedom recommended +by Christianity, in sinless, godless, moralityless, +etc.</p> + +<p>Freedom is the doctrine of Christianity. "Ye, dear +brethren, are called to freedom."<a name="FNanchor_107_107" id="FNanchor_107_107"></a><a href="#Footnote_107_107" class="fnanchor">[107]</a> "So speak and so<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_206" id="Page_206">[Pg 206]</a></span> +do, as those who are to be judged by the law of +freedom."<a name="FNanchor_108_108" id="FNanchor_108_108"></a><a href="#Footnote_108_108" class="fnanchor">[108]</a></p> + +<p>Must we then, because freedom betrays itself as a +Christian ideal, give it up? No, nothing is to be lost, +freedom no more than the rest; but it is to become +our own, and in the form of freedom it cannot.</p> + +<p>What a difference between freedom and ownness! +One can get <i>rid</i> of a great many things, one yet does +not get rid of all; one becomes free from much, not +from everything. Inwardly one may be free in spite +of the condition of slavery, although, too, it is again +only from all sorts of things, not from everything; +but from the whip, the domineering temper, etc., of +the master, one does not as slave become <i>free</i>. "Freedom +lives only in the realm of dreams!" Ownness, +on the contrary, is my whole being and existence, it is +I myself. I am free from what I am <i>rid</i> of, owner of +what I have in my <i>power</i> or what I <i>control</i>. <i>My own</i> +I am at all times and under all circumstances, if I +know how to have myself and do not throw myself +away on others. To be free is something that I cannot +truly <i>will</i>, because I cannot make it, cannot create +it: I can only wish it and—aspire toward it, for it remains +an ideal, a spook. The fetters of reality cut +the sharpest welts in my flesh every moment. But <i>my +own</i> I remain. Given up as serf to a master, I think +only of myself and my advantage; his blows strike me +indeed, I am not <i>free</i> from them; but I endure them +only for <i>my benefit</i>, perhaps in order to deceive him +and make him secure by the semblance of patience, or,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_207" id="Page_207">[Pg 207]</a></span> +again, not to draw worse upon myself by contumacy. +But, as I keep my eye on myself and my selfishness, I +take by the forelock the first good opportunity to +trample the slaveholder into the dust. That I then +become <i>free</i> from him and his whip is only the consequence +of my antecedent egoism. Here one perhaps +says I was "free" even in the condition of slavery,—to +wit, "intrinsically" or "inwardly." But "intrinsically +free" is not "really free," and "inwardly" is +not "outwardly." I was own, on the other hand, <i>my +own</i>, altogether, inwardly and outwardly. Under the +dominion of a cruel master my body is not "free" +from torments and lashes; but it is <i>my</i> bones that +moan under the torture, <i>my</i> fibres that quiver under +the blows, and <i>I</i> moan because <i>my</i> body moans. +That <i>I</i> sigh and shiver proves that I have not yet lost +<i>myself</i>, that I am still my own. My <i>leg</i> is not "free" +from the master's stick, but it is <i>my</i> leg and is inseparable. +Let him tear it off me and look and see if he +still has my leg! He retains in his hand nothing but +the—corpse of my leg, which is as little my leg as a +dead dog is still a dog: a dog has a pulsating heart, a +so-called dead dog has none and is therefore no longer +a dog.</p> + +<p>If one opines that a slave may yet be inwardly free, +he says in fact only the most indisputable and trivial +thing. For who is going to assert that any man is +<i>wholly</i> without freedom? If I am an eye-servant, can +I therefore not be free from innumerable things, <i>e. g.</i> +from faith in Zeus, from the desire for fame, and the +like? Why then should not a whipped slave also be +able to be inwardly free from unchristian sentiments,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_208" id="Page_208">[Pg 208]</a></span> +from hatred, of his enemy, etc.? He then has "Christian +freedom," is rid of the unchristian; but has he +absolute freedom, freedom from everything, <i>e. g.</i> from +the Christian delusion, or from bodily pain, etc.?</p> + +<p>In the meantime, all this seems to be said more +against names than against the thing. But is the +name indifferent, and has not a word, a shibboleth, +always inspired and—fooled men? Yet between +freedom and ownness there lies still a deeper chasm +than the mere difference of the words.</p> + +<p>All the world desires freedom, all long for its reign +to come. O enchantingly beautiful dream of a +blooming "reign of freedom," a "free human race"!—who +has not dreamed it? So men shall become +free, entirely free, free from all constraint! From all +constraint, really from all? Are they never to put +constraint on themselves any more? "Oh yes, that, +of course; don't you see, that is no constraint at all?" +Well, then at any rate they are to become free from +religious faith, from the strict duties of morality, +from the inexorability of the law, from—"What a +fearful misunderstanding!" Well, <i>what</i> are they +to be free from then, and what not?</p> + +<p>The lovely dream is dissipated; awakened, one rubs +his half-opened eyes and stares at the prosaic questioner. +"What men are to be free from?"—From +blind credulity, cries one. What's that? exclaims another, +all faith is blind credulity; they must become +free from all faith. No, no, for God's sake,—inveighs +the first again,—do not cast all faith from you, else +the power of brutality breaks in. We must have the +republic,—a third makes himself heard,—and be<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_209" id="Page_209">[Pg 209]</a></span>come—free +from all commanding lords. There is no +help in that, says a fourth: we only get a new lord +then, a "dominant majority"; let us rather free ourselves +from this dreadful inequality.—O hapless +equality, already I hear your plebeian roar again! +How I had dreamed so beautifully just now of a paradise +of <i>freedom</i>, and what impudence and licentiousness +now raises its wild clamor! Thus the first laments, +and gets on his feet to grasp the sword against +"unmeasured freedom." Soon we no longer hear anything +but the clashing of the swords of the disagreeing +dreamers of freedom.</p> + +<p>What the craving for freedom has always come to +has been the desire for a <i>particular</i> freedom, <i>e. g.</i> +freedom of faith; <i>i. e.</i>, the believing man wanted to be +free and independent; of what? of faith perhaps? no! +but of the inquisitors of faith. So now "political or +civil" freedom. The citizen wants to become free not +from citizenhood, but from bureaucracy, the arbitrariness +of princes, and the like. Prince Metternich once +said he had "found a way that was adapted to guide +men in the path of <i>genuine</i> freedom for all the +future." The Count of Provence ran away from +France precisely at the time when she was preparing +the "reign of freedom," and said: "My imprisonment +had become intolerable to me; I had only one +passion, the desire for—<i>freedom</i>; I thought only of it."</p> + +<p>The craving for a <i>particular</i> freedom always includes +the purpose of a new <i>dominion</i>, as it was with +the Revolution, which indeed "could give its defenders +the uplifting feeling that they were fighting +for freedom," but in truth only because they were<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_210" id="Page_210">[Pg 210]</a></span> +after a particular freedom, therefore a new <i>dominion</i>, +the "dominion of the law."</p> + +<p>Freedom you all want, you want <i>freedom</i>. Why +then do you higgle over a more or less? <i>Freedom</i> can +only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is +not <i>freedom</i>. You despair of the possibility of obtaining +the whole of freedom, freedom from everything,—yes, +you consider it insanity even to wish +this?—Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, +and spend your pains on something better than the—<i>unattainable</i>.</p> + +<p>"Ah, but there is nothing better than freedom!"</p> + +<p>What have you then when you have freedom, <i>viz.</i>,—for +I will not speak here of your piecemeal bits of +freedom,—complete freedom? Then you are rid of +everything that embarrasses you, everything, and +there is probably nothing that does not once in +your life embarrass you and cause you inconvenience. +And for whose sake, then, did you want to be rid of +it? Doubtless <i>for your sake</i>, because it is in <i>your</i> +way! But, if something were not inconvenient to +you; if, on the contrary, it were quite to your mind +(<i>e. g.</i> the gently but <i>irresistibly commanding</i> look of +your loved one),—then you would not want to be rid +of it and free from it. Why not? <i>For your sake</i> +again! So you take <i>yourselves</i> as measure and judge +over all. You gladly let freedom go when unfreedom, +the "sweet <i>service</i> of love," suits <i>you</i>; and you take +up your freedom again on occasion when it begins +to suit <i>you</i> better,—that is, supposing, which is not +the point here, that you are not afraid of such a Repeal +of the Union for other (perhaps religious) reasons.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_211" id="Page_211">[Pg 211]</a></span></p> + +<p>Why will you not take courage now to really make +<i>yourselves</i> the central point and the main thing altogether? +Why grasp in the air at freedom, your +dream? Are you your dream? Do not begin by inquiring +of your dreams, your notions, your thoughts, +for that is all "hollow theory." Ask yourselves and +ask after yourselves—that is <i>practical</i> and you know +you want very much to be "practical." But there the +one hearkens what his God (of course what he thinks +of at the name God is his God) may be going to say +to it, and another what his moral feelings, his conscience, +his feeling of duty, may determine about it, +and a third calculates what folks will think of it,—and, +when each has thus asked his Lord God (folks +are a Lord God just as good as, nay, even more compact +than, the other-worldly and imaginary one: +<i>vox populi, vox dei</i>), then he accommodates himself to +his Lord's will and listens no more at all for what <i>he +himself</i> would like to say and decide.</p> + +<p>Therefore turn to yourselves rather than to your +gods or idols. Bring out from yourselves what is in +you, bring it to the light, bring yourselves to +revelation.</p> + +<p>How one acts only from himself, and asks after nothing +further, the Christians have realized in the notion +"God." He acts "as it pleases him." And foolish +man, who could do just so, is to act as it "pleases +God" instead.—If it is said that even God proceeds +according to eternal laws, that too fits me, since I too +cannot get out of my skin, but have my law in my +whole nature, <i>i. e.</i> in myself.</p> + +<p>But one needs only admonish you of yourselves to<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_212" id="Page_212">[Pg 212]</a></span> +bring you to despair at once. "What am I?" each +of you asks himself. An abyss of lawless and unregulated +impulses, desires, wishes, passions, a chaos without +light or guiding star! How am I to obtain a +correct answer, if, without regard to God's commandments +or to the duties which morality prescribes, without +regard to the voice of reason, which in the course +of history, after bitter experiences, has exalted the +best and most reasonable thing into law, I simply +appeal to myself? My passion would advise me to do +the most senseless thing possible.—Thus each deems +himself the—<i>devil</i>; for, if, so far as he is unconcerned +about religion, etc., he only deemed himself a beast, +he would easily find that the beast, which does follow +only <i>its</i> impulse (as it were, its advice), does not advise +and impel itself to do the "most senseless" things, but +takes very correct steps. But the habit of the religious +way of thinking has biased our mind so grievously +that we are—terrified at <i>ourselves</i> in our nakedness +and naturalness; it has degraded us so that we +deem ourselves depraved by nature, born devils. Of +course it comes into your head at once that your +calling requires you to do the "good," the moral, +the right. Now, if you ask <i>yourselves</i> what is to be +done, how can the right voice sound forth from you, +the voice which points the way of the good, the right, +the true, etc.? What concord have God and Belial?</p> + +<p>But what would you think if one answered you by +saying: "That one is to listen to God, conscience, +duties, laws, etc., is flim-flam with which people have +stuffed your head and heart and made you crazy"? +And if he asked you how it is that you know so surely<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_213" id="Page_213">[Pg 213]</a></span> +that the voice of nature is a seducer? And if he even +demanded of you to turn the thing about and actually +to deem the voice of God and conscience to be the +devil's work? There are such graceless men; how +will you settle them? You cannot appeal to your +parsons, parents, and good men, for precisely these are +designated by them as your <i>seducers</i>, as the true seducers +and corrupters of youth, who busily sow broadcast +the tares of self-contempt and reverence to God, +who fill young hearts with mud and young heads with +stupidity.</p> + +<p>But now those people go on and ask: For whose +sake do you care about God's and the other commandments? +You surely do not suppose that this is done +merely out of complaisance toward God? No, you +are doing it—<i>for your sake</i> again.—Here too, therefore, +<i>you</i> are the main thing, and each must say to +himself, <i>I</i> am everything to myself and I do everything +<i>on my account</i>. If it ever became clear to you +that God, the commandments, etc., only harm you, +that they reduce and ruin <i>you</i>, to a certainty you +would throw them from you just as the Christians once +condemned Apollo or Minerva or heathen morality. +They did indeed put in the place of these Christ and +afterward Mary, as well as a Christian morality; but +they did this for the sake of <i>their</i> souls' welfare too, +therefore out of egoism or ownness.</p> + +<p>And it was by this egoism, this ownness, that they +got <i>rid</i> of the old world of gods and became <i>free</i> +from it. Ownness <i>created</i> a new <i>freedom</i>; for ownness +is the creator of everything, as genius (a definite +ownness), which is always originality, has for a long<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_214" id="Page_214">[Pg 214]</a></span> +time already been looked upon as the creator of new +productions that have a place in the history of the +world.</p> + +<p>If your efforts are ever to make "freedom" the +issue, then exhaust freedom's demands. Who is it +that is to become free? You, I, we. Free from what? +From everything that is not you, not I, not we. I, +therefore, am the kernel that is to be delivered from +all wrappings and—freed from all cramping shells. +What is left when I have been freed from everything +that is not I? Only I; nothing but I. But freedom +has nothing to offer to this I himself. As to what is +now to happen further after I have become free, freedom +is silent,—as our governments, when the prisoner's +time is up, merely let him go, thrusting him out +into abandonment.</p> + +<p>Now why, if freedom is striven after for love of the +I after all,—why not choose the I himself as beginning, +middle, and end? Am I not worth more than freedom? +Is it not I that make myself free, am not I the +first? Even unfree, even laid in a thousand fetters, I +yet am; and I am not, like freedom, extant only in +the future and in hopes, but even as the most abject of +slaves I am—present.</p> + +<p>Think that over well, and decide whether you will +place on your banner the dream of "freedom" or the +resolution of "egoism," of "ownness." "Freedom" +awakens your <i>rage</i> against everything that is not +you; "egoism" calls you to <i>joy</i> over yourselves, to +self-enjoyment; "freedom" is and remains a <i>longing</i>, +a romantic plaint, a Christian hope for unearthliness +and futurity; "ownness" is a reality, which <i>of itself</i><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_215" id="Page_215">[Pg 215]</a></span> +removes just so much unfreedom as by barring your +own way hinders you. What does not disturb you, +you will not want to renounce; and, if it begins to +disturb you, why, you know that "you must obey +<i>yourselves</i> rather than men!"</p> + +<p>Freedom teaches only: Get yourselves rid, relieve +yourselves, of everything burdensome; it does not +teach you who you yourselves are. Rid, rid! so +rings its rallying-cry, and you, eagerly following its +call, get rid even of yourselves, "deny yourselves." +But ownness calls you back to yourselves, it says +"Come to yourself!" Under the ægis of freedom +you get rid of many kinds of things, but something +new pinches you again: "you are rid of the Evil One; +evil is left."<a name="FNanchor_109_109" id="FNanchor_109_109"></a><a href="#Footnote_109_109" class="fnanchor">[109]</a> As <i>own</i> you are <i>really rid of everything</i>, +and what clings to you <i>you have accepted</i>; it is your +choice and your pleasure. The <i>own</i> man is the <i>freeborn</i>, +the man free to begin with; the free man, on +the contrary, is only the <i>eleutheromaniac</i>, the dreamer +and enthusiast.</p> + +<p>The former is <i>originally free</i>, because he recognizes +nothing but himself; he does not need to free himself +first, because at the start he rejects everything outside +himself, because he prizes nothing more than himself, +rates nothing higher, because, in short, he starts from +himself and "comes to himself." Constrained by +childish respect, he is nevertheless already working at +"freeing" himself from this constraint. Ownness +works in the little egoist, and procures him the desired—freedom.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_216" id="Page_216">[Pg 216]</a></span></p> + +<p>Thousands of years of civilization have obscured to +you what you are, have made you believe you are not +egoists but are <i>called</i> to be idealists ("good men"). +Shake that off! Do not seek for freedom, which does +precisely deprive you of yourselves, in "self-denial"; +but seek for <i>yourselves</i>, become egoists, become each of +you an <i>almighty ego</i>. Or, more clearly: Just recognize +yourselves again, just recognize what you really +are, and let go your hypocritical endeavors, your +foolish mania to be something else than you are. +Hypocritical I call them because you have yet remained +egoists all these thousands of years, but sleeping, +self-deceiving, crazy egoists, you Heautontimorumenoses, +you self-tormentors. Never yet has a religion +been able to dispense with "promises," whether they +referred us to the other world or to this ("long life," +etc.); for man is <i>mercenary</i> and does nothing +"gratis." But how about that "doing the good +for the good's sake without prospect of reward? +As if here too the pay was not contained in the satisfaction +that it is to afford. Even religion, therefore, +is founded on our egoism and—exploits it; calculated +for our <i>desires</i>, it stifles many others for the sake +of one. This then gives the phenomenon of <i>cheated</i> +egoism, where I satisfy, not myself, but one of my +desires, <i>e. g.</i> the impulse toward blessedness. Religion +promises me the—"supreme good"; to gain this +I no longer regard any other of my desires, and do +not slake them.—All your doings are <i>unconfessed</i>, +secret, covert, and concealed egoism. But because +they are egoism that you are unwilling to confess to +yourselves, that you keep secret from yourselves,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_217" id="Page_217">[Pg 217]</a></span> +hence not manifest and public egoism, consequently +unconscious egoism,—therefore they are <i>not egoism</i>, +but thraldom, service, self-renunciation; you are egoists, +and you are not, since you renounce egoism. +Where you seem most to be such, you have drawn +upon the word "egoist"—loathing and contempt.</p> + +<p>I secure my freedom with regard to the world in the +degree that I make the world my own, <i>i. e.</i> "gain it +and take possession of it" for myself, by whatever +might, by that of persuasion, of petition, of categorical +demand, yes, even by hypocrisy, cheating, etc.; +for the means that I use for it are determined by what +I am. If I am weak, I have only weak means, like +the aforesaid, which yet are good enough for a considerable +part of the world. Besides, cheating, hypocrisy, +lying, look worse than they are. Who has not +cheated the police, the law? who has not quickly taken +on an air of honorable loyalty before the sheriff's +officer who meets him, in order to conceal an illegality +that may have been committed, etc.? He who has +not done it has simply let violence be done to him; +he was a <i>weakling</i> from—conscience. I know that my +freedom is diminished even by my not being able to +carry out my will on another object, be this other +something without will, like a rock, or something with +will, like a government, an individual, etc.; I deny my +ownness when—in presence of another—I give myself +up, <i>i. e.</i> give way, desist, submit; therefore by +<i>loyalty</i>, <i>submission</i>. For it is one thing when I give +up my previous course because it does not lead to the +goal, and therefore turn out of a wrong road; it +is another when I yield myself a prisoner. I get<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_218" id="Page_218">[Pg 218]</a></span> +around a rock that stands in my way, till I have +powder enough to blast it; I get around the laws of a +people, till I have gathered strength to overthrow +them. Because I cannot grasp the moon, is it therefore +to be "sacred" to me, an Astarte? If I only +could grasp you, I surely would, and, if I only find a +means to get up to you, you shall not frighten me! +You inapprehensible one, you shall remain inapprehensible +to me only till I have acquired the +might for apprehension and call you my <i>own</i>; I do +not give myself up before you, but only bide my time. +Even if for the present I put up with my inability to +touch you, I yet remember it against you.</p> + +<p>Vigorous men have always done so. When the +"loyal" had exalted an unsubdued power to be their +master and had adored it, when they had demanded +adoration from all, then there came some such son of +nature who would not loyally submit, and drove the +adored power from its inaccessible Olympus. He +cried his "Stand still" to the rolling sun, and made +the earth go round; the loyal had to make the best of +it; he laid his axe to the sacred oaks, and the "loyal" +were astonished that no heavenly fire consumed him; +he threw the pope off Peter's chair, and the "loyal" +had no way to hinder it; he is tearing down the +divine-right business, and the "loyal" croak in vain, +and at last are silent.</p> + +<p>My freedom becomes complete only when it is my—<i>might</i>; +but by this I cease to be a merely free man, +and become an own man. Why is the freedom of the +peoples a "hollow word"? Because the peoples +have no might! With a breath of the living ego I<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_219" id="Page_219">[Pg 219]</a></span> +blow peoples over, be it the breath of a Nero, a +Chinese emperor, or a poor writer. Why is it that +the G.....<a name="FNanchor_110_110" id="FNanchor_110_110"></a><a href="#Footnote_110_110" class="fnanchor">[110]</a> legislatures pine in vain for freedom, +and are lectured for it by the cabinet ministers? Because +they are not of the "mighty"! Might is a fine +thing, and useful for many purposes; for "one goes +further with a handful of might than with a bagful of +right." You long for freedom? You fools! If you +took might, freedom would come of itself. See, he +who has might "stands above the law." How does +this prospect taste to you, you "law-abiding" people? +But you have no taste!</p> + +<p>The cry for "freedom" rings loudly all around. +But is it felt and known what a donated or chartered +freedom must mean? It is not recognized in the full +amplitude of the word that all freedom is essentially—self-liberation,—<i>i. e.</i>, +that I can have only so much +freedom as I procure for myself by my ownness. Of +what use is it to sheep that no one abridges their freedom +of speech? They stick to bleating. Give one +who is inwardly a Mohammedan, a Jew, or a Christian, +permission to speak what he likes: he will yet +utter only narrow-minded stuff. If, on the contrary, +certain others rob you of the freedom of speaking and +hearing, they know quite rightly wherein lies their +temporary advantage, as you would perhaps be able +to say and hear something whereby those "certain" +persons would lose their credit.</p> + +<p>If they nevertheless give you freedom, they are +simply knaves who give more than they have. For<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_220" id="Page_220">[Pg 220]</a></span> +then they give you nothing of their own, but stolen +wares: they give you your own freedom, the freedom +that you must take for yourselves; and they <i>give</i> it to +you only that you may not take it and call the thieves +and cheats to an account to boot. In their slyness +they know well that given (chartered) freedom is no +freedom, since only the freedom one <i>takes</i> for himself, +therefore the egoist's freedom, rides with full sails. +Donated freedom strikes its sails as soon as there +comes a storm—or calm; it requires always a—gentle +and moderate breeze.</p> + +<p>Here lies the difference between self-liberation and +emancipation (manumission, setting free). Those who +to-day "stand in the opposition" are thirsting and +screaming to be "set free." The princes are to "declare +their peoples of age," <i>i. e.</i> emancipate them! +Behave as if you were of age, and you are so without +any declaration of majority; if you do not behave accordingly, +you are not worthy of it, and would never +be of age even by a declaration of majority. When +the Greeks were of age, they drove out their tyrants, +and, when the son is of age, he makes himself independent +of his father. If the Greeks had waited till +their tyrants graciously allowed them their majority, +they might have waited long. A sensible father +throws out a son who will not come of age, and keeps +the house to himself; it serves the noodle right.</p> + +<p>The man who is set free is nothing but a freedman, +a <i>libertinus</i>, a dog dragging a piece of chain with him: +he is an unfree man in the garment of freedom, like +the ass in the lion's skin. Emancipated Jews are +nothing bettered in themselves, but only relieved as<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_221" id="Page_221">[Pg 221]</a></span> +Jews, although he who relieves their condition is certainly +more than a churchly Christian, as the latter +cannot do this without inconsistency. But, emancipated +or not emancipated, Jew remains Jew; he who +is not self-freed is merely an—emancipated man. The +Protestant State can certainly set free (emancipate) +the Catholics; but, because they do not make themselves +free, they remain simply—Catholics.</p> + +<p>Selfishness and unselfishness have already been +spoken of. The friends of freedom are exasperated +against selfishness because in their religious striving +after freedom they cannot—free themselves from that +sublime thing, "self-renunciation." The liberal's +anger is directed against egoism, for the egoist, you +know, never takes trouble about a thing for the sake +of the thing, but for his sake: the thing must serve +him. It is egoistic to ascribe to no thing a value of +its own, an "absolute" value, but to seek its value +in me. One often hears that pot-boiling study which +is so common counted among the most repulsive traits +of egoistic behavior, because it manifests the most +shameful desecration of science; but what is science +for but to be consumed? If one does not know how +to use it for anything better than to keep the pot boiling, +then his egoism is a petty one indeed, because +this egoist's power is a limited power; but the egoistic +element in it, and the desecration of science, only a +possessed man can blame.</p> + +<p>Because Christianity, incapable of letting the individual +count as an ego,<a name="FNanchor_111_111" id="FNanchor_111_111"></a><a href="#Footnote_111_111" class="fnanchor">[111]</a> thought of him only as a<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_222" id="Page_222">[Pg 222]</a></span> +dependent, and was properly nothing but a <i>social +theory</i>,—a doctrine of living together, and that of +man with God as well as of man with man,—therefore +<a name="woful" id="woful"></a>in it everything "own" must fall into most <a href="#typos">woeful</a> disrepute: +selfishness, self-will, ownness, self-love, etc. +The Christian way of looking at things has on all +sides gradually re-stamped honorable words into dishonorable; +why should they not be brought into +honor again? So <i>Schimpf</i> (contumely) is in its old +sense equivalent to jest, but for Christian seriousness +pastime became a dishonor,<a name="FNanchor_112_112" id="FNanchor_112_112"></a><a href="#Footnote_112_112" class="fnanchor">[112]</a> for that seriousness cannot +take a joke; <i>frech</i> (impudent) formerly meant +only bold, brave; <i>Frevel</i> (wanton outrage) was only +daring. It is well known how askance the word +"reason" was looked at for a long time.</p> + +<p>Our language has settled itself pretty well to the +Christian standpoint, and the general consciousness is +still too Christian not to shrink in terror from everything +unchristian as from something incomplete or +evil. Therefore "selfishness" is in a bad way too.</p> + +<p>Selfishness,<a name="FNanchor_113_113" id="FNanchor_113_113"></a><a href="#Footnote_113_113" class="fnanchor">[113]</a> in the Christian sense, means something +like this: I look only to see whether anything +is of use to me as a sensual man. But is sensuality +then the whole of my ownness? Am I in my own +senses when I am given up to sensuality? Do I follow +myself, my <i>own</i> determination, when I follow +that? I am <i>my own</i> only when I am master of myself, +instead of being mastered either by sensuality or +by anything else (God, man, authority, law, State,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_223" id="Page_223">[Pg 223]</a></span> +Church, etc.); what is of use to me, this self-owned or +self-appertaining one, <i>my selfishness</i> pursues.</p> + +<p>Besides, one sees himself every moment compelled to +believe in that constantly-blasphemed selfishness as an +all-controlling power. In the session of February 10, +1844, Welcker argues a motion on the dependence of +the judges, and sets forth in a detailed speech that +removable, dismissable, transferable, and pensionable +judges—in short, such members of a court of justice as +can by mere administrative process be damaged and +endangered,—are wholly without reliability, yes, lose +all respect and all confidence among the people. The +whole bench, Welcker cries, is demoralized by this dependence! +In blunt words this means nothing else +than that the judges find it more to their advantage to +give judgment as the ministers would have them than +to give it as the law would have them. How is that +to be helped? Perhaps by bringing home to the +judges' hearts the ignominiousness of their venality, +and then cherishing the confidence that they will repent +and henceforth prize justice more highly than +their selfishness? No, the people does not soar to this +romantic confidence, for it feels that selfishness is +mightier than any other motive. Therefore the same +persons who have been judges hitherto may remain so, +however thoroughly one has convinced himself that +they behaved as egoists; only they must not any +longer find their selfishness favored by the venality of +justice, but must stand so independent of the government +that by a judgment in conformity with the facts +they do not throw into the shade their own cause, their +"well-understood interest," but rather secure a com<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_224" id="Page_224">[Pg 224]</a></span>fortable +combination of a good salary with respect +among the citizens.</p> + +<p>So Welcker and the commoners of Baden consider +themselves secured only when they can count on selfishness. +What is one to think, then, of the countless +phrases of unselfishness with which their mouths overflow +at other times?</p> + +<p>To a cause which I am pushing selfishly I have another +relation than to one which I am serving unselfishly. +The following criterion might be cited for it: +against the one I can <i>sin</i> or commit a <i>sin</i>, the other I +can only <i>trifle away</i>, push from me, deprive myself of,—<i>i. e.</i> +commit an imprudence. Free trade is looked +at in both ways, being regarded partly as a freedom +which may <i>under certain circumstances</i> be granted or +withdrawn, partly as one which is to be held <i>sacred +under all circumstances</i>.</p> + +<p>If I am not concerned about a thing in and for itself, +and do not desire it for its own sake, then I desire +it solely as a <i>means to an end</i>, for its usefulness; +for the sake of another end; <i>e. g.</i>, oysters for a pleasant +flavor. Now will not every thing whose final end +he himself is serve the egoist as means? and is he to +protect a thing that serves him for nothing,—<i>e. g.</i>, the +proletarian to protect the State?</p> + +<p>Ownness includes in itself everything own, and +brings to honor again what Christian language dishonored. +But ownness has not any alien standard +either, as it is not in any sense an <i>idea</i> like freedom, +morality, humanity, and the like: it is only a description +of the—<i>owner</i>.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_225" id="Page_225">[Pg 225]</a></span></p> +<h2>II</h2> + +<h2>THE OWNER</h2> + + +<p>I—do I come to myself and mine through +liberalism?</p> + +<p>Whom does the liberal look upon as his equal? +Man! Be only man, and that you are anyway,—and +the liberal calls you his brother. He asks very +little about your private opinions and private follies, +if only he can espy "Man" in you.</p> + +<p>But, as he takes little heed of what you are <i>privatim</i>,—nay, +in a strict following out of his principle +sets no value at all on it,—he sees in you only what +you are <i>generatim</i>. In other words, he sees in you, +not <i>you</i>, but the <i>species</i>; not Tom or Jim, but Man; +not the real or unique one,<a name="FNanchor_114_114" id="FNanchor_114_114"></a><a href="#Footnote_114_114" class="fnanchor">[114]</a> but your essence or your +concept; not the bodily man, but the <i>spirit</i>.</p> + +<p>As Tom you would not be his equal, because he is +Jim, therefore not Tom; as man you are the same +that he is. And, since as Tom you virtually do not +exist at all for him (so far, to wit, as he is a liberal +and not unconsciously an egoist), he has really made +"brother-love" very easy for himself: he loves in you +not Tom, of whom he knows nothing and wants to +know nothing, but Man.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_226" id="Page_226">[Pg 226]</a></span></p> + +<p>To see in you and me nothing further than "men," +that is running the Christian way of looking at things, +according to which one is for the other nothing but a +<i>concept</i> (<i>e. g.</i> a man called to salvation, etc.), into +the ground.</p> + +<p>Christianity properly so called gathers us under a +less utterly general concept: there we are "sons of +God" and "led by the Spirit of God."<a name="FNanchor_115_115" id="FNanchor_115_115"></a><a href="#Footnote_115_115" class="fnanchor">[115]</a> Yet not all +can boast of being God's sons, but "the same Spirit +which witnesses to our spirit that we are sons of God +reveals also who are the sons of the devil."<a name="FNanchor_116_116" id="FNanchor_116_116"></a><a href="#Footnote_116_116" class="fnanchor">[116]</a> Consequently, +to be a son of God one must not be a son +of the devil; the sonship of God excluded certain men. +To be <i>sons of men</i>,—<i>i. e.</i> men,—on the contrary, we +need nothing but to belong to the human <i>species</i>, need +only to be specimens of the same species. What I +am as this I is no concern of yours as a good liberal, +but is my <i>private affair</i> alone; enough that we are +both sons of one and the same mother, to wit, the human +species: as "a son of man" I am your equal.</p> + +<p>What am I now to you? Perhaps this <i>bodily I</i> as I +walk and stand? Anything but that. This bodily +I, with its thoughts, decisions, and passions, is in your +eyes a "private affair" which is no concern of yours: +it is an "affair by itself." As an "affair for you" +there exists only my concept, my generic concept, only +<i>the Man</i>, who, as he is called Tom, could just as well +be Joe or Dick. You see in me not me, the bodily +man, but an unreal thing, the spook, <i>i. e.</i> a <i>Man</i>.</p> + +<p>In the course of the Christian centuries we declared<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_227" id="Page_227">[Pg 227]</a></span> +the most various persons to be "our equals," but each +time in the measure of that <i>spirit</i> which we expected +from them,—<i>e. g.</i> each one in whom the spirit of the +need of redemption may be assumed, then later each +one who has the spirit of integrity, finally each one +who shows a human spirit and a human face. Thus +the fundamental principle of "equality" varied.</p> + +<p>Equality being now conceived as equality of the +<i>human spirit</i>, there has certainly been discovered an +equality that includes <i>all</i> men; for who could deny +that we men have a human spirit, <i>i. e.</i> no other than a +human!</p> + +<p>But are we on that account further on now than in +the beginning of Christianity? Then we were to have +a <i>divine spirit</i>, now a <i>human</i>; but, if the divine did +not exhaust us, how should the human wholly express +what we are? Feuerbach, <i>e. g.</i>, thinks that, if he humanizes +the divine, he has found the truth. No, if +God has given us pain, "Man" is capable of pinching +us still more torturingly. The long and the short of it +is this: that we are men is the slightest thing about us, +and has significance only in so far as it is one of our +<i>qualities</i>,<a name="FNanchor_117_117" id="FNanchor_117_117"></a><a href="#Footnote_117_117" class="fnanchor">[117]</a> <i>i. e.</i> our property.<a name="FNanchor_118_118" id="FNanchor_118_118"></a><a href="#Footnote_118_118" class="fnanchor">[118]</a> I am indeed among +other things a man, as I am, <i>e. g.</i>, a living being, +therefore an animal, or a European, a Berliner, and +the like; but he who chose to have regard for me only +as a man, or as a Berliner, would pay me a regard +that would be very unimportant to me. And wherefore? +Because he would have regard only for one of +my <i>qualities</i>, not for <i>me</i>.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_228" id="Page_228">[Pg 228]</a></span></p> + +<p>It is just so with the <i>spirit</i> too. A Christian spirit, +an upright spirit, and the like may well be my acquired +quality, <i>i. e.</i> my property, but I am not this +spirit: it is mine, not I its.</p> + +<p>Hence we have in liberalism only the continuation +of the old Christian depreciation of the I, the bodily +Tom. Instead of taking me as I am, one looks +solely at my property, my qualities, and enters into +marriage bonds with me only for the sake of my—possessions; +one marries, as it were, what I have, not +what I am. The Christian takes hold of my spirit, +the liberal of my humanity.</p> + +<p>But, if the spirit, which is not regarded as the <i>property</i> +of the bodily ego but as the proper ego itself, is a +ghost, then the Man too, who is not recognized as my +quality but as the proper I, is nothing but a spook, a +thought, a concept.</p> + +<p>Therefore the liberal too revolves in the same circle +as the Christian. Because the spirit of mankind, <i>i. e.</i> +Man, dwells in you, you are a man, as when the spirit +of Christ dwells in you you are a Christian; but, because +it dwells in you only as a second ego, even +though it be as your proper or "better" ego, it remains +otherworldly to you, and you have to strive to +become wholly man. A striving just as fruitless as +the Christian's to become wholly a blessed spirit!</p> + +<p>One can now, after liberalism has proclaimed Man, +declare openly that herewith was only completed the +consistent carrying out of Christianity, and that in +truth Christianity set itself no other task from the start +than to realize "man," the "true man." Hence, then, +the illusion that Christianity ascribes an infinite value<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_229" id="Page_229">[Pg 229]</a></span> +to the <i>ego</i> (as <i>e. g.</i> in the doctrine of immortality, in +the cure of souls, etc.) comes to light. No, it assigns +this value to <i>Man</i> alone. Only <i>Man</i> is immortal, and +only because I am man am I too immortal. In fact, +Christianity had to teach that no one is lost, just as +liberalism too puts all on an equality as men; but that +eternity, like this equality, applied only to the <i>Man</i> in +me, not to me. Only as the bearer and harborer of +Man do I not die, as notoriously "the king never +dies." Louis dies, but the king remains; I die, but +my spirit, Man, remains. To identify me now entirely +with Man the demand has been invented, and +stated, that I must become a "real generic being."<a name="FNanchor_119_119" id="FNanchor_119_119"></a><a href="#Footnote_119_119" class="fnanchor">[119]</a></p> + +<p>The <span class="smcap">HUMAN</span> <i>religion</i> is only the last metamorphosis +of the Christian religion. For liberalism is a religion +because it separates my essence from me and sets it +above me, because it exalts "Man" to the same extent +as any other religion does its God or idol, because +it makes what is mine into something otherworldly, +because in general it makes out of what is mine, out +of my qualities and my property, something alien,—to +wit, an "essence"; in short, because it sets me beneath +Man, and thereby creates for me a "vocation." +But liberalism declares itself a religion in form too +when it demands for this supreme being, Man, a zeal +of faith, "a faith that some day will at last prove its +fiery zeal too, a zeal that will be invincible."<a name="FNanchor_120_120" id="FNanchor_120_120"></a><a href="#Footnote_120_120" class="fnanchor">[120]</a> But, +as liberalism is a human religion, its professor takes +a <i>tolerant</i> attitude toward the professor of any other<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_230" id="Page_230">[Pg 230]</a></span> +(Catholic, Jewish, etc.), as Frederick the Great did toward +every one who performed his duties as a subject, +whatever fashion of becoming blest he might be inclined +toward. This religion is now to be raised to +the rank of the generally customary one, and separated +from the others as mere "private follies," toward +which, besides, one takes a highly <i>liberal</i> attitude on +account of their unessentialness.</p> + +<p>One may call it the <i>State-religion</i>, the religion of +the "free State," not in the sense hitherto current that +it is the one favored or privileged by the State, but as +that religion which the "free State" not only has the +right, but is compelled, to demand from each of those +who belong to it, let him be <i>privatim</i> a Jew, a Christian, +or anything else. For it does the same service +to the State as filial piety to the family. If the family +is to be recognized and maintained, in its existing +condition, by each one of those who belong to it, then +to him the tie of blood must be sacred, and his feeling +for it must be that of piety, of respect for the ties of +blood, by which every blood-relation becomes to him a +consecrated person. So also to every member of the +State-community this community must be sacred, and +the concept which is the highest to the State must likewise +be the highest to him.</p> + +<p>But what concept is the highest to the State? +Doubtless that of being a really human society, a society +in which every one who is really a man, <i>i. e. +not an un-man</i>, can obtain admission as a member. +Let a State's tolerance go ever so far, toward an un-man +and toward what is inhuman it ceases. And yet +this "un-man" is a man, yet the "inhuman" itself is<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_231" id="Page_231">[Pg 231]</a></span> +something human, yes, possible only to a man, not to +any beast; it is, in fact, something "possible to man." +But, although every un-man is a man, yet the State +excludes him; <i>i. e.</i>, it locks him up, or transforms him +from a fellow of the State into a fellow of the prison +(fellow of the lunatic asylum or hospital, according to +Communism).</p> + +<p>To say in blunt words what an un-man is is not +particularly hard: it is a man who does not correspond +to the <i>concept</i> man, as the inhuman is something +human which is not conformed to the concept of the +human. Logic calls this a "self-contradictory judgment." +Would it be permissible for one to pronounce +this judgment, that one can be a man without being a +man, if he did not admit the hypothesis that the concept +of man can be separated from the existence, the +essence from the appearance? They say, he <i>appears</i> +indeed as a man, but <i>is</i> not a man.</p> + +<p>Men have passed this "self-contradictory judgment" +through a long line of centuries! Nay, what is still +more, in this long time there were only—<i>un-men</i>. +What individual can have corresponded to his concept? +Christianity knows only one Man, and this +one—Christ—is at once an un-man again in the reverse +sense, to wit, a superhuman man, a "God." +Only the—un-man is a <i>real</i> man.</p> + +<p>Men that are not men, what should they be but +<i>ghosts</i>? Every real man, because he does not correspond +to the concept "man," or because he is not +a "generic man," is a spook. But do I still remain +an un-man even if I bring Man (who towered above +me and remained otherworldly to me only as my<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_232" id="Page_232">[Pg 232]</a></span> +ideal, my task, my essence or concept) down to be my +<i>quality</i>, my own and inherent in me; so that Man is +nothing else than my humanity, my human existence, +and everything that I do is human precisely because +<i>I</i> do it, but not because it corresponds to the <i>concept</i> +"man"? <i>I</i> am really Man and the un-man in one; +for I am a man and at the same time more than a +man; <i>i. e.</i>, I am the ego of this my mere quality.</p> + +<p>It had to come to this at last, that it was no longer +merely demanded of us to be Christians, but to become +men; for, though we could never really become even +Christians, but always remained "poor sinners" (for +the Christian was an unattainable ideal too), yet in +this the contradictoriness did not come before our +consciousness so, and the illusion was easier than now +when of us, who are men and act humanly (yes, cannot +do otherwise than be such and act so), the demand is +made that we are to be men, "real men."</p> + +<p>Our States of to-day, because they still have all sorts +of things sticking to them, left from their churchly +mother, do indeed load those who belong to them +with various obligations (<i>e. g.</i> churchly religiousness) +which properly do not a bit concern them, the States; +yet on the whole they do not deny their significance, +since they want to be looked upon as <i>human societies</i>, +in which man as man can be a member, even if he is +less privileged than other members; most of them admit +adherents of every religious sect, and receive people +without distinction of race or nation: Jews, Turks, +Moors, etc., can become French citizens. In the act +of reception, therefore, the State looks only to see +whether one is a <i>man</i>. The Church, as a society of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_233" id="Page_233">[Pg 233]</a></span> +believers, could not receive every man into her bosom; +the State, as a society of men, can. But, when the +State has carried its principle clear through, of presupposing +in its constituents nothing but that they are +men (even the North Americans still presuppose in +theirs that they have religion, at least the religion of +integrity, of respectability), then it has dug its grave. +While it will fancy that those whom it possesses are +without exception men, these have meanwhile become +without exception <i>egoists</i>, each of whom utilizes it according +to his egoistic powers and ends. Against the +egoists "human society" is wrecked; for they no +longer have to do with each other as <i>men</i>, but appear +egoistically as an <i>I</i> against a You altogether different +from me and in opposition to me.</p> + +<p>If the State must count on our humanity, it is the +same if one says it must count on our <i>morality</i>. Seeing +Man in each other, and acting as men toward each +other, is called moral behavior. This is every whit the +"spiritual love" of Christianity. For, if I see Man in +you, as in myself I see Man and nothing but Man, +then I care for you as I would care for myself; for we +represent, you see, nothing but the mathematical proposition: +A = C and B = C, consequently A = B,—<i>i. e.</i>, +I nothing but man and you nothing but man, +consequently I and you the same. Morality is incompatible +with egoism, because the former does not allow +validity to <i>me</i>, but only to the Man in me. But, if +the State is a <i>society of men</i>, not a union of egos each +of whom has only himself before his eyes, then it cannot +last without morality, and must insist on morality.</p> + +<p>Therefore we two, the State and I, are enemies. I,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_234" id="Page_234">[Pg 234]</a></span> +the egoist, have not at heart the welfare of this "human +society," I sacrifice nothing to it, I only utilize +it; but to be able to utilize it completely I transform +it rather into my property and my creature,—<i>i. e.</i> I +annihilate it, and form in its place the <i>Union of +Egoists</i>.</p> + +<p>So the State betrays its enmity to me by demanding +that I be a man, which presupposes that I may also +not be a man, but rank for it as an "un-man"; it +imposes being a man upon me as a <i>duty</i>. Further, +it desires me to do nothing along with which <i>it</i> cannot +last; so <i>its permanence</i> is to be sacred for me. Then +I am not to be an egoist, but a "respectable, upright," +<i>i. e.</i> moral, man. Enough, before it and its +permanence I am to be impotent and respectful,—etc.</p> + +<p>This State, not a present one indeed, but still in +need of being first created, is the ideal of advancing +liberalism. There is to come into existence a true +"society of men," in which every "man" finds room. +Liberalism means to realize "Man," <i>i. e.</i> create a +world for him; and this should be the <i>human</i> world or +the general (Communistic) society of men. It was said, +"The Church could regard only the spirit, the State is +to regard the whole man."<a name="FNanchor_121_121" id="FNanchor_121_121"></a><a href="#Footnote_121_121" class="fnanchor">[121]</a> But is not "Man" +"spirit"? The kernel of the State is simply "Man," +this unreality, and it itself is only a "society of men." +The world which the believer (believing spirit) creates +is called Church, the world which the man (human or +humane spirit) creates is called State. But that is not +<i>my</i> world. I never execute anything <i>human</i> in the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_235" id="Page_235">[Pg 235]</a></span> +abstract, but always my <i>own</i> things; <i>i. e.</i>, <i>my</i> human +act is diverse from every other human act, and only by +this diversity is it a real act belonging to me. The +human in it is an abstraction, and, as such, spirit, +<i>i. e.</i> abstracted essence.</p> + +<p>Br. Bauer states (<i>e. g.</i> "<i>Judenfrage</i>," p. 84) that +the truth of criticism is the final truth, and in fact the +truth sought for by Christianity itself,—to wit, +"Man." He says, "The history of the Christian world +is the history of the supreme fight for truth, for in it—and +in it only!—the thing at issue is the discovery +of the final or the primal truth—man and freedom."</p> + +<p>All right, let us accept this gain, and let us take +<i>man</i> as the ultimately found result of Christian +history and of the religious or ideal efforts of man in +general. Now, who is Man? <i>I</i> am! <i>Man</i>, the end +and outcome of Christianity, is, as <i>I</i>, the beginning +and raw material of the new history, a history of enjoyment +after the history of sacrifices, a history not of +man or humanity, but of—<i>me</i>. <i>Man</i> ranks as the +general. Now then, I and the egoistic are the really +general, since every one is an egoist and of paramount +importance to himself. The Jewish is not the purely +egoistic, because the Jew still devotes <i>himself</i> to +Jehovah; the Christian is not, because the Christian +lives on the grace of God and subjects <i>himself</i> to him. +As Jew and as Christian alike a man satisfies only +certain of his wants, only a certain need, not <i>himself</i>: +a <i>half</i>-egoism, because the egoism of a half-man, who +is half he, half Jew, or half his own proprietor, half a +slave. Therefore, too, Jew and Christian always half-way +exclude each other; <i>i. e.</i>, as men they recognize<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_236" id="Page_236">[Pg 236]</a></span> +each other, as slaves they exclude each other, because +they are servants of two different masters. If they +could be complete egoists, they would exclude each +other <i>wholly</i> and hold together so much the more +firmly. Their ignominy is not that they exclude each +other, but that this is done only <i>half-way</i>. Br. Bauer, +on the contrary, thinks Jews and Christians cannot regard +and treat each other as "men" till they give up +the separate essence which parts them and obligates +them to eternal separation, recognize the general +essence of "Man," and regard this as their "true +essence."</p> + +<p>According to his representation the defect of the +Jews and the Christians alike lies in their wanting to +be and have something "particular" instead of only +being men and endeavoring after what is human,—to +wit, the "general rights of man." He thinks their +fundamental error consists in the belief that they are +"privileged," possess "prerogatives"; in general, in +the belief in <i>prerogative</i>.<a name="FNanchor_122_122" id="FNanchor_122_122"></a><a href="#Footnote_122_122" class="fnanchor">[122]</a> In opposition to this he +holds up to them the general rights of man. The +rights of man!—</p> + +<p><i>Man is man in general</i>, and in so far every one who +is a man. Now every one is to have the eternal rights +of man, and, according to the opinion of Communism, +enjoy them in the complete "democracy," or, as it +ought more correctly to be called,—anthropocracy. +But it is I alone who have everything that I—procure +for myself; as man I have nothing. People would +like to give every man an affluence of all good, merely<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_237" id="Page_237">[Pg 237]</a></span> +because he has the title "man." But I put the accent +on me, not on my being <i>man</i>.</p> + +<p>Man is something only as <i>my quality</i><a name="FNanchor_123_123" id="FNanchor_123_123"></a><a href="#Footnote_123_123" class="fnanchor">[123]</a> (property<a name="FNanchor_124_124" id="FNanchor_124_124"></a><a href="#Footnote_124_124" class="fnanchor">[124]</a>), +like masculinity or femininity. The ancients found +the ideal in one's being <i>male</i> in the full sense; their +virtue is <i>virtus</i> and <i>arete</i>,—<i>i. e.</i> manliness. What is +one to think of a woman who should want only to be +perfectly "woman"? That is not given to all, and +many a one would therein be fixing for herself an +unattainable goal. <i>Feminine</i>, on the other hand, she +is anyhow, by nature; femininity is her quality, and +she does not need "true femininity." I am a man +just as the earth is a star. As ridiculous as it would +be to set the earth the task of being a "thorough +star," so ridiculous it is to burden me with the call to +be a "thorough man."</p> + +<p>When Fichte says, "The ego is all," this seems to +harmonize perfectly with my theses. But it is not that +the ego <i>is</i> all, but the ego <i>destroys</i> all, and only the +self-dissolving ego, the never-being ego, the—<i>finite</i> ego +is really I. Fichte speaks of the "absolute" ego, but +I speak of me, the transitory ego.</p> + +<p>How natural is the supposition that <i>man</i> and <i>ego</i> +mean the same! and yet one sees, <i>e. g.</i>, by Feuerbach, +that the expression "man" is to designate the absolute +ego, the <i>species</i>, not the transitory, individual ego. +Egoism and humanity (humaneness) ought to mean +the same, but according to Feuerbach the individual +can "only lift himself above the limits of his individuality, +but not above the laws, the positive ordinances,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_238" id="Page_238">[Pg 238]</a></span> +of his species."<a name="FNanchor_125_125" id="FNanchor_125_125"></a><a href="#Footnote_125_125" class="fnanchor">[125]</a> But the species is nothing, and, if +the individual lifts himself above the limits of his individuality, +this is rather his very self as an individual; +he exists only in raising himself, he exists only in +not remaining what he is; otherwise he would be +done, dead. Man with the great M is only an ideal, +the species only something thought of. To be <i>a</i> man +is not to realize the ideal of <i>Man</i>, but to present <i>oneself</i>, +the individual. It is not how I realize the <i>generally +human</i> that needs to be my task, but how I +satisfy myself. <i>I</i> am my species, am without norm, +without law, without model, and the like. It is possible +that I can make very little out of myself; but +this little is everything, and is better than what I allow +to be made out of me by the might of others, by +the training of custom, religion, the laws, the State, +etc. Better—if the talk is to be of better at all—better +an unmannerly child than an old head on +young shoulders, better a mulish man than a man compliant +in everything. The unmannerly and mulish +fellow is still on the way to form himself according to +his own will; the prematurely knowing and compliant +one is determined by the "species," the general demands, +etc.,—the species is law to him. He is <i>determined</i><a name="FNanchor_126_126" id="FNanchor_126_126"></a><a href="#Footnote_126_126" class="fnanchor">[126]</a> +by it; for what else is the species to him but +his "destiny,"<a name="FNanchor_127_127" id="FNanchor_127_127"></a><a href="#Footnote_127_127" class="fnanchor">[127]</a> his "calling"? Whether I look to +"humanity," the species, in order to strive toward this +ideal, or to God and Christ with like endeavor, where +is the essential dissimilarity? At most the former is<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_239" id="Page_239">[Pg 239]</a></span> +more washed-out than the latter. As the individual is +the whole of nature, so he is the whole of the species +too.</p> + +<p>Everything that I do, think, etc.,—in short, my expression +or manifestation—is indeed <i>conditioned</i> by +what I am. The Jew, <i>e. g.</i>, can will only thus or thus, +can "present himself" only thus; the Christian can +present and manifest himself only christianly, etc. If +it were possible that you could be a Jew or Christian, +you would indeed bring out only what was Jewish or +Christian; but it is not possible; in the most rigorous +conduct you yet remain an <i>egoist</i>, a sinner against +that concept—<i>i. e.</i>, <i>you</i> are not the precise equivalent +of Jew. Now, because the egoistic always keeps +peeping through, people have inquired for a more perfect +concept which should really wholly express what +you are, and which, because it is your true nature, +should contain all the laws of your activity. The most +perfect thing of the kind has been attained in "Man." +As a Jew you are too little, and the Jewish is not +your task; to be a Greek, a German, does not suffice. +But be a—man, then you have everything; look upon +the human as your calling.</p> + +<p>Now I know what is expected of me, and the new +catechism can be written. The subject is again subjected +to the predicate, the individual to something +general; the dominion is again secured to an <i>idea</i>, and +the foundation laid for a new <i>religion</i>. This is a <i>step +forward</i> in the domain of religion, and in particular +of Christianity; not a step out beyond it.</p> + +<p>The step out beyond it leads into the <i>unspeakable</i>. +For me paltry language has no word, and "the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_240" id="Page_240">[Pg 240]</a></span> +Word," the Logos, is to me a "mere word."</p> + +<p><i>My essence</i> is sought for. If not the Jew, the German, +etc., then at any rate it is—the man. "Man is +my essence."</p> + +<p>I am repulsive or repugnant to myself; I have a +horror and loathing of myself, I am a horror to myself, +or, I am never enough for myself and never do +enough to satisfy myself. From such feelings springs +self-dissolution or self-criticism. Religiousness begins +with self-renunciation, ends with completed criticism.</p> + +<p>I am possessed, and want to get rid of the "evil +spirit." How do I set about it? I fearlessly commit +the sin that seems to the Christian the direst, the sin +and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. "He who +blasphemes the Holy Spirit has no forgiveness forever, +but is liable to the eternal judgment!"<a name="FNanchor_128_128" id="FNanchor_128_128"></a><a href="#Footnote_128_128" class="fnanchor">[128]</a> I want no +forgiveness, and am not afraid of the judgment.</p> + +<p><i>Man</i> is the last evil <i>spirit</i> or spook, the most deceptive +or most intimate, the craftiest liar with honest +mien, the father of lies.</p> + +<p>The egoist, turning against the demands and concepts +of the present, executes pitilessly the most measureless—<i>desecration</i>. +Nothing is holy to him!</p> + +<p>It would be foolish to assert that there is no power +above mine. Only the attitude that I take toward it +will be quite another than that of the religious age: I +shall be the <i>enemy</i> of every higher power, while religion +teaches us to make it our friend and be humble +toward it.</p> + +<p>The <i>desecrator</i> puts forth his strength against every<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_241" id="Page_241">[Pg 241]</a></span> +<i>fear of God</i>, for fear of God would determine him in +everything that he left standing as sacred. Whether +it is the God or the Man that exercises the hallowing +power in the God-man,—whether, therefore, anything +is held sacred for God's sake or for Man's (Humanity's),—this +does not change the fear of God, since +Man is revered as "supreme essence," as much as on +the specifically religious standpoint God as "supreme +essence" calls for our fear and reverence; both overawe +us.</p> + +<p>The fear of God in the proper sense was shaken +long ago, and a more or less conscious "atheism," externally +recognizable by a wide-spread "unchurchliness," +has involuntarily become the mode. But what +was taken from God has been superadded to Man, and +the power of humanity grew greater in just the degree +that that of piety lost weight: "Man" is the God of +to-day, and fear of Man has taken the place of the old +fear of God.</p> + +<p>But, because Man represents only another Supreme +Being, nothing has in fact taken place but a metamorphosis +in the Supreme Being, and the fear of Man is +merely an altered form of the fear of God.</p> + +<p>Our atheists are pious people.</p> + +<p>If in the so-called feudal times we held everything +as a fief from God, in the liberal period the same +feudal relation exists with Man. God was the Lord, +now Man is the Lord; God was the Mediator, now +Man is; God was the Spirit, now Man is. In this +threefold regard the feudal relation has experienced a +transformation. For now, firstly, we hold as a fief +from all-powerful Man our <i>power</i>, which, because it<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_242" id="Page_242">[Pg 242]</a></span> +comes from a higher, is not called power or might, but +"right,"—the "rights of man"; we further hold as a +fief from him our position in the world, for he, the +mediator, mediates our <i>intercourse</i> with others, which +therefore may not be otherwise than "human"; finally, +we hold as a fief from him <i>ourselves</i>,—to wit, our +own value, or all that we are worth,—inasmuch as we +are worth nothing when <i>he</i> does not dwell in us, and +when or where we are not "human." The power is +Man's, the world is Man's, I am Man's.</p> + +<p>But am I not still unrestrained from declaring <i>myself</i> +the entitler, the mediator, and the own self? +Then it runs thus:</p> + +<p>My power <i>is</i> my property.</p> + +<p>My power <i>gives</i> me property.</p> + +<p>My power <i>am</i> I myself, and through it am I my +property.</p> + + +<h3>I.—MY POWER</h3> + +<p><i>Right</i><a name="FNanchor_129_129" id="FNanchor_129_129"></a><a href="#Footnote_129_129" class="fnanchor">[129]</a> is the <i>spirit of society</i>. If society has a +<i>will</i>, this will is simply right: society exists only +through right. But, as it endures only by exercising +a <i>sovereignty</i> over individuals, right is its <span class="smcap">SOVEREIGN +WILL</span>. Aristotle says justice is the advantage of <i>society</i>.</p> + +<p>All existing right is—<i>foreign law</i>; some one makes +me out to be in the right, "does right by me." But +should I therefore be in the right if all the world +made me out so? And yet what else is the right that +I obtain in the State, in society, but a right of those<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_243" id="Page_243">[Pg 243]</a></span> +<i>foreign</i> to me? When a blockhead makes me out in +the right, I grow distrustful of my rightness; I don't +like to receive it from him. But, even when a wise +man makes me out in the right, I nevertheless am not +in the right on that account. Whether <i>I</i> am in the +right is completely independent of the fool's making +out and of the wise man's.</p> + +<p>All the same, we have coveted this right till now. +We seek for right, and turn to the court for that purpose. +To what? To a royal, a papal, a popular +court, etc. Can a sultanic court declare another +right than that which the sultan has ordained to be +right? Can it make me out in the right if I seek for +a right that does not agree with the sultan's law? +Can it, <i>e. g.</i>, concede to me high treason as a right, +since it is assuredly not a right according to the +sultan's mind? Can it as a court of censorship allow +me the free utterance of opinion as a right, since the +sultan will hear nothing of this <i>my</i> right? What am +I seeking for in this court, then? I am seeking for +sultanic right, not <i>my</i> right; I am seeking for—<i>foreign</i> +right. As long as this foreign right harmonizes +with mine, to be sure, I shall find in it the latter +too.</p> + +<p>The State does not permit pitching into each other +man to man; it opposes the <i>duel</i>. Even every ordinary +appeal to blows, notwithstanding that neither of +the fighters calls the police to it, is punished; except +when it is not an I whacking away at a you, but, say, +the <i>head of a family</i> at the child. The <i>family</i> is entitled +to this, and in its name the father; I as Ego +am not.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_244" id="Page_244">[Pg 244]</a></span></p> + +<p>The "<i>Vossische Zeitung</i>" presents to us the "commonwealth +of right." There everything is to be decided +by the judge and a <i>court</i>. It ranks the supreme +court of censorship as a "court" where "right is declared" +What sort of a right? The right of the +censorship. To recognize the sentences of that court +as right one must regard the censorship as right. +But it is thought nevertheless that this court offers a +protection. Yes, protection against an individual +censor's error: it protects only the censorship-legislator +against false interpretation of his will, at the same +time making his statute, by the "sacred power of +right," all the firmer against writers.</p> + +<p>Whether I am in the right or not there is no judge +but myself. Others can judge only whether they endorse +my right, and whether it exists as right for +them too.</p> + +<p>In the meantime let us take the matter yet another +way. I am to reverence sultanic law in the sultanate, +popular law in republics, canon law in Catholic communities, +etc. To these laws I am to subordinate myself; +I am to regard them as sacred. A "sense of +right" and "law-abiding mind" of such a sort is so +firmly planted in people's heads that the most revolutionary +persons of our days want to subject us to a +new "sacred law," the "law of society," the law of +mankind, the "right of all," and the like. The +right of "all" is to go before <i>my</i> right. As a right +of all it would indeed be my right among the rest, +since I, with the rest, am included in all; but that it +is at the same time a right of others, or even of all +others, does not move me to its upholding. Not as a<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_245" id="Page_245">[Pg 245]</a></span> +<i>right of all</i> will I defend it, but as <i>my</i> right; and +then every other may see to it how he shall likewise +maintain it for himself. The right of all (<i>e. g.</i> to +eat) is a right of every individual. Let each keep +this right unabridged for <i>himself</i>, then all exercise it +spontaneously; let him not take care for all though,—let +him not grow zealous for it as for a right of all.</p> + +<p>But the social reformers preach to us a "<i>law of society</i>." +There the individual becomes society's slave, +and is in the right only when society <i>makes him out</i> in +the right, <i>i. e.</i> when he lives according to society's +<i>statutes</i> and so is—<i>loyal</i>. Whether I am loyal under +a despotism or in a "society" <i>à la</i> Weitling, it is the +same absence of right in so far as in both cases I have +not <i>my</i> right but <i>foreign</i> right.</p> + +<p>In considerations of right the question is always +asked, "What or who gives me the right to it?" Answer: +God, love, reason, nature, humanity, etc. No, +only <i>your might</i>, <i>your</i> power gives you the right +(your reason, <i>e. g.</i>, may give it to you).</p> + +<p>Communism, which assumes that men "have equal +rights by nature," contradicts its own proposition till +it comes to this, that men have no right at all by nature. +For it is not willing to recognize, <i>e. g.</i>, that +parents have "by nature" rights as against their +children, or the children as against the parents: it +abolishes the family. Nature gives parents, brothers, +etc., no right at all. Altogether, this entire revolutionary +or Babouvist principle<a name="FNanchor_130_130" id="FNanchor_130_130"></a><a href="#Footnote_130_130" class="fnanchor">[130]</a> rests on a religious, +<i>i. e.</i> false, view of things. Who can ask after "right"<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_246" id="Page_246">[Pg 246]</a></span> +if he does not occupy the religious standpoint himself? +Is not "right" a religious concept, <i>i. e.</i> something +sacred? Why, "<i>equality of rights</i>," as the Revolution +propounded it, is only another name for "Christian +equality," the "equality of the brethren," "of +God's children," "of Christians," etc.: in short +<i>fraternité</i>. Each and every inquiry after right +deserves to be lashed with Schillers words:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +Many a year I've used my nose<br /> +To smell the onion and the rose;<br /> +Is there any proof which shows<br /> +That I've a right to that same nose?<br /> +</p></div> + +<p>When the Revolution stamped equality as a +"right," it took flight into the religious domain, +into the region of the sacred, of the ideal. Hence, +since then, the fight for the "sacred, inalienable +rights of man." Against the "eternal rights of man" +the "well-earned rights of the established order" are +quite naturally, and with equal right, brought to +bear: right against right, where of course one is decried +by the other as "wrong." This has been the +<i>contest of rights</i><a name="FNanchor_131_131" id="FNanchor_131_131"></a><a href="#Footnote_131_131" class="fnanchor">[131]</a> since the Revolution.</p> + +<p>You want to be "in the right" as against the rest. +That you cannot; as against them you remain forever +"in the wrong"; for they surely would not be your +opponents if they were not in "their right" too; +they will always make you out "in the wrong." But, +as against the right of the rest, yours is a higher, +greater, <i>more powerful</i> right, is it not? No such +thing! Your right is not more powerful if you are<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_247" id="Page_247">[Pg 247]</a></span> +not more powerful. Have Chinese subjects a right to +freedom? Just bestow it on them, and then look how +far you have gone wrong in your attempt: because +they do not know how to use freedom they have no +right to it, or, in clearer terms, because they have +not freedom they have not the right to it. Children +have no right to the condition of majority because +they are not of age, <i>i. e.</i> because they are children. +Peoples that let themselves be kept in nonage have no +right to the condition of majority; if they ceased to be +in nonage, then only would they have the right to be +of age. This means nothing else than "What you +have the <i>power</i> to be you have the <i>right</i> to." I derive +all right and all warrant from <i>me</i>; I am <i>entitled</i> to +everything that I have in my power. I am entitled to +overthrow Zeus, Jehovah, God, etc., if I <i>can</i>; if I cannot, +then these gods will always remain in the right +and in power as against me, and what I do will be to +fear their right and their power in impotent "god-fearingness," +to keep their commandments and believe that +I do right in everything that I do according to <i>their</i> +right, about as the Russian boundary-sentinels think +themselves rightfully entitled to shoot dead the suspicious +persons who are escaping, since they murder "by +superior authority," <i>i. e.</i> "with right." But I am entitled +by myself to murder if I myself do not forbid +it to myself, if I myself do not fear murder as a +"wrong." This view of things lies at the foundation +of Chamisso's poem, "The Valley of Murder," where +the gray-haired Indian murderer compels reverence +from the white man whose brethren he has murdered. +The only thing I am not entitled to is what I do not<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_248" id="Page_248">[Pg 248]</a></span> +do with a free cheer, <i>i. e.</i> what <i>I</i> do not entitle myself +to.</p> + +<p><i>I</i> decide whether it is the <i>right thing</i> in <i>me</i>; there +is no right <i>outside</i> me. If it is right for <i>me</i>,<a name="FNanchor_132_132" id="FNanchor_132_132"></a><a href="#Footnote_132_132" class="fnanchor">[132]</a> it is +right. Possibly this may not suffice to make it right +for the rest; that is their care, not mine: let them defend +themselves. And if for the whole world something +were not right, but it were right for me, <i>i. e.</i> I +wanted it, then I would ask nothing about the whole +world. So every one does who knows how to value +<i>himself</i>, every one in the degree that he is an egoist; +for might goes before right, and that—with perfect +right.</p> + +<p>Because I am "by nature" a man I have an equal +right to the enjoyment of all goods, says Babeuf. +Must he not also say: because I am "by nature" a +first-born prince I have a right to the throne? The +rights of man and the "well-earned rights" come to +the same thing in the end, to wit, to <i>nature</i>, which +<i>gives</i> me a right, <i>i. e.</i> to <i>birth</i> (and, further, inheritance, +etc.). "I am born as a man" is equal to "I am +born as a king's son." The natural man has only a +natural right (because he has only a natural power) +and natural claims: he has right of birth and claims +of birth. But <i>nature</i> cannot entitle me, <i>i. e.</i> give me +capacity or might, to that to which only my act +entitles me. That the king's child sets himself above +other children, even this is his act, which secures to +him the precedence; and that the other children approve +and recognize this act is their act, which makes<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_249" id="Page_249">[Pg 249]</a></span> +them worthy to be—subjects.</p> + +<p>Whether nature gives me a right, or whether God, +the people's choice, etc., does so, all of that is the same +<i>foreign</i> right, a right that <i>I</i> do not give or take to +myself.</p> + +<p>Thus the Communists say, equal labor entitles man +to equal enjoyment. Formerly the question was +raised whether the "virtuous" man must not be +"happy" on earth. The Jews actually drew this inference: +"That it may go well with thee on earth." +No, equal labor does not entitle you to it, but equal +enjoyment alone entitles you to equal enjoyment. +Enjoy, then you are entitled to enjoyment. But, if +you have labored and let the enjoyment be taken from +you, then—"it serves you right."</p> + +<p>If you <i>take</i> the enjoyment, it is your right; if, on +the contrary, you only pine for it without laying hands +on it, it remains as before, a "well-earned right" of +those who are privileged for enjoyment. It is <i>their</i> +right, as by laying hands on it it would become <i>your</i> +right.</p> + +<p>The conflict over the "right of property" wavers in +vehement commotion. The Communists affirm<a name="FNanchor_133_133" id="FNanchor_133_133"></a><a href="#Footnote_133_133" class="fnanchor">[133]</a> that +"the earth belongs rightfully to him who tills it, and +its products to those who bring them out." I think it +belongs to him who knows how to take it, or who does +not let it be taken from him, does not let himself be +deprived of it. If he appropriates it, then not only the +earth, but the right to it too, belongs to him. This +is <i>egoistic right</i>: <i>i. e.</i>, it is right for <i>me</i>, therefore<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_250" id="Page_250">[Pg 250]</a></span> +it is right.</p> + +<p>Aside from this, right does have "a wax nose." +The tiger that assails me is in the right, and I who +strike him down am also in the right. I defend +against him not my <i>right</i>, but <i>myself</i>.</p> + +<p>As human right is always something given, it +always in reality reduces to the right which men +give. <i>i. e.</i> "concede," to each other. If the right +to existence is conceded to new-born children, then +they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as +was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, +then they do not have it. For only society can give +or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, +or give it to themselves. It will be objected, the +children had nevertheless "by nature" the right to +exist; only the Spartans refused <i>recognition</i> to this +right. But then they simply had no right to this +recognition,—no more than they had to recognition +of their life by the wild beasts to which they were +thrown.</p> + +<p>People talk so much about <i>birthright</i>, and complain:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +There is—alas!—no mention of the rights<br /> +That were born with us.<a name="FNanchor_134_134" id="FNanchor_134_134"></a><a href="#Footnote_134_134" class="fnanchor">[134]</a><br /> +</p></div> + +<p>What sort of right, then, is there that was born with +me? The right to receive an entailed estate, to +inherit a throne, to enjoy a princely or noble education; +or, again, because poor parents begot me, to—get +free schooling, be clothed out of contributions of +alms, and at last earn my bread and my herring in<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_251" id="Page_251">[Pg 251]</a></span> +the coal-mines or at the loom? Are these not birthrights, +rights that have come down to me from my +parents through <i>birth</i>? You think—no; you think +these are only rights improperly so called, it is just +these rights that you aim to abolish through the <i>real +birthright</i>. To give a basis for this you go back to +the simplest thing and affirm that every one is by +birth <i>equal</i> to another,—to wit, a <i>man</i>. I will grant +you that every one is born as man, hence the new-born +are therein <i>equal</i> to each other. Why are they? +Only because they do not yet show and exert themselves +as anything but bare—<i>children of men</i>, naked +little human beings. But thereby they are at once different +from those who have already made something +out of themselves, who thus are no longer bare "children +of men," but—children of their own creation. +The latter possess more than bare birthrights: they +have <i>earned</i> rights. What an antithesis, what a field +of combat! The old combat of the birthrights of man +and well-earned rights. Go right on appealing to +your birthrights; people will not fail to oppose to you +the well-earned. Both stand on the "ground of +right"; for each of the two has a "right" against +the other, the one the birthright or natural right, the +other the earned or "well-earned" right.</p> + +<p>If you remain on the ground of right, you remain +in—<i>Rechthaberei</i>.<a name="FNanchor_135_135" id="FNanchor_135_135"></a><a href="#Footnote_135_135" class="fnanchor">[135]</a> The other cannot give you your +right; he cannot "mete out right" to you. He who +has might has—right; if you have not the former,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_252" id="Page_252">[Pg 252]</a></span> +neither have you the latter. Is this wisdom so hard to +attain? Just look at the mighty and their doings! +We are talking here only of China and Japan, of +course. Just try it once, you Chinese and Japanese, to +make them out in the wrong, and learn by experience +how they throw you into jail. (Only do not confuse +with this the "well-meaning counsels" which—in +China and Japan—are permitted, because they do not +hinder the mighty one, but possibly <i>help him on</i>.) +For him who should want to make them out in the +wrong there would stand open only one way thereto, +that of might. If he deprives them of their <i>might</i>, +then he has <i>really</i> made them out in the wrong, deprived +them of their right; in any other case he can do +nothing but clench his little fist in his pocket, or fall a +victim as an obtrusive fool.</p> + +<p>In short, if you Chinese and Japanese did not ask +after right, and in particular if you did not ask after +the rights "that were born with you," then you would +not need to ask at all after the well-earned rights +either.</p> + +<p>You start back in fright before others, because you +think you see beside them the <i>ghost of right</i>, which, +as in the Homeric combats, seems to fight as a +goddess at their side, helping them. What do you +do? Do you throw the spear? No, you creep +around to gain the spook over to yourselves, that it +may fight on your side: you woo for the ghost's favor. +Another would simply ask thus: Do I will what my +opponent wills? "No!" Now then, there may +fight for him a thousand devils or gods, I go at him +all the same!<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_253" id="Page_253">[Pg 253]</a></span></p> + +<p>The "commonwealth of right," as the "<i>Vossische +Zeitung</i>" among others stands for it, asks that office-holders +be removable only by the <i>judge</i>, not by the +<i>administration</i>. Vain illusion! If it were settled by +law that an office-holder who is once seen drunken +shall lose his office, then the judges would have to +condemn him on the word of the witnesses, etc. In +short, the lawgiver would only have to state precisely +all the possible grounds which entail the loss of office, +however laughable they might be (<i>e. g.</i> he who laughs +in his superiors' faces, who does not go to church +every Sunday, who does not take the communion every +four weeks, who runs in debt, who has disreputable +associates, who shows no determination, etc., shall be +removed. These things the lawgiver might take it +into his head to prescribe, <i>e. g.</i>, for a court of honor); +then the judge would solely have to investigate +whether the accused had "become guilty" of those +"offences," and, on presentation of the proof, pronounce +sentence of removal against him "in the name +of the law."</p> + +<p>The judge is lost when he ceases to be <i>mechanical</i>, +when he "is forsaken by the rules of evidence." Then +he no longer has anything but an opinion like everybody +else; and, if he decides according to this <i>opinion</i>, +his action is <i>no longer an official action</i>. As judge he +must decide only according to the law. Commend +me rather to the old French parliaments, which +wanted to examine for themselves what was to be +matter of right, and to register it only after their own +approval. They at least judged according to a right +of their own, and were not willing to give themselves<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_254" id="Page_254">[Pg 254]</a></span> +up to be machines of the lawgiver, although as judges +they must, to be sure, become their own machines.</p> + +<p>It is said that punishment is the criminal's right. +But impunity is just as much his right. If his undertaking +succeeds, it serves him right, and, if it does +not succeed, it likewise serves him right. You make +your bed and lie in it. If some one goes foolhardily +into dangers and perishes in them, we are apt to say, +"It serves him right; he would have it so." But, if +he conquered the dangers, <i>i. e.</i> if his <i>might</i> was victorious, +then he would be in the <i>right</i> too. If a child +plays with the knife and gets cut, it is served right; +but, if it doesn't get cut, it is served right too. +Hence right befalls the criminal, doubtless, when he +suffers what he risked; why, what did he risk it for, +since he knew the possible consequences? But the +punishment that we decree against him is only our +right, not his. Our right reacts against his, and he is +"in the wrong at last" because—we get the upper +hand.</p> + +<hr style='width: 45%;' /> + +<p>But what is right, what is matter of right in a society, +is voiced too—in the <i>law</i>.<a name="FNanchor_136_136" id="FNanchor_136_136"></a><a href="#Footnote_136_136" class="fnanchor">[136]</a></p> + +<p>Whatever the law may be, it must be respected by +the—loyal citizen. Thus the law-abiding mind of +Old England is eulogized. To this that Euripidean +sentiment (Orestes, 418) entirely corresponds: "We +serve the gods, whatever the gods are." <i>Law as such, +God as such</i>, thus far we are to-day.</p> + +<p>People are at pains to distinguish <i>law</i> from arbi<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_255" id="Page_255">[Pg 255]</a></span>trary +<i>orders</i>, from an ordinance: the former comes +from a duly entitled authority. But a law over human +action (ethical law, State law, etc.) is always a +<i>declaration of will</i>, and so an order. Yes, even if I +myself gave myself the law, it would yet be only my +order, to which in the next moment I can refuse obedience. +One may well enough declare what he will put +up with, and so deprecate the opposite by a law, making +known that in the contrary case he will treat the +transgressor as his enemy; but no one has any business +to command <i>my</i> actions, to say what course I +shall pursue and set up a code to govern it. I must +put up with it that he treats me as his <i>enemy</i>, but +never that he makes free with me as his <i>creature</i>, and +that he makes <i>his</i> reason, or even unreason, my +plumb-line.</p> + +<p>States last only so long as there is a <i>ruling will</i> and +this ruling will is looked upon as tantamount to the +own will. The lord's will is—law. What do your +laws amount to if no one obeys them? what your +orders, if nobody lets himself be ordered? The State +cannot forbear the claim to determine the individual's +will, to speculate and count on this. For the State +it is indispensable that nobody have an <i>own will</i>; if +one had, the State would have to exclude (lock up, +banish, etc.) this one; if all had, they would do away +with the State. The State is not thinkable without +lordship and servitude (subjection); for the State +must will to be the lord of all that it embraces, and +this will is called the "will of the State."</p> + +<p>He who, to hold his own, must count on the absence +of will in others is a thing made by these others, as<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_256" id="Page_256">[Pg 256]</a></span> +the master is a thing made by the servant. If submissiveness +ceased, it would be all over with lordship.</p> + +<p>The <i>own will</i> of Me is the State's destroyer; it is +therefore branded by the State as "self-will." Own +will and the State are powers in deadly hostility, between +which no "eternal peace" is possible. As long +as the State asserts itself, it represents own will, its +ever-hostile opponent, as unreasonable, evil, etc.; and +the latter lets itself be talked into believing this,—nay, +it really is such, for no more reason than this, that it +still lets itself be talked into such belief: it has not +yet come to itself and to the consciousness of its dignity; +hence it is still incomplete, still amenable to fine +words, etc.</p> + +<p>Every State is a <i>despotism</i>, be the despot one or +many, or (as one is likely to imagine about a republic) +if all be lords, <i>i. e.</i> despotize one over another. For +this is the case when the law given at any time, the expressed +volition of (it may be) a popular assembly, is +thenceforth to be <i>law</i> for the individual, to which +<i>obedience is due</i> from him, or toward which he has the +<i>duty</i> of obedience. If one were even to conceive the +case that every individual in the people had expressed +the same will, and hereby a complete "collective will" +had come into being, the matter would still remain +the same. Would I not be bound to-day and henceforth +to my will of yesterday? My will would in this +case be <i>frozen</i>. Wretched <i>stability</i>! My creature—to +wit, a particular expression of will—would have +become my commander. But I in my will, I the +creator, should be hindered in my flow and my dissolution. +Because I was a fool yesterday I must remain<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_257" id="Page_257">[Pg 257]</a></span> +such my life long. So in the State-life I am at best—I +might just as well say, at worst—a bondman of myself. +Because I was a willer yesterday, I am to-day +without will: yesterday voluntary, to-day involuntary.</p> + +<p>How change it? Only by recognizing no <i>duty</i>, <i>i. e.</i> +not <i>binding</i> myself nor letting myself be bound. If I +have no duty, then I know no law either.</p> + +<p>"But they will bind me!" My will nobody can +bind, and my disinclination remains free.</p> + +<p>"Why, everything must go topsy-turvy if every one +could do what he would!" Well, who says that +every one can do everything? What are you there +for, pray, you who do not need to put up with +everything? Defend yourself, and no one will do +anything to you! He who would break your will has +to do with you, and is your <i>enemy</i>. Deal with him as +such. If there stand behind you for your protection +some millions more, then you are an imposing power +and will have an easy victory. But, even if as a +power you overawe your opponent, still you are not +on that account a hallowed authority to him, unless +he be a simpleton. He does not owe you respect and +regard, even though he will have to consider your +might.</p> + +<p>We are accustomed to classify States according to +the different ways in which "the supreme might" is +distributed. If an individual has it—monarchy; if +all have it—democracy; etc. Supreme might then! +Might against whom? Against the individual and his +"self-will." The State practises "violence," the +individual must not do so. The State's behavior is +violence, and it calls its violence "law"; that of the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_258" id="Page_258">[Pg 258]</a></span> +individual, "crime." Crime,<a name="FNanchor_137_137" id="FNanchor_137_137"></a><a href="#Footnote_137_137" class="fnanchor">[137]</a> then,—so the individual's +violence is called; and only by crime does he +overcome<a name="FNanchor_138_138" id="FNanchor_138_138"></a><a href="#Footnote_138_138" class="fnanchor">[138]</a> the State's violence when he thinks that +the State is not above him, but he above the State.</p> + +<p>Now, if I wanted to act ridiculously, I might, as a +well-meaning person, admonish you not to make laws +which impair my self-development, self-activity, self-creation. +I do not give this advice. For, if you +should follow it, you would be unwise, and I should +have been cheated of my entire profit. I request +nothing at all from you; for, whatever I might demand, +you would still be dictatorial lawgivers, and +must be so, because a raven cannot sing, nor a robber +live without robbery. Rather do I ask those who +would be egoists what they think the more egoistic,—to +let laws be given them by you, and to respect those +that are given, or to practise <i>refractoriness</i>, yes, complete +disobedience. Good-hearted people think the +laws ought to prescribe only what is accepted in the +people's feeling as right and proper. But what concern +is it of mine what is accepted in the nation and +by the nation? The nation will perhaps be against +the blasphemer; therefore a law against blasphemy. +Am I not to blaspheme on that account? Is this law +to be more than an "order" to me? I put the +question.</p> + +<p>Solely from the principle that all <i>right</i> and all +<i>authority</i> belong to the <i>collectivity of the people</i> do +all forms of government arise. For none of them +lacks this appeal to the collectivity, and the despot, as<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_259" id="Page_259">[Pg 259]</a></span> +well as the president or any aristocracy, etc., acts and +commands "in the name of the State." They are in +possession of the "authority of the State," and it is +perfectly indifferent whether, were this possible, the +people as a <i>collectivity</i> (all individuals) exercise this +State-<i>authority</i>, or whether it is only the representatives +of this collectivity, be there many of them as in +aristocracies or one as in monarchies. Always the collectivity +is above the individual, and has a power +which is called <i>legitimate</i>, <i>i. e.</i> which is <i>law</i>.</p> + +<p>Over against the sacredness of the State, the individual +is only a vessel of dishonor, in which "exuberance, +malevolence, mania for ridicule and slander, +frivolity," etc., are left as soon as he does not deem +that object of veneration, the State, to be worthy of +recognition. The spiritual <i>haughtiness</i> of the servants +and subjects of the State has fine penalties against +unspiritual "exuberance."</p> + +<p>When the government designates as punishable an +play of mind <i>against</i> the State, the moderate liberals +come and opine that fun, satire, wit, humor, etc., must +have free play anyhow, and <i>genius</i> must enjoy freedom. +So not the <i>individual man</i> indeed, but still +<i>genius</i>, is to be free. Here the State, or in its name +the government, says with perfect right: He who is not +for me is against me. Fun, wit, etc.,—in short, the +turning of State affairs into a comedy,—have undermined +States from of old: they are not "innocent." +And, further, what boundaries are to be drawn between +guilty and innocent wit, etc.? At this question the +moderates fall into great perplexity, and everything +reduces itself to the prayer that the State (govern<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_260" id="Page_260">[Pg 260]</a></span>ment) +would please not be so <i>sensitive</i>, so <i>ticklish</i>; +that it would not immediately scent malevolence in +"harmless" things, and would in general be a little +"more tolerant." Exaggerated sensitiveness is certainly +a weakness, its avoidance may be a praiseworthy +virtue; but in time of war one cannot be sparing, and +what may be allowed under peaceable circumstances +ceases to be permitted as soon as a state of siege is declared. +Because the well-meaning liberals feel this +plainly, they hasten to declare that, considering "the +devotion of the people," there is assuredly no danger +to be feared. But the government will be wiser, and +not let itself be talked into believing anything of that +sort. It knows too well how people stuff one with fine +words, and will not let itself be satisfied with this +Barmecide dish.</p> + +<p>But they are bound to have their play-ground, for +they are children, you know, and cannot be so staid as +old folks; boys will be boys.</p> + +<p>Only for this play-ground, only for a few hours of +jolly running about, they bargain. They ask only +that the State should not, like a splenetic papa, be too +cross. It should permit some Processions of the Ass +and plays of fools, as the church allowed them in the +Middle Ages. But the times when it could grant this +without danger are past. Children that now once +come <i>into the open</i>, and live through an hour without +the rod of discipline, are no longer willing to go into +the <i>cell</i>. For the open is now no longer a <i>supplement</i> +to the cell, no longer a refreshing <i>recreation</i>, but its +<i>opposite</i>, an <i>aut—aut</i>. In short, the State must +either no longer put up with anything, or put up with<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_261" id="Page_261">[Pg 261]</a></span> +everything and perish; it must be either sensitive +through and through, or, like a dead man, insensitive. +Tolerance is done with. If the State but gives a +finger, they take the whole hand at once. There can +be no more "jesting," and all jest, such as fun, wit, +humor, etc., becomes bitter earnest.</p> + +<p>The clamor of the Liberals for freedom of the press +runs counter to their own principle, their proper +<i>will</i>. They will what they <i>do not will</i>, <i>i. e.</i> they wish, +they would like. Hence it is too that they fall away +so easily when once so-called freedom of the press +appears; then they would like censorship. Quite +naturally. The State is sacred even to them; likewise +morals, etc. They behave toward it only as ill-bred +brats, as tricky children who seek to utilize the weaknesses +of their parents. Papa State is to permit them +to say many things that do not please him, but papa +has the right, by a stern look, to blue-pencil their +impertinent gabble. If they recognize in him their +papa, they must in his presence put up with the censorship +of speech, like every child.</p> + +<hr style='width: 45%;' /> + +<p>If you let yourself be made out in the right by another, +you must no less let yourself be made out in +the wrong by him; if justification and reward come to +you from him, expect also his arraignment and punishment. +Alongside right goes wrong, alongside legality +<i>crime</i>. What are <i>you</i>?—<i>You</i> are a——<i>criminal</i>!</p> + +<p>"The criminal is in the utmost degree the State's +own crime!" says Bettina.<a name="FNanchor_139_139" id="FNanchor_139_139"></a><a href="#Footnote_139_139" class="fnanchor">[139]</a> One may let this senti<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_262" id="Page_262">[Pg 262]</a></span>ment +pass, even if Bettina herself does not understand +it exactly so. For in the State the unbridled I—I, +as I belong to myself alone—cannot come to my fulfilment +and realization. Every ego is from birth a +criminal to begin with against the people, the State. +Hence it is that it does really keep watch over all; it +sees in each one an—egoist, and it is afraid of the +egoist. It presumes the worst about each one, and +takes care, police-care, that "no harm happens to the +State," <i>ne quid respublica detrimenti capiat</i>. The +unbridled ego—and this we originally are, and in +our secret inward parts we remain so always—is the +never-ceasing criminal in the State. The man whom +his boldness, his will, his inconsiderateness and fearlessness +lead is surrounded with spies by the State, by +the people. I say, by the people! The people (think +it something wonderful, you good-hearted folks, what +you have in the people)—the people is full of police +sentiments through and through.—Only he who renounces +his ego, who practises "self-renunciation," is +acceptable to the people.</p> + +<p>In the book cited Bettina is throughout good-natured +enough to regard the State as only sick, and +to hope for its recovery, a recovery which she would +bring about through the "demagogues";<a name="FNanchor_140_140" id="FNanchor_140_140"></a><a href="#Footnote_140_140" class="fnanchor">[140]</a> but it is +not sick; rather is it in its full strength, when it puts +from it the demagogues who want to acquire something +for the individuals, for "all." In its believers it +is provided with the best demagogues (leaders of the +people). According to Bettina, the State is to<a name="FNanchor_141_141" id="FNanchor_141_141"></a><a href="#Footnote_141_141" class="fnanchor">[141]</a><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_263" id="Page_263">[Pg 263]</a></span> +"develop mankind's germ of freedom; otherwise it is a +raven-mother<a name="FNanchor_142_142" id="FNanchor_142_142"></a><a href="#Footnote_142_142" class="fnanchor">[142]</a> and caring for raven-fodder!" It +cannot do otherwise, for in its very caring for "mankind" +(which, besides, would have to be the "humane" +or "free" State to begin with) the "individual" +is raven-fodder for it. How rightly speaks +the burgomaster, on the other hand:<a name="FNanchor_143_143" id="FNanchor_143_143"></a><a href="#Footnote_143_143" class="fnanchor">[143]</a> "What? the +State has no other duty than to be merely the attendant +of incurable invalids?—That isn't to the point. +From of old the healthy State has relieved itself of the +diseased matter, and not mixed itself with it. It does +not need to be so economical with its juices. Cut off +the robber-branches without hesitation, that the others +may bloom.—Do not shiver at the State's harshness; +its morality, its policy and religion, point it to that. +Accuse it of no want of feeling; its sympathy revolts +against this, but its experience finds safety only in this +severity! There are diseases in which only drastic +remedies will help. The physician who recognizes the +disease as such, but timidly turns to palliatives, will +never remove the disease, but may well cause the +patient to succumb after a shorter or longer sickness!" +Frau Rat's question, "If you apply death as a +drastic remedy, how is the cure to be wrought then?" +isn't to the point. Why, the State does not apply +death against itself, but against an offensive member; +it tears out an eye that offends it, etc.</p> + +<p>"For the invalid State the only way of salvation is +to make man flourish in it."<a name="FNanchor_144_144" id="FNanchor_144_144"></a><a href="#Footnote_144_144" class="fnanchor">[144]</a> If one here, like +Bettina, understands by man the concept "Man," she<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_264" id="Page_264">[Pg 264]</a></span> +is right; the "invalid" State will recover by the +flourishing of "Man," for, the more infatuated the +individuals are with "Man," the better it serves the +State's turn. But, if one referred it to the individuals, +to "all" (and the authoress half does this too, +because about "Man" she is still involved in vagueness), +then it would sound somewhat like the following: +For an invalid band of robbers the only way of +salvation is to make the loyal citizen flourish in it! +Why, thereby the band of robbers would simply go to +ruin as a band of robbers; and, because it perceives +this, it prefers to shoot every one who has a leaning +toward becoming a "steady man."</p> + +<p>In this book Bettina is a patriot, or, what is little +more, a philanthropist, a worker for human happiness. +She is discontented with the existing order in quite the +same way as is the title-ghost of her book, along with +all who would like to bring back the good old faith +and what goes with it. Only she thinks, contrariwise, +that the politicians, place-holders, and diplomats +ruined the State, while those lay it at the door of the +malevolent, the "seducers of the people."</p> + +<p>What is the ordinary criminal but one who has +committed the fatal mistake of endeavoring after what +is the people's instead of seeking for what is his? He +has sought despicable <i>alien</i> goods, has done what +believers do who seek after what is God's. What does +the priest who admonishes the criminal do? He sets +before him the great wrong of having desecrated by +his act what was hallowed by the State, its property +(in which, of course, must be included even the life +of those who belong to the State); instead of this,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_265" id="Page_265">[Pg 265]</a></span> +he might rather hold up to him the fact that he has +befouled <i>himself</i> in not <i>despising</i> the alien thing, but +thinking it worth stealing; he could, if he were not a +parson. Talk with the so-called criminal as with an +egoist, and he will be ashamed, not that he transgressed +against your laws and goods, but that he considered +your laws worth evading, your goods worth +desiring; he will be ashamed that he did not—despise +you and yours together, that he was too little an +egoist. But you cannot talk egoistically with him, +for you are not so great as a criminal, you—commit +no crime! You do not know that an ego who is his +own cannot desist from being a criminal, that crime +is his life. And yet you should know it, since you +believe that "we are all miserable sinners"; but you +think surreptitiously to get beyond sin, you do not +comprehend—for you are devil-fearing—that guilt is +the value of a man. Oh, if you were guilty! But +now you are "righteous."<a name="FNanchor_145_145" id="FNanchor_145_145"></a><a href="#Footnote_145_145" class="fnanchor">[145]</a> Well,—just put every +thing nicely to rights<a name="FNanchor_146_146" id="FNanchor_146_146"></a><a href="#Footnote_146_146" class="fnanchor">[146]</a> for your master!</p> + +<p>When the Christian consciousness, or the Christian +man, draws up a criminal code, what can the concept +of <i>crime</i> be there but simply—<i>heartlessness</i>? Each +severing and wounding of a <i>heart relation</i>, each <i>heartless +behavior</i> toward a sacred being, is crime. The +more heartfelt the relation is supposed to be, the more +scandalous is the deriding of it, and the more worthy +of punishment the crime. Every one who is subject to +the lord should love him; to deny this love is a high +treason worthy of death. Adultery is a heartlessness<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_266" id="Page_266">[Pg 266]</a></span> +worthy of punishment; one has no heart, no enthusiasm, +no pathetic feeling for the sacredness of marriage. +So long as the heart or soul dictates laws, only the +heartful or soulful man enjoys the protection of the +laws. That the man of soul makes laws means properly +only that the <i>moral</i> man makes them: what contradicts +these men's "moral feeling," this they penalize. +How, <i>e. g.</i>, should disloyalty, secession, breach of +oaths,—in short, all <i>radical breaking off</i>, all tearing +asunder of venerable <i>ties</i>,—not be flagitious and criminal +in their eyes? He who breaks with these demands +of the soul has for enemies all the moral, all the men +of soul. Only Krummacher and his mates are the +right people to set up consistently a penal code of the +heart, as a certain bill sufficiently proves. The consistent +legislation of the Christian State must be placed +wholly in the hands of the—<i>parsons</i>, and will not +become pure and coherent so long as it is worked out +only by—the <i>parson-ridden</i>, who are always only <i>half-parsons</i>. +Only then will every lack of soulfulness, +every heartlessness, be certified as an unpardonable +crime, only then will every agitation of the soul become +condemnable, every objection of criticism and +doubt be anathematized; only then is the own man, +before the Christian consciousness, a convicted—<i>criminal</i> +to begin with.</p> + +<p>The men of the Revolution often talked of the +people's "just revenge" as its "right." Revenge and +right coincide here. Is this an attitude of an ego to +an ego? The people cries that the opposite party has +committed "crimes" against it. Can I assume that +one commits a crime against me, without assuming<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_267" id="Page_267">[Pg 267]</a></span> +that he has to act as I see fit? And this action I call +the right, the good, etc.; the divergent action, a +crime. So I think that the others must aim at the +<i>same</i> goal with me; <i>i. e.</i>, I do not treat them as +unique beings<a name="FNanchor_147_147" id="FNanchor_147_147"></a><a href="#Footnote_147_147" class="fnanchor">[147]</a> who bear their law in themselves and +live according to it, but as beings who are to obey +some "rational" law. I set up what "Man" is and +what acting in a "truly human" way is, and I demand +of every one that this law become norm and +ideal to him; otherwise he will expose himself as a +"sinner and criminal." But upon the "guilty" falls +the "penalty of the law"!</p> + +<p>One sees here how it is "Man" again who sets on +foot even the concept of crime, of sin, and therewith +that of right. A man in whom I do not recognize +"Man" is "a sinner, a guilty one."</p> + +<p>Only against a sacred thing are there criminals; +you against me can never be a criminal, but only an +opponent. But not to hate him who injures a sacred +thing is in itself a crime, as St. Just cries out +against Danton: "Are you not a criminal and responsible +for not having hated the enemies of the +fatherland?"—</p> + +<p>If, as in the Revolution, what "Man" is is apprehended +as "good citizen," then from this concept of +"Man" we have the well-known "political offences +and crimes."</p> + +<p>In all this the individual, the individual man, is +regarded as refuse, and on the other hand the general +man, "Man," is honored. Now, according to how<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_268" id="Page_268">[Pg 268]</a></span> +this ghost is named,—as Christian, Jew, Mussulman, +good citizen, loyal subject, freeman, patriot, etc.,—just +so do those who would like to carry through a divergent +concept of man, as well as those who want to +put <i>themselves</i> through, fall before victorious "Man."</p> + +<p>And with what unction the butchery goes on here +in the name of the law, of the sovereign people, of +God, etc.!</p> + +<p>Now, if the persecuted trickily conceal and protect +themselves from the stern parsonical judges, people +stigmatize them as "hypocrites," as St. Just, <i>e. g.</i>, +does those whom he accuses in the speech against +Danton.<a name="FNanchor_148_148" id="FNanchor_148_148"></a><a href="#Footnote_148_148" class="fnanchor">[148]</a> One is to be a fool, and deliver himself up +to their Moloch.</p> + +<p>Crimes spring from <i>fixed ideas</i>. The sacredness of +marriage is a fixed idea. From the sacredness it +follows that infidelity is a <i>crime</i>, and therefore a certain +marriage law imposes upon it a shorter or longer +<i>penalty</i>. But by those who proclaim "freedom as +sacred" this penalty must be regarded as a crime +against freedom, and only in this sense has public +opinion in fact branded the marriage law.</p> + +<p>Society would have <i>every one</i> come to his right +indeed, but yet only to that which is sanctioned by +society, to the society-right, not really to <i>his</i> right. +But <i>I</i> give or take to myself the right out of my own +plenitude of power, and against every superior power I +am the most impenitent criminal. Owner and creator +of my right, I recognize no other source of right than—me, +neither God nor the State nor nature nor even<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_269" id="Page_269">[Pg 269]</a></span> +man himself with his "eternal rights of man," neither +divine nor human right.</p> + +<p>Right "in and for itself." Without relation to +me, therefore! "Absolute right." Separated from +me, therefore! A thing that exists in and for itself! +An absolute! An eternal right, like an eternal truth!</p> + +<p>According to the liberal way of thinking, right is to +be obligatory for me because it is thus established +by <i>human reason</i>, against which <i>my reason</i> is "unreason." +Formerly people inveighed in the name of +divine reason against weak human reason; now, in the +name of strong human reason, against egoistic reason, +which is rejected as "unreason." And yet none is real +but this very "unreason." Neither divine nor human +reason, but only your and my reason existing at any +given time, is real, as and because you and I are real.</p> + +<p>The thought of right is originally my thought; or, +it has its origin in me. But, when it has sprung from +me, when the "Word" is out, then it has "become +flesh," it is a <i>fixed idea</i>. Now I no longer get rid of +the thought; however I turn, it stands before me. +Thus men have not become masters again of the +thought "right," which they themselves created; their +creature is running away with them. This is absolute +right, that which is absolved or unfastened from me. +We, revering it as absolute, cannot devour it again, +and it takes from us the creative power; the creature +is more than the creator, it is "in and for itself."</p> + +<p>Once you no longer let right run around free, +once you draw it back into its origin, into you, it is +<i>your</i> right; and that is right which suits you.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_270" id="Page_270">[Pg 270]</a></span></p><hr style='width: 45%;' /> + +<p>Right has had to suffer an attack within itself, i. e. +from the standpoint of right; war being declared on +the part of liberalism against "privilege."<a name="FNanchor_149_149" id="FNanchor_149_149"></a><a href="#Footnote_149_149" class="fnanchor">[149]</a></p> + +<p><i>Privileged</i> and <i>endowed with equal rights</i>—on +these two concepts turns a stubborn fight. Excluded +or admitted—would mean the same. But where +should there be a power—be it an imaginary one like +God, law, or a real one like I, you—of which it should +not be true that before it all are "endowed with equal +rights," <i>i. e.</i> no respect of persons holds? Every one +is equally dear to God if he adores him, equally agreeable +to the law if only he is a law-abiding person; +whether the lover of God and the law is humpbacked +and lame, whether poor or rich, and the like, that +amounts to nothing for God and the law; just so, when +you are at the point of drowning, you like a negro as +rescuer as well as the most excellent Caucasian,—yes, +in this situation you esteem a dog not less than a man. +But to whom will not every one be also, contrariwise, +a preferred or disregarded person? God punishes the +wicked with his wrath, the law chastises the lawless, +you let one visit you every moment and show the other +the door.</p> + +<p>The "equality of right" is a phantom just because +right is nothing more and nothing less than admission, +<i>i. e.</i> a <i>matter of grace</i>, which, be it said, one may also +acquire by his desert; for desert and grace are not +contradictory, since even grace wishes to be "deserved" +and our gracious smile falls only to him who +knows how to force it from us.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_271" id="Page_271">[Pg 271]</a></span></p> + +<p>So people dream of "all citizens of the State having +to stand side by side, with equal rights." As citizens +of the State they are certainly all equal for the State. +But it will divide them, and advance them or put them +in the rear, according to its special ends, if on no other +account; and still more must it distinguish them from +one another as good and bad citizens.</p> + +<p>Bruno Bauer disposes of the Jew question from the +standpoint that "privilege" is not justified. Because +Jew and Christian have each some point of advantage +over the other, and in having this point of advantage +are exclusive, therefore before the critic's gaze they +crumble into nothingness. With them the State lies +under the like blame, since it justifies their having advantages +and stamps it as a "privilege" or prerogative, +but thereby derogates from its calling to become +a "free State."</p> + +<p>But now every one has something of advantage over +another,—<i>viz.</i>, himself or his individuality; in this +everybody remains exclusive.</p> + +<p>And, again, before a third party every one makes +his peculiarity count for as much as possible, and (if +he wants to win him at all) tries to make it appear +attractive before him.</p> + +<p>Now, is the third party to be insensible to the difference +of the one from the other? Do they ask that +of the free State or of humanity? Then these would +have to be absolutely without self-interest, and incapable +of taking an interest in any one whatever. +Neither God (who divides his own from the wicked) +nor the State (which knows how to separate good +citizens from bad) was thought of as so indifferent.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_272" id="Page_272">[Pg 272]</a></span></p> + +<p>But they are looking for this very third party that +bestows no more "privilege." Then it is called +perhaps the free State, or humanity, or whatever else +it may be.</p> + +<p>As Christian and Jew are ranked low by Br. +Bauer on account of their asserting privileges, it must +be that they could and should free themselves from +their narrow standpoint by self-renunciation or unselfishness. +If they threw off their "egoism," the +mutual wrong would cease, and with it Christian and +Jewish religiousness in general; it would be necessary +only that neither of them should any longer want to +be anything peculiar.</p> + +<p>But, if they gave up this exclusiveness, with that the +ground on which their hostilities were waged would in +truth not yet be forsaken. In case of need they would +indeed find a third thing on which they could unite, a +"general religion," a "religion of humanity," and +the like; in short, an equalization, which need not +be better than that which would result if all Jews +became Christians, by which likewise the "privilege" +of one over the other would have an end. The +<i>tension</i><a name="FNanchor_150_150" id="FNanchor_150_150"></a><a href="#Footnote_150_150" class="fnanchor">[150]</a> would indeed be done away, but in this consisted +not the essence of the two, but only their neighborhood. +As being distinguished from each other +they must necessarily be mutually resistant,<a name="FNanchor_151_151" id="FNanchor_151_151"></a><a href="#Footnote_151_151" class="fnanchor">[151]</a> and the +disparity will always remain. Truly it is not a failing +in you that you stiffen<a name="FNanchor_152_152" id="FNanchor_152_152"></a><a href="#Footnote_152_152" class="fnanchor">[152]</a> yourself against me and +assert your distinctness or peculiarity: you need not +give way or renounce yourself.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_273" id="Page_273">[Pg 273]</a></span></p> + +<p>People conceive the significance of the opposition +too <i>formally</i> and weakly when they want only to "dissolve" +it in order to make room for a third thing that +shall "unite." The opposition deserves rather to be +<i>sharpened</i>. As Jew and Christian you are in too +slight an opposition, and are contending only about +religion, as it were about the emperor's beard, about +a fiddlestick's end. Enemies in religion indeed, <i>in the +rest</i> you still remain good friends, and equal to each +other, <i>e. g</i>. as men. Nevertheless the rest too is unlike +in each; and the time when you no longer merely +<i>dissemble</i> your opposition will be only when you entirely +recognize it, and everybody asserts himself from +top to toe as <i>unique</i>.<a name="FNanchor_153_153" id="FNanchor_153_153"></a><a href="#Footnote_153_153" class="fnanchor">[153]</a> Then the former opposition +will assuredly be dissolved, but only because a stronger +has taken it up into itself.</p> + +<p>Our weakness consists not in this, that we are in +opposition to others, but in this, that we are not completely +so; <i>i. e.</i> that we are not entirely <i>severed</i> from +them, or that we seek a "communion," a "bond," +that in communion we have an ideal. One faith, one +God, one idea, one hat, for all! If all were brought +under one hat, certainly no one would any longer +need to take off his hat before another.</p> + +<p>The last and most decided opposition, that of +unique against unique, is at bottom beyond what is +called opposition, but without having sunk back into +"unity" and unison. As unique you have nothing +in common with the other any longer, and therefore +nothing divisive or hostile either; you are not seeking<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_274" id="Page_274">[Pg 274]</a></span> +to be in the right against him before a <i>third</i> party, +and are standing with him neither "on the ground of +right" nor on any other common ground. The opposition +vanishes in complete—<i>severance</i> or singleness.<a name="FNanchor_154_154" id="FNanchor_154_154"></a><a href="#Footnote_154_154" class="fnanchor">[154]</a> +This might indeed be regarded as the new point in +common or a new parity, but here the parity consists +precisely in the disparity, and is itself nothing but disparity, +a par of disparity, and that only for him who +institutes a "comparison."</p> + +<p>The polemic against privilege forms a characteristic +feature of liberalism, which fumes against "privilege" +because it itself appeals to "right." Further than +to fuming it cannot carry this; for privileges do not +fall before right falls, as they are only forms of right. +But right falls apart into its nothingness when it is +swallowed up by might, <i>i. e.</i> when one understands +what is meant by "Might goes before right." All +right explains itself then as privilege, and privilege +itself as power, as—<i>superior power</i>.</p> + +<p>But must not the mighty combat against superior +power show quite another face than the modest combat +against privilege, which is to be fought out before a +first judge, "Right," according to the judge's mind?</p> + +<hr style='width: 45%;' /> + +<p>Now, in conclusion, I have still to take back the +half-way form of expression of which I was willing to +make use only so long as I was still rooting among +the entrails of right, and letting the word at least +stand. But, in fact, with the concept the word too +loses its meaning. What I called "my right" is<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_275" id="Page_275">[Pg 275]</a></span> +no longer "right" at all, because right can be bestowed +only by a spirit, be it the spirit of nature or +that of the species, of mankind, the Spirit of God or +that of His Holiness or His Highness, etc. What I +have without an entitling spirit I have without right; +I have it solely and alone through my <i>power</i>.</p> + +<p>I do not demand any right, therefore I need not +recognize any either. What I can get by force I get +by force, and what I do not get by force I have no +right to, nor do I give myself airs, or consolation, +with my imprescriptible right.</p> + +<p>With absolute right, right itself passes away; the +dominion of the "concept of right" is canceled at the +same time. For it is not to be forgotten that hitherto +concepts, ideas, or principles ruled us, and that among +these rulers the concept of right, or of justice, played +one of the most important parts.</p> + +<p>Entitled or unentitled—that does not concern me; +if I am only <i>powerful</i>, I am of myself <i>empowered</i>, and +need no other empowering or entitling.</p> + +<p>Right—is a wheel in the head, put there by a +spook; power—that am I myself, I am the powerful +one and owner of power. Right is above me, is +absolute, and exists in one higher, as whose grace it +flows to me: right is a gift of grace from the judge; +power and might exist only in me the powerful and +mighty.</p> + + +<h3>II.—MY INTERCOURSE</h3> + +<p>In society the human demand at most can be +satisfied, while the egoistic must always come short.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_276" id="Page_276">[Pg 276]</a></span></p> + +<p>Because it can hardly escape anybody that the +present shows no such living interest in any question +as in the "social," one has to direct his gaze especially +to society. Nay, if the interest felt in it were less passionate +and dazzled, people would not so much, in +looking at society, lose sight of the individuals in it, +and would recognize that a society cannot become new +so long as those who form and constitute it remain the +old ones. If, <i>e. g.</i>, there was to arise in the Jewish +people a society which should spread a new faith over +the earth, these apostles could in no case remain +Pharisees.</p> + +<p>As you are, so you present yourself, so you behave +toward men: a hypocrite as a hypocrite, a Christian +as a Christian. Therefore the character of a society +is determined by the character of its members: they +are its creators. So much at least one must perceive +even if one were not willing to put to the test the concept +"society" itself.</p> + +<p>Ever far from letting <i>themselves</i> come to their full +development and consequence, men have hitherto not +been able to found their societies on <i>themselves</i>; or +rather, they have been able only to found "societies" +and to live in societies. The societies were always +persons, powerful persons, so-called "moral persons," +<i>i. e.</i> ghosts, before which the individual had the +appropriate wheel in his head, the fear of ghosts. As +such ghosts they may most suitably be designated by +the respective names "people" and "peoplet": the +people of the patriarchs, the people of the Hellenes, +etc., at last the—people of men, Mankind (Anacharsis +Clootz was enthusiastic for the "nation" of man<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_277" id="Page_277">[Pg 277]</a></span>kind); +then every subdivision of this "people," which +could and must have its special societies, the Spanish, +French people, etc.; within it again classes, cities, in +short all kinds of corporations; lastly, tapering to the +finest point, <a name="peoplet" id="peoplet"></a>the little <a href="#typos">people</a> of the—<i>family</i>. Hence, +instead of saying that the person that walked as ghost +in all societies hitherto has been the people, there +might also have been named the two extremes,—to wit, +either "mankind" or the "family," both the most +"natural-born units." We choose the word "people"<a name="FNanchor_155_155" id="FNanchor_155_155"></a><a href="#Footnote_155_155" class="fnanchor">[155]</a> +because its derivation has been brought into +connection with the Greek <i>polloi</i>, the "many" or "the +masses," but still more because "national efforts" are +at present the order of the day, and because even the +newest mutineers have not yet shaken off this deceptive +person, although on the other hand the latter consideration +must give the preference to the expression "mankind," +since on all sides they are going in for enthusiasm +over "mankind."</p> + +<p>The people, then,—mankind or the family,—have +hitherto, as it seems, played history: no <i>egoistic</i> interest +was to come up in these societies, but solely +general ones, national or popular interests, class interests, +family interests, and "general human interests." +But who has brought to their fall the peoples whose +decline history relates? Who but the egoist, who was +seeking <i>his</i> satisfaction! If once an egoistic interest +crept in, the society was "corrupted" and moved +toward its dissolution, as Rome, <i>e. g.</i>, proves with its<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_278" id="Page_278">[Pg 278]</a></span> +highly developed system of private rights, or Christianity +with the incessantly-breaking-in "rational self-determination," +"self-consciousness," the "autonomy +of the spirit," etc.</p> + +<p>The Christian people has produced two societies +whose duration will keep equal measure with the +permanence of that people: these are the societies +<i>State</i> and <i>Church</i>. Can they be called a union of +egoists? Do we in them pursue an egoistic, personal, +own interest, or do we pursue a popular (<i>i. e.</i> an interest +of the Christian <i>people</i>), to wit, a State and +Church interest? Can I and may I be myself in +them? May I think and act as I will, may I reveal +myself, live myself out, busy myself? Must I not +leave untouched the majesty of the State, the sanctity +of the Church?</p> + +<p>Well, I may not do as I will. But shall I find in +any society such an unmeasured freedom of maying? +Certainly no! Accordingly we might be content? +Not a bit! It is a different thing whether I rebound +from an ego or from a people, a generalization. +There I am my opponent's opponent, born his equal; +here I am a despised opponent, bound and under +a guardian: there I stand man to man; here I am +a schoolboy who can accomplish nothing against his +comrade because the latter has called father and +mother to aid and has crept under the apron, while I +am well scolded as an ill-bred brat, and I must not +"argue": there I fight against a bodily enemy; here +against mankind, against a generalization, against a +"majesty," against a spook. But to me no majesty, +nothing sacred, is a limit; nothing that I know how<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_279" id="Page_279">[Pg 279]</a></span> +to overpower. Only that which I cannot overpower +still limits my might; and I of limited might am temporarily +a limited I, not limited by the might <i>outside</i> +me, but limited by my <i>own</i> still deficient might, +by my <i>own impotence</i>. However, "the Guard dies, +but does not surrender!" Above all, only a bodily +opponent!</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +<span style="margin-left: 4em;">I dare meet every foeman</span><br /> +Whom I can see and measure with my eye,<br /> +Whose mettle fires my mettle for the fight,—etc.<br /> +</p></div> + +<p>Many privileges have indeed been cancelled with +time, but solely for the sake of the common weal, of +the State and the State's weal, by no means for the +strengthening of me. Vassalage, <i>e. g.</i>, was abrogated +only that a single liege lord, the lord of the people, +the monarchical power, might be strengthened: vassalage +under the one became yet more rigorous thereby. +Only in favor of the monarch, be he called "prince" +or "law," have privileges fallen. In France the +citizens are not, indeed, vassals of the king, but are +instead vassals of the "law" (the Charter). <i>Subordination</i> +was retained, only the Christian State recognized +that man cannot serve two masters (the lord of +the manor and the prince, etc.); therefore one obtained +all the prerogatives; now he can again <i>place</i> one +above another, he can make "men in high place."</p> + +<p>But of what concern to me is the common weal? +The common weal as such is not <i>my weal</i>, but only +the furthest extremity of <i>self-renunciation</i>. The common +weal may cheer aloud while I must "down";<a name="FNanchor_156_156" id="FNanchor_156_156"></a><a href="#Footnote_156_156" class="fnanchor">[156]</a><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_280" id="Page_280">[Pg 280]</a></span> +the State may shine while I starve. In what lies the +folly of the political liberals but in their opposing +the people to the government and talking of people's +rights? So there is the people going to be of age, +etc. As if one who has no mouth could be <i>muendig</i>!<a name="FNanchor_157_157" id="FNanchor_157_157"></a><a href="#Footnote_157_157" class="fnanchor">[157]</a> +Only the individual is able to be <i>muendig</i>. Thus +the whole question of the liberty of the press is turned +upside down when it is laid claim to as a "right of +the people." It is only a right, or better the might, +of the <i>individual</i>. If a people has liberty of the press, +then <i>I</i>, although in the midst of this people, have it +not; a liberty of the people is not <i>my</i> liberty, and the +liberty of the press as a liberty of the people must +have at its side a press law directed against <i>me</i>.</p> + +<p>This must be insisted on all around against the +present-day efforts for liberty:</p> + +<p>Liberty of the <i>people</i> is not <i>my</i> liberty!</p> + +<p>Let us admit these categories, liberty of the people +and right of the people: <i>e. g.</i> the right of the people +that everybody may bear arms. Does one not forfeit +such a right? One cannot forfeit his own right, but +may well forfeit a right that belongs not to me but to +the people. I may be locked, up for the sake of the +liberty of the people; I may, under sentence, incur the +loss of the right to bear arms.</p> + +<p>Liberalism appears as the last attempt at a creation +of the liberty of the people, a liberty of the commune, +of "society," of the general, of mankind; the dream +of a humanity, a people, a commune, a "society,"<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_281" id="Page_281">[Pg 281]</a></span> +that shall be of age.</p> + +<p>A people cannot be free otherwise than at the individual's +expense; for it is not the individual that is +the main point in this liberty, but the people. The +freer the people, the more bound the individual; the +Athenian people, precisely at its freest time, created +ostracism, banished the atheists, poisoned the most +honest thinker.</p> + +<p>How they do praise Socrates for his conscientiousness, +which makes nun resist the advice to get away +from the dungeon! He is a fool that he concedes to +the Athenians a right to condemn him. Therefore it +certainly serves him right; why then does he remain +standing on an equal footing with the Athenians? +Why does he not break with them? Had he known, +and been able to know, what he was, he would have +conceded to such judges no claim, no right. That <i>he +did not escape</i> was just his weakness, his delusion of +still having something in common with the Athenians, +or the opinion that he was a member, a mere member +of this people. But he was rather this people itself in +person, and could only be his own judge. There was +no <i>judge over him</i>, as he himself had really pronounced +a public sentence on himself and rated himself +worthy of the Prytaneum. He should have stuck +to that, and, as he had uttered no sentence of death +against himself, should have despised that of the +Athenians too and escaped. But he subordinated +himself and recognized in the <i>people</i> his <i>judge</i>; he +seemed little to himself before the majesty of the +people. That he subjected himself to <i>might</i> (to +which alone he could succumb) as to a "right" was<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_282" id="Page_282">[Pg 282]</a></span> +treason against himself: it was <i>virtue</i>. To Christ, +who, it is alleged, refrained from using the power over +his heavenly legions, the same scrupulousness is thereby +ascribed by the narrators. Luther did very well +and wisely to have the safety of his journey to Worms +warranted to him in black and white, and Socrates +should have known that the Athenians were his +<i>enemies</i>, he alone his judge. The self-deception of +a "reign of law," etc., should have given way to the +perception that the relation was a relation of <i>might</i>.</p> + +<p>It was with pettifoggery and intrigues that Greek +liberty ended. Why? Because the ordinary Greeks +could still less attain that logical conclusion which not +even their hero of thought, Socrates, was able to draw. +What then is pettifoggery but a way of utilizing +something established without doing away with it? +I might add "for one's own advantage," but, you see, +that lies in "utilizing." Such pettifoggers are the +theologians who "wrest" and "force" God's word; +what would they have to wrest if it were not for the +"established" Word of God? So those liberals who +only shake and wrest the "established order." They +are all perverters, like those perverters of the law. +Socrates recognized law, right; the Greeks constantly +retained the authority of right and law. If with this +recognition they wanted nevertheless to assert their +advantage, every one his own, then they had to seek +it in perversion of the law, or intrigue. Alcibiades, +an intriguer of genius, introduces the period of Athenian +"decay"; the Spartan Lysander and others show +that intrigue had become universally Greek. Greek +<i>law</i>, on which the Greek <i>States</i> rested, had to be per<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_283" id="Page_283">[Pg 283]</a></span>verted +and undermined by the egoists within these +States, and the <i>States</i> went down that the <i>individuals</i> +might become free, the Greek people fell because the +individuals cared less for this people than for themselves. +In general, all States, constitutions, churches, +etc., have sunk by the <i>secession</i> of individuals; for the +individual is the irreconcilable enemy of every <i>generality</i>, +every <i>tie</i>, <i>i. e.</i> every fetter. Yet people fancy to +this day that man needs "sacred ties": he, the deadly +enemy of every "tie." The history of the world +shows that no tie has yet remained unrent, shows that +man tirelessly defends himself against ties of every +sort; and yet, blinded, people think up new ties +again and again, and think, <i>e. g.</i>, that they have +arrived at the right one if one puts upon them the tie +of a so-called free constitution, a beautiful, constitutional +tie; decoration ribbons, the ties of confidence +between "—— —— ——," do seem gradually to have become +somewhat infirm, but people have made no +further progress than from apron-strings to garters +and collars.</p> + +<p><i>Everything sacred is a tie, a fetter.</i></p> + +<p>Everything sacred is and must be perverted by perverters +of the law; therefore our present time has +multitudes of such perverters in all spheres. They +are preparing the way for the break-up of law, for +lawlessness.</p> + +<p>Poor Athenians who are accused of pettifoggery and +sophistry! poor Alcibiades, of intrigue! Why, that +was just your best point, your first step in freedom. +Your Æschylus, Herodotus, etc., only wanted to have +a free Greek <i>people</i>; you were the first to surmise<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_284" id="Page_284">[Pg 284]</a></span> +something of <i>your</i> freedom.</p> + +<p>A people represses those who tower above <i>its +majesty</i>, by ostracism against too-powerful citizens, +by the Inquisition against the heretics of the Church, +by the—Inquisition against traitors in the State, etc.</p> + +<p>For the people is concerned only with its self-assertion; +it demands "patriotic self-sacrifice" from everybody. +To it, accordingly, every one <i>in himself</i> is +indifferent, a nothing, and it cannot do, not even +suffer, what the individual and he alone must do,—to +wit, <i>turn him to account</i>. Every people, every State, +is unjust toward the <i>egoist</i>.</p> + +<p>As long as there still exists even one institution +which the individual may not dissolve, the ownness +and self-appurtenance of Me is still very remote. How +can I, <i>e. g.</i>, be free when I must bind myself by oath +to a constitution, a charter, a law, "vow body and +soul" to my people? How can I be my own when +my faculties may develop only so far as they "do not +disturb the harmony of society" (Weitling)?</p> + +<p>The fall of peoples and mankind will invite <i>me</i> to +my rise.</p> + +<p>Listen, even as I am writing this, the bells begin to +sound, that they may jingle in for to-morrow the +festival of the thousand years existence of our dear +Germany. Sound, sound its knell! You do sound +solemn enough, as if your tongue was moved by the +presentiment that it is giving convoy to a corpse. The +German people and German peoples have behind them +a history of a thousand years: what a long life! O, +go to rest, never to rise again,—that all may become +free whom you so long have held in fetters.—The<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_285" id="Page_285">[Pg 285]</a></span> +<i>people</i> is dead.—Up with <i>me</i>!</p> + +<p>O thou my much-tormented German people—what +was thy torment? It was the torment of a thought +that cannot create itself a body, the torment of a +walking spirit that dissolves into nothing at every +cock-crow and yet pines for deliverance and fulfilment. +In me too thou hast lived long, thou dear—thought, +thou dear—spook. Already I almost fancied I had +found the word of thy deliverance, discovered flesh and +bones for the wandering spirit; then I hear them +sound, the bells that usher thee into eternal rest; then +the last hope fades out, then the notes of the last love +die away, then I depart from the desolate house of +those who now are dead and enter at the door of the—living +one:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +For only he who is alive is in the right.<br /> +</p></div> + +<p>Farewell, thou dream of so many millions; farewell, +thou who hast tyrannized over thy children for a +thousand years!</p> + +<p>To-morrow they carry thee to the grave; soon thy +sisters, the peoples, will follow thee. But, when they +have all followed, then——mankind is buried, and +I am my own, I am the laughing heir!</p> + +<hr style='width: 45%;' /> + +<p>The word <i>Gesellschaft</i> (society) has its origin in the +word <i>Sal</i> (hall). If one hall encloses many persons, +then the hall causes these persons to be in society. +They <i>are</i> in society, and at most constitute a parlor-society +by talking in the traditional forms of parlor +speech. When it comes to real <i>intercourse</i>, this is to +be regarded as independent of society: it may occur<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_286" id="Page_286">[Pg 286]</a></span> +or be lacking, without altering the nature of what is +named society. Those who are in the hall are a +society even as mute persons, or when they put each +other off solely with empty phrases of courtesy. Intercourse +is mutuality, it is the action, the <i>commercium</i>, +of individuals; society is only community of the +hall, and even the statues of a museum-hall are in +society, they are "grouped." People are accustomed +to say "they <i>haben inne</i><a name="FNanchor_158_158" id="FNanchor_158_158"></a><a href="#Footnote_158_158" class="fnanchor">[158]</a> this hall in common," but +the case is rather that the hall has us <i>inne</i> or in it. +So far the natural signification of the word society. +In this it comes out that society is not generated by +me and you, but by a third factor which makes associates +out of us two, and that it is just this third factor +that is the creative one, that which creates society.</p> + +<p>Just so a prison society or prison companionship +(those who enjoy<a name="FNanchor_159_159" id="FNanchor_159_159"></a><a href="#Footnote_159_159" class="fnanchor">[159]</a> the same prison). Here we already +hit upon a third factor fuller of significance than was +that merely local one, the hall. Prison no longer +means a space only, but a space with express reference +to its inhabitants: for it is a prison only through +being destined for prisoners, without whom it would +be a mere building. What gives a common stamp to +those who are gathered in it? Evidently the prison, +since it is only by means of the prison that they are +prisoners. What, then, determines the <i>manner of life</i> +of the prison society? The prison! What determines +their intercourse? The prison too, perhaps? +Certainly they can enter upon intercourse only as<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_287" id="Page_287">[Pg 287]</a></span> +prisoners, <i>i. e.</i> only so far as the prison laws allow it; +but that <i>they themselves</i> hold intercourse, I with you, +this the prison cannot bring to pass; on the contrary, +it must have an eye to guarding against such egoistic, +purely personal intercourse (and only as such is it +really intercourse between me and you). That we +<i>jointly</i> execute a job, run a machine, effectuate anything +in general,—for this a prison will indeed provide; +but that I forget that I am a prisoner, and +engage in intercourse with you who likewise disregard +it, brings danger to the prison, and not only cannot +be caused by it, but must not even be permitted. For +this reason the saintly and moral-minded French +chamber decides to introduce solitary confinement, +and other saints will do the like in order to cut off +"demoralizing intercourse." Imprisonment is the +established and—sacred condition, to injure which no +attempt must be made. The slightest push of that +kind is punishable, as is every uprising against a +sacred thing by which man is to be charmed and +chained.</p> + +<p>Like the hall, the prison does form a society, a +companionship, a communion (<i>e. g.</i> communion of +labor), but no <i>intercourse</i>, no reciprocity, no <i>union</i>. +On the contrary, every union in the prison bears +within it the dangerous seed of a "plot," which under +favorable circumstances might spring up and bear +fruit.</p> + +<p>Yet one does not usually enter the prison voluntarily, +and seldom remains in it voluntarily either, but +cherishes the egoistic desire for liberty. Here, therefore, +it sooner becomes manifest that personal inter<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_288" id="Page_288">[Pg 288]</a></span>course +is in hostile relations to the prison society and +tends to the dissolution of this very society, this joint +incarceration.</p> + +<p>Let us therefore look about for such communions +as, it seems, we remain in gladly and voluntarily, without +wanting to endanger them by our egoistic +impulses.</p> + +<p>As a communion of the required sort the <i>family</i> +offers itself in the first place. Parents, husband and +wife, children, brothers and sisters, represent a whole +or form a family, for the further widening of which the +collateral relatives also may be made to serve if taken +into account. The family is a true communion only +when the law of the family, piety<a name="FNanchor_160_160" id="FNanchor_160_160"></a><a href="#Footnote_160_160" class="fnanchor">[160]</a> or family love, is +observed by its members. A son to whom parents, +brothers, and sisters have become indifferent <i>has been</i> +a son; for, as the sonship no longer shows itself efficacious, +it has no greater significance than the long-past +connection of mother and child by the navel-string. +That one has once lived in this bodily juncture cannot +as a fact be undone; and so far one remains irrevocably +this mother's son and the brother of the rest of +her children; but it would come to a lasting connection +only by lasting piety, this spirit of the family. +Individuals are members of a family in the full sense +only when they make the <i>persistence</i> of the family +their task; only as <i>conservative</i> do they keep aloof +from doubting their basis, the family. To every +member of the family one thing must be fixed and<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_289" id="Page_289">[Pg 289]</a></span> +sacred,—<i>viz.</i>, the family itself, or, more expressively, +piety. That the family is to <i>persist</i> remains to its +member, so long as he keeps himself free from that +egoism which is hostile to the family, an unassailable +truth. In a word:—If the family is sacred, then nobody +who belongs to it may secede from it; else he +becomes a "criminal" against the family: he may +never pursue an interest hostile to the family, <i>e. g.</i> +form a misalliance. He who does this has "dishonored +the family," "put it to shame," etc.</p> + +<p>Now, if in an individual the egoistic impulse has +not force enough, he complies and makes a marriage +which suits the claims of the family, takes a rank +which harmonizes with its position, and the like; in +short, he "does honor to the family."</p> + +<p>If, on the contrary, the egoistic blood flows fierily +enough in his veins, he prefers to become a "criminal" +against the family and to throw off its laws.</p> + +<p>Which of the two lies nearer my heart, the good of +the family or my good? In innumerable cases both +go peacefully together; the advantage of the family +is at the same time mine, and <i>vice versa</i>. Then +it is hard to decide whether I am thinking <i>selfishly</i> +or <i>for the common benefit</i>, and perhaps I complacently +flatter myself with my unselfishness. But there +comes the day when a necessity of choice makes +me tremble, when I have it in mind to dishonor my +family tree, to affront parents, brothers, and kindred. +What then? Now it will appear how I am disposed +at the bottom of my heart; now it will be revealed +whether piety ever stood above egoism for me, now +the selfish one can no longer skulk behind the sem<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_290" id="Page_290">[Pg 290]</a></span>blance +of unselfishness. A wish rises in my soul, +and, growing from hour to hour, becomes a passion. +To whom does it occur at first blush that the +slightest thought which may result adversely to the +spirit of the family (piety) bears within it a transgression +against this? nay, who at once, in the first +moment, becomes completely conscious of the matter? +It happens so with Juliet in "Romeo and Juliet." +The unruly passion can at last no longer be tamed, +and undermines the building of piety. You will say, +indeed, it is from self-will that the family casts out of +its bosom those wilful ones that grant more of a hearing +to their passion than to piety; the good Protestants +used the same excuse with much success against +the Catholics, and believed in it themselves. But it is +just a subterfuge to roll the fault off oneself, nothing +more. The Catholics had regard for the common +bond of the church, and thrust those heretics from +them only because these did not have so much regard +for the bond of the church as to sacrifice their convictions +to it; the former, therefore, held the bond fast, +because the bond, the Catholic (<i>i. e.</i> common and +united) church, was sacred to them; the latter, on the +contrary, disregarded the bond. Just so those who +lack piety. They are not thrust out, but thrust themselves +out, prizing their passion, their wilfulness, +higher than the bond of the family.</p> + +<p>But now sometimes a wish glimmers in a less passionate +and wilful heart than Juliet's. The pliable +girl brings herself as a <i>sacrifice</i> to the peace of the +family. One might say that here too selfishness prevailed, +for the decision came from the feeling that the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_291" id="Page_291">[Pg 291]</a></span> +pliable girl felt herself more satisfied by the unity of +the family than by the fulfilment of her wish. That +might be; but what if there remained a sure sign that +egoism had been sacrificed to piety? What if, even +after the wish that had been directed against the +peace of the family was sacrificed, it remained at least +as a recollection of a "sacrifice" brought to a sacred +tie? What if the pliable girl were conscious of having +left her self-will unsatisfied and humbly subjected +herself to a higher power? Subjected and sacrificed, +because the superstition of piety exercised its dominion +over her!</p> + +<p>There egoism won, here piety wins and the egoistic +heart bleeds; there egoism was strong, here it was—weak. +But the weak, as we have long known, are the—unselfish. +For them, for these its weak members, +the family cares, because they <i>belong</i> to the family, +do not belong to themselves and care for themselves. +This weakness Hegel, <i>e. g.</i>, praises when he wants to +have match-making left to the choice of the parents.</p> + +<p>As a sacred communion to which, among the rest, +the individual owes obedience, the family has the +judicial function too vested in it; such a "family +court" is described <i>e. g.</i> in the "Cabanis" of Wilibald +Alexis. There the father, in the name of the +"family council," puts the intractable son among the +soldiers and thrusts him out of the family, in order +to cleanse the smirched family again by means of this +act of punishment.—The most consistent development +of family responsibility is contained in Chinese law, +according to which the whole family has to expiate +the individual's fault.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_292" id="Page_292">[Pg 292]</a></span></p> + +<p>To-day, however, the arm of family power seldom +reaches far enough to take seriously in hand the +punishment of apostates (in most cases the State protects +even against disinheritance). The criminal +against the family (family-criminal) flees into the +domain of the State and is free, as the State-criminal +who gets away to America is no longer reached by the +punishments of his State. He who has shamed his +family, the graceless son, is protected against the +family's punishment because the State, this protecting +lord, takes away from family punishment its "sacredness" +and profanes it, decreeing that it is only—"revenge": +it restrains punishment, this sacred family +right, because before its, the State's, "sacredness" +the subordinate sacredness of the family always pales +and loses its sanctity as soon as it comes in conflict +with this higher sacredness. Without the conflict, +the State lets pass the lesser sacredness of the family; +but in the opposite case it even commands crime +against the family, charging, <i>e. g.</i>, the son to refuse +obedience to his parents as soon as they want to beguile +him to a crime against the State.</p> + +<p>Well, the egoist has broken the ties of the family +and found in the State a lord to shelter him against +the grievously affronted spirit of the family. But +where has he run now? Straight into a new <i>society</i>, +in which his egoism is awaited by the same snares and +nets that it has just escaped. For the State is likewise +a society, not a union; it is the broadened <i>family</i> +("Father of the Country—Mother of the Country—children +of the country").</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_293" id="Page_293">[Pg 293]</a></span></p><hr style='width: 45%;' /> + +<p>What is called a State is a tissue and plexus of +dependence and adherence; it is a <i>belonging together</i>, +a holding together, in which those who are placed +together fit themselves to each other, or, in short, +mutually depend on each other: it is the <i>order</i> of this +<i>dependence</i>. Suppose the king, whose authority lends +authority to all down to the beadle, should vanish: +still all in whom the will for order was awake would +keep order erect against the disorders of bestiality. +If disorder were victorious, the State would be at an +end.</p> + +<p>But is this thought of love, to fit ourselves to each +other, to adhere to each other and depend on each +other, really capable of winning us? According to +this the State would be <i>love</i> realized, the being for +each other and living for each other of all. Is not +self-will being lost while we attend to the will for +order? Will people not be satisfied when order is +cared for by authority, <i>i. e.</i> when authority sees to it +that no one "gets in the way of" another; when, +then, the <i>herd</i> is judiciously distributed or ordered? +Why, then everything is in "the best order," and it is +this best order that is called—State!</p> + +<p>Our societies and States <i>are</i> without our <i>making</i> +them, are united without our uniting, are predestined +and established, or have an independent standing<a name="FNanchor_161_161" id="FNanchor_161_161"></a><a href="#Footnote_161_161" class="fnanchor">[161]</a> of +their own, are the indissolubly established against us +egoists. The fight of the world to-day is, as it is said, +directed against the "established." Yet people are +wont to misunderstand this as if it were only that<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_294" id="Page_294">[Pg 294]</a></span> +what is now established was to be exchanged for another, +a better, established system. But war might +rather be declared against establishment itself, <i>i. e.</i> +the <i>State</i>, not a particular State, not any such thing +as the mere condition of the State at the time; it is +not another State (such as a "people's State") that +men aim at, but their <i>union</i>, uniting, this ever-fluid +uniting of everything standing.—A State exists +even without my co-operation: I am born in it, +brought up in it, under obligations to it, and must +"do it homage."<a name="FNanchor_162_162" id="FNanchor_162_162"></a><a href="#Footnote_162_162" class="fnanchor">[162]</a> It takes me up into its "favor,"<a name="FNanchor_163_163" id="FNanchor_163_163"></a><a href="#Footnote_163_163" class="fnanchor">[163]</a> +and I live by its "grace." Thus the independent establishment +of the State founds my lack of independence; +its condition as a "natural growth," its organism, demands +that my nature do not grow freely, but be cut +to fit it. That <i>it</i> may be able to unfold in natural +growth, it applies to me the shears of "civilization"; +it gives me an education and culture adapted to it, +not to me, and teaches me <i>e. g.</i> to respect the laws, to +refrain from injury to State property (<i>i. e.</i> private +property), to reverence divine and earthly highness, +etc.; in short, it teaches me to be—<i>unpunishable</i>, +"sacrificing" my ownness to "sacredness" (everything +possible is sacred, <i>e. g.</i> property, others' life, etc.). +In this consists the sort of civilization and culture that +the State is able to give me: it brings me up to be a +"serviceable instrument," a "serviceable member of +society."</p> + +<p>This every State must do, the people's State as well +as the absolute or constitutional one. It must do so<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_295" id="Page_295">[Pg 295]</a></span> +as long as we rest in the error that it is an <i>I</i>, as which +it then applies to itself the name of a "moral, mystical, +or political person." I, who really am I, must +pull off this lion-skin of the I from the stalking +thistle-eater. What manifold robbery have I not put +up with in the history of the world! There I let sun, +moon, and stars, cats and crocodiles, receive the honor +of ranking as I; there Jehovah, Allah, and Our +Father came and were invested with the I; there +families, tribes, peoples, and at last actually mankind, +came and were honored as I's; there the Church, the +State, came with the pretension to be I,—and I +gazed calmly on all. What wonder if then there was +always a real I too that joined the company and +affirmed in my face that it was not my <i>you</i> but my +real <i>I</i>. Why, <i>the</i> Son of Man <i>par excellence</i> had +done the like; why should not a son of man do it +too? So I saw my I always above me and outside +me, and could never really come to myself.</p> + +<p>I never believed in myself; I never believed in my +present, I saw myself only in the future. The boy +believes he will be a proper I, a proper fellow, only +when he has become a man; the man thinks, only in +the other world will he be something proper. And, to +enter more closely upon reality at once, even the best +are to-day still persuading each other that one must +have received into himself the State, his people, mankind, +and what not, in order to be a real I, a "free +burgher," a "citizen," a "free or true man"; they +too see the truth and reality of me in the reception of +an alien I and devotion to it. And what sort of an +I? An I that is neither an I nor a you, a <i>fancied</i> I,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_296" id="Page_296">[Pg 296]</a></span> +a spook.</p> + +<p>While in the Middle Ages the church could well +brook many States living united in it, the States +learned after the Reformation, especially after the +Thirty Years' War, to tolerate many churches (confessions) +gathering under one crown. But all States +are religious and, as the case may be, "Christian +States," and make it their task to force the intractable, +the "egoists," under the bond of the unnatural, +<i>i. e.</i> Christianize them. All arrangements of the Christian +State have the object of <i>Christianizing the people</i>. +Thus the court has the object of forcing people to +justice, the school that of forcing them to mental culture,—in +short, the object of protecting those who act +Christianly against those who act unchristianly, of +bringing Christian action to <i>dominion</i>, of making it +<i>powerful</i>. Among these means of force the State +counted the <i>Church</i>, too, it demanded a—particular +religion from everybody. Dupin said lately against +the clergy, "Instruction and education belong to the +State."</p> + +<p>Certainly everything that regards the principle of +morality is a State affair. Hence it is that the +Chinese State meddles so much in family concerns, +and one is nothing there if one is not first of all +a good child to his parents. Family concerns are +altogether State concerns with us too, only that our +State—puts confidence in the families without painful +oversight; it holds the family bound by the marriage +tie, and this tie cannot be broken without it.</p> + +<p>But that the State makes me responsible for my +principles, and demands certain ones from me, might<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_297" id="Page_297">[Pg 297]</a></span> +make me ask, what concern has it with the "wheel in +my head" (principle)? Very much, for the State +is the—<i>ruling principle</i>. It is supposed that in +divorce matters, in marriage law in general, the question +is of the proportion of rights between Church +and State. Rather, the question is of whether anything +sacred is to rule over man, be it called faith or +ethical law (morality). The State behaves as the +same ruler that the Church was. The latter rests on +godliness, the former on morality.</p> + +<p>People talk of the tolerance, the leaving opposite +tendencies free, and the like, by which civilized States +are distinguished. Certainly some are strong enough +to look with complacency on even the most unrestrained +meetings, while others charge their catchpolls +to go hunting for tobacco-pipes. Yet for one State +as for another the play of individuals among themselves, +their buzzing to and fro, their daily life, is an +<i>incident</i> which it must be content to leave to themselves +because it can do nothing with this. Many, +indeed, still strain out gnats and swallow camels, while +others are shrewder. Individuals are "freer" in the +latter, because less pestered. But <i>I</i> am free in <i>no</i> +State. The lauded tolerance of States is simply a +tolerating of the "harmless," the "not dangerous"; +it is only elevation above pettymindedness, only a +more estimable, grander, prouder—despotism. A +certain State seemed for a while to mean to be pretty +well elevated above <i>literary</i> combats, which might +be carried on with all heat; England is elevated +above <i>popular turmoil</i> and—tobacco-smoking. But +woe to the literature that deals blows at the State<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_298" id="Page_298">[Pg 298]</a></span> +itself, woe to the mobs that "endanger" the State. +In that certain State they dream of a "free science," +in England of a "free popular life."</p> + +<p>The State does let individuals <i>play</i> as freely as possible, +only they must not be in <i>earnest</i>, must not forget +<i>it</i>. Man must not carry on intercourse with man +<i>unconcernedly</i>, not without "superior oversight and +mediation." I must not execute all that I am able +to, but only so much as the State allows; I must not +turn to account <i>my</i> thoughts, nor <i>my</i> work, nor, in +general, anything of mine.</p> + +<p>The State always has the sole purpose to limit, +tame, subordinate, the individual—to make him subject +to some <i>generality</i> or other; it lasts only so long +as the individual is not all in all, and it is only the +clearly-marked <i>restriction of me</i>, my limitation, my +slavery. Never does a State aim to bring in the free +activity of individuals, but always that which is bound +to the <i>purpose of the State</i>. Through the State nothing +<i>in common</i> comes to pass either, as little as one +can call a piece of cloth the common work of all the +individual parts of a machine; it is rather the work of +the whole machine as a unit, <i>machine work</i>. In the +same style everything is done by the <i>State machine</i> +too; for it moves the clockwork of the individual +minds, none of which follow their own impulse. The +State seeks to hinder every free activity by its censorship, +its supervision, its police, and holds this hindering +to be its duty, because it is in truth a duty of +self-preservation. The State wants to make something +out of man, therefore there live in it only <i>made</i> men; +every one who wants to be his own self is its opponent<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_299" id="Page_299">[Pg 299]</a></span> +and is nothing. "He is nothing" means as much as, +The State does not make use of him, grants him no +position, no office, no trade, and the like.</p> + +<p>E. Bauer,<a name="FNanchor_164_164" id="FNanchor_164_164"></a><a href="#Footnote_164_164" class="fnanchor">[164]</a> in the "<i>Liberale Bestrebungen</i>," II, 50, +is still dreaming of a "government which, proceeding +out of the people, can never stand in opposition to +it." He does indeed (p. 69) himself take back the +word "government": "In the republic no government +at all obtains, but only an executive authority. +An authority which proceeds purely and alone out of +the people; which has not an independent power, independent +principles, independent officers, over against +the people; but which has its foundation, the fountain +of its power and of its principles, in the sole, supreme +authority of the State, in the people. The concept +government, therefore, is not at all suitable in the +people's State." But the thing remains the same. +That which has "proceeded, been founded, sprung +from the fountain" becomes something "independent" +and, like a child delivered from the womb, enters +upon opposition at once. The government, if it were +nothing independent and opposing, would be nothing +at all.</p> + +<p>"In the free State there is no government," etc. +(p. 94). This surely means that the people, when it +is the <i>sovereign</i>, does not let itself be conducted by a +superior authority. Is it perchance different in absolute +monarchy? Is there there for the <i>sovereign</i>, perchance, +a government standing over him? <i>Over</i> the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_300" id="Page_300">[Pg 300]</a></span> +sovereign, be he called prince or people, there never +stands a government: that is understood of itself. +But over <i>me</i> there will stand a government in every +"State," in the absolute as well as in the republican +or "free." <i>I</i> am as badly off in one as in the other.</p> + +<p>The republic is nothing whatever but—absolute +monarchy; for it makes no difference whether the +monarch is called prince or people, both being a +"majesty." Constitutionalism itself proves that nobody +is able and willing to be only an instrument. +The ministers domineer over their master the prince, +the deputies over their master the people. Here, +then, the <i>parties</i> at least are already free,—<i>videlicet</i>, +the office-holders' party (so-called people's party). +The prince must conform to the will of the ministers, +the people dance to the pipe of the chambers. Constitutionalism +is further than the republic, because it +is the <i>State</i> in incipient <i>dissolution</i>.</p> + +<p>E. Bauer denies (p. 56) that the people is a "personality" +in the constitutional State; <i>per contra</i>, then, +in the republic? Well, in the constitutional State the +people is—a <i>party</i>, and a party is surely a "personality" +if one is once resolved to talk of a "political" +(p. 76) moral person anyhow. The fact is that a +moral person, be it called people's party or people or +even "the Lord," is in no wise a person, but a spook.</p> + +<p>Further, E. Bauer goes on (p. 69): "guardianship +is the characteristic of a government." Truly, still +more that of a people and "people's State"; it is +the characteristic of all <i>dominion</i>. A people's State, +which "unites in itself all completeness of power," the +"absolute master," cannot let me become powerful.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_301" id="Page_301">[Pg 301]</a></span> +And what a chimera, to be no longer willing to call +the "people's officials" "servants, instruments," because +they "execute the free, rational law-will of the +people!" (p. 73). He thinks (p. 74): "Only by all +official circles subordinating themselves to the government's +views can unity be brought into the State"; +but his "people's State" is to have "unity" too; +how will a lack of subordination be allowable there? +subordination to the—people's will.</p> + +<p>"In the constitutional State it is the regent and his +<i>disposition</i> that the whole structure of government +rests on in the end." (<i>Ibid.</i>, p. 130.) How would +that be otherwise in the "people's State"? Shall <i>I</i> not +there be governed by the people's <i>disposition</i> too, and +does it make a difference <i>for me</i> whether I see myself +kept in dependence by the prince's disposition or by +the people's disposition, so-called "public opinion"? +If dependence means as much as "religious relation," +as E. Bauer rightly alleges, then in the people's State +the people remains <i>for me</i> the superior power, the +"majesty" (for God and prince have their proper +essence in "majesty") to which I stand in religious +relations.—Like the sovereign regent, the sovereign +people too would be reached by no <i>law</i>. E. Bauer's +whole attempt comes to a <i>change of masters</i>. Instead +of wanting to make the <i>people</i> free, he should have +had his mind on the sole realizable freedom, his own.</p> + +<p>In the constitutional State <i>absolutism</i> itself has at +last come in conflict with itself, as it has been shattered +into a duality; the government wants to be +absolute, and the people wants to be absolute. These +two absolutes will wear out against each other.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_302" id="Page_302">[Pg 302]</a></span></p> + +<p>E. Bauer inveighs against the determination of the +regent by <i>birth</i>, by <i>chance</i>. But, when "the people" +have become "the sole power in the State" (p. 132), +have <i>we</i> not then in it a master from <i>chance</i>? Why, +what is the people? The people has always been only +the <i>body</i> of the government: it is many under one hat +(a prince's hat) or many under one constitution. And +the constitution is the—prince. Princes and peoples +will persist so long as both do not <i>col</i>lapse, <i>i. e.</i> fall +<i>together</i>. If under one constitution there are many +"peoples,"—<i>e. g.</i> in the ancient Persian monarchy +and to-day,—then these "peoples" rank only as +"provinces." For me the people is in any case an—accidental +power, a force of nature, an enemy that I +must overcome.</p> + +<p>What is one to think of under the name of an +"organized" people (<i>ibid.</i>, p. 132)? A people "that +no longer has a government," that governs itself. In +which, therefore, no ego stands out prominently; a +people organized by ostracism. The banishment of +egos, ostracism, makes the people autocrat.</p> + +<p>If you speak of the people, you must speak of the +prince; for the people, if it is to be a subject<a name="FNanchor_165_165" id="FNanchor_165_165"></a><a href="#Footnote_165_165" class="fnanchor">[165]</a> and +make history, must, like everything that acts, have a +<i>head</i>, its "supreme head." Weitling sets this forth in +the "Trio," and Proudhon declares, "<i>une société, pour +ainsi dire acéphale, ne peut vivre</i>."<a name="FNanchor_166_166" id="FNanchor_166_166"></a><a href="#Footnote_166_166" class="fnanchor">[166]</a></p> + +<p>The <i>vox populi</i> is now always held up to us, and +"public opinion" is to rule our princes. Certainly<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_303" id="Page_303">[Pg 303]</a></span> +the <i>vox populi</i> is at the same time <i>vox dei</i>; but is +either of any use, and is not the <i>vox principis</i> also +<i>vox dei</i>?</p> + +<p>At this point the "Nationals" may be brought to +mind. To demand of the thirty-eight States of +Germany that they shall act as <i>one nation</i> can only be +put alongside the senseless desire that thirty-eight +swarms of bees, led by thirty-eight queen-bees, shall +unite themselves into one swarm. <i>Bees</i> they all remain; +but it is not the bees as bees that belong together +and can join themselves together, it is only that +the <i>subject</i> bees are connected with the <i>ruling</i> queens. +Bees and peoples are destitute of will, and the <i>instinct</i> +of their queens leads them.</p> + +<p>If one were to point the bees to their beehood, in +which at any rate they are all equal to each other, one +would be doing the same thing that they are now doing +so stormily in pointing the Germans to their +Germanhood. Why, Germanhood is just like beehood +in this very thing, that it bears in itself the +necessity of cleavages and separations, yet without +pushing on to the last separation, where, with the +complete carrying through of the process of separating, +its end appears: I mean, to the separation of man +from man. Germanhood does indeed divide itself into +different peoples and tribes, <i>i. e.</i> beehives; but the +individual who has the quality of being a German is +still as powerless as the isolated bee. And yet only +individuals can enter into union with each other, and +all alliances and leagues of peoples are and remain +mechanical compoundings, because those who come +together, at least so far as the "peoples" are regarded<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_304" id="Page_304">[Pg 304]</a></span> +as the ones that have come together, are <i>destitute of +will</i>. Only with the last separation does separation +itself end and change to unification.</p> + +<p>Now the Nationals are exerting themselves to set up +the abstract, lifeless unity of beehood; but the self-owned +are going to fight for the unity willed by their +own will, for union. This is the token of all reactionary +wishes, that they want to set up something +<i>general</i>, abstract, an empty, lifeless <i>concept</i>, in distinction +from which the self-owned aspire to relieve +the robust, lively <i>particular</i> from the trashy burden of +generalities. The reactionaries would be glad to +smite a <i>people</i>, a <i>nation</i>, forth from the earth; the +self-owned have before their eyes only themselves. In +essentials the two efforts that are just now the order +of the day—to wit, the restoration of provincial +rights and of the old tribal divisions (Franks, Bavarians, +etc., Lusatia, etc.), and the restoration of the +entire nationality—coincide in one. But the Germans +will come into unison, <i>i. e.</i> unite <i>themselves</i>, only when +they knock over their beehood as well as all the beehives; +in other words, when they are more than—Germans: +only then can they form a "German +Union." They must not want to turn back into +their nationality, into the womb, in order to be born +again, but let every one turn in <i>to himself</i>. How +ridiculously sentimental when one German grasps +another's hand and presses it with sacred awe +because "he too is a German"! With that he is +something great! But this will certainly still be +thought touching as long as people are enthusiastic +for "brotherliness," <i>i. e.</i> as long as they have a<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_305" id="Page_305">[Pg 305]</a></span> +"<i>family disposition</i>." From the superstition of +"piety," from "brotherliness" or "childlikeness" or +however else the soft-hearted piety-phrases run,—from +the <i>family spirit</i>,—the Nationals, who want to have +a great <i>family of Germans</i>, cannot liberate themselves.</p> + +<p>Aside from this, the so-called Nationals would only +have to understand themselves rightly in order to lift +themselves out of their juncture with the good-natured +Teutomaniacs. For the uniting for material ends and +interests, which they demand of the Germans, comes +to nothing else than a voluntary union. Carriere, inspired, +cries out,<a name="FNanchor_167_167" id="FNanchor_167_167"></a><a href="#Footnote_167_167" class="fnanchor">[167]</a> "Railroads are to the more penetrating +eye the way to a <i>life of the people</i> such as has not +yet anywhere appeared in such significance." Quite +right, it will be a life of the people that has nowhere +appeared, because it is not a—life of the people.—So +Carriere then combats himself (p. 10): "Pure humanity +or manhood cannot be better represented than +by a people fulfilling its mission." Why, by this +nationality only is represented. "Washed-out generality +is lower than the form complete in itself, which +is itself a whole, and lives as a living member of the +truly general, the organized." Why, the people is +this very "washed-out generality," and it is only a +man that is the "form complete in itself."</p> + +<p>The impersonality of what they call "people, nation," +is clear also from this: that a people which +wants to bring its I into view to the best of its power +puts at its head the ruler <i>without will</i>. It finds itself +in the alternative either to be subjected to a prince<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_306" id="Page_306">[Pg 306]</a></span> +who realizes only <i>himself, his individual</i> pleasure—then +it does not recognize in the "absolute master" its own +will, the so-called will of the people—, or to seat on +the throne a prince who gives effect to <i>no</i> will of his +<i>own</i>—then it has a prince <i>without will</i>, whose place +some ingenious clockwork would perhaps fill just as +well.—Therefore insight need go only a step farther; +then it becomes clear of itself that the I of the people +is an impersonal, "spiritual" power, the—law. The +people's I, therefore, is a—spook, not an I. I am I +only by this, that I make myself; <i>i. e.</i> that it is not +another who makes me, but I must be my own work. +But how is it with this I of the people? <i>Chance</i> plays +it into the people's hand, chance gives it this or that +born lord, accidents procure it the chosen one; he is +not its (the "<i>sovereign</i>" people's) product, as I am <i>my</i> +product. Conceive of one wanting to talk you into +believing that you were not your I, but Tom or Jack +was your I! But so it is with the people, and rightly. +For the people has an I as little as the eleven planets +counted together have an <i>I</i>, though they revolve +around a common <i>centre</i>.</p> + +<p>Bailly's utterance is representative of the slave-disposition +that folks manifest before the sovereign +people, as before the prince. "I have," says he, "no +longer any extra reason when the general reason has +pronounced itself. My first law was the nation's will; +as soon as it had assembled I knew nothing beyond its +sovereign will." He would have no "extra reason," +and yet this extra reason alone accomplishes everything. +Just so Mirabeau inveighs in the words, "No +power on earth has the <i>right</i> to say to the nation's<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_307" id="Page_307">[Pg 307]</a></span> +representatives, It is my will!"</p> + +<p>As with the Greeks, there is now a wish to make +man a <i>zoon politicon</i>, a citizen of the State or political +man. So he ranked for a long time as a "citizen of +heaven." But the Greek fell into ignominy along +with his <i>State</i>, the citizen of heaven likewise falls with +heaven; we, on the other hand, are not willing to go +down along with the <i>people</i>, the nation and nationality, +not willing to be merely <i>political</i> men or politicians. +Since the Revolution they have striven to +"make the people happy," and in making the people +happy, great, and the like, they make Us unhappy: +the people's good hap is—my mishap.</p> + +<p>What empty talk the political liberals utter with +emphatic decorum is well seen again in Nauwerk's +"On Taking Part in the State." There complaint is +made of those who are indifferent and do not take +part, who are not in the full sense citizens, and the +author speaks as if one could not be man at all if one +did not take a lively part in State affairs, <i>i. e.</i> if one +were not a politician. In this he is right; for, if the +State ranks as the warder of everything "human," we +can have nothing human without taking part in it. +But what does this make out against the egoist? +Nothing at all, because the egoist is to himself the +warder of the human, and has nothing to say to the +State except "Get out of my sunshine." Only when +the State comes in contact with his ownness does the +egoist take an active interest in it. If the condition +of the State does not bear hard on the closet-philosopher, +is he to occupy himself with it because it is his +"most sacred duty"? So long as the State does<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_308" id="Page_308">[Pg 308]</a></span> +according to his wish, what need has he to look up +from his studies? Let those who from an interest of +their own want to have conditions otherwise busy +themselves with them. Not now, nor evermore, will +"sacred duty" bring folks to reflect about the State,—as +little as they become disciples of science, artists, +etc., from "sacred duty." Egoism alone can impel +them to it, and will as soon as things have become +much worse. If you showed folks that their egoism +demanded that they busy themselves with State affairs, +you would not have to call on them long; if, on the +other hand, you appeal to their love of fatherland and +the like, you will long preach to deaf hearts in behalf +of this "service of love." Certainly, in your sense +the egoists will not participate in State affairs at all.</p> + +<p>Nauwerk utters a genuine liberal phrase on p. 16: +"Man completely fulfils his calling only in feeling and +knowing himself as a member of humanity, and being +active as such. The individual cannot realize the idea +of <i>manhood</i> if he does not stay himself upon all humanity, +if he does not draw his powers from it like +Antæus."</p> + +<p>In the same place it is said: "Man's relation to the +<i>res publica</i> is degraded to a purely private matter by +the theological view; is, accordingly, made away with +by denial." As if the political view did otherwise +with religion! There religion is a "private matter."</p> + +<p>If, instead of "sacred duty," "man's destiny," the +"calling to full manhood," and similar commandments, +it were held up to people that their <i>self-interest</i> +was infringed on when they let everything in the State +go as it goes, then, without declamations, they would<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_309" id="Page_309">[Pg 309]</a></span> +be addressed as one will have to address them at the +decisive moment if he wants to attain his end. Instead +of this, the theology-hating author says, "If +there has ever been a time when the <i>State</i> laid claim +to all that are <i>hers</i>, such a time is ours.—The thinking +man sees in participation in the theory and practice +of the State a <i>duty</i>, one of the most sacred duties +that rest upon him"—and then takes under closer +consideration the "unconditional necessity that everybody +participate in the State."</p> + +<p>He in whose head or heart or both the <i>State</i> is +seated, he who is possessed by the State, or the <i>believer +in the State</i>, is a politician, and remains such to all +eternity.</p> + +<p>"The State is the most necessary means for the complete +development of mankind." It assuredly has +been so as long as we wanted to develop mankind; +but, if we want to develop ourselves, it can be to us +only a means of hindrance.</p> + +<p>Can State and people still be reformed and bettered +now? As little as the nobility, the clergy, the church, +etc.: they can be abrogated, annihilated, done away +with, not reformed. Can I change a piece of nonsense +into sense by reforming it, or must I drop it outright?</p> + +<p>Henceforth what is to be done is no longer about +the <i>State</i> (the form of the State, etc.), but about me. +With this all questions about the prince's power, the +constitution, etc., sink into their true abyss and their +true nothingness. I, this nothing, shall put forth my +<i>creations</i> from myself.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_310" id="Page_310">[Pg 310]</a></span></p> + +<p>To the chapter of society belongs also "the party," +whose praise has of late been sung.</p> + +<p>In the State the <i>party</i> is current. "Party, party, +who should not join one!" But the individual is +<i>unique</i>,<a name="FNanchor_168_168" id="FNanchor_168_168"></a><a href="#Footnote_168_168" class="fnanchor">[168]</a> not a member of the party. He unites +freely, and separates freely again. The party is nothing +but a State in the State, and in this smaller bee-State +"peace" is also to rule just as in the greater. +The very people who cry loudest that there must be an +<i>opposition</i> in the State inveigh against every discord +in the party. A proof that they too want only a—State. +All parties are shattered not against the State, +but against the ego.<a name="FNanchor_169_169" id="FNanchor_169_169"></a><a href="#Footnote_169_169" class="fnanchor">[169]</a></p> + +<p>One hears nothing oftener now than the admonition +to remain true to his party; party men despise nothing +so much as a mugwump. One must run with his +party through thick and thin, and unconditionally approve +and represent its chief principles. It does not +indeed go quite so badly here as with closed societies, +because these bind their members to fixed laws or +statutes (<i>e. g.</i> the orders, the Society of Jesus, etc.). +But yet the party ceases to be a union at the same +moment at which it makes certain principles <i>binding</i> +and wants to have them assured against attacks; but +this moment is the very birth-act of the party. As +party it is already a <i>born society</i>, a dead union, an +idea that has become fixed. As party of absolutism it +cannot will that its members should doubt the irrefragable +truth of this principle; they could cherish this +doubt only if they were egoistic enough to want still<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_311" id="Page_311">[Pg 311]</a></span> +to be something outside their party, <i>i. e.</i> non-partisans. +Non-partisan they cannot be as party-men, but +only as egoists. If you are a Protestant and belong +to that party, you must only justify Protestantism, at +most "purge" it, not reject it; if you are a Christian +and belong among men to the Christian party, you +cannot go beyond this as a member of this party, but +only when your egoism, <i>i. e.</i> non-partisanship, impels +you to it. What exertions the Christians, down to +Hegel and the Communists, have put forth to make +their party strong! they stuck to it that Christianity +must contain the eternal truth, and that one needs +only to get at it, make sure of it, and justify it.</p> + +<p>In short, the party cannot bear non-partisanship, +and it is in this that egoism appears. What matters +the party to me? I shall find enough anyhow who +<i>unite</i> with me without swearing allegiance to my flag.</p> + +<p>He who passes over from one party to another is at +once abused as a "turncoat." Certainly <i>morality</i> demands +that one stand by his party, and to become +apostate from it is to spot oneself with the stain of +"faithlessness"; but ownness knows no commandment +of "faithfulness, adhesion, etc.," ownness permits +everything, even apostasy, defection. Unconsciously +even the moral themselves let themselves be led by this +principle when they have to judge one who passes over +to <i>their</i> party,—nay, they are likely to be making +proselytes; they should only at the same time acquire +a consciousness of the fact that one must commit <i>immoral</i> +actions in order to commit his own,—<i>i. e.</i> here, +that one must break faith, yes, even his oath, in order +to determine himself instead of being determined by<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_312" id="Page_312">[Pg 312]</a></span> +moral considerations. In the eyes of people of strict +moral judgment an apostate always shimmers in equivocal +colors, and will not easily obtain their confidence; +for there sticks to him the taint of "faithlessness," +<i>i. e.</i> of an immorality. In the lower man this +view is found almost generally; advanced thinkers fall +here too, as always, into an uncertainty and bewilderment, +and the contradiction necessarily founded in the +principle of morality does not, on account of the confusion +of their concepts, come clearly to their consciousness. +They do not venture to call the apostate +immoral downright, because they themselves entice to +apostasy, to defection from one religion to another, +etc.; still, they cannot give up the standpoint of +morality either. And yet here the occasion was to be +seized to step outside of morality.</p> + +<p>Are the Own or Unique<a name="FNanchor_170_170" id="FNanchor_170_170"></a><a href="#Footnote_170_170" class="fnanchor">[170]</a> perchance a party? How +could they be <i>own</i> if they were such as <i>belonged</i> to a +party?</p> + +<p>Or is one to hold with no party? In the very act +of joining them and entering their circle one forms a +<i>union</i> with them that lasts as long as party and I +pursue one and the same goal. But to-day I still +share the party's tendency, and by to-morrow I can do +so no longer and I become "untrue" to it. The +party has nothing <i>binding</i> (obligatory) for me, and I +do not have respect for it; if it no longer pleases me, +I become its foe.</p> + +<p>In every party that cares for itself and its persistence, +the members are unfree (or better, unown) in<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_313" id="Page_313">[Pg 313]</a></span> +that degree, they lack egoism in that degree, in which +they serve this desire of the party. The independence +of the party conditions the lack of independence in the +party-members.</p> + +<p>A party, of whatever kind it may be, can never +do without a <i>confession of faith</i>. For those who belong +to the party must <i>believe</i> in its principle, it must +not be brought in doubt or put in question by them, +it must be the certain, indubitable thing for the party-member. +That is: One must belong to a party body +and soul, else one is not truly a party-man, but more +or less—an egoist. Harbor a doubt of Christianity, +and you are already no longer a true Christian, you +have lifted yourself to the "effrontery" of putting a +question beyond it and haling Christianity before your +egoistic judgment-seat. You have—<i>sinned</i> against +Christianity, this party cause (for it is surely not <i>e. g.</i> +a cause for the Jews, another party). But well for +you if you do not let yourself be affrighted: your effrontery +helps you to ownness.</p> + +<p>So then an egoist could never embrace a party or +take up with a party? Oh, yes, only he cannot let +himself be embraced and taken up by the party. For +him the party remains all the time nothing but a +<i>gathering</i>: he is one of the party, he takes part.</p> + +<hr style='width: 45%;' /> + +<p>The best State will clearly be that which has the +most loyal citizens, and the more the devoted mind for +<i>legality</i> is lost, so much the more will the State, this +system of morality, this moral life itself, be diminished +in force and quality. With the "good citizens" the +good State too perishes and dissolves into anarchy and<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_314" id="Page_314">[Pg 314]</a></span> +lawlessness. "Respect for the law!" By this cement +the total of the State is held together. "The law is +<i>sacred</i>, and he who affronts it a <i>criminal</i>." Without +crime no State: the moral world—and this the State is—is +crammed full of scamps, cheats, liars, thieves, etc. +Since the State is the "lordship of law," its hierarchy, +it follows that the egoist, in all cases where <i>his</i> advantage +runs against the State's, can satisfy himself +only by crime.</p> + +<p>The State cannot give up the claim that its <i>laws</i> and +ordinances are <i>sacred</i>.<a name="FNanchor_171_171" id="FNanchor_171_171"></a><a href="#Footnote_171_171" class="fnanchor">[171]</a> At this the individual ranks +as the <i>unholy</i><a name="FNanchor_172_172" id="FNanchor_172_172"></a><a href="#Footnote_172_172" class="fnanchor">[172]</a> (barbarian, natural man, "egoist") +over against the State, exactly as he was once regarded +by the Church; before the individual the State takes +on the nimbus of a saint.<a name="FNanchor_173_173" id="FNanchor_173_173"></a><a href="#Footnote_173_173" class="fnanchor">[173]</a> Thus it issues a law +against dueling. Two men who are both at one in +this, that they are willing to stake their life for a +cause (no matter what), are not to be allowed this, because +the State will not have it: it imposes a penalty +on it. Where is the liberty of self-determination then? +It is at once quite another situation if, as <i>e. g.</i> in +North America, society determines to let the duelists +bear certain evil <i>consequences</i> of their act, <i>e. g.</i> withdrawal +of the credit hitherto enjoyed. To refuse +credit is everybody's affair, and, if a society wants to +withdraw it for this or that reason, the man who is hit +cannot therefore complain of encroachment on his liberty: +the society is simply availing itself of its own +liberty. That is no penalty for sin, no penalty for a +<i>crime</i>. The duel is no crime there, but only an act<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_315" id="Page_315">[Pg 315]</a></span> +against which the society adopts counter-measures, resolves +on a <i>defence</i>. The State, on the contrary, +stamps the duel as a crime, <i>i. e.</i> as an injury to its +sacred law: it makes it a <i>criminal case</i>. The society +leaves it to the individual's decision whether he will +draw upon himself evil consequences and inconveniences +by his mode of action, and hereby recognizes his +free decision; the State behaves in exactly the reverse +way, denying all right to the individual's decision +and, instead, ascribing the sole right to its own decision, +the law of the State, so that he who transgresses +the State's commandment is looked upon as if +he were acting against God's commandment,—a view +which likewise was once maintained by the Church. +Here God is the Holy in and of himself, and the commandments +of the Church, as of the State, are the +commandments of this Holy One, which he transmits to +the world through his anointed and Lords-by-the-Grace-of-God. +If the Church had <i>deadly sins</i>, the State +has <i>capital crimes</i>; if the one had <i>heretics</i>, the other +has <i>traitors</i>; the one <i>ecclesiastical penalties</i>, the other +<i>criminal penalties</i>; the one <i>inquisitorial</i> processes, the +other <i>fiscal</i>; in short, there sins, here crimes, there +sinners, here criminals, there inquisition and here—inquisition. +Will the sanctity of the State not fall +like the Church's? The awe of its laws, the reverence +for its highness, the humility of its "subjects," will +this remain? Will the "saint's" face not be stripped +of its adornment?</p> + +<p>What a folly, to ask of the State's authority that it +should enter into an honorable fight with the individual, +and, as they express themselves in the matter<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_316" id="Page_316">[Pg 316]</a></span> +of freedom of the press, share sun and wind equally! +If the State, this thought, is to be a <i>de facto</i> power, it +simply must be a superior power against the individual. +The State is "sacred" and must not expose +itself to the "impudent attacks" of individuals. If +the State is <i>sacred</i>, there must be censorship. The +political liberals admit the former and dispute the +inference. But in any case they concede repressive +measures to it, for—they stick to this, that State is +<i>more</i> than the individual and exercises a justified +revenge, called punishment.</p> + +<p><i>Punishment</i> has a meaning only when it is to afford +expiation for the injuring of a <i>sacred</i> thing. If something +is sacred to any one, he certainly deserves +punishment when he acts as its enemy. A man who +lets a man's life continue in existence <i>because</i> to him +it is sacred and he has a <i>dread</i> of touching it is simply +a—<i>religious</i> man.</p> + +<p>Weitling lays crime at the door of "social disorder," +and lives in the expectation that under Communistic +arrangements crimes will become impossible, +because the temptations to them, <i>e. g.</i> money, fall +away. As, however, his organized society is also exalted +into a sacred and inviolable one, he miscalculates +in that good-hearted opinion. Such as with +their mouth professed allegiance to the Communistic +society, but worked underhand for its ruin, would not +be lacking. Besides, Weitling has to keep on with +"curative means against the natural remainder of human +diseases and weaknesses," and "curative means" +always announce to begin with that individuals will be +looked upon as "called" to a particular "salvation"<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_317" id="Page_317">[Pg 317]</a></span> +and hence treated according to the requirements of +this "human calling." <i>Curative means</i> or <i>healing</i> is +only the reverse side of <i>punishment</i>, the <i>theory of cure</i> +runs parallel with the <i>theory of punishment</i>; if the +latter sees in an action a sin against right, the former +takes it for a sin of the man <i>against himself</i>, as a decadence +from his health. But the correct thing is +that I regard it either as an action that <i>suits me</i> or as +one that <i>does not suit me</i>, as hostile or friendly to <i>me</i>, +<i>i. e.</i> that I treat it as my <i>property</i>, which I cherish or +demolish. "Crime" or "disease" are not either of +them an <i>egoistic</i> view of the matter, <i>i. e.</i> a judgment +<i>starting from me</i>, but starting from <i>another</i>,—to +wit, whether it injures <i>right</i>, general right, or the +<i>health</i> partly of the individual (the sick one), partly +of the generality (<i>society</i>). "Crime" is treated inexorably, +"disease" with "loving gentleness, compassion," +and the like.</p> + +<p>Punishment follows crime. If crime falls because +the sacred vanishes, punishment must not less be +drawn into its fall; for it too has significance only +over against something sacred. Ecclesiastical punishments +have been abolished. Why? Because how +one behaves toward the "holy God" is his own affair. +But, as this one punishment, <i>ecclesiastical punishment</i>, +has fallen, so all <i>punishments</i> must fall. As sin +against the so-called God is a man's own affair, so +that against every kind of the so-called sacred. According +to our theories of penal law, with whose "improvement +in conformity to the times" people are +tormenting themselves in vain, they want to <i>punish</i> +men for this or that "inhumanity"; and therein they<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_318" id="Page_318">[Pg 318]</a></span> +make the silliness of these theories especially plain by +their consistency, hanging the little thieves and letting +the big ones run. For injury to property they have +the house of correction, and for "violence to thought," +suppression of "natural rights of man," only—representations +and petitions.</p> + +<p>The criminal code has continued existence only +through the sacred, and perishes of itself if punishment +is given up. Now they want to create everywhere +a new penal law, without indulging in a misgiving +about punishment itself. But it is exactly +punishment that must make room for satisfaction, +which, again, cannot aim at satisfying right or justice, +but at procuring <i>us</i> a satisfactory outcome. If one +does to us what we <i>will not put up with</i>, we break his +power and bring our own to bear: we satisfy <i>ourselves</i> +on him, and do not fall into the folly of wanting to +satisfy right (the spook). It is not the <i>sacred</i> that +is to defend itself against man, but man against man; +as <i>God</i> too, you know, no longer defends himself +against man, God to whom formerly (and in part, indeed, +even now) all the "servants of God" offered +their hands to punish the blasphemer, as they still at +this very day lend their hands to the sacred. This +devotion to the sacred brings it to pass also that, without +lively participation of one's own, one only delivers +misdoers into the hands of the police and courts: a +non-participating making over to the authorities, +"who, of course, will best administer sacred matters." +The people is quite crazy for hounding the police on +against everything that seems to it to be immoral, +often only unseemly, and this popular rage for the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_319" id="Page_319">[Pg 319]</a></span> +moral protects the police institution more than the +government could in any way protect it.</p> + +<p>In crime the egoist has hitherto asserted himself +and mocked at the sacred; the break with the sacred, +or rather of the sacred, may become general. A +revolution never returns, but a mighty, reckless, +shameless, conscienceless, proud—<i>crime</i>, does it not +rumble in distant thunders, and do you not see how +the sky grows presciently silent and gloomy?</p> + +<hr style='width: 45%;' /> + +<p>He who refuses to spend his powers for such limited +societies as family, party, nation, is still always longing +for a worthier society, and thinks he has found the +true object of love, perhaps, in "human society" or +"mankind," to sacrifice himself to which constitutes +his honor; from now on he "lives for and serves +<i>mankind</i>."</p> + +<p><i>People</i> is the name of the body, <i>State</i> of the spirit, +of that <i>ruling person</i> that has hitherto suppressed me. +Some have wanted to transfigure peoples and States by +broadening them out to "mankind" and "general +reason"; but servitude would only become still more +intense with this widening, and philanthropists and +humanitarians are as absolute masters as politicians +and diplomats.</p> + +<p>Modern critics inveigh against religion because it +sets God, the divine, moral, etc., <i>outside</i> of man, or +makes them something objective, in opposition to +which the critics rather transfer these very subjects +<i>into</i> man. But those critics none the less fall into +the proper error of religion, to give man a "destiny," +in that they too want to have him divine, human, and<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_320" id="Page_320">[Pg 320]</a></span> +the like: morality, freedom and humanity, etc., are +his essence. And, like religion, politics too wanted +to "<i>educate</i>" man, to bring him to the realization of +his "essence," his "destiny," to <i>make</i> something out +of him,—to wit, a "true man," the one in the form of +the "true believer," the other in that of the "true +citizen or subject." In fact, it comes to the same +whether one calls the destiny the divine or human.</p> + +<p>Under religion and politics man finds himself at the +standpoint of <i>should</i>: he <i>should</i> become this and that, +should be so and so. With this postulate, this commandment, +every one steps not only in front of another +but also in front of himself. Those critics say: +You should be a whole, free man. Thus they too +stand in the temptation to proclaim a new <i>religion</i>, to +set up a new absolute, an ideal,—to wit, freedom. +Men <i>should</i> be free. Then there might even arise <i>missionaries</i> +of freedom, as Christianity, in the conviction +that all were properly destined to become Christians, +sent out missionaries of the faith. Freedom would +then (as have hitherto faith as Church, morality as +State) constitute itself as a new <i>community</i> and carry +on a like "propaganda" therefrom. Certainly no +objection can be raised against a getting together; +but so much the more must one oppose every renewal +of the old <i>care</i> for us, of culture directed toward an +end,—in short, the principle of <i>making something</i> out +of us, no matter whether Christians, subjects, or freemen +and men.</p> + +<p>One may well say with Feuerbach and others that +religion has displaced the human from man, and has +transferred it so into another world that, unattainable,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_321" id="Page_321">[Pg 321]</a></span> +it went on with its own existence there as something +personal in itself, as a "God": but the error of religion +is by no means exhausted with this. One might +very well let fall the personality of the displaced human, +might transform God into the divine, and still +remain religious. For the religious consists in discontent +with the <i>present</i> man, <i>i. e.</i> in the setting up of a +"perfection" to be striven for, in "man wrestling for +his completion."<a name="FNanchor_174_174" id="FNanchor_174_174"></a><a href="#Footnote_174_174" class="fnanchor">[174]</a> ("Ye therefore <i>should</i> be perfect +as your father in heaven is perfect." Matt. 5. 48): +it consists in the fixation of an <i>ideal</i>, an absolute. +Perfection is the "supreme good," the <i>finis bonorum</i>; +every one's ideal is the perfect man, the true, the free +man, etc.</p> + +<p>The efforts of modern times aim to set up the ideal +of the "free man." If one could find it, there would +be a new—religion, because a new ideal; there would +be a new longing, a new torment, a new devotion, a +new deity, a new contrition.</p> + +<p>With the ideal of "absolute liberty," the same turmoil +is made as with everything absolute, and according +to Hess, <i>e. g.</i>, it is said to "be realizable in absolute +human society."<a name="FNanchor_175_175" id="FNanchor_175_175"></a><a href="#Footnote_175_175" class="fnanchor">[175]</a> Nay, this realization is +immediately afterward styled a "vocation"; just so he +then defines liberty as "morality": the kingdom of +"justice" (<i>i. e.</i> equality) and "morality" (<i>i. e.</i> +liberty) is to begin, etc.</p> + +<p>Ridiculous is he who, while fellows of his tribe, +family, nation, etc., rank high, is—nothing but +"puffed up" over the merit of his fellows; but +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_322" id="Page_322">[Pg 322]</a></span>blinded too is he who wants only to be "man." +Neither of them puts his worth in <i>exclusiveness</i>, but +in <i>connectedness</i>, or in the "tie" that conjoins him +with others, in the ties of blood, of nationality, of +humanity.</p> + +<p>Through the "Nationals" of to-day the conflict has +again been stirred up between those who think themselves +to have merely human blood and human ties of +blood, and the others who brag of their special blood +and the special ties of blood.</p> + +<p>If we disregard the fact that pride may mean conceit, +and take it for consciousness alone, there is found +to be a vast difference between pride in "belonging +to" a nation and therefore being its property, and +that in calling a nationality one's property. Nationality +is my quality, but the nation my owner and +mistress. If you have bodily strength, you can apply +it at a suitable place and have a self-consciousness or +pride of it; if, on the contrary, your strong body has +you, then it pricks you everywhere, and at the most +unsuitable place, to show its strength: you can give +nobody your hand without squeezing his.</p> + +<p>The perception that one is more than a member of +the family, more than a fellow of the tribe, more than +an individual of the people, etc., has finally led to saying, +one is more than all this because one is man, or, +the man is more than the Jew, German, etc. "Therefore +be every one wholly and solely—man!" Could +one not rather say: Because we are more than what +has been stated, therefore we will be this, as well as +that "more" also? Man and German, then, man +and Guelph, etc.? The Nationals are in the right;<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_323" id="Page_323">[Pg 323]</a></span> +one cannot deny his nationality: and the humanitarians +are in the right; one must not remain in the +narrowness of the national. In <i>uniqueness</i><a name="FNanchor_176_176" id="FNanchor_176_176"></a><a href="#Footnote_176_176" class="fnanchor">[176]</a> the contradiction +is solved; the national is my quality. But +I am not swallowed up in my quality,—as the human +too is my quality, but I give to man his existence first +through my uniqueness.</p> + +<p>History seeks for Man: but he is I, you, we. +Sought as a mysterious <i>essence</i>, as the divine, first as +<i>God</i>, then as <i>Man</i> (humanity, humaneness, and +mankind), he is found as the individual, the finite, the +unique one.</p> + +<p>I am owner of humanity, am humanity, and do +nothing for the good of another humanity. Fool, you +who are a unique humanity, that you make a merit +of wanting to live for another than you are.</p> + +<p>The hitherto-considered relation of me to the <i>world +of men</i> offers such a wealth of phenomena that it will +have to be taken up again and again on other occasions, +but here, where it was only to have its chief +outlines made clear to the eye, it must be broken off +to make place for an apprehension of two other sides +toward which it radiates. For, as I find myself in +relation not merely to men so far as they present in +themselves the concept "man" or are children of men +(children of <i>Man</i>, as children of God are spoken of), +but also to that which they have of man and call their +own, and as therefore I relate myself not only to that +which they <i>are</i> through man, but also to their human +<i>possessions</i>: so, besides the world of men, the world of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_324" id="Page_324">[Pg 324]</a></span> +the senses and of ideas will have to be included in our +survey, and somewhat said of what men call their own +of sensuous goods, and of spiritual as well.</p> + +<p>According as one had developed and clearly +grasped the concept of man, he gave it to us to respect +as this or that <i>person of respect</i>, and from the broadest +understanding of this concept there proceeded at +last the command "to respect Man in every one." +But, if I respect Man, my respect must likewise extend +to the human, or what is Man's.</p> + +<p>Men have somewhat of their <i>own</i>, and <i>I</i> am to +recognize this own and hold it sacred. Their own +consists partly in outward, partly in inward <i>possessions</i>. +The former are things, the latter spiritualities, +thoughts, convictions, noble feelings, etc. But I am +always to respect only <i>rightful</i> or <i>human</i> possessions; +the wrongful and unhuman I need not spare, for only +<i>Man's</i> own is men's real own. An inward possession +of this sort is, <i>e. g.</i>, religion; because <i>religion</i> is free, +<i>i. e.</i> is Man's, <i>I</i> must not strike at it. Just so <i>honor</i> +is an inward possession; it is free and must not be +struck at by me. (Action for insult, caricatures, etc.) +Religion and honor are "spiritual property." In +tangible property the person stands foremost: my +person is my first property. Hence freedom of the +person; but only the <i>rightful</i> or human person is +free, the other is locked up. Your life is your property; +but it is sacred for men only if it is not that of +an inhuman monster.</p> + +<p>What a man as such cannot defend of bodily +goods, we may take from him: this is the meaning +of competition, of freedom of occupation. What he<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_325" id="Page_325">[Pg 325]</a></span> +cannot defend of spiritual goods falls a prey to us +likewise: so far goes the liberty of discussion, of +science, of criticism.</p> + +<p>But <i>consecrated</i> goods are inviolable. Consecrated +and guaranteed by whom? Proximately by the +State, society, but properly by man or the "concept," +the "concept of the thing": for the concept of consecrated +goods is this, that they are truly human, or +rather that the holder possesses them as man and not +as un-man.<a name="FNanchor_177_177" id="FNanchor_177_177"></a><a href="#Footnote_177_177" class="fnanchor">[177]</a></p> + +<p>On the spiritual side man's faith is such goods, his +honor, his moral feeling,—yes, his feeling of decency, +modesty, etc. Actions (speeches, writings) that +touch honor are punishable; attacks on "the foundation +of all religion"; attacks on political faith; in +short, attacks on everything that a man "rightly" +has.</p> + +<p>How far critical liberalism would extend, the sanctity +of goods,—on this point it has not yet made any +pronouncement, and doubtless fancies itself to be +ill-disposed toward all sanctity; but, as it combats +egoism, it must set limits to it, and must not let the +un-man pounce on the human. To its theoretical +contempt for the "masses" there must correspond a +practical snub if it should get into power.</p> + +<p>What extension the concept "man" receives, and +what comes to the individual man through it,—what, +therefore, man and the human are,—on this point the +various grades of liberalism differ, and the political, +the social, the humane man are each always claiming<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_326" id="Page_326">[Pg 326]</a></span> +more than the other for "man." He who has best +grasped this concept knows best what is "man's." +The State still grasps this concept in political restriction, +society in social; mankind, so it is said, is +the first to comprehend it entirely, or "the history of +mankind develops it." But, if "man is discovered," +then we know also what pertains to man as his own, +man's property, the human.</p> + +<p>But let the individual man lay claim to ever so +many rights because Man or the concept man "entitles" +him to them, <i>i. e.</i> because his being man does +it: what do <i>I</i> care for his right and his claim? If +he has his right only from Man and does not have it +from <i>me</i>, then for <i>me</i> he has no right. His life, <i>e. g.</i>, +counts to <i>me</i> only for what it is <i>worth to me</i>. I respect +neither a so-called right of property (or his +claim to tangible goods) nor yet his right to the +"sanctuary of his inner nature" (or his right to have +the spiritual goods and divinities, his gods, remain +unaggrieved). His goods, the sensuous as well as the +spiritual, are <i>mine</i>, and I dispose of them as proprietor, +in the measure of my—might.</p> + +<p>In the <i>property question</i> lies a broader meaning +than the limited statement of the question allows to +be brought out. Referred solely to what men call our +possessions, it is capable of no solution; the decision +is to be found only in him "from whom we have +everything." Property depends on the <i>owner</i>.</p> + +<p>The Revolution directed its weapons against everything +which came "from the grace of God," <i>e. g.</i>, +against divine right, in whose place the human was +confirmed. To that which is granted by the grace of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_327" id="Page_327">[Pg 327]</a></span> +God, there is opposed that which is derived "from the +essence of man."</p> + +<p>Now, as men's relation to each other, in opposition +to the religious dogma which commands a "Love one +another for God's sake," had to receive its human +position by a "Love each other for man's sake," so +the revolutionary teaching could not do otherwise +than, first as to what concerns the relation of men +to the things of this world, settle it that the world, +which hitherto was arranged according to God's ordinance, +henceforth belongs to "Man."</p> + +<p>The world belongs to "Man," and is to be respected +by me as his property.</p> + +<p>Property is what is mine!</p> + +<p>Property in the civic sense means <i>sacred</i> property, +such that I must <i>respect</i> your property. "Respect +for property!" Hence the politicians would like to +have every one possess his little bit of property, and +they have in part brought about an incredible parcellation +by this effort. Each must have his bone on +which he may find something to bite.</p> + +<p>The position of affairs is different in the egoistic +sense. I do not step shyly back from your property, +but look upon it always as <i>my</i> property, in which I +need to "respect" nothing. Pray do the like with +what you call my property!</p> + +<p>With this view we shall most easily come to an understanding +with each other.</p> + +<p>The political liberals are anxious that, if possible, +all servitudes be dissolved, and every one be free lord +on his ground, even if this ground has only so much +area as can have its requirements adequately filled by<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_328" id="Page_328">[Pg 328]</a></span> +the manure of one person. (The farmer in the story +married even in his old age "that he might profit by +his wife's dung.") Be it ever so little, if one only +has somewhat of his own,—to wit, a <i>respected</i> property! +The more such owners, such cotters,<a name="FNanchor_178_178" id="FNanchor_178_178"></a><a href="#Footnote_178_178" class="fnanchor">[178]</a> the more +"free people and good patriots" has the State.</p> + +<p>Political liberalism, like everything religious, counts +on <i>respect</i>, humaneness, the virtues of love. Therefore +does it live in incessant vexation. For in practice +people respect nothing, and every day the small +possessions are bought up again by greater proprietors, +and the "free people" change into day-laborers.</p> + +<p>If, on the contrary, the "small proprietors" had +reflected that the great property was also theirs, they +would not have respectfully shut themselves out from +it, and would not have been shut out.</p> + +<p>Property as the civic liberals understand it deserves +the attacks of the Communists and Proudhon: +it is untenable, because the civic proprietor is in truth +nothing but a propertyless man, one who is everywhere +<i>shut out</i>. Instead of owning the world, as he +might, he does not own even the paltry point on +which he turns around.</p> + +<p>Proudhon wants not the <i>propriétaire</i> but the <i>possesseur</i> +or <i>usufruitier</i>.<a name="FNanchor_179_179" id="FNanchor_179_179"></a><a href="#Footnote_179_179" class="fnanchor">[179]</a> What does that mean? He +wants no one to own the land; but the benefit of it—even +though one were allowed only the hundredth part +of this benefit, this fruit—is at any rate one's property, +which he can dispose of at will. He who has<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_329" id="Page_329">[Pg 329]</a></span> +only the benefit of a field is assuredly not the proprietor +of it; still less he who, as Proudhon would have it, +must give up so much of this benefit as is not required +for his wants; but he is the proprietor of the share +that is left him. Proudhon, therefore, denies only +such and such property, not <i>property</i> itself. If we +want no longer to leave the land to the landed proprietors, +but to appropriate it to <i>ourselves</i>, we unite ourselves +to this end, form a union, a <i>société</i>, that makes +<i>itself</i> proprietor; if we have good luck in this, then +those persons cease to be landed proprietors. And, as +from the land, so we can drive them out of many +another property yet, in order to make it <i>our</i> property, +the property of the—<i>conquerors</i>. The conquerors +form a society which one may imagine so great that it +by degrees embraces all humanity; but so-called humanity +too is as such only a thought (spook); the individuals +are its reality. And these individuals as a collective +mass will treat land and earth not less arbitrarily +than an isolated individual or so-called <i>propriétaire</i>. +Even so, therefore, <i>property</i> remains standing, +and that as "exclusive" too, in that <i>humanity</i>, +this great society, excludes the <i>individual</i> from its +property (perhaps only leases to him, gives him as a +fief, a piece of it) as it besides excludes everything that +is not humanity, <i>e. g.</i> does not allow animals to have +property.—So too it will remain, and will grow to be. +That in which <i>all</i> want to have a <i>share</i> will be withdrawn +from that individual who wants to have it for +himself alone: it is made a <i>common estate</i>. As a +<i>common estate</i> every one has his <i>share</i> in it, and this +share is his <i>property</i>. Why, so in our old relations a<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_330" id="Page_330">[Pg 330]</a></span> +house which belongs to five heirs is their common estate; +but the fifth part of the revenue is each one's +property. Proudhon might spare his prolix pathos if +he said: "There are some things that belong only to +a few, and to which we others will from now on lay +claim or—siege. Let us take them, because one +comes to property by taking, and the property of +which for the present we are still deprived came to the +proprietors likewise only by taking. It can be utilized +better if it is in the hands of <i>us all</i> than if the +few control it. Let us therefore associate ourselves +for the purpose of this robbery (<i>vol</i>)."—Instead of +this, he tries to get us to believe that society is the +original possessor and the sole proprietor, of imprescriptible +right; against it the so-called proprietors +have become thieves (<i>La propriété c'est le vol</i>); if it +now deprives of his property the present proprietor, it +robs him of nothing, as it is only availing itself of its +imprescriptible right.—So far one comes with the +spook of society as a <i>moral person</i>. On the contrary, +what man can obtain belongs to him: the world belongs +to <i>me</i>. Do you say anything else by your opposite +proposition, "The world belongs to <i>all</i>"? All +are I and again I, etc. But you make out of the +"all" a spook, and make it sacred, so that then the +"all" become the individual's fearful <i>master</i>. Then +the ghost of "right" places itself on their side.</p> + +<p>Proudhon, like the Communists, fights against +<i>egoism</i>. Therefore they are continuations and consistent +carryings-out of the Christian principle, the principle +of love, of sacrifice for something general, something +alien. They complete in property, <i>e. g.</i>, only<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_331" id="Page_331">[Pg 331]</a></span> +what has long been extant as a matter of fact,—<i>viz.</i>, +the propertylessness of the individual. When the law +says, <i>Ad reges potestas omnium pertinet, ad singulos +proprietas; omnia rex imperio possidet, singuli dominio</i>, +this means: The king is proprietor, for he alone +can control and dispose of "everything," he has <i>potestas</i> +and <i>imperium</i> over it. The Communists make this +clearer, transferring that <i>imperium</i> to the "society of +all." Therefore: Because enemies of egoism, they are +on that account—Christians, or, more generally speaking, +religious men, believers in ghosts, dependents, servants +of some generality (God, society, etc.). In this +too Proudhon is like the Christians, that he ascribes to +God that which he denies to men. He names him +(<i>e. g.</i>, page 90) the Propriétaire of the earth. Herewith +he proves that he cannot think away the <i>proprietor +as such</i>; he comes to a proprietor at last, but +removes him to the other world.</p> + +<p>Neither God nor Man ("human society") is proprietor, +but the individual.</p> + +<hr style='width: 45%;' /> + +<p>Proudhon (Weitling too) thinks he is telling the +worst about property when he calls it theft (<i>vol</i>). +Passing quite over the embarrassing question, what +well-founded objection could be made against theft, +we only ask: Is the concept "theft" at all possible +unless one allows validity to the concept "property"? +How can one steal if property is not already extant? +What belongs to no one cannot be <i>stolen</i>; the water +that one draws out of the sea he does <i>not steal</i>. Accordingly +property is not theft, but a theft becomes +possible only through property. Weitling has to<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_332" id="Page_332">[Pg 332]</a></span> +come to this too, as he does regard everything as the +<i>property of all</i>: if something is "the property of all," +then indeed the individual who appropriates it to +himself steals.</p> + +<p>Private property lives by grace of the <i>law</i>. Only +in the law has it its warrant—for possession is not yet +property, it becomes "mine" only by assent of the +law—; it is not a fact, not <i>un fait</i> as Proudhon +thinks, but a fiction, a thought. This is legal property, +legitimate property, guaranteed property. It is +mine not through <i>me</i> but through the—<i>law</i>.</p> + +<p>Nevertheless, property is the expression for <i>unlimited +dominion</i> over somewhat (thing, beast, man) which "I +can judge and dispose of as seems good to me." According +to Roman law, indeed, <i>jus utendi et abutendi +re sua, quatenus juris ratio patitur</i>, an <i>exclusive</i> and +<i>unlimited right</i>; but property is conditioned by +might. What I have in my power, that is my own. +So long as I assert myself as holder, I am the proprietor +of the thing; if it gets away from me again, no +matter by what power, <i>e. g.</i> through my recognition +of a title of others to the thing,—then the property +is extinct. Thus property and possession coincide. +It is not a right lying outside my might that legitimizes +me, but solely my might: if I no longer have +this, the thing vanishes away from me. When the +Romans no longer had any might against the Germans, +the world-empire of Rome <i>belonged</i> to the +latter, and it would sound ridiculous to insist that +the Romans had nevertheless remained properly the +proprietors. Whoever knows how to take and to defend +the thing, to him it belongs till it is again taken<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_333" id="Page_333">[Pg 333]</a></span> +from him, as liberty belongs to him who <i>takes</i> it.—</p> + +<p>Only might decides about property, and, as the +State (no matter whether State of well-to-do citizens or +of ragamuffins or of men in the absolute) is the sole +mighty one, it alone is proprietor; I, the unique,<a name="FNanchor_180_180" id="FNanchor_180_180"></a><a href="#Footnote_180_180" class="fnanchor">[180]</a> +have nothing, and am only enfeoffed, am vassal and, +as such, servitor. Under the dominion of the State +there is no property of <i>mine</i>.</p> + +<p>I want to raise the value of myself, the value of +ownness, and should I cheapen property? No, as I +was not respected hitherto because people, mankind, +and a thousand other generalities were put higher, so +property too has to this day not yet been recognized +in its full value. Property too was only the property +of a ghost, <i>e. g.</i> the people's property; my whole existence +"belonged to the fatherland": <i>I</i> belonged to +the fatherland, the people, the State, and therefore +also everything that I called <i>my own</i>. It is demanded +of States that they make away with pauperism. It +seems to me this is asking that the State should cut +off its own head and lay it at its feet; for so long as +the State is the ego the individual ego must remain a +poor devil, a non-ego. The State has an interest +only in being itself rich; whether Michael is rich and +Peter poor is alike to it; Peter might also be rich and +Michael poor. It looks on indifferently as one grows +poor and the other rich, unruffled by this alternation. +As <i>individuals</i> they are really equal before its face; +in this it is just: before it both of them are—nothing, +as we "are altogether sinners before God"; on the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_334" id="Page_334">[Pg 334]</a></span> +other hand, it has a very great interest in this, that +those individuals who make it their ego should have +a part in its wealth; it makes them partakers in <i>its +property</i>. Through property, with which it rewards +the individuals, it tames them; but this remains <i>its</i> +property, and every one has the usufruct of it only so +long as he bears in himself the ego of the State, or is +a "loyal member of society"; in the opposite case the +property is confiscated, or made to melt away by +vexatious lawsuits. The property, then, is and remains +<i>State property</i>, not property of the ego. That +the State does not arbitrarily deprive the individual of +what he has from the State means simply that the +State does not rob itself. He who is a State-ego, <i>i. e.</i> +a good citizen or subject, holds his fief undisturbed as +<i>such an ego</i>, not as being an ego of his own. According +to the code, property is what I call mine "by virtue +of God and law." But it is mine by virtue of +God and law only so long as—the State has nothing +against it.</p> + +<p>In expropriations, disarmaments, and the like (as, +<i>e. g.</i>, the exchequer confiscates inheritances if the heirs +do not put in an appearance early enough) how +plainly the else-veiled principle that only the <i>people</i>, +"the State," is proprietor, while the individual is +feoffee, strikes the eye!</p> + +<p>The State, I mean to say, cannot intend that anybody +should <i>for his own sake</i> have property or actually +be rich, nay, even well-to-do; it can acknowledge +nothing, grant nothing to me as me. +The State cannot check pauperism, because the poverty +of possession is a poverty of me. He who <i>is</i> nothing<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_335" id="Page_335">[Pg 335]</a></span> +but what chance or another—to wit, the State—makes +out of him also <i>has</i> quite rightly nothing but what +another gives him. And this other will give him only +what he <i>deserves</i>, <i>i. e.</i> what he is worth by <i>service</i>. It +is not he that realizes a value from himself; the State +realizes a value from him.</p> + +<p>National economy busies itself much with this subject. +It lies far out beyond the "national," however, +and goes beyond the concepts and horizon of the State, +which knows only State property and can distribute +nothing else. For this reason it binds the possession +of property to <i>conditions</i>,—as it binds everything to +them, <i>e. g.</i> marriage, allowing validity only to the +marriage sanctioned by it, and wresting this out of my +power. But property is <i>my</i> property only when I +hold it <i>unconditionally</i>: only I, as <i>unconditioned</i> ego, +have property, enter a relation of love, carry on free +trade.</p> + +<p>The State has no anxiety about me and mine, but +about itself and its: I count for something to it only +as <i>its child</i>, as "a son of the country"; as <i>ego</i> I am +nothing at all for it. For the State's understanding, +what befalls me as ego is something accidental, my +wealth as well as my impoverishment. But, if I with +all that is mine am an accident in the State's eyes, +this proves that it cannot comprehend <i>me</i>: <i>I</i> go beyond +its concepts, or, its understanding is too limited +to comprehend me. Therefore it cannot do anything +for me either.</p> + +<p>Pauperism is the <i>valuelessness of me</i>, the phenomenon +that I cannot realize value from myself. For this +reason State and pauperism are one and the same.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_336" id="Page_336">[Pg 336]</a></span> +The State does not let me come to my value, and continues +in existence only through my valuelessness: it +is forever intent on <i>getting benefit</i> from me, <i>i. e.</i> exploiting +me, turning me to account, using me up, +even if the use it gets from me consists only in my +supplying a <i>proles</i> (<i>prolétariat</i>); it wants me to be +"its creature."</p> + +<p>Pauperism can be removed only when I as ego <i>realize +value</i> from myself, when I give my own self value, +and make my price myself. I must rise in revolt to +rise in the world.</p> + +<p>What I produce, flour, linen, or iron and coal, +which I toilsomely win from the earth, etc., is <i>my</i> +work that I want to realize value from. But then I +may long complain that I am not paid for my work +according to its value: the payer will not listen to me, +and the State likewise will maintain an apathetic attitude +so long as it does not think it must "appease" +me that <i>I</i> may not break out with my dreaded might. +But this "appeasing" will be all, and, if it comes +into my head to ask for more, the State turns against +me with all the force of its lion-paws and eagle-claws: +for it is the king of beasts, it is lion and eagle. If +I refuse to be content with the price that it fixes for +my ware and labor, if I rather aspire to determine +the price of my ware myself, <i>i. e.</i> "to pay myself," +in the first place I come into a conflict with the +buyers of the ware. If this were stilled by a mutual +understanding, the State would not readily make objections; +for how individuals get along with each other +troubles it little, so long as therein they do not get in +its way. Its damage and its danger begin only<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_337" id="Page_337">[Pg 337]</a></span> +when they do not agree, but, in the absence of +a settlement, take each other by the hair. The State +cannot endure that man stand in a direct relation to +man; it must step between as—<i>mediator</i>, must—<i>intervene</i>. +What Christ was, what the saints, the Church +were, the State has become,—to wit, "mediator." It +tears man from man to put itself between them as +"spirit." The laborers who ask for higher pay are +treated as criminals as soon as they want to <i>compel</i> it. +What are they to do? Without compulsion they +don't get it, and in compulsion the State sees a self-help, +a determination of price by the ego, a genuine, +free realization of value from his property, which it +cannot admit of. What then are the laborers to +do? Look to themselves and ask nothing about the +State?— —</p> + +<p>But, as is the situation with regard to my material +work, so it is with my intellectual too. The State +allows me to realize value from all my thoughts and +to find customers for them (I do realize value from +them, <i>e. g.</i>, in the very fact that they bring me honor +from the listeners, and the like); but only so long as +my thoughts are—<i>its</i> thoughts. If, on the other +hand, I harbor thoughts that it cannot approve (<i>i. e.</i> +make its own), then it does not allow me at all to +realize value from them, to bring them into <i>exchange</i>, +into <i>commerce</i>. <i>My</i> thoughts are free only if they are +granted to me by the State's <i>grace</i>, <i>i. e.</i> if they are +the State's thoughts. It lets me philosophize freely +only so far as I approve myself a "philosopher of +State"; <i>against</i> the State I must not philosophize, +gladly as it tolerates my helping it out of its "defi<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_338" id="Page_338">[Pg 338]</a></span>ciencies," +"furthering" it.—Therefore, as I may behave +only as an ego most graciously permitted by the +State, provided with its testimonial of legitimacy and +police pass, so too it is not granted me to realize value +from what is mine, unless this proves to be its, which I +hold as fief from it. My ways must be its ways, else it +distrains me; my thoughts its thoughts, else it stops +my mouth.</p> + +<p>The State has nothing to be more afraid of than the +value of me, and nothing must it more carefully guard +against than every occasion that offers itself to me +for <i>realizing value</i> from myself. <i>I</i> am the deadly +enemy of the State, which always hovers between the +alternatives, it or I. Therefore it strictly insists not +only on not letting <i>me</i> have a standing, but also on +keeping down what is <i>mine</i>. In the State there is no—property, +<i>i. e.</i> no property of the individual, but +only State property. Only through the State have I +what I have, as I am only through it what I am. My +private property is only that which the State leaves to +me of <i>its, cutting off</i> others from it (depriving them, +making it private); it is State property.</p> + +<p>But, in opposition to the State, I feel more and more +clearly that there is still left me a great might, the +might over myself, <i>i. e.</i> over everything that pertains +only to me and that <i>exists</i> only in being my own.</p> + +<p>What do I do if my ways are no longer its ways, +my thoughts no longer its thoughts? I look to myself, +and ask nothing about it! In <i>my</i> thoughts, +which I get sanctioned by no assent, grant, or grace, I +have my real property, a property with which I can +trade. For as mine they are my <i>creatures</i>, and I am<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_339" id="Page_339">[Pg 339]</a></span> +in a position to give them away in return for <i>other</i> +thoughts: I give them up and take in exchange for +them others, which then are my new purchased +property.</p> + +<p>What then is <i>my</i> property? Nothing but what is +in my <i>power</i>! To what property am I entitled? To +every property to which I—<i>empower</i> myself.<a name="FNanchor_181_181" id="FNanchor_181_181"></a><a href="#Footnote_181_181" class="fnanchor">[181]</a> I give +myself the right of property in taking property to myself, +or giving myself the proprietor's <i>power</i>, full +power, empowerment.</p> + +<p>Everything over which I have might that cannot be +torn from me remains my property; well, then let +might decide about property, and I will expect everything +from my might! Alien might, might that I +leave to another, makes me an owned slave: then let +my own might make me an owner. Let me then withdraw +the might that I have conceded to others out of +ignorance regarding the strength of my <i>own</i> might! +Let me say to myself, what my might reaches to is my +property; and let me claim as property everything +that I feel myself strong enough to attain, and let me +extend my actual property as far as <i>I</i> entitle, <i>i. e.</i>—empower, +myself to take.</p> + +<p>Here egoism, selfishness, must decide; not the principle +of <i>love,</i> not love-motives like mercy, gentleness, +good-nature, or even justice and equity (for <i>justitia</i> +too is a phenomenon of—love, a product of love): love +knows only <i>sacrifices</i> and demands "self-sacrifice."</p> + +<p>Egoism does not think of sacrificing anything, giving +away anything that it wants; it simply decides,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_340" id="Page_340">[Pg 340]</a></span> +What I want I must have and will procure.</p> + +<p>All attempts to enact rational laws about property +have put out from the bay of <i>love</i> into a desolate sea of +regulations. Even Socialism and Communism cannot +be excepted from this. Every one is to be provided +with adequate means, for which it is little to the point +whether one socialistically finds them still in a personal +property, or communistically draws them from +the community of goods. The individual's mind in +this remains the same; it remains a mind of dependence. +The distributing <i>board of equity</i> lets me have +only what the sense of equity, its <i>loving</i> care for all, +prescribes. For me, the individual, there lies no less +of a check in <i>collective wealth</i> than in that of <i>individual +others</i>; neither that is mine, nor this: whether the +wealth belongs to the collectivity, which confers part +of it on me, or to individual possessors, is for me the +same constraint, as I cannot decide about either of the +two. On the contrary, Communism, by the abolition +of all personal property, only presses me back still +more into dependence on another, <i>viz.</i>, on the generality +or collectivity; and, loudly as it always attacks +the "State," what it intends is itself again a State, a +<i>status</i>, a condition hindering my free movement, a +sovereign power over me. Communism rightly revolts +against the pressure that I experience from individual +proprietors; but still more horrible is the might that +it puts in the hands of the collectivity.</p> + +<p>Egoism takes another way to root out the non-possessing +rabble. It does not say: Wait for what the +board of equity will—bestow on you in the name of +the collectivity (for such bestowal took place in<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_341" id="Page_341">[Pg 341]</a></span> +"States" from the most ancient times, each receiving +"according to his desert," and therefore according to +the measure in which each was able to <i>deserve</i> it, to +acquire it by <i>service</i>), but: Take hold, and take what +you require! With this the war of all against all is +declared. <i>I</i> alone decide what I will have.</p> + +<p>"Now, that is truly no new wisdom, for self-seekers +have acted so at all times!" Not at all necessary +either that the thing be new, if only <i>consciousness</i> of +it is present. But this latter will not be able to claim +great age, unless perhaps one counts in the Egyptian +and Spartan law; for how little current it is appears +even from the stricture above, which speaks with contempt +of "self-seekers." One is to know just this, +that the procedure of taking hold is not contemptible, +but manifests the pure deed of the egoist at one with +himself.</p> + +<p>Only when I expect neither from individuals nor +from a collectivity what I can give to myself, only +then do I slip out of the snares of—love; the rabble +ceases to be rabble only when it <i>takes hold</i>. Only +the dread of taking hold, and the corresponding punishment +thereof, makes it a rabble. Only that taking +hold is <i>sin</i>, crime,—only this dogma creates a rabble. +For the fact that the rabble remains what it is, +it (because it allows validity to that dogma) is to +blame as well as, more especially, those who "self-seekingly" +(to give them back their favorite word) +demand that the dogma be respected. In short, the +lack of <i>consciousness</i> of that "new wisdom," the old +consciousness of sin, alone bears the blame.</p> + +<p>If men reach the point of losing respect for prop<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_342" id="Page_342">[Pg 342]</a></span>erty, +every one will have property, as all slaves become +free men as soon as they no longer respect the +master as master. <i>Unions</i> will then, in this matter +too, multiply the individual's means and secure his +assailed property.</p> + +<p>According to the Communists' opinion the commune +should be proprietor. On the contrary, <i>I</i> am proprietor, +and I only come to an understanding with others +about my property. If the commune does not do +what suits me, I rise against it and defend my property. +I am proprietor, but property is <i>not sacred</i>. +I should be merely possessor? No, hitherto one was +only possessor, secured in the possession of a parcel by +leaving others also in possession of a parcel; but now +<i>everything</i> belongs to me, I am proprietor of <i>everything +that I require</i> and can get possession of. If it is +said socialistically, society gives me what I require,—then +the egoist says, I take what I require. If the +Communists conduct themselves as ragamuffins, the +egoist behaves as proprietor.</p> + +<p>All swan-fraternities,<a name="FNanchor_182_182" id="FNanchor_182_182"></a><a href="#Footnote_182_182" class="fnanchor">[182]</a> and attempts at making the +rabble happy, that spring from the principle of love, +must miscarry. Only from egoism can the rabble get +help, and this help it must give to itself and—will +give to itself. If it does not let itself be coerced into +fear, it is a power. "People would lose all respect if +one did not coerce them so into fear," says bugbear +Law in "<i>Der gestiefelte Kater</i>."</p> + +<p>Property, therefore, should not and cannot be +abolished; it must rather be torn from ghostly hands<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_343" id="Page_343">[Pg 343]</a></span> +and become <i>my</i> property; then the erroneous consciousness, +that I cannot entitle myself to as much as I +require, will vanish.—</p> + +<p>"But what cannot man require!" Well, whoever +requires much, and understands how to get it, has at +all times helped himself to it, as Napoleon did with the +Continent and France with Algiers. Hence the exact +point is that the respectful "rabble" should learn at +last to help itself to what it requires. If it reaches +out too far for you, why, then defend yourselves. +You have no need at all to good-heartedly—bestow +anything on it; and, when it learns to know itself, it—or +rather: whoever of the rabble learns to know himself, +he—casts off the rabble-quality in refusing your +alms with thanks. But it remains ridiculous that you +declare the rabble "sinful and criminal" if it is not +pleased to live from your favors because it can do +something in its own favor. Your bestowals cheat +it and put it off. Defend your property, then you +will be strong; if, on the other hand, you want to retain +your ability to bestow, and perhaps actually have +the more political rights the more alms (poor-rates) +you can give, this will work just as long as the recipients +let you work it.<a name="FNanchor_183_183" id="FNanchor_183_183"></a><a href="#Footnote_183_183" class="fnanchor">[183]</a></p> + +<p>In short, the property question cannot be solved so +amicably as the Socialists, yes, even the Communists, +dream. It is solved only by the war of all against all. +The poor become free and proprietors only when they<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_344" id="Page_344">[Pg 344]</a></span>—<i>rise</i>. +Bestow ever so much on them, they will still +always want more; for they want nothing less than +that at last—nothing more be bestowed.</p> + +<p>It will be asked, But how then will it be when the +have-nots take heart? Of what sort is the settlement +to be? One might as well ask that I cast a child's +nativity. What a slave will do as soon as he has +broken his fetters, one must—await.</p> + +<p>In Kaiser's pamphlet, worthless for lack of form as +well as substance ("<i>Die Persoenlichkeit des Eigentuemers +in Bezug auf den Socialismus und Communismus</i>," etc.), he hopes from the <i>State</i> that it will +bring about a leveling of property. Always the State! +Herr Papa! As the Church was proclaimed and +looked upon as the "mother" of believers, so the +State has altogether the face of the provident father.</p> + +<hr style='width: 45%;' /> + +<p><i>Competition</i> shows itself most strictly connected with +the principle of civism. Is it anything else than <i>equality</i> +(<i>égalité</i>)? And is not equality a product of that +same Revolution which was brought on by the commonalty, +the middle classes? As no one is barred +from competing with all in the State (except the +prince, because he represents the State itself) and +working himself up to their height, yes, overthrowing +or exploiting them for his own advantage, soaring +above them and by stronger exertion depriving them +of their favorable circumstances,—this serves as a clear +proof that before the State's judgment-seat every one +has only the value of a "simple individual" and may +not count on any favoritism. Outrun and outbid +each other as much as you like and can; that shall<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_345" id="Page_345">[Pg 345]</a></span> +not trouble me, the State! Among yourselves you +are free in competing, you are competitors; that is +your <i>social</i> position. But before me, the State, you +are nothing but "simple individuals"!<a name="FNanchor_184_184" id="FNanchor_184_184"></a><a href="#Footnote_184_184" class="fnanchor">[184]</a></p> + +<p>What in the form of principle or theory was propounded +as the equality of all has found here in competition +its realization and practical carrying out; for +<i>égalité</i> is—free competition. All are, before the +State,—simple individuals; in society, or in relation +to each other,—competitors.</p> + +<p>I need be nothing further than a simple individual +to be able to compete with all others aside from the +prince and his family: a freedom which formerly was +made impossible by the fact that only by means of +one's corporation, and within it, did one enjoy any +freedom of effort.</p> + +<p>In the guild and feudality the State is in an intolerant +and fastidious attitude, granting <i>privileges</i>; in +competition and liberalism it is in a tolerant and indulgent +attitude, granting only <i>patents</i> (letters assuring +the applicant that the business stands open [patent] +to him) or "concessions." Now, as the State +has thus left everything to the <i>applicants</i>, it must +come in conflict with <i>all</i>, because each and all are +entitled to make application. It will be "stormed," +and will go down in this storm.</p> + +<p>Is "free competition" then really "free"? nay, is it<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_346" id="Page_346">[Pg 346]</a></span> +really a "competition,"—to wit, one of <i>persons</i>,—as it +gives itself out to be because on this title it bases its +right? It originated, you know, in persons becoming +free of all personal rule. Is a competition "free" +which the State, this ruler in the civic principle, hems +in by a thousand barriers? There is a rich manufacturer +doing a brilliant business, and I should like to +compete with him. "Go ahead," says the State, "I +have no objection to make to your <i>person</i> as competitor." +Yes, I reply, but for that I need a space for +buildings, I need money! "That's bad; but, if you +have no money, you cannot compete. You must not +take anything from anybody, for I protect property +and grant it privileges." Free competition is not +"free," because I lack the <span class="smcap">THINGS</span> for competition. +Against my <i>person</i> no objection can be made, but because +I have not the things my person too must step +to the rear. And who has the necessary things? +Perhaps that manufacturer? Why, from him I could +take them away! No, the State has them as property, +the manufacturer only as fief, as possession.</p> + +<p>But, since it is no use trying it with the manufacturer, +I will compete with that professor of jurisprudence; +the man is a booby, and I, who know a hundred +times more than he, shall make his class-room +empty. "Have you studied and graduated, friend?" +No, but what of that? I understand abundantly +what is necessary for instruction in that department. +"Sorry, but competition is not 'free' here. Against +your person there is nothing to be said, but the <i>thing</i>, +the doctor's diploma, is lacking. And this diploma +I, the State, demand. Ask me for it respectfully<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_347" id="Page_347">[Pg 347]</a></span> +first; then we will see what is to be done."</p> + +<p>This, therefore, is the "freedom" of competition. +The State, <i>my lord</i>, first qualifies me to compete.</p> + +<p>But do <i>persons</i> really compete? No, again <i>things</i> +only! Moneys in the first place, etc.</p> + +<p>In the rivalry one will always be left behind another +(<i>e. g.</i> a poetaster behind a poet). But it makes a +difference whether the means that the unlucky competitor +lacks are personal or material, and likewise +whether the material means can be won by <i>personal +energy</i> or are to be obtained only by <i>grace</i>, only as a +present; as when, <i>e. g.</i>, the poorer man must leave, +<i>i. e.</i> present, to the rich man his riches. But, if I must +all along wait for the <i>State's approval</i> to obtain or to +use (<i>e. g.</i> in the case of graduation) the means, I have +the means by the <i>grace of the State</i>.<a name="FNanchor_185_185" id="FNanchor_185_185"></a><a href="#Footnote_185_185" class="fnanchor">[185]</a></p> + +<p>Free competition, therefore, has only the following +meaning: To the State all rank as its equal children, +and every one can scud and run to <i>earn the +State's goods and largess</i>. Therefore all do chase +after havings, holdings, possessions (be it of money or +offices, titles of honor, etc.), after the <i>things</i>.</p> + +<p>In the mind of the commonalty every one is possessor +or "owner." Now, whence comes it that the +most have in fact next to nothing? From this, +that the most are already joyful over being possessors +at all, even though it be of some rags, as children<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_348" id="Page_348">[Pg 348]</a></span> +are joyful in their first trousers or even the first penny +that is presented to them. More precisely, however, +the matter is to be taken as follows. Liberalism came +forward at once with the declaration that it belonged +to man's essence not to be property, but proprietor. +As the consideration here was about "man," not +about the individual, the how-much (which formed exactly +the point of the individual's special interest) was +left to him. Hence the individual's egoism retained +room for the freest play in this how-much, and carried +on an indefatigable competition.</p> + +<p>However, the lucky egoism had to become a snag +in the way of the less fortunate, and the latter, still +keeping its feet planted on the principle of humanity, +put forward the question as to the how-much of possession, +and answered it to the effect that "man must +have as much as he requires."</p> + +<p>Will it be possible for <i>my</i> egoism to let itself be +satisfied with that? What "man" requires furnishes +by no means a scale for measuring me and my needs; +for I may have use for less or more. I must rather +have so much as I am competent to appropriate.</p> + +<p>Competition suffers from the unfavorable circumstance +that the <i>means</i> for competing are not at every +one's command, because they are not taken from personality, +but from accident. Most are <i>without means</i>, +and for this reason <i>without goods</i>.</p> + +<p>Hence the Socialists demand the <i>means</i> for all, and +aim at a society that shall offer means. Your money +value, say they, we no longer recognize as your "competence"; +you must show another competence,—to +wit, your <i>working force</i>. In the possession of a prop<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_349" id="Page_349">[Pg 349]</a></span>erty, +or as "possessor," man does certainly show himself +as man; it was for this reason that we let the +possessor, whom we called "proprietor," keep his +standing so long. Yet you possess the things only +so long as you are not "put out of this property."</p> + +<p>The possessor is competent, but only so far as the +others are incompetent. Since your ware forms your +competence only so long as you are competent to defend +it (<i>i. e.</i>, as <i>we</i> are not competent to do anything +with it), look about you for another competence; +for we now, by our might, surpass your alleged +competence.</p> + +<p>It was an extraordinarily large gain made, when +the point of being regarded as possessors was put +through. Therein bondservice was abolished, and +every one who till then had been bound to the lord's +service, and more or less had been his property, now +became a "lord." But henceforth your having, and +what you have, are no longer adequate and no longer +recognized; <i>per contra</i>, your working and your work +rise in value. We now respect your <i>subduing</i> +things, as we formerly did your possessing them. +Your work is your competence! You are lord or +possessor only of what comes by <i>work</i>, not by <i>inheritance</i>. +But as at the time everything has come by +inheritance, and every copper that you possess bears +not a labor-stamp but an inheritance stamp, everything +must be melted over.</p> + +<p>But is my work then really, as the Communists +suppose, my sole competence? or does not this consist +rather in everything that I am competent for? +And does not the workers society itself have to con<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_350" id="Page_350">[Pg 350]</a></span>cede +this, <i>e. g.</i> in supporting also the sick, children, +old men,—in short, those who are incapable of work? +These are still competent for a good deal, <i>e. g.</i> to +preserve their life instead of taking it. If they are +competent to cause you to desire their continued existence, +they have a power over you. To him who exercised +utterly no power over you, you would vouchsafe +nothing; he might perish.</p> + +<p>Therefore, what you are <i>competent</i> for is your <i>competence</i>! +If you are competent to furnish pleasure to +thousands, then thousands will pay you an honorarium +for it; for it would stand in your power to forbear +doing it, hence they must purchase your deed. +If you are not competent to <i>captivate</i> any one, you +may simply starve.</p> + +<p>Now am I, who am competent for much, perchance +to have no advantage over the less competent?</p> + +<p>We are all in the midst of abundance; now shall I +not help myself as well as I can, but only wait and see +how much is left me in an equal division?</p> + +<p>Against competition there rises up the principle of +ragamuffin society,—<i>partition</i>.</p> + +<p>To be looked upon as a mere <i>part</i>, part of society, +the individual cannot bear—because he is <i>more</i>; his +uniqueness puts from it this limited conception.</p> + +<p>Hence he does not await his competence from the I +sharing of others, and even in the workers' society +there arises the misgiving that in an equal partition +the strong will be exploited by the weak; he awaits +his competence rather from himself, and says now, +What I am competent to have, that is my competence. +What competence does not the child possess in its<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_351" id="Page_351">[Pg 351]</a></span> +smiling, its playing, its screaming! in short, in its +mere existence! Are you capable of resisting its +desire? or do you not hold out to it, as mother, your +breast; as father, as much of your possessions as it +needs? It compels you, therefore it possesses what +you call yours.</p> + +<p>If your person is of consequence to me, you pay me +with your very existence; if I am concerned only with +one of your qualities, then your compliance, perhaps, +or your aid, has a value (a money value) for me, and +I <i>purchase</i> it.</p> + +<p>If you do not know how to give yourself any other +than a money value in my estimation, there may arise +the case of which history tells us, that Germans, sons +of the fatherland, were sold to America. Should +those who let themselves be traded in be worth more +to the seller? He preferred the cash to this living +ware that did not understand how to make itself precious +to him. That he discovered nothing more valuable +in it was assuredly a defect of his competence; +but it takes a rogue to give more than he has. How +should he show respect when he did not have it, nay, +hardly could have it for such a pack!</p> + +<p>You behave egoistically when you respect each +other neither as possessors nor as ragamuffins or workers, +but as a part of your competence, as "<i>useful +bodies</i>." Then you will neither give anything to the +possessor ("proprietor") for his possessions, nor to +him who works, but only to him whom <i>you require</i>. +The North Americans ask themselves, Do we require a +king? and answer, Not a farthing are he and his work +worth to us.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_352" id="Page_352">[Pg 352]</a></span></p> + +<p>If it is said that competition throws every thing open +to all, the expression is not accurate, and it is better +put thus: competition makes everything purchasable. +In <i>abandoning</i><a name="FNanchor_186_186" id="FNanchor_186_186"></a><a href="#Footnote_186_186" class="fnanchor">[186]</a> it to them, competition leaves it to +their appraisal<a name="FNanchor_187_187" id="FNanchor_187_187"></a><a href="#Footnote_187_187" class="fnanchor">[187]</a> or their estimation, and demands a +price<a name="FNanchor_188_188" id="FNanchor_188_188"></a><a href="#Footnote_188_188" class="fnanchor">[188]</a> for it.</p> + +<p>But the would-be buyers mostly lack the means to +make themselves buyers: they have no money. For +money, then, the purchasable things are indeed to be +had ("For money everything is to be had!"), but it is +exactly money that is lacking. Where is one to get +money, this current or circulating property? Know +then, you have as much money<a name="FNanchor_189_189" id="FNanchor_189_189"></a><a href="#Footnote_189_189" class="fnanchor">[189]</a> as you have—might; +for you count<a name="FNanchor_190_190" id="FNanchor_190_190"></a><a href="#Footnote_190_190" class="fnanchor">[190]</a> for as much as you make yourself +count for.</p> + +<p>One pays not with money, of which there may come +a lack, but with his competence, by which alone we +are "competent";<a name="FNanchor_191_191" id="FNanchor_191_191"></a><a href="#Footnote_191_191" class="fnanchor">[191]</a> for one is proprietor only so far as +the arm of our power reaches.</p> + +<p>Weitling has thought out a new means of payment,—work. +But the true means of payment remains, as +always, <i>competence</i>. With what you have "within +your competence" you pay. Therefore think on the +enlargement of your competence.</p> + +<p>This being admitted, they are nevertheless right +on hand again with the motto, "To each according +to his competence!" Who is to <i>give</i> to me according +to my competence? Society? Then I should have to +put up with its estimation. Rather, I shall <i>take</i><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_353" id="Page_353">[Pg 353]</a></span> +according to my competence.</p> + +<p>"All belongs to all!" This proposition springs +from the same unsubstantial theory. To each belongs +only what he is competent for. If I say, The world +belongs to me, properly that too is empty talk, which +has a meaning only in so far as I respect no alien +property. But to me belongs only as much as I am +competent for, or have within my competence.</p> + +<p>One is not worthy to have what one, through weakness, +lets be taken from him; one is not worthy of it +because one is not capable of it.</p> + +<p>They raise a mighty uproar over the "wrong of a +thousand years" which is being committed by the +rich against the poor. As if the rich were to blame +for poverty, and the poor were not in like manner +responsible for riches! Is there another difference +between the two than that of competence and incompetence, +of the competent and incompetent? Wherein, +pray, does the crime of the rich consist? "In their +hardheartedness." But who then have maintained +the poor? who have cared for their nourishment? who +have given alms, those alms that have even their name +from mercy (<i>eleemosyne</i>)? Have not the rich been +"merciful" at all times? are they not to this day +"tender-hearted," as poor-taxes, hospitals, foundations +of all sorts, etc., prove?</p> + +<p>But all this does not satisfy you! Doubtless, then, +they are to <i>share</i> with the poor? Now you are demanding +that they shall abolish poverty. Aside from +the point that there might be hardly one among you +who would act so, and that this one would be a fool +for it, do ask yourselves: why should the rich let go<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_354" id="Page_354">[Pg 354]</a></span> +their fleeces and give up <i>themselves</i>, thereby pursuing +the advantage of the poor rather than their own? +You, who have your thaler daily, are rich above +thousands who live on four groschen. Is it for your +interest to share with the thousands, or is it not rather +for theirs?— —</p> + +<p>With competition is connected less the intention to +do the thing <i>best</i> than the intention to make it as +<i>profitable</i>, as productive, as possible. Hence people +study to get into the civil service (pot-boiling study), +study cringing and flattery, routine and "acquaintance +with business," work "for appearances." Hence, +while it is apparently a matter of doing "good service," +in truth only a "good business" and earning +of money are looked out for. The job is done only +ostensibly for the job's sake, but in fact on account of +the gain that it yields. One would indeed prefer not +to be censor, but one wants to be—advanced; one +would like to judge, administer, etc., according to his +best convictions, but one is afraid of transference or +even dismissal; one must, above all things,—live.</p> + +<p>Thus these goings-on are a fight for <i>dear life</i>, and, +in gradation upward, for more or less of a "good +living."</p> + +<p>And yet, withal, their whole round of toil and care +brings in for most only "bitter life" and "bitter +poverty." All the bitter painstaking for this!</p> + +<p>Restless acquisition does not let us take breath, +take a calm <i>enjoyment</i>: we do not get the comfort of +our possessions.</p> + +<p>But the organization of labor touches only such +labors as others can do for us, <i>e. g.</i> slaughtering, till<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_355" id="Page_355">[Pg 355]</a></span>age, +etc.; the rest remain egoistic, because, <i>e. g.</i>, no +one can in your stead elaborate your musical compositions, +carry out your projects of painting, etc.; nobody +can replace Raphael's labors. The latter are labors +of a unique person,<a name="FNanchor_192_192" id="FNanchor_192_192"></a><a href="#Footnote_192_192" class="fnanchor">[192]</a> which only he is competent to +achieve, while the former deserved to be called +"human," since what is anybody's <i>own</i> in them is of +slight account, and almost "any man" can be +trained to it.</p> + +<p>Now, as society can regard only labors for the common +benefit, <i>human</i> labors, he who does anything +<i>unique</i> remains without its care; nay, he may find +himself disturbed by its intervention. The unique +person will work himself forth out of society all right, +but society brings forth no unique person.</p> + +<p>Hence it is at any rate helpful that we come to an +agreement about <i>human</i> labors, that they may not, as +under competition, claim all our time and toil. So +far Communism will bear its fruits. For before the +dominion of the commonalty even that for which all +men are qualified, or can be qualified, was tied up to +a few and withheld from the rest: it was a privilege. +To the commonalty it looked equitable to leave free +all that seemed to exist for every "man." But, because +left<a name="FNanchor_193_193" id="FNanchor_193_193"></a><a href="#Footnote_193_193" class="fnanchor">[193]</a> free, it was yet given to no one, but rather +left to each to be got hold of by his <i>human</i> power. +By this the mind was turned to the acquisition of the +human, which henceforth beckoned to every one; and +there arose a movement which one hears so loudly +bemoaned under the name of "materialism."<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_356" id="Page_356">[Pg 356]</a></span></p> + +<p>Communism seeks to check its course, spreading the +belief that the human is not worth so much discomfort, +and, with sensible arrangements, could be gained +without the great expense of time and powers which +has hitherto seemed requisite.</p> + +<p>But for whom is time to be gained? For what +does man require more time than is necessary to refresh +his wearied powers of labor? Here Communism +is silent.</p> + +<p>For what? To take comfort in himself as the +unique, after he has done his part as man!</p> + +<p>In the first joy over being allowed to stretch out their +hands toward everything human, people forgot to +want anything else; and they competed away vigorously, +as if the possession of the human were the +goal of all our wishes.</p> + +<p>But they have run themselves tired, and are gradually +noticing that "possession does not give happiness." +Therefore they are thinking of obtaining the +necessary by an easier bargain, and spending on it +only so much time and toil as its indispensableness +exacts. Riches fall in price, and contented poverty, +the care-free ragamuffin, becomes the seductive ideal.</p> + +<p>Should such human activities, that every one is confident +of his capacity for, be highly salaried, and +sought for with toil and expenditure of all life-forces? +Even in the every-day form of speech, "If I were +minister, or even the ..., then it should go quite +otherwise," that confidence expresses itself,—that one +holds himself capable of playing the part of such a +dignitary; one does get a perception that to things +of this sort there belongs not uniqueness, but only a<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_357" id="Page_357">[Pg 357]</a></span> +culture which is attainable, even if not exactly by all, +at any rate by many; <i>i. e.</i> that for such a thing one +need only be an ordinary man.</p> + +<p>If we assume that, as <i>order</i> belongs to the essence of +the State, so <i>subordination</i> too is founded in its nature, +then we see that the subordinates, or those who +have received preferment, disproportionately <i>overcharge</i> +and <i>overreach</i> those who are put in the lower +ranks. But the latter take heart (first from the +Socialist standpoint, but certainly with egoistic consciousness +later, of which we will therefore at once +give their speech some coloring) for the question, By +what then is your property secure, you creatures of +preferment?—and give themselves the answer, By our +refraining from interference! And so by <i>our</i> protection! +And what do you give us for it? Kicks and +disdain you give to the "common people"; police +supervision, and a catechism with the chief sentence +"Respect what is <i>not yours</i>, what belongs to <i>others</i>! +respect others, and especially your superiors!" But +we reply, "If you want our respect, <i>buy</i> it for a price +agreeable to us. We will leave you your property, if +you give a due equivalent for this leaving." Really, +what equivalent does the general in time of peace +give for the many thousands of his yearly income? +another for the sheer hundred-thousands and millions +yearly? What equivalent do you give for our chewing +potatoes and looking calmly on while you swallow +oysters? Only buy the oysters of us as dear as we +have to buy the potatoes of you, then you may go on +eating them. Or do you suppose the oysters do not +belong to us as much as to you? You will make an<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_358" id="Page_358">[Pg 358]</a></span> +outcry over <i>violence</i> if we reach out our hands and +help consume them, and you are right. Without +violence we do not get them, as you no less have them +by doing violence to us.</p> + +<p>But take the oysters and have done with it, and let +us consider our nearer property, labor; for the +other is only possession. We distress ourselves twelve +hours in the sweat of our face, and you offer us a few +groschen for it. Then take the like for your labor +too. Are you not willing? You fancy that our +labor is richly repaid with that wage, while yours on +the other hand is worth a wage of many thousands. +But, if you did not rate yours so high, and gave us a +better chance to realize value from ours, then we +might well, if the case demanded it, bring to pass still +more important things than you do for the many +thousand thalers; and, if you got only such wages as +we, you would soon grow more industrious in order to +receive more. But, if you render any service that +seems to us worth ten and a hundred times more than +our own labor, why, then you shall get a hundred +times more for it too; we, on the other hand, think +also to produce for you things for which you will requite +us more highly than with the ordinary day's +wages. We shall be willing to get along with each +other all right, if only we have first agreed on this,—that +neither any longer needs to—<i>present</i> anything to +the other. Then we may perhaps actually go so far as +to pay even the cripples and sick and old an appropriate +price for not parting from us by hunger and want; +for, if we want them to live, it is fitting also that we—purchase +the fulfilment of our will. I say "purchase,"<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_359" id="Page_359">[Pg 359]</a></span> +and therefore do not mean a wretched "alms." For +their life is the property even of those who cannot +work; if we (no matter for what reason) want them +not to withdraw this life from us, we can mean to +bring this to pass only by purchase; nay, we shall +perhaps (maybe because we like to have friendly faces +about us) even want a life of comfort for them. In +short, we want nothing presented by you, but neither +will we present you with anything. For centuries we +have handed alms to you from good-hearted—stupidity, +have doled out the mite of the poor and given to +the masters the things that are—not the masters'; now +just open your wallet, for henceforth our ware rises in +price quite enormously. We do not want to take +from you anything, anything at all, only you are to +pay better for what you want to have. What then +have you? "I have an estate of a thousand acres." +And I am your plowman, and will henceforth attend +to your fields only for one thaler a day wages. +"Then I'll take another." You won't find any, +for we plowmen are no longer doing otherwise, and, +if one puts in an appearance who takes less, then let +him beware of us. There is the housemaid, she too is +now demanding as much, and you will no longer find +one below this price. "Why, then it is all over with +me." Not so fast! You will doubtless take in as +much as we; and, if it should not be so, we will take +off so much that you shall have wherewith to live like +us. "But I am accustomed to live better." We +have nothing against that, but it is not our lookout; +if you can clear more, go ahead. Are we to hire out +under rates, that you may have a good living? The<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_360" id="Page_360">[Pg 360]</a></span> +rich man always puts off the poor with the words, +"What does your want concern me? See to it how +you make your way through the world; that is <i>your +affair</i>, not mine." Well, let us let it be our affair, +then, and let us not let the means that we have to +realize value from ourselves be pilfered from us by the +rich. "But you uncultured people really do not need +so much." Well, we are taking somewhat more in +order that for it we may procure the culture that we +perhaps need. "But, if you thus bring down the +rich, who is then to support the arts and sciences +hereafter?" Oh, well, we must make it up by numbers; +we club together, that gives a nice little sum,—besides, +you rich men now buy only the most tasteless +books and the most lamentable Madonnas or a pair +of lively dancer's legs. "O ill-starred equality!" +No, my good old sir, nothing of equality. We only +want to count for what we are worth, and, if you are +worth more, you shall count for more right along. +We only want to be <i>worth our price</i>, and think to +show ourselves worth the price that you will pay.</p> + +<p>Is the State likely to be able to awaken so secure +a temper and so forceful a self-consciousness in the +menial? Can it make man feel himself? nay, may +it even do so much as set this goal for itself? Can it +want the individual to recognize his value and realize +this value from himself? Let us keep the parts of the +double question separate, and see first whether the +State can bring about such a thing. As the unanimity +of the plowmen is required, only this unanimity +can bring it to pass, and a State law would be evaded +in a thousand ways by competition and in secret.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_361" id="Page_361">[Pg 361]</a></span> +But can the State bear with it? The State cannot +possibly bear with people's suffering coercion from another +than it; it could not, therefore, admit the self-help +of the unanimous plowmen against those who +want to engage for lower wages. Suppose, however, +that the State made the law, and all the plowmen +were in accord with it: could the State bear with it +then?</p> + +<p>In the isolated case—yes; but the isolated case is +more than that, it is a case of <i>principle</i>. The question +therein is of the whole range of <i>the ego's self-realization +of value from himself</i>, and therefore also +of his self-consciousness <i>against</i> the State. So far the +Communists keep company; but, as self-realization of +value from self necessarily directs itself against the +State, so it does against <i>society</i> too, and therewith +reaches out beyond the commune and the communistic—out +of egoism.</p> + +<p>Communism makes the maxim of the commonalty, +that every one is a possessor ("proprietor"), into an +irrefragable truth, into a reality, since the anxiety +about <i>obtaining</i> now ceases and every one <i>has</i> from +the start what he requires. In his labor-force he <i>has</i> +his competence, and, if he makes no use of it, that is +his fault. The grasping and hounding is at an end, +and no competition is left (as so often now) without +fruit, because with every stroke of labor an adequate +supply of the needful is brought into the house. Now +for the first time one is a <i>real possessor</i>, because what +one has in his labor-force can no longer escape from +him as it was continually threatening to do under the +system of competition. One is a <i>care-free</i> and assured<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_362" id="Page_362">[Pg 362]</a></span> +possessor. And one is this precisely by seeking his +competence no longer in a ware, but in his own labor, +his competence for labor; and therefore by being a +<i>ragamuffin</i>, a man of only ideal wealth. <i>I</i>, however, +cannot content myself with the little that I +scrape up by my competence for labor, because my +competence does not consist merely in my labor.</p> + +<p>By labor I can perform the official functions of a +president, a minister, etc.; these offices demand only a +general culture,—to wit, such a culture as is generally +attainable (for general culture is not merely that +which every one has attained, but broadly that which +every one can attain, and therefore every special culture, +<i>e. g.</i> medical, military, philological, of which no +"cultivated man" believes that they surpass his +powers), or, broadly, only a skill possible to all.</p> + +<p>But, even if these offices may vest in every one, yet +it is only the individual's unique force, peculiar to +him alone, that gives them, so to speak, life and significance. +That he does not manage his office like an +"ordinary man," but puts in the competence of his +uniqueness, this he is not yet paid for when he is paid +only in general as an official or a minister. If he has +done it so as to earn your thanks, and you wish to retain +this thankworthy force of the unique one, you +must not pay him like a mere man who performed +only what was human, but as one who accomplishes +what is unique. Do the like with your labor, do!</p> + +<p>There cannot be a general schedule-price fixed for +my uniqueness as there can for what I do as man. +Only for the latter can a schedule-price be set.</p> + +<p>Go right on, then, setting up a general appraisal<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_363" id="Page_363">[Pg 363]</a></span> +for human labors, but do not deprive your uniqueness +of its desert.</p> + +<p><i>Human</i> or <i>general</i> needs can be satisfied through +society; for satisfaction of <i>unique</i> needs you must do +some seeking. A friend and a friendly service, or +even an individual's service, society cannot procure +you. And yet you will every moment be in need of +such a service, and on the slightest occasions require +somebody who is helpful to you. Therefore do not +rely on society, but see to it that you have the wherewithal +to—purchase the fulfiment of your wishes.</p> + +<p>Whether money is to be retained among egoists?—To +the old stamp an inherited possession adheres. If +you no longer let yourselves be paid with it, it is +ruined: if you do nothing for this money, it loses all +power. Cancel the <i>inheritance</i>, and you have broken +off the executor's court-seal. For now everything is +an inheritance, whether it be already inherited or +await its heir. If it is yours, wherefore do you let it +be sealed up from you? why do you respect the seal?</p> + +<p>But why should you not create a new money? Do +you then annihilate the ware in taking from it the +hereditary stamp? Now, money is a ware, and an essential +<i>means</i> or competence. For it protects against +the ossification of resources, keeps them in flux and +brings to pass their exchange. If you know a better +medium of exchange, go ahead; yet it will be a +"money" again. It is not the money that does you +damage, but your incompetence to take it. Let your +competence take effect, collect yourselves, and there +will be no lack of money—of your money, the money +of <i>your</i> stamp. But working I do not call "letting<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_364" id="Page_364">[Pg 364]</a></span> +your competence take effect." Those who are only +"looking for work" and "willing to work hard" are +preparing for their own selves the infallible upshot—to +be out of work.</p> + +<p>Good and bad luck depend on money. It is a +power in the <i>bourgeois</i> period for this reason, that it +is only wooed on all hands like a girl, indissolubly +wedded by nobody. All the romance and chivalry of +<i>wooing</i> for a dear object come to life again in competition. +Money, an object of longing, is carried off +by the bold "knights of industry."<a name="FNanchor_194_194" id="FNanchor_194_194"></a><a href="#Footnote_194_194" class="fnanchor">[194]</a></p> + +<p>He who has luck takes home the bride. The ragamuffin +has luck; he takes her into his household, +"society," and destroys the virgin. In his house she +is no longer bride, but wife; and with her virginity +her family name is also lost. As housewife the +maiden Money is called "Labor," for "Labor" is her +husband's name. She is a possession of her husband's.</p> + +<p>To bring this figure to an end, the child of Labor +and Money is again a girl, an unwedded one and +therefore Money, but with the certain descent from +Labor, her father. The form of the face, the "effigy," +bears another stamp.</p> + +<p>Finally, as regards competition once more, it has +a continued existence by this very means, that all do +not attend to <i>their affair</i> and come to an <i>understanding</i> +with each other about it. Bread, <i>e. g.</i>, is a need +of all the inhabitants of a city; therefore they might +easily agree on setting up a public bakery. Instead +of this, they leave the furnishing of the needful to the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_365" id="Page_365">[Pg 365]</a></span> +competing bakers. Just so meat to the butchers, wine +to the wine-dealers, etc.</p> + +<p>Abolishing competition is not equivalent to favoring +the guild. The difference is this: In the <i>guild</i> +baking, etc., is the affair of the guild-brothers; in +<i>competition</i>, the affair of chance competitors; in the +<i>union</i>, of those who require baked goods, and therefore +my affair, yours, the affair of neither the guildic +nor the concessionary baker, but the affair of the +<i>united</i>.</p> + +<p>If <i>I</i> do not trouble myself about <i>my</i> affair, I must +be <i>content</i> with what it pleases others to vouchsafe +me. To have bread is my affair, my wish and desire, +and yet people leave that to the bakers and hope at +most to obtain through their wrangling, their getting +ahead of each other, their rivalry,—in short, their +competition,—an advantage which one could not +count on in the case of the guild-brothers who were +lodged <i>entirely</i> and <i>alone</i> in the proprietorship of the +baking franchise.—What every one requires, every +one should also take a hand in procuring and producing; +it is <i>his</i> affair, his property, not the property of +the guildic or concessionary master.</p> + +<p>Let us look back once more. The world belongs +to the children of this world, the children of men; it +is no longer God's world, but man's. As much as +every man can procure of it, let him call his; only +the true man, the State, human society or mankind, +will look to it that each shall make nothing else his +own than what he appropriates as man, <i>i. e.</i> in human +fashion. Unhuman appropriation is that which is +not consented to by man, <i>i. e.</i> it is a "criminal" ap<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_366" id="Page_366">[Pg 366]</a></span>propriation, +as the human, <i>vice versa</i>, is a "rightful" +one, one acquired in the "way of law."</p> + +<p>So they talk since the Revolution.</p> + +<p>But my property is not a thing, since this has an +existence independent of me; only my might is my +own. Not this tree, but my might or control over it, +is what is mine.</p> + +<p>Now, how is this might perversely expressed? They +say I have a <i>right</i> to this tree, or it is my <i>rightful</i> +property. So I have <i>earned</i> it by might. That the +might must last in order that the tree may also be +<i>held</i>,—or better, that the might is not a thing existing +of itself, but has existence solely in the <i>mighty ego</i>, in +me the mighty,—is forgotten. Might, like other of my +<i>qualities</i> (<i>e. g.</i> humanity, majesty, etc.), is exalted +to something existing of itself, so that it still exists +long after it has ceased to be <i>my</i> might. Thus transformed +into a ghost, might is—<i>right</i>. This <i>eternalized</i> +might is not extinguished even with my death, +but is transferred or "bequeathed."</p> + +<p>Things now really belong not to me, but to right.</p> + +<p>On the other side, this is nothing but a hallucination +of vision. For the individual's might becomes +permanent and a right only by others joining their +might with his. The delusion consists in their believing +that they cannot withdraw their might. The +same phenomenon over again; might is separated +from me. I cannot take back the might that I gave +to the possessor. One has "granted power of attorney," +has given away his power, has renounced coming +to a better mind.</p> + +<p>The proprietor can give up his might and his right<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_367" id="Page_367">[Pg 367]</a></span> +to a thing by giving the thing away, squandering it, +and the like. And <i>we</i> should not be able likewise to +let go the might that we lend to him?</p> + +<p>The rightful man, the <i>just</i>, desires to call nothing +his own that he does not have "rightly" or have the +right to, and therefore only <i>legitimate property</i>.</p> + +<p>Now, who is to be judge, and adjudge his right +to him? At last, surely, Man, who imparts to him +the rights of man: then he can say, in an infinitely +broader sense than Terence, <i>humani nihil a me +alienum puto</i>, <i>i. e.</i> the <i>human is my property</i>. However +he may go about it, so long as he occupies this +standpoint he cannot get clear of a judge; and in our +time the multifarious judges that had been selected +have set themselves against each other in two persons +at deadly enmity,—to wit, in God and Man. The +one party appeal to divine right, the other to human +right or the rights of man.</p> + +<p>So much is clear, that in neither case does the +individual do the entitling himself.</p> + +<p>Just pick me out an action to-day that would not be +a violation of right! Every moment the rights of +man are trampled under foot by one side, while their +opponents cannot open their mouth without uttering a +blasphemy against divine right. Give an alms, you +mock at a right of man, because the relation of beggar +and benefactor is an inhuman relation; utter a doubt, +you sin against a divine right. Eat dry bread with +contentment, you violate the right of man by your +equanimity; eat it with discontent, you revile divine +right by your repining. There is not one among you +who does not commit a crime at every moment; your<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_368" id="Page_368">[Pg 368]</a></span> +speeches are crimes, and every hindrance to your +freedom of speech is no less a crime. Ye are criminals +altogether!</p> + +<p>Yet you are so only in that you all stand on the +<i>ground of right</i>; <i>i. e.</i>, in that you do not even know, +and understand how to value, the fact that you are +criminals.</p> + +<p>Inviolable or <i>sacred</i> property has grown on this +very ground: it is a <i>juridical concept</i>.</p> + +<p>A dog sees the bone in another's power, and stands +off only if it feels itself too weak. But man respects +the other's <i>right</i> to his bone. The latter action, +therefore, ranks as <i>human</i>, the former as <i>brutal</i> or +"egoistic."</p> + +<p>And as here, so in general, it is called "<i>human</i>" +when one sees in everything something <i>spiritual</i> (here +right), <i>i. e.</i> makes everything a ghost and takes his +attitude toward it as toward a ghost, which one can +indeed scare away at its appearance, but cannot kill. +It is human to look at what is individual not as +individual, but as a generality.</p> + +<p>In nature as such I no longer respect anything, but +know myself to be entitled to everything against it; in +the tree in that garden, on the other hand, I must +respect <i>alienness</i> (they say in one-sided fashion "property"), +I must keep my hand off it. This comes to an +end only when I can indeed leave that tree to another +as I leave my stick, etc., to another, but do not in +advance regard it as alien to me, <i>i. e.</i> sacred. Rather, +I make to myself no <i>crime</i> of felling it if I will, and it +remains my property, however long I resign it to +others: it is and remains <i>mine</i>. In the banker's for<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_369" id="Page_369">[Pg 369]</a></span>tune +I as little see anything alien as Napoleon did in +the territories of kings: we have no <i>dread</i> of "<i>conquering</i>" +it, and we look about us also for the means +thereto. We strip off from it, therefore, the <i>spirit</i> of +<i>alienness</i>, of which we had been afraid.</p> + +<p>Therefore it is necessary that I do not lay claim to +anything more <i>as man</i>, but to everything as I, this I; +and accordingly to nothing human, but to mine; <i>i. e.</i> +nothing that pertains to me as man, but—what I will +and because I will it.</p> + +<p>Rightful, or legitimate, property of another will be +only that which <i>you</i> are content to recognize as such. +If your content ceases, then this property has lost +legitimacy for you, and you will laugh at absolute +right to it.</p> + +<p>Besides the hitherto discussed property in the +limited sense, there is held up to our reverent heart +another property against which we are far less "to +sin." This property consists in spiritual goods, in the +"sanctuary of the inner nature." What a man +holds sacred, no other is to gibe at; because, untrue +as it may be, and zealously as one may "in loving +and modest wise" seek to convince of a true sanctity +the man who adheres to it and believes in it, yet <i>the +sacred</i> itself is always to be honored in it: the mistaken +man does believe in the sacred, even though in +an incorrect essence of it, and so his belief in the +sacred must at least be respected.</p> + +<p>In ruder times than ours it was customary to demand +a particular faith, and devotion to a particular +sacred essence, and they did not take the gentlest way +with those who believed otherwise; since, however,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_370" id="Page_370">[Pg 370]</a></span> +"freedom of belief" spread itself more and more +abroad, the "jealous God and sole Lord" gradually +melted into a pretty general "supreme being," and it +satisfied humane tolerance if only every one revered +"something sacred."</p> + +<p>Reduces to the human expression, this sacred +essence is "man himself" and "the human." With +the deceptive semblance as if the human were altogether +our own, and free from all the otherworldliness +with which that divine is tainted,—yes, as if Man were +as much as I or you,—there may arise even the proud +fancy that the talk is no longer of a "sacred essence" +and that we now feel ourselves everywhere at home +and no longer in the uncanny,<a name="FNanchor_195_195" id="FNanchor_195_195"></a><a href="#Footnote_195_195" class="fnanchor">[195]</a> <i>i. e.</i> in the sacred and +in sacred awe: in the ecstasy over "Man discovered at +last" the egoistic cry of pain passes unheard, and the +spook that has become so intimate is taken for our +true ego.</p> + +<p>But "Humanus is the saint's name" (see Goethe), +and the humane is only the most clarified sanctity.</p> + +<p>The egoist makes the reverse declaration. For this +precise reason, because you hold something sacred, I +gibe at you; and, even if I respected everything in +you, your sanctuary is precisely what I should not +respect.</p> + +<p>With these opposed views there must also be assumed +a contradictory relation to spiritual goods: the +egoist insults them, the religious man (<i>i. e.</i> every one +who puts his "essence" above himself) must consistently—protect +them. But what kind of spiritual<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_371" id="Page_371">[Pg 371]</a></span> +goods are to be protected, and what left unprotected, +depends entirely on the concept that one forms of the +"supreme being"; and he who fears God, <i>e. g.</i>, has +more to shelter than he (the liberal) who fears Man.</p> + +<p>In spiritual goods we are (in distinction from the +sensuous) injured in a spiritual way, and the sin +against them consists in a direct <i>desecration</i>, while +against the sensuous a purloining or alienation takes +place; the goods themselves are robbed of value and +of consecration, not merely taken away; the sacred is +immediately compromised. With the word "irreverence" +or "flippancy" is designated everything that +can be committed as <i>crime</i> against spiritual goods, <i>i. e.</i> +against everything that is sacred for us; and scoffing, +reviling, contempt, doubt, and the like, are only different +shades of <i>criminal flippancy</i>.</p> + +<p>That desecration can be practised in the most manifold +wise is here to be passed over, and only that desecration +is to be preferentially mentioned which threatens +the sacred with danger through an <i>unrestricted +press</i>.</p> + +<p>As long as respect is demanded even for one spiritual +essence, speech and the press must be enthralled in +the name of this essence; for just so long the egoist +might "trespass" against it by his <i>utterances</i>, from +which thing he must be hindered by "due punishment" +at least, if one does not prefer to take up the +more correct means against it, the preventive use of +police authority, <i>e. g.</i> censorship.</p> + +<p>What a sighing for liberty of the press! What +then is the press to be liberated from? Surely from a +dependence, a belonging, and a liability to service!<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_372" id="Page_372">[Pg 372]</a></span> +But to liberate himself from that is every one's affair, +and it may with safety be assumed that, when you +have delivered yourself from liability to service, that +which you compose and write will also belong to you +as your <i>own</i> instead of having been thought and indited +<i>in the service</i> of some power. What can a believer +in Christ say and have printed, that should be +freer from that belief in Christ than he himself is? +If I cannot or may not write something, perhaps the +primary fault lies with <i>me</i>. Little as this seems to +hit the point, so near is the application nevertheless to +be found. By a press-law I draw a boundary for my +publications, or let one be drawn, beyond which wrong +and its <i>punishment</i> follows. I myself <i>limit</i> myself.</p> + +<p>If the press was to be free, nothing would be so important +as precisely its liberation from every coercion +that could be put on it in the <i>name of a law</i>. And, +that it might come to that, I my own self should have +to have absolved myself from obedience to the law.</p> + +<p>Certainly, the absolute liberty of the press is like +every absolute liberty, a nonentity. The press can +become free from full many a thing, but always only +from what I too am free from. If we make ourselves +free from the sacred, if we have become <i>graceless</i> and +<i>lawless</i>, our words too will become so.</p> + +<p>As little as <i>we</i> can be declared clear of every coercion +in the world, so little can our writing be withdrawn +from it. But as free as we are, so free we can +make it too.</p> + +<p>It must therefore become our <i>own</i>, instead of, as +hitherto, serving a spook.</p> + +<p>People do not yet know what they mean by their<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_373" id="Page_373">[Pg 373]</a></span> +cry for liberty of the press. What they ostensibly +ask is that the State shall set the press free; but what +they are really after, without knowing it themselves, is +that the press become free from the State, or clear of +the State. The former is a <i>petition</i> to the State, the latter +an <i>insurrection against</i> the State. As a +"petition for right," even as a serious demanding of +the right of liberty of the press, it presupposes the +State as the <i>giver</i>, and can hope only for a <i>present</i>, a +permission, a chartering. Possible, no doubt, that a +State acts so senselessly as to grant the demanded +present; but you may bet everything that those who +receive the present will not know how to use it so long +as they regard the State as a truth: they will not +trespass against this "sacred thing," and will call for +a penal press-law against every one who would be +willing to dare this.</p> + +<p>In a word, the press does not become free from +what I am not free from.</p> + +<p>Do I perhaps hereby show myself an opponent of +the liberty of the press? On the contrary, I only assert +that one will never get it if one wants only it, the +liberty of the press; <i>i. e.</i> if one sets out only for an +unrestricted permission. Only beg right along for +this permission: you may wait forever for it, for there +is no one in the world who could give it to you. As +long as you want to have yourselves "entitled" to the +use of the press by a permission, <i>i. e.</i> liberty of the +press, you live in vain hope and complaint.</p> + +<p>"Nonsense! Why, you yourself, who harbor such +thoughts as stand in your book, can unfortunately +bring them to publicity only through a lucky chance<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_374" id="Page_374">[Pg 374]</a></span> +or by stealth; nevertheless you will inveigh against +one's pressing and importuning his own State till it +gives the refused permission to print?" But an +author thus addressed would perhaps—for the impudence +of such people goes far—give the following +reply: "Consider well what you say! What then +do I do to procure myself liberty of the press for my +book? Do I ask for permission, or do I not rather, +without any question of legality, seek a favorable occasion +and grasp it in complete recklessness of the +State and its wishes? I—the terrifying word must be +uttered—I cheat the State. You unconsciously do the +same. From your tribunes you talk it into the idea +that it must give up its sanctity and inviolability, it +must lay itself bare to the attacks of writers, without +needing on that account to fear danger. But you are +imposing on it; for its existence is done for as soon as +it loses its unapproachableness. To <i>you</i> indeed it +might well accord liberty of writing, as England has +done; you are <i>believers in the State</i> and incapable of +writing against the State, however much you would +like to reform it and 'remedy its defects.' But +what if opponents of the State availed themselves of +free utterance, and stormed out against Church, State, +morals, and everything 'sacred' with inexorable +reasons? You would then be the first, in terrible +agonies, to call into life the <i>September laws</i>. Too +late would you then rue the stupidity that earlier +made you so ready to fool and palaver into compliance +the State, or the government of the State.—But +I prove by my act only two things. This for one, +that the liberty of the press is always bound to 'favor<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_375" id="Page_375">[Pg 375]</a></span>able +opportunities,' and accordingly will never be an +absolute liberty; but secondly this, that he who would +enjoy it must seek out and, if possible, create the +favorable opportunity, availing himself of his <i>own +advantage</i> against the State, and counting himself +and his will more than the State and every 'superior' +power. Not in the State, but only against it, can +the liberty of the press be carried through; if it is +to be established, it is to be obtained not as the consequence +of a <i>petition</i> but as the work of an <i>insurrection</i>. +Every petition and every motion for liberty +of the press is already an insurrection, be it conscious +or unconscious: a thing which Philistine halfness +alone will not and cannot confess to itself until, with a +shrinking shudder, it shall see it clearly and irrefutably +by the outcome. For the requested liberty of +the press has indeed a friendly and well-meaning face +at the beginning, as it is not in the least minded ever +to let the 'insolence of the press' come into vogue; but +little by little its heart grows more hardened, and the +inference flatters its way in that really a liberty is not +a liberty if it stands in the <i>service</i> of the State, of +morals, or of the law. A liberty indeed from the +coercion of censorship, it is yet not a liberty from the +coercion of law. The press, once seized by the lust +for liberty, always wants to grow freer, till at last the +writer says to himself, Really I am not wholly free +till I ask about nothing; and writing is free only +when it is my <i>own</i>, dictated to me by no power or +authority, by no faith, no dread; the press must not +be free—that is too little—it must be <i>mine</i>:—<i>ownness +of the press</i> or <i>property in the press</i>, that is what I<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_376" id="Page_376">[Pg 376]</a></span> +will take.</p> + +<p>"Why, liberty of the press is only <i>permission of the +press</i>, and the State never will or can voluntarily permit +me to grind it to nothingness by the press.</p> + +<p>"Let us now, in conclusion, bettering the above +language, which is still vague, owing to the phrase +'liberty of the press,' rather put it thus: <i>Liberty of +the press</i>, the liberals' loud demand, is assuredly possible +in the State; yes, it is possible only <i>in</i> the State, +because it is a <i>permission</i>, and consequently the permitter +(the State) must not be lacking. But as permission +it has its limit in this very State, which surely +should not in reason permit more than is compatible +with itself and its welfare: the State fixes for it this +limit as the <i>law</i> of its existence and of its extension. +That one State brooks more than another is only a +quantitative distinction, which alone, nevertheless, lies +at the heart of the political liberals: they want in Germany, +<i>e. g.</i>, only a '<i>more extended, broader</i> accordance +of free utterance.' The liberty of the press which is +sought for is an affair of the <i>people's</i>, and before the +people (the State) possesses it I may make no use of it. +From the standpoint of property in the press, the situation +is different. Let my people, if they will, go +without liberty of the press, I will manage to print by +force or ruse; I get my permission to print only from—<i>myself</i> +and my strength.</p> + +<p>"If the press is <i>my own</i>, I as little need a permission +of the State for employing it as I seek that permission +in order to blow my nose. The press is my +<i>property</i> from the moment when nothing is more to +me than myself; for from this moment State, Church,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_377" id="Page_377">[Pg 377]</a></span> +people, society, and the like, cease, because they have +to thank for their existence only the disrespect that I +have for myself, and with the vanishing of this undervaluation +they themselves are extinguished: they exist +only when they exist <i>above me</i>, exist only as +<i>powers and power-holders</i>. Or can you imagine a +State whose citizens one and all think nothing of it? +it would be as certainly a dream, an existence in seeming, +as 'united Germany.'</p> + +<p>"The press is my own as soon as I myself am my +own, a self-owned man: to the egoist belongs the +world, because he belongs to no power of the world.</p> + +<p>"With this my press might still be very <i>unfree</i>, as +<i>e. g.</i>, at this moment. But the world is large, and +one helps himself as well as he can. If I were willing +to abate from the <i>property</i> of my press, I could easily +attain the point where I might everywhere have as +much printed as my fingers produced. But, as I want +to assert my property, I must necessarily swindle my +enemies. 'Would you not accept their permission if it +were given you?' Certainly, with joy; for their permission +would be to me a proof that I had fooled +them and started them on the road to ruin. I am +not concerned for their permission, but so much the +more for their folly and their overthrow. I do not +sue for their permission as if I flattered myself (like +the political liberals) that we both, they and I, could +make out peaceably alongside and with each other, +yes, probably raise and prop each other; but I sue for +it in order to make them bleed to death by it, that +the permitters themselves may cease at last. I act as +a conscious enemy, overreaching them and <i>utilizing</i><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_378" id="Page_378">[Pg 378]</a></span> +their heedlessness.</p> + +<p>"The press is <i>mine</i> when I recognize outside myself +no <i>judge</i> whatever over its utilization, <i>i. e.</i> when my +writing is no longer determined by morality or religion +or respect for the State laws or the like, but by +me and my egoism!"—</p> + +<p>Now, what have you to reply to him who gives you +so impudent an answer?—We shall perhaps put the +question most strikingly by phrasing it as follows: +Whose is the press, the people's (State's) or mine? +The politicals on their side intend nothing further +than to liberate the press from personal and arbitrary +interferences of the possessors of power, without thinking +of the point that to be really open for everybody +it would also have to be free from the laws, <i>i. e.</i> from +the people's (State's) will. They want to make a +"people's affair" of it.</p> + +<p>But, having become the people's property, it is still +far from being mine; rather, it retains for me the +subordinate significance of a <i>permission</i>. The people +plays judge over my thoughts; it has the right of calling +me to account for them, or, I am responsible to it +for them. Jurors, when their fixed ideas are attacked, +have just as hard heads and hearts as the stiffest despots +and their servile officials.</p> + +<p>In the "<i>Liberale Bestrebungen</i>"<a name="FNanchor_196_196" id="FNanchor_196_196"></a><a href="#Footnote_196_196" class="fnanchor">[196]</a> E. Bauer asserts +that liberty of the press is impossible in the absolutist +and the constitutional State, whereas in the "free +State" it finds its place. "Here," the statement is, "it +is recognized that the individual, because he is no<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_379" id="Page_379">[Pg 379]</a></span> +longer an individual but a member of a true and rational +generality, has the right to utter his mind." +So not the individual, but the "member," has liberty +of the press. But, if for the purpose of liberty of the +press the individual must first give proof of himself regarding +his belief in the generality, the people; if he +does not have this liberty <i>through might of his own</i>,—then +it is a <i>people's liberty</i>, a liberty that he is invested +with for the sake of his faith, his "membership." +The reverse is the case: it is precisely as an individual +that every one has open to him the liberty to +utter his mind. But he has not the "right": that +liberty is assuredly not his "sacred right." He has +only the <i>might</i>; but the might alone makes him +owner. I need no concession for the liberty of the +press, do not need the people's consent to it, do not +need the "right" to it, nor any "justification." The +liberty of the press too, like every liberty, I must +"take"; the people, "as being the sole judge," cannot +<i>give</i> it to me. It can put up with the liberty that I +take, or defend itself against it; give, bestow, grant it +it cannot. I exercise it <i>despite</i> the people, purely as +an individual; <i>i. e.</i> I get it by fighting the people, my—enemy, +and obtain it only when I really get it by +such fighting, <i>i. e. take</i> it. But I take it because it is +my property.</p> + +<p>Sander, against whom E. Bauer writes, lays claim +(page 99) to the liberty of the press "as the right and +the liberty of the <i>citizen in the State</i>." What else +does E. Bauer do? To him also it is only a right of +the free <i>citizen</i>.</p> + +<p>The liberty of the press is also demanded under the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_380" id="Page_380">[Pg 380]</a></span> +name of a "general human right." Against this the +objection was well-founded that not every man knew +how to use it rightly, for not every individual was +truly man. Never did a government refuse it to <i>Man</i> +as such; but <i>Man</i> writes nothing, for the reason that +he is a ghost. It always refused it to <i>individuals</i> +only, and gave it to others, <i>e. g.</i> its organs. If then +one would have it for all, one must assert outright +that it is due to the individual, me, not to man or to +the individual so far as he is man. Besides, another +than a man (<i>e. g.</i> a beast) can make no use of it. +The French government, <i>e. g.</i>, does not dispute the +liberty of the press as a right of man, but demands +from the individual a security for his really being +man; for it assigns liberty of the press not to the individual, +but to man.</p> + +<p>Under the exact pretence that it was <i>not human</i>, +what was mine was taken from me! what was human +was left to me undiminished.</p> + +<p>Liberty of the press can bring about only a <i>responsible</i> +press; the <i>irresponsible</i> proceeds solely from +property in the press.</p> + +<hr style='width: 45%;' /> + +<p>For intercourse with men an express law (conformity +to which one may venture at times sinfully to forget, +but the absolute value of which one at no time +ventures to deny) is placed foremost among all who +live religiously: this is the law—of <i>love</i>, to which not +even those who seem to fight against its principle, and +who hate its name, have as yet become untrue; for +they also still have love, yes, they love with a deeper +and more sublimated love, they love "man and man<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_381" id="Page_381">[Pg 381]</a></span>kind."</p> + +<p>If +we formulate the sense of this law, it will be +about as follows: Every man must have a something +that is more to him than himself. You are to put +your "private interest" in the background when it is +a question of the welfare of others, the weal of the +fatherland, of society, the common weal, the weal of +mankind, the good cause, and the like! Fatherland, +society, mankind, etc., must be more to you than +yourself, and as against their interest your "private +interest" must stand back; for you must not be an—egoist.</p> + +<p>Love is a far-reaching religious demand, which is +not, as might be supposed, limited to love to God and +man, but stands foremost in every regard. Whatever +we do, think, will, the ground of it is always to be +love. Thus we may indeed judge, but only "with +love." The Bible may assuredly be criticised, and +that very thoroughly, but the critic must before all +things <i>love</i> it and see in it the sacred book. Is this +anything else than to say he must not criticise it to +death, he must leave it standing, and that as a sacred +thing that cannot be upset?—In our criticism on men +too, love must remain the unchanged key-note. Certainly +judgments that hatred inspires are not at all our +<i>own</i> judgments, but judgments of the hatred that rules +us, "rancorous judgments." But are judgments that +love inspires in us any more our <i>own</i>? They are judgments +of the love that rules us, they are "loving, lenient" +judgments, they are not our <i>own</i>, and accordingly +not real judgments at all. He who burns with +love for justice cries out, <i>fiat justitia, pereat mundus</i>!<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_382" id="Page_382">[Pg 382]</a></span> +He can doubtless ask and investigate what justice +properly is or demands, and <i>in what</i> it consists, but +not <i>whether</i> it is anything.</p> + +<p>It is very true, "He who abides in love abides in +God, and God in him." (I John 4. 16.) God abides +in him, he does not get rid of God, does not become +godless; and he abides in God, does not come to himself +and into his own home, abides in love to God and +does not become loveless.</p> + +<p>"God is love! All times and all races recognize +in this word the central point of Christianity." God, +who is love, is an officious God: he cannot leave the +world in peace, but wants to make it <i>blest</i>. "God became +man to make men divine."<a name="FNanchor_197_197" id="FNanchor_197_197"></a><a href="#Footnote_197_197" class="fnanchor">[197]</a> He has his hand +in the game everywhere, and nothing happens without +it; everywhere he has his "best purposes," his "incomprehensible +plans and decrees." Reason, which +he himself is, is to be forwarded and realized in the +whole world. His fatherly care deprives us of all independence. +We can do nothing sensible without its +being said, God did that! and can bring upon ourselves +no misfortune without hearing, God ordained +that; we have nothing that we have not from him, he +"gave" everything. But, as God does, so does Man. +God wants perforce to make the world <i>blest</i>, and Man +wants to make it <i>happy</i>, to make all men happy. +Hence every "man" wants to awaken in all men the +reason which he supposes his own self to have: everything +is to be rational throughout. God torments +himself with the devil, and the philosopher does it<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_383" id="Page_383">[Pg 383]</a></span> +with unreason and the accidental. God lets no being +go <i>its own</i> gait, and Man likewise wants to make us +walk only in human wise.</p> + +<p>But whoso is full of sacred (religious, moral, humane) +love loves only the spook, the "true man," and +persecutes with dull mercilessness the individual, the +real man, under the phlegmatic legal title of measures +against the "un-man." He finds it praiseworthy and +indispensable to exercise pitilessness in the harshest +measure; for love to the spook or generality commands +him to hate him who is not ghostly, <i>i. e.</i> the egoist or +individual; such is the meaning of the renowned love-phenomenon +that is called "justice."</p> + +<p>The criminally arraigned man can expect no forbearance, +and no one spreads a friendly veil over his +unhappy nakedness. Without emotion the stern judge +tears the last rags of excuse from the body of the poor +accused; without compassion the jailer drags him into +his damp abode; without placability, when the time +of punishment has expired, he thrusts the branded +man again among men, his good, Christian, loyal +brethren! who contemptuously spit on him. Yes, +without grace a criminal "deserving of death" is led +to the scaffold, and before the eyes of a jubilating +crowd the appeased moral law celebrates its sublime—revenge. +For only one can live, the moral law or the +criminal. Where criminals live unpunished, the +moral law has fallen; and, where this prevails, those +must go down. Their enmity is indestructible.</p> + +<p>The Christian age is precisely that of <i>mercy, love</i>, +solicitude to have men receive what is due them, yes, +to bring them to fulfil their human (divine) calling.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_384" id="Page_384">[Pg 384]</a></span> +Therefore the principle has been put foremost for +intercourse, that this and that is man's essence and +consequently his calling, to which either God has +called him or (according to the concepts of to-day) +his being man (the species) calls him. Hence the zeal +for conversion. That the Communists and the humane +expect from man more than the Christians do +does not change the standpoint in the least. Man +shall get what is human! If it was enough for the +pious that what was divine became his part, the humane +demand that he be not curtailed of what is +human. Both set themselves against what is egoistic. +Of course; for what is egoistic cannot be accorded to +him or vested in him (a fief); he must procure it +for himself. Love imparts the former, the latter can +be given to me by myself alone.</p> + +<p>Intercourse hitherto has rested on love, <i>regardful</i> +behavior, doing for each other. As one owed it to +himself to make himself blessed, or owed himself the +bliss of taking up into himself the supreme essence +and bringing it to a <i>vérité</i> (a truth and reality), so +one owed it to <i>others</i> to help them realize their essence +and their calling: in both cases one owed it to the +essence of man to contribute to its realization.</p> + +<p>But one owes it neither to himself to make anything +out of himself, nor to others to make anything out of +them; for one owes nothing to his essence and that of +others. Intercourse resting on essence is an intercourse +with the spook, not with anything real. If I +hold intercourse with the supreme essence, I am not +holding intercourse with myself, and, if I hold intercourse +with the essence of man, I am not holding<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_385" id="Page_385">[Pg 385]</a></span> +intercourse with men.</p> + +<p>The natural man's love becomes through culture a +<i>commandment</i>. But as commandment it belongs to +<i>Man</i> as such, not to <i>me</i>; it is my <i>essence</i>,<a name="FNanchor_198_198" id="FNanchor_198_198"></a><a href="#Footnote_198_198" class="fnanchor">[198]</a> about +which much ado<a name="FNanchor_199_199" id="FNanchor_199_199"></a><a href="#Footnote_199_199" class="fnanchor">[199]</a> is made, not my property. <i>Man</i>, +<i>i. e.</i> humanity, presents that demand to me; love is +<i>demanded</i>, it is my <i>duty</i>. Instead, therefore, of being +really won for <i>me</i>, it has been won for the generality, +<i>Man</i>, as his property or peculiarity: "it becomes +man, <i>i. e.</i> every man, to love; love is the duty and +calling of man," etc.</p> + +<p>Consequently I must again vindicate love for <i>myself</i>, +and deliver it out of the power of Man with the +great M.</p> + +<p>What was originally <i>mine</i>, but <i>accidentally</i> mine, +instinctively mine, I was invested with as the property +of Man; I became feoffee in loving, I became the retainer +of mankind, only a specimen of this species, and +acted, loving, not as <i>I</i>, but as <i>man</i>, as a specimen of +man, <i>i. e.</i> humanly. The whole condition of civilization +is the <i>feudal system</i>, the property being Man's or +mankind's, not <i>mine</i>. A monstrous feudal State was +founded, the individual robbed of everything, everything +left to "man." The individual had to appear +at last as a "sinner through and through."</p> + +<p>Am I perchance to have no lively interest in the +person of another, are <i>his</i> joy and <i>his</i> weal not to lie +at my heart, is the enjoyment that I furnish him not +to be more to me than other enjoyments of my own? +On the contrary, I can with joy sacrifice to him num<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_386" id="Page_386">[Pg 386]</a></span>berless +enjoyments, I can deny myself numberless +things for the enhancement of <i>his</i> pleasure, and I can +hazard for him what without him was the dearest to +me, my life, my welfare, my freedom. Why, it constitutes +my pleasure and my happiness to refresh myself +with his happiness and his pleasure. But <i>myself, +my own self</i>, I do not sacrifice to him, but remain an +egoist and—enjoy him. If I sacrifice to him everything +that but for my love to him I should keep, that +is very simple, and even more usual in life than it +seems to be; but it proves nothing further than that +this one passion is more powerful in me than all the +rest. Christianity too teaches us to sacrifice all other +passions to this. But, if to one passion I sacrifice +others, I do not on that account go so far as to sacrifice +<i>myself</i>, nor sacrifice anything of that whereby I +truly am myself; I do not sacrifice my peculiar value, +my <i>ownness</i>. Where this bad case occurs, love cuts no +better figure than any other passion that I obey +blindly. The ambitious man, who is carried away by +ambition and remains deaf to every warning that a +calm moment begets in him, has let this passion grow +up into a despot against whom he abandons all power +of dissolution: he has given up himself, because he +cannot <i>dissolve</i> himself, and consequently cannot absolve +himself from the passion: he is possessed.</p> + +<p>I love men too,—not merely individuals, but every +one. But I love them with the consciousness of egoism; +I love them because love makes <i>me</i> happy, I love +because loving is natural to me, because it pleases me. +I know no "commandment of love." I have a <i>fellow-feeling</i> +with every feeling being, and their torment<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_387" id="Page_387">[Pg 387]</a></span> +torments, their refreshment refreshes me too; I can kill +them, not torture them. <i>Per contra</i>, the high-souled, +virtuous Philistine prince Rudolph in "The Mysteries +of Paris," because the wicked provoke his "indignation," +plans their torture. That fellow-feeling proves +only that the feeling of those who feel is mine too, my +property; in opposition to which the pitiless dealing +of the "righteous" man (<i>e. g.</i> against notary Ferrand) +is like the unfeelingness of that robber who cut off or +stretched his prisoners' legs to the measure of his bedstead: +Rudolph's bedstead, which he cuts men to fit, +is the concept of the "good." The feeling for right, +virtue, etc., makes people hard-hearted and intolerant. +Rudolph does not feel like the notary, but the reverse; +he feels that "it serves the rascal right"; that is no +fellow-feeling.</p> + +<p>You love man, therefore you torture the individual +man, the egoist; your philanthropy (love of men) is +the tormenting of men.</p> + +<p>If I see the loved one suffer, I suffer with him, and I +know no rest till I have tried everything to comfort +and cheer him; if I see him glad, I too become glad +over his joy. From this it does not follow that suffering +or joy is caused in me by the same thing that +brings out this effect in him, as is sufficiently proved +by every bodily pain which I do not feel as he does; +his tooth pains him, but his pain pains me.</p> + +<p>But, because <i>I</i> cannot bear the troubled crease on +the beloved forehead, for that reason, and therefore +for my sake, I kiss it away. If I did not love this +person, he might go right on making creases, they +would not trouble me; I am only driving away <i>my</i><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_388" id="Page_388">[Pg 388]</a></span> +trouble.</p> + +<p>How now, has anybody or anything, whom and +which I do not love, a <i>right</i> to be loved by me? Is +my love first, or is his right first? Parents, kinsfolk, +fatherland, nation, native town, etc., finally fellow-men +in general ("brothers, fraternity"), assert that +they have a right to my love, and lay claim to it without +further ceremony. They look upon it as <i>their +property</i>, and upon me, if I do not respect this, as a +robber who takes from them what pertains to them +and is theirs. I <i>should</i> love. If love is a commandment +and law, then I must be educated into it, cultivated +up to it, and, if I trespass against it, punished. +Hence people will exercise as strong a "moral influence" +as possible on me to bring me to love. And +there is no doubt that one can work up and seduce +men to love as one can to other passions,—<i>e. g.</i>, if you +like, to hate. Hate runs through whole races merely +because the ancestors of the one belonged to the +Guelphs, those of the other to the Ghibellines.</p> + +<p>But love is not a commandment, but, like each of +my feelings, <i>my property</i>. <i>Acquire</i>, <i>i. e.</i> purchase, my +property, and then I will make it over to you. A +church, a nation, a fatherland, a family, etc., that does +not know how to acquire my love, I need not love; +and I fix the purchase price of my love quite at my +pleasure.</p> + +<p>Selfish love is far distant from unselfish, mystical, +or romantic love. One can love everything possible, +not merely men, but an "object" in general (wine, +one's fatherland, etc.). Love becomes blind and crazy +by a <i>must</i> taking it out of my power (infatuation),<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_389" id="Page_389">[Pg 389]</a></span> +romantic by a <i>should</i> entering into it, <i>i. e.</i> the +"object's" becoming sacred for me, or my becoming +bound to it by duty, conscience, oath. Now the +object no longer exists for me, but I for it.</p> + +<p>Love is a possessedness, not as my feeling—as such +I rather keep it in my possession as property—, but +through the alienness of the object. For religious +love consists in the commandment to love in the beloved +a "holy one," or to adhere to a holy one; for +unselfish love there are objects <i>absolutely lovable</i> for +which my heart is to beat,—<i>e. g.</i> fellow-men, or my +wedded mate, kinsfolk, etc. Holy love loves the +holy in the beloved, and therefore exerts itself also to +make of the beloved more and more a holy one (<i>e. g.</i> +a "man").</p> + +<p>The beloved is an object that <i>should</i> be loved by +me. He is not an object of my love on account of, +because of, or by, my loving him, but is an object of +love in and of himself. Not I make him an object of +love, but he is such to begin with; for it is here irrelevant +that he has become so by my choice, if so it be +(as with a <i>fiancée</i>, a spouse, and the like), since even +so he has in any case, as the person once chosen, obtained +a "right of his own to my love," and I, because +I have loved him, am under obligation to love +him forever. He is therefore not an object of <i>my</i> +love, but of love in general: an object that <i>should</i> be +loved. Love appertains to him, is due to him, or is +his <i>right</i>, while I am under <i>obligation</i> to love him. +My love, <i>i. e.</i> the toll of love that I pay him, is in +truth <i>his</i> love, which he only collects from me as toll.</p> + +<p>Every love to which there clings but the smallest<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_390" id="Page_390">[Pg 390]</a></span> +speck of obligation is an unselfish love, and, so far as +this speck reaches, a possessedness. He who believes +that he <i>owes</i> the object of his love anything loves romantically +or religiously.</p> + +<p>Family love, <i>e. g.</i>, as it is usually understood as +"piety," is a religious love; love of fatherland, +preached as "patriotism," likewise. All our romantic +love moves in the same pattern: everywhere the hypocrisy, +or rather self-deception, of an "unselfish +love," an interest in the object for the object's sake, +not for my sake and mine alone.</p> + +<p>Religious or romantic love is distinguished from +sensual love by the difference of the object indeed, but +not by the dependence of the relation to it. In the +latter regard both are possessedness; but in the +former the one object is profane, the other sacred. +The dominion of the object over me is the same in +both cases, only that it is one time a sensuous one, +the other time a spiritual (ghostly) one. My love is +my own only when it consists altogether in a selfish +and egoistic interest, and when consequently the object +of my love is really <i>my</i> object or my property. I +owe my property nothing, and have no duty to it, as +little as I might have a duty to my eye; if nevertheless +I guard it with the greatest care, I do so on my +account.</p> + +<p>Antiquity lacked love as little as do Christian +times; the god of love is older than the God of Love. +But the mystical possessedness belongs to the moderns.</p> + +<p>The possessedness of love lies in the alienation of +the object, or in my powerlessness as against its alienness +and superior power. To the egoist nothing is<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_391" id="Page_391">[Pg 391]</a></span> +high enough for him to humble himself before it, +nothing so independent that he would live for love of +it, nothing so sacred that he would sacrifice himself to +it. The egoist's love rises in selfishness, flows in the +bed of selfishness, and empties into selfishness again.</p> + +<p>Whether this can still be called love? If you +know another word for it, go ahead and choose it; +then the sweet word love may wither with the departed +world; for the present I at least find none in our +<i>Christian</i> language, and hence stick to the old sound +and "love" <i>my</i> object, my—property.</p> + +<p>Only as one of my feelings do I harbor love; but as +a power above me, as a divine power (Feuerbach), as +a passion that I am not to cast off, as a religious and +moral duty, I—scorn it. As my feeling it is <i>mine</i>; +as a principle to which I consecrate and "vow" my +soul it is a dominator and <i>divine</i>, just as hatred as a +principle is <i>diabolical</i>; one not better than the other. +In short, egoistic love, <i>i. e.</i>, my love, is neither holy +nor unholy, neither divine nor diabolical.</p> + +<p>"A love that is limited by faith is an untrue love. +The sole limitation that does not contradict the essence +of love is the self-limitation of love by reason, +intelligence. Love that scorns the rigor, the law, of +intelligence, is theoretically a false love, practically a +ruinous one."<a name="FNanchor_200_200" id="FNanchor_200_200"></a><a href="#Footnote_200_200" class="fnanchor">[200]</a> So love is in its essence <i>rational</i>! +So thinks Feuerbach; the believer, on the contrary, +thinks, Love is in its essence <i>believing</i>. The one inveighs +against <i>irrational</i>, the other against <i>unbelieving</i>, +love. To both it can at most rank as a <i>splen</i><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_392" id="Page_392">[Pg 392]</a></span><i>didum +vitium</i>. Do not both leave love standing, even +in the form of unreason and unbelief? They do not +dare to say, irrational or unbelieving love is nonsense, +is not love; as little as they are willing to say, irrational +or unbelieving tears are not tears. But, if even +irrational love, etc., must count as love, and if they +are nevertheless to be unworthy of man, there follows +simply this: love is not the highest thing, but reason +or faith; even the unreasonable and the unbelieving +can love; but love has value only when it is that of a +rational or believing person. It is an illusion when +Feuerbach calls the rationality of love its "self-limitation"; +the believer might with the same right call +belief its "self-limitation." Irrational love is neither +"false" nor "ruinous"; it does its service as love.</p> + +<p>Toward the world, especially toward men, I am to +<i>assume a particular feeling</i>, and "meet them with +love," with the feeling of love, from the beginning. +Certainly, in this there is revealed far more free-will +and self-determination than when I let myself be +stormed, by way of the world, by all possible feelings, +and remain exposed to the most checkered, most accidental +impressions. I go to the world rather with a +preconceived feeling, as if it were a prejudice and a +preconceived opinion: I have prescribed to myself in +advance my behavior toward it, and, despite all its +temptations, feel and think about it only as I have +once determined to. Against the dominion of the +world I secure myself by the principle of love; for, +whatever may come, I—love. The ugly—<i>e. g.</i>—makes +a repulsive impression on me; but, determined to love, +I master this impression as I do every antipathy.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_393" id="Page_393">[Pg 393]</a></span></p> + +<p>But the feeling to which I have determined and—condemned +myself from the start is a <i>narrow</i> feeling, +because it is a predestined one, of which I myself am +not able to get clear or to declare myself clear. Because +preconceived, it is a <i>prejudice</i>. <i>I</i> no longer +show myself in face of the world, but my love shows +itself. The <i>world</i> indeed does not rule me, but so +much the more inevitably does the spirit of <i>love</i> rule +me. I have overcome the world to become a slave of +this spirit.</p> + +<p>If I first said, I love the world, I now add likewise: +I do not love it, for I <i>annihilate</i> it as I annihilate +myself; <i>I dissolve it</i>. I do not limit myself to one +feeling for men, but give free play to all that I am +capable of. Why should I not dare speak it out in +all its glaringness? Yes, <i>I utilize</i> the world and +men! With this I can keep myself open to every +impression without being torn away from myself by +one of them. I can love, love with a full heart, and +let the most consuming glow of passion burn in my +heart, without taking the beloved one for anything +else than the <i>nourishment</i> of my passion, on which it +ever refreshes itself anew. All my care for him applies +only to the <i>object of my love</i>, only to him whom +my love <i>requires</i>, only to him, the "warmly loved." +How indifferent would he be to me without this—my +love! I feed only my love with him, I <i>utilize</i> him for +this only: I <i>enjoy</i> him.</p> + +<p>Let us choose another convenient example. I see +how men are fretted in dark superstition by a swarm +of ghosts. If to the extent of my powers I let a bit +of daylight fall in on the nocturnal spookery, is it per<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_394" id="Page_394">[Pg 394]</a></span>chance +because love to you inspires this in me? Do I +write out of love to men? No, I write because I want +to procure for <i>my</i> thoughts an existence in the world; +and, even if I foresaw that these thoughts would deprive +you of your rest and your peace, even if I saw +the bloodiest wars and the fall of many generations +springing up from this seed of thought,—I would +nevertheless scatter it. Do with it what you will and +can, that is your affair and does not trouble me. You +will perhaps have only trouble, combat, and death +from it, very few will draw joy from it. If your weal +lay at my heart, I should act as the church did in +withholding the Bible from the laity, or Christian +governments, which make it a sacred duty for themselves +to "protect the common people from bad +books."</p> + +<p>But not only not for your sake, not even for truth's +sake either do I speak out what I think. No—</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +I sing as the bird sings<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">That on the bough alights;</span><br /> +The song that from me springs<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Is pay that well requites.</span><br /> +</p></div> + +<p>I sing because—I am a singer. But I <i>use</i><a name="FNanchor_201_201" id="FNanchor_201_201"></a><a href="#Footnote_201_201" class="fnanchor">[201]</a> you +for it because I—need<a name="FNanchor_202_202" id="FNanchor_202_202"></a><a href="#Footnote_202_202" class="fnanchor">[202]</a> ears.</p> + +<p>Where the world comes in my way—and it comes +in my way everywhere—I consume it to quiet the +hunger of my egoism. For me you are nothing but—my +food, even as I too am fed upon and turned to use +by you. We have only one relation to each other, +that of <i>usableness</i>, of utility, of use. We owe <i>each<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_395" id="Page_395">[Pg 395]</a></span> +other</i> nothing, for what I seem to owe you I owe at +most to myself. If I show you a cheery air in order to +cheer you likewise, then your cheeriness is of consequence +to <i>me</i>, and my air serves <i>my</i> wish; to a thousand +others, whom I do not aim to cheer, I do not +show it.</p> + +<hr style='width: 45%;' /> + +<p>One has to be educated up to that love which +founds itself on the "essence of man," or, in the +ecclesiastical and moral period, lies upon us as a +"commandment." In what fashion moral influence, +the chief ingredient of our education, seeks to regulate +the intercourse of men shall here be looked at with +egoistic eyes in one example at least.</p> + +<p>Those who educate us make it their concern early to +break us of lying and to inculcate the principle that +one must always tell the truth. If selfishness were +made the basis for this rule, every one would easily +understand how by lying he fools away that confidence +in him which he hopes to awaken in others, and how +correct the maxim proves, Nobody believes a liar even +when he tells the truth. Yet, at the same time, he +would also feel that he had to meet with truth only +him whom <i>he</i> authorized to hear the truth. If a spy +walks in disguise through the hostile camp, and is +asked who he is, the askers are assuredly entitled to +inquire after his name, but the disguised man does not +give them the right to learn the truth from him; he +tells them what he likes, only not the fact. And yet +morality demands, "Thou shalt not lie!" By morality +those persons are vested with the right to expect +the truth; but by me they are not vested with that<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_396" id="Page_396">[Pg 396]</a></span> +right, and I recognize only the right that I impart. +In a gathering of revolutionists the police force their +way in and ask the orator for his name; everybody +knows that the police have the right to do so, but they +do not have it from the <i>revolutionist</i>, since he is their +enemy; he tells them a false name and—cheats them +with a lie. The police do not act so foolishly either +as to count on their enemies' love of truth; on the +contrary, they do not believe without further ceremony, +but have the questioned individual "identified" +if they can. Nay, the State everywhere proceeds +incredulously with individuals, because in their +egoism it recognizes its natural enemy; it invariably +demands a "voucher," and he who cannot show +vouchers falls a prey to its investigating inquisition. +The State does not believe nor trust the individual, +and so of itself places itself with him in the <i>convention +of lying</i>; it trusts me only when it has <i>convinced</i> itself +of the truth of my statement, for which there often remains +to it no other means than the oath. How +clearly, too, this (the oath) proves that the State does +not count on our credibility and love of truth, but on +our <i>interest</i>, our selfishness: it relies on our not wanting +to fall foul of God by a perjury.</p> + +<p>Now, let one imagine a French revolutionist in the +year 1788, who among friends let fall the now well-known +phrase, "the world will have no rest till the +last king is hanged with the guts of the last priest." +The king then still had all power, and, when the utterance +is betrayed by an accident, yet without its being +possible to produce witnesses, confession is demanded +from the accused. Is he to confess or not?<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_397" id="Page_397">[Pg 397]</a></span> +If he denies, he lies and—remains unpunished; if he +confesses, he is candid and—is beheaded. If truth is +more than everything else to him, all right, let him +die. Only a paltry poet could try to make a tragedy +out of the end of his life; for what interest is there in +seeing how a man succumbs from cowardice? But, +if he had the courage not to be a slave of truth and +sincerity, he would ask somewhat thus: Why need +the judges know what I have spoken among friends? +If I had <i>wished</i> them to know, I should have said it to +them as I said it to my friends. I will not have them +know it. They force themselves into my confidence +without my having called them to it and made them +my confidants; they <i>will</i> learn what I <i>will</i> keep secret. +Come on then, you who wish to break my will by +your will, and try your arts. You can torture me +by the rack, you can threaten me with hell and +eternal damnation, you can make me so nerveless +that I swear a false oath, but the truth you shall not +press out of me, for I <i>will</i> lie to you because I have +given you no claim and no right to my sincerity. +Let God, "who is truth," look down ever so threateningly +on me, let lying come ever so hard to me, I have +nevertheless the courage of a lie; and, even if I were +weary of my life, even if nothing appeared to me more +welcome than your executioner's sword, you nevertheless +should not have the joy of finding in me a slave +of truth, whom by your priestly arts you make a +traitor to his <i>will</i>. When I spoke those treasonable +words, I would not have had you know anything of +them; I now retain the same will, and do not let myself +be frightened by the curse of the lie.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_398" id="Page_398">[Pg 398]</a></span></p> + +<p>Sigismund is not a miserable caitiff because he +broke his princely word, but he broke the word because +he was a caitiff; he might have kept his word +and would still have been a caitiff, a priest-ridden +man. Luther, driven by a higher power, became unfaithful +to his monastic vow: he became so for God's +sake. Both broke their oath as possessed persons: +Sigismund, because he wanted to appear as a <i>sincere</i> +professor of the divine <i>truth</i>, <i>i. e.</i> of the true, genuinely +Catholic faith; Luther, in order to give testimony for +the gospel <i>sincerely</i> and with entire truth, with body +and soul; both became perjured in order to be sincere +toward the "higher truth." Only, the priests absolved +the one, the other absolved himself. What else +did both observe than what is contained in those +apostolic words, "Thou hast not lied to men, but to +God"? They lied to men, broke their oath before +the world's eyes, in order not to lie to God, but to +serve him. Thus they show us a way to deal with +truth before men. For God's glory, and for God's +sake, a—breach of oath, a lie, a prince's word broken!</p> + +<p>How would it be, now, if we changed the thing +a little and wrote, A perjury and lie for—<i>my sake</i>? +Would not that be pleading for every baseness? It +seems so assuredly, only in this it is altogether like the +"for God's sake." For was not every baseness committed +for God's sake, were not all the scaffolds filled +for his sake and all the <i>auto-da-fes</i> held for his sake, +was not all stupefaction introduced for his sake? and +do they not to-day still for God's sake fetter the +mind in tender children by religious education? +Were not sacred vows broken for his sake, and do not<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_399" id="Page_399">[Pg 399]</a></span> +missionaries and priests still go around every day to +bring Jews, heathen, Protestants or Catholics, etc., to +treason against the faith of their fathers,—for his +sake? And that should be worse with the <i>for my +sake</i>? What then does <i>on my account</i> mean? There +people immediately think of "filthy lucre." But he +who acts from love of filthy lucre does it on his own +account indeed, as there is nothing anyhow that one +does not do for his own sake,—among other things, +everything that is done for God's glory; yet he, for +whom he seeks the lucre, is a slave of lucre, not raised +above lucre; he is one who belongs to lucre, the +money-bag, not to himself; he is not his own. Must +not a man whom the passion of avarice rules follow +the commands of this <i>master</i>? and, if a weak good-naturedness +once beguiles him, does this not appear as +simply an exceptional case of precisely the same sort +as when pious believers are sometimes forsaken by +their Lord's guidance and ensnared by the arts of the +"devil"? So an avaricious man is not a self-owned +man, but a servant; and he can do nothing for his +own sake without at the same time doing it for his +lord's sake,—precisely like the godly man.</p> + +<p>Famous is the breach of oath which Francis II +committed against Emperor Charles V. Not later, +when he ripely weighed his promise, but at once, when +he swore the oath, King Francis took it back in +thought as well as by a secret protestation documentarily +subscribed before his councillors; he uttered a +perjury aforethought. Francis did not show himself +disinclined to buy his release, but the price that +Charles put on it seemed to him too high and unrea<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_400" id="Page_400">[Pg 400]</a></span>sonable. +Even though Charles behaved himself in a +sordid fashion when he sought to extort as much as +possible, it was yet shabby of Francis to want to purchase +his freedom for a lower ransom; and his later +dealings, among which there occurs yet a second +breach of his word, prove sufficiently how the huckster +spirit held him enthralled and made him a shabby +swindler. However, what shall we say to the reproach +of perjury against him? In the first place, +surely, this again: that not the perjury, but his sordidness, +shamed him; that he did not deserve contempt +for his perjury, but made himself guilty of +perjury because he was a contemptible man. But +Francis's perjury, regarded in itself, demands another +judgment. One might say Francis did not respond to +the confidence that Charles put in him in setting him +free. But, if Charles had really favored him with +confidence, he would have named to him the price that +he considered the release worth, and would then have +set him at liberty and expected Francis to pay the +redemption-sum. Charles harbored no such trust, but +only believed in Francis's impotence and credulity, +which would not allow him to act against his oath; +but Francis deceived only this—credulous calculation. +When Charles believed he was assuring himself of his +enemy by an oath, right there he was freeing him +from every obligation. Charles had given the king +credit for a piece of stupidity, a narrow conscience, +and, without confidence in Francis, counted only on +Francis's stupidity, <i>i. e.</i> conscientiousness: he let him +go from the Madrid prison only to hold him the more +securely in the prison of conscientiousness, the great<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_401" id="Page_401">[Pg 401]</a></span> +jail built about the mind of man by religion: he sent +him back to France locked fast in invisible chains, +what wonder if Francis sought to escape and sawed +the chains apart? No man would have taken it amiss +of him if he had secretly fled from Madrid, for he was +in an enemy's power; but every good Christian cries +out upon him, that he wanted to loose himself from +God's bonds too. (It was only later that the pope +absolved him from his oath.)</p> + +<p>It is despicable to deceive a confidence that we voluntarily +call forth; but it is no shame to egoism to +let every one who wants to get us into his power by an +oath bleed to death by the unsuccessfulness of his +untrustful craft. If you have wanted to bind me, +then learn that I know how to burst your bonds.</p> + +<p>The point is whether <i>I</i> give the confider the right to +confidence. If the pursuer of my friend asks me +where he has fled to, I shall surely put him on a false +trail. Why does he ask precisely me, the pursued +man's friend? In order not to be a false, traitorous +friend, I prefer to be false to the enemy. I might certainly, +in courageous conscientiousness, answer "I +will not tell" (so Fichte decides the case); by that I +should salve my love of truth and do for my friend as +much as—nothing, for, if I do not mislead the enemy, +he may accidentally take the right street, and my love +of truth would have given up my friend as a prey, +because it hindered me from the—courage for a lie. +He who has in the truth an idol, a sacred thing, must +<i>humble</i> himself before it, must not defy its demands, +not resist courageously; in short, he must renounce +the <i>heroism of the lie</i>. For to the lie belongs not less<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_402" id="Page_402">[Pg 402]</a></span> +courage than to the truth: a courage that young men +are most apt to be defective in, who would rather confess +the truth and mount the scaffold for it than confound +the enemy's power by the impudence of a lie. +To them the truth is "sacred," and the sacred at all +times demands blind reverence, submission, and self-sacrifice. +If you are not impudent, not mockers of +the sacred, you are tame and its servants. Let one +but lay a grain of truth in the trap for you, you peck +at it to a certainty, and the fool is caught. You will +not lie? Well, then, fall as sacrifices to the truth +and become—martyrs! Martyrs!—for what? For +yourselves, for self-ownership? No, for your goddess,—the +truth. You know only two <i>services</i>, only +two kinds of servants: servants of the truth and servants +of the lie. Then in God's name serve the truth!</p> + +<p>Others, again, serve the truth also; but they serve +it "in moderation," and make, <i>e. g.</i>, a great distinction +between a simple lie and a lie sworn to. And yet +the whole chapter of the oath coincides with that of +the lie, since an oath, everybody knows, is only a +strongly assured statement. You consider yourselves +entitled to lie, if only you do not swear to it besides? +One who is particular about it must judge and condemn +a lie as sharply as a false oath. But now there +has been kept up in morality an ancient point of controversy, +which is customarily treated of under the +name of the "lie of necessity." No one who dares +plead for this can consistently put from him an "oath +of necessity." If I justify my lie as a lie of necessity, +I should not be so pusillanimous as to rob the justified +lie of the strongest corroboration. Whatever I do,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_403" id="Page_403">[Pg 403]</a></span> +why should I not do it entirely and without reservation +(<i>reservatio mentalis</i>)? If I once lie, why then +not lie completely, with entire consciousness and all +my might? As a spy I should have to swear to each +of my false statements at the enemy's demand; determined +to lie to him, should I suddenly become cowardly +and undecided in face of an oath? Then I +should have been ruined in advance for a liar and +spy; for, you see, I should be voluntarily putting into +the enemy's hands a means to catch me.—The State +too fears the oath of necessity, and for this reason does +not give the accused a chance to swear. But you do +not justify the State's fear; you lie, but do not swear +falsely. If, <i>e. g.</i>, you show some one a kindness, and +he is not to know it, but he guesses it and tells you +so to your face, you deny; if he insists, you say "honestly, +no!" If it came to swearing, then you would +refuse; for, from fear of the sacred, you always stop +half way. <i>Against</i> the sacred you have no <i>will of +your own</i>. You lie in—moderation, as you are free +"in moderation," religious "in moderation" (the +clergy are not to "encroach"; over this point the +most vapid of controversies is now being carried on, +on the part of the university against the church), monarchically +disposed "in moderation" (you want a +monarch limited by the constitution, by a fundamental +law of the State), everything nicely <i>tempered</i>, +lukewarm, half God's, half the devil's.</p> + +<p>There was a university where the usage was that +every word of honor that must be given to the university +judge was looked upon by the students as null +and void. For the students saw in the demanding of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_404" id="Page_404">[Pg 404]</a></span> +it nothing but a snare, which they could not escape +otherwise than by taking away all its significance. +He who at that same university broke his word of +honor to one of the fellows was infamous; he who +gave it to the university judge derided, in union with +these very fellows, the dupe who fancied that a word +had the same value among friends and among foes. +It was less a correct theory than the constraint of +practice that had there taught the students to act so, +as, without that means of getting out, they would have +been pitilessly driven to treachery against their comrades. +But, as the means approved itself in practice, +so it has its theoretical probation too. A word of +honor, an oath, is one only for him whom <i>I</i> entitle +to receive it; he who forces me to it obtains only a +forced, <i>i. e.</i> a <i>hostile</i> word, the word of a foe, whom +one has no right to trust; for the foe does not give us +the right.</p> + +<p>Aside from this, the courts of the State do not even +recognize the inviolability of an oath. For, if I had +sworn to one who comes under examination that I +would not declare anything against him, the court +would demand my declaration in spite of the fact that +an oath binds me, and, in case of refusal, would lock +me up till I decided to become—an oath-breaker. +The court "absolves me from my oath";—how magnanimous! +If any power can absolve me from the +oath, I myself am surely the very first power that has +a claim to.</p> + +<p>As a curiosity, and to remind us of customary oaths +of all sorts, let place be given here to that which +Emperor Paul commanded the captured Poles (Kos<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_405" id="Page_405">[Pg 405]</a></span>ciusko, +Potocki, Niemcewicz, etc.) to take when he +released them: "We not merely swear fidelity and +obedience to the emperor, but also further promise to +pour out our blood for his glory; we obligate ourselves +to discover everything threatening to his person +or his empire that we ever learn; we declare finally +that, in whatever part of the earth we may be, a single +word of the emperor shall suffice to make us leave +everything and repair to him at once."</p> + +<hr style='width: 45%;' /> + +<p>In one domain the principle of love seems to have +been long outsoared by egoism, and to be still in need +only of sure consciousness, as it were of victory with a +good conscience. This domain is speculation, in its +double manifestation as thinking and as trade. One +thinks with a will, whatever may come of it; one +speculates, however many may suffer under our speculative +undertakings. But, when it finally becomes +serious, when even the last remnant of religiousness, +romance, or "humanity" is to be done away, then the +pulse of religious conscience beats, and one at least +<i>professes</i> humanity. The avaricious speculator throws +some coppers into the poor-box and "does good," the +bold thinker consoles himself with the fact that he is +working for the advancement of the human race and +that his devastation "turns to the good" of mankind, +or, in another case, that he is "serving the idea"; +mankind, the idea, is to him that something of which +he must say, It is more to me than myself.</p> + +<p>To this day thinking and trading have been done +for—God's sake. Those who for six days were trampling +down everything by their selfish aims sacrificed on<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_406" id="Page_406">[Pg 406]</a></span> +the seventh to the Lord; and those who destroyed +a hundred "good causes" by their reckless thinking +still did this in the service of another "good cause," +and had yet to think of another—besides themselves—to +whose good their self-indulgence should turn: of +the people, mankind, and the like. But this other +thing is a being above them, a higher or supreme +being; and therefore I say, they are toiling for God's +sake.</p> + +<p>Hence I can also say that the ultimate basis of their +actions is—<i>love</i>. Not a voluntary love however, not +their own, but a tributary love, or the higher being's +own (<i>i. e.</i> God's, who himself is love); in short, not the +egoistic, but the religious; a love that springs from +their fancy that they <i>must</i> discharge a tribute of love, +<i>i. e.</i> that they must not be "egoists."</p> + +<p>If <i>we</i> want to deliver the world from many kinds of +unfreedom, we want this not on its account but on +ours; for, as we are not world-liberators by profession +and out of "love," we only want to win it away from +others. We want to make it our own; it is not to be +any longer <i>owned as serf</i> by God (the church) nor by +the law (State), but to be <i>our own</i>; therefore we seek +to "win" it, to "captivate" it, and, by meeting it +half-way and "devoting" ourselves to it as to ourselves +as soon as it belongs to us, to complete and +make superfluous the force that it turns against us. +If the world is ours, it no longer attempts any force +<i>against</i> us, but only <i>with</i> us. My selfishness has an +interest in the liberation of the world, that it may +become—my property.</p> + +<p>Not isolation or being alone, but society, is man's<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_407" id="Page_407">[Pg 407]</a></span> +original state. Our existence begins with the most +intimate conjunction, as we are already living with +our mother before we breathe; when we see the light +of the world, we at once lie on a human being's breast +again, her love cradles us in the lap, leads us in the +go-cart, and chains us to her person with a thousand +ties. Society is our <i>state of nature</i>. And this is why, +the more we learn to feel ourselves, the connection +that was formerly most intimate becomes ever looser +and the dissolution of the original society more unmistakable. +To have once again for herself the child +that once lay under her heart, the mother must fetch +it from the street and from the midst of its playmates. +The child prefers the <i>intercourse</i> that it enters into +with <i>its fellows</i> to the <i>society</i> that it has not entered +into, but only been born in.</p> + +<p>But the dissolution of <i>society</i> is <i>intercourse</i> or <i>union</i>. +A society does assuredly arise by union too, but only +as a fixed idea arises by a thought,—to wit, by the +vanishing of the energy of the thought (the thinking +itself, this restless taking back all thoughts that make +themselves fast) from the thought. If a union<a name="FNanchor_203_203" id="FNanchor_203_203"></a><a href="#Footnote_203_203" class="fnanchor">[203]</a> has +crystallized into a society, it has ceased to be a coalition;<a name="FNanchor_204_204" id="FNanchor_204_204"></a><a href="#Footnote_204_204" class="fnanchor">[204]</a> +for coalition is an incessant self-uniting; it has +become a unitedness, come to a standstill, degenerated +into a fixity; it is—<i>dead</i> as a union, it is the corpse of +the union or the coalition, <i>i. e.</i> it is—society, community. +A striking example of this kind is furnished +by the <i>party</i>.</p> + +<p>That a society (<i>e. g.</i> the society of the State) di<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_408" id="Page_408">[Pg 408]</a></span>minishes +my <i>liberty</i> offends me little. Why, I have to +let my liberty be limited by all sorts of powers and by +every one who is stronger; nay, by every fellow-man; +and, were I the autocrat of all the R......, I yet +should not enjoy absolute liberty. But <i>ownness</i> I will +not have taken from me. And ownness is precisely +what every society has designs on, precisely what is to +succumb to its power.</p> + +<p>A society which I join does indeed take from me +many liberties, but in return it affords me other liberties; +neither does it matter if I myself deprive myself +of this and that liberty (<i>e. g.</i> by any contract). +On the other hand, I want to hold jealously to my +ownness. Every community has the propensity, +stronger or weaker according to the fulness of its +power, to become an <i>authority</i> to its members and to +set <i>limits</i> for them: it asks, and must ask, for a "subject's +limited understanding"; it asks that those who +belong to it be subject to it, be its "subjects"; it exists +only by <i>subjection</i>. In this a certain tolerance need +by no means be excluded; on the contrary, the society +will welcome improvements, corrections, and blame, so +far as such are calculated for its gain: but the blame +must be "well-meaning," it may not be "insolent and +disrespectful,"—in other words, one must leave uninjured, +and hold sacred, the substance of the society. +The society demands that those who belong to it shall +not go <i>beyond it</i> and exalt themselves, but remain +"within the bounds of legality," <i>i. e.</i> allow themselves +only so much as the society and its law allow them.</p> + +<p>There is a difference whether my liberty or my ownness +is limited by a society. If the former only is the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_409" id="Page_409">[Pg 409]</a></span> +case, it is a <i>coalition</i>, an agreement, a union; but, if +ruin is threatened to ownness, it is a <i>power of itself</i>, a +power <i>above me</i>, a thing unattainable by me, which I +can indeed admire, adore, reverence, respect, but cannot +subdue and consume, and that for the reason that +I <i>am resigned</i>. It exists by my <i>resignation</i>, my <i>self-renunciation</i>, +my spiritlessness,<a name="FNanchor_205_205" id="FNanchor_205_205"></a><a href="#Footnote_205_205" class="fnanchor">[205]</a> called—<span class="smcap">HUMILITY</span>.<a name="FNanchor_206_206" id="FNanchor_206_206"></a><a href="#Footnote_206_206" class="fnanchor">[206]</a> +My humility makes its courage,<a name="FNanchor_207_207" id="FNanchor_207_207"></a><a href="#Footnote_207_207" class="fnanchor">[207]</a> my submissiveness +gives it its dominion.</p> + +<p>But in reference to <i>liberty</i> State and union are subject +to no essential difference. The latter can just as +little come into existence, or continue in existence, +without liberty's being limited in all sorts of ways, as +the State is compatible with unmeasured liberty. +Limitation of liberty is inevitable everywhere, for one +cannot get <i>rid</i> of everything; one cannot fly like a +bird merely because one would like to fly so, for one +does not get free from his own weight; one cannot +live under water as long as he likes, like a fish, because +one cannot do without air and cannot get free +from this indispensable necessity; and the like. As +religion, and most decidedly Christianity, tormented +man with the demand to realize the unnatural and +self-contradictory, so it is to be looked upon only as +the true logical outcome of that religious overstraining +and overwroughtness that finally <i>liberty itself, absolute +liberty</i>, was exalted into an ideal, and thus the +nonsense of the impossible had to come glaringly to +the light.—The union will assuredly offer a greater +measure of liberty, as well as (and especially because +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_410" id="Page_410">[Pg 410]</a></span>by it one escapes all the coercion peculiar to State and +society life) admit of being considered as "a new liberty"; +but nevertheless it will still contain enough of +unfreedom and involuntariness. For its object is not +this—liberty (which on the contrary it sacrifices to +ownness), but only <i>ownness</i>. Referred to this, the difference +between State and union is great enough. +The former is an enemy and murderer of <i>ownness</i>, the +latter a son and co-worker of it; the former a spirit +that would be adored in spirit and in truth, the latter +my work, my <i>product</i>; the State is the lord of my +spirit, who demands faith and prescribes to me articles +of faith, the creed of legality; it exerts moral influence, +dominates my spirit, drives away my ego to put itself +in its place as "my true ego,"—in short, the State is +<i>sacred</i>, and as against me, the individual man, it is the +true man, the spirit, the ghost; but the union is my +own creation, my creature, not sacred, not a spiritual +power above my spirit, as little as any association of +whatever sort. As I am not willing to be a slave +of my maxims, but lay them bare to my continual +criticism without <i>any warrant</i>, and admit no bail +at all for their persistence, so still less do I obligate +myself to the union for my future and pledge my soul +to it, as is said to be done with the devil and is really +the case with the State and all spiritual authority; but +I am and remain <i>more</i> to myself than State, Church, +God, and the like; consequently infinitely more than +the union too.</p> + +<p>That society which Communism wants to found +seems to stand nearest to <i>coalition</i>. For it is to aim +at the "welfare of all," oh, yes, of all, cries Weitling<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_411" id="Page_411">[Pg 411]</a></span> +innumerable times, of all! That does really look as if +in it no one needed to take a back seat. But what +then will this welfare be? Have all one and the same +welfare, are all equally well off with one and the same +thing? If that be so, the question is of the "true +welfare." Do we not with this come right to the point +where religion begins its dominion of violence? +Christianity says, Look not on earthly toys, but seek +your true welfare, become—pious Christians; being +Christians is the true welfare. It is the true welfare of +"all," because it is the welfare of Man as such (this +spook). Now, the welfare of all is surely to be <i>your</i> +and <i>my</i> welfare too? But, if you and I do not +look upon that welfare as <i>our</i> welfare, will care then +be taken for that in which <i>we</i> feel well? On the contrary, +society has decreed a welfare as the "true +welfare"; and, if this welfare were called <i>e. g.</i> "enjoyment +honestly worked for," but you preferred enjoyable +laziness, enjoyment without work, then society, +which cares for the "welfare of all," would wisely +avoid caring for that in which you are well off. +Communism, in proclaiming the welfare of all, annuls +outright the well-being of those who hitherto lived on +their income from investments and apparently felt +better in that than in the prospect of Weitling's strict +hours of labor. Hence the latter asserts that with the +welfare of thousands the welfare of millions cannot +exist, and the former must give up <i>their</i> special welfare +"for the sake of the general welfare." No, let people +not be summoned to sacrifice their special welfare for +the general, for this Christian admonition will not +carry you through; they will better understand the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_412" id="Page_412">[Pg 412]</a></span> +opposite admonition, not to let their <i>own</i> welfare be +snatched from them by anybody, but to put it on a +permanent foundation. Then they are of themselves +led to the point that they care best for their welfare +if they <i>unite</i> with others for this purpose, <i>i. e.</i> "sacrifice +a part of their liberty," yet not to the welfare +of others, but to their own. An appeal to men's +self-sacrificing disposition and self-renouncing love +ought at last to have lost its seductive plausibility +when, after an activity of thousands of years, it has +left nothing behind but the—<i>misère</i> of to-day. Why +then still fruitlessly expect self-sacrifice to bring us +better times? why not rather hope for them from +<i>usurpation</i>? Salvation comes no longer from the +giver, the bestower, the loving one, but from the <i>taker</i>, +the appropriater (usurper), the owner. Communism, +and, consciously or unconsciously, egoism-reviling +humanism, still count on <i>love</i>.</p> + +<p>If community is once a need of man, and he finds +himself furthered by it in his aims, then very soon, +because it has become his principle, it prescribes to +him its laws too, the laws of—society. The principle +of men exalts itself into a sovereign power over them, +becomes their supreme essence, their God, and, as +such,—lawgiver. Communism gives this principle the +strictest effect, and Christianity is the religion of society, +for, as Feuerbach rightly says although he does +not mean it rightly, love is the essence of man; <i>i. e.</i> +the essence of society or of societary (Communistic) +man. All religion is a cult of society, this principle +by which societary (cultivated) man is dominated; +neither is any god an ego's exclusive god, but always a<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_413" id="Page_413">[Pg 413]</a></span> +society's or community's, be it of the society "family" +(Lar, Penates) or of a "people" ("national god") or +of "all men" ("he is a Father of all men").</p> + +<p>Consequently one has a prospect of extirpating religion +down to the ground only when one antiquates +<i>society</i> and everything that flows from this principle. +But it is precisely in Communism that this principle +seeks to culminate, as in it everything is to become +<i>common</i> for the establishment of—"equality." If this +"equality" is won, "liberty" too is not lacking. But +whose liberty? <i>Society's!</i> Society is then all in all, +and men are only "for each other." It would be +the glory of the—love-State.</p> + +<p>But I would rather be referred to men's selfishness +than to their "kindnesses,"<a name="FNanchor_208_208" id="FNanchor_208_208"></a><a href="#Footnote_208_208" class="fnanchor">[208]</a> their mercy, pity, etc. +The former demands <i>reciprocity</i> (as thou to me, so I to +thee), does nothing "gratis," and may be won and—<i>bought</i>. +But with what shall I obtain the kindness? +It is a matter of chance whether I am at the time having +to do with a "loving" person. The affectionate +one's service can be had only by—<i>begging</i>, be it by +my lamentable appearance, by my need of help, my +misery, my—<i>suffering</i>. What can I offer him for his +assistance? Nothing! I must accept it as a—present. +Love is <i>unpayable</i>, or rather, love can assuredly +be paid for, but only by counter-love ("One good turn +deserves another"). What paltriness and beggarliness +does it not take to accept gifts year in and year out +without service in return, as they are regularly collected +<i>e. g.</i> from the poor day-laborer? What can<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_414" id="Page_414">[Pg 414]</a></span> +the receiver do for him and his donated pennies, in +which his wealth consists? The day-laborer would +really have more enjoyment if the receiver with his +laws, his institutions, etc., all of which the day-laborer +has to pay for though, did not exist at all. And +yet, with it all, the poor wight <i>loves</i> his master.</p> + +<p>No, community, as the "goal" of history hitherto, +is impossible. Let us rather renounce every hypocrisy +of community, and recognize that, if we are equal as +men, we are not equal for the very reason that we are +not men. We are equal <i>only in thoughts</i>, only when +"we" are <i>thought</i>, not as we really and bodily are. +I am ego, and you are ego: but I am not this thought-of +ego; this ego in which we are all equal is only <i>my +thought</i>. I am man, and you are man: but "man" +is only a thought, a generality; neither you nor I +are speakable, we are <i>unutterable</i>, because only +<i>thoughts</i> are speakable and consist in speaking.</p> + +<p>Let us therefore not aspire to community, but to +<i>one-sidedness</i>. Let us not seek the most comprehensive +commune, "human society," but let us seek in +others only means and organs which we may use as +our property! As we do not see our equals in the +tree, the beast, so the presupposition that others are +<i>our equals</i> springs from a hypocrisy. No one is <i>my +equal</i>, but I regard him, equally with all other beings, +as my property. In opposition to this I am told that +I should be a man among "fellow-men" ("<i>Judenfrage</i>," +p. 60); I should "respect" the fellow-man +in them. For me no one is a person to be respected, +not even the fellow-man, but solely, like other beings, +an <i>object</i> in which I take an interest or else do not,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_415" id="Page_415">[Pg 415]</a></span> +an interesting or uninteresting object, a usable or +unusable person.</p> + +<p>And, if I can use him, I doubtless come to an +understanding and make myself at one with him, in +order, by the agreement, to strengthen <i>my power</i>, and +by combined force to accomplish more than individual +force could effect. In this combination I see nothing +whatever but a multiplication of my force, and I retain +it only so long as it is <i>my</i> multiplied force. But +thus it is a—union.</p> + +<p>Neither a natural ligature nor a spiritual one holds +the union together, and it is not a natural, not a +spiritual league. It is not brought about by one +<i>blood</i>, not by one <i>faith</i> (spirit). In a natural league—like +a family, a tribe, a nation, yes, mankind—the individuals +have only the value of <i>specimens</i> of the same +species or genus; in a spiritual league—like a commune, +a church—the individual signifies only a <i>member</i> +of the same spirit; what you are in both cases as a +unique person must be—suppressed. Only in the +union can you assert yourself as unique, because the +union does not possess you, but you possess it or make +it of use to you.</p> + +<p>Property is recognized in the union, and only in the +union, because one no longer holds what is his as a +fief from any being. The Communists are only consistently +carrying further what had already been long +present during religious evolution, and especially in +the State; to wit, propertylessness, <i>i. e.</i> the feudal +system.</p> + +<p>The State exerts itself to tame the desirous man; in +other words, it seeks to direct his desire to it alone,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_416" id="Page_416">[Pg 416]</a></span> +and to <i>content</i> that desire with what it offers. To sate +the desire for the desirous man's sake does not come +into its mind: on the contrary, it stigmatizes as an +"egoistic man" the man who breathes out unbridled +desire, and the "egoistic man" is its enemy. He is +this for it because the capacity to agree with him is +wanting to the State; the egoist is precisely what it +cannot "comprehend." Since the State (as nothing +else is possible) has to do only for itself, it does not +take care for my needs, but takes care only of how it +shall make away with me, <i>i. e.</i> make out of me another +ego, a good citizen. It takes measures for the "improvement +of morals."—And with what does it win individuals +for itself? With itself, <i>i. e.</i> with what is the +State's, with <i>State property</i>. It will be unremittingly +active in making all participants in its "goods," providing +all with the "good things of culture": it presents +them its education, opens to them the access to +its institutions of culture, capacitates them to come to +property (<i>i. e.</i> to a fief) in the way of industry, etc. +For all these <i>fiefs</i> it demands only the just rent of continual +<i>thanks</i>. But the "unthankful" forget to pay +these thanks.—Now, neither can "society" do essentially +otherwise than the State.</p> + +<p>You bring into a union your whole power, your +competence, and <i>make yourself count</i>; in a society you +are <i>employed</i>, with your working power; in the former +you live egoistically, in the latter humanly, <i>i. e.</i> religiously, +as a "member in the body of this Lord"; +to a society you owe what you have, and are in duty +bound to it, are—possessed by "social duties"; a +union you utilize, and give it up undutifully and un<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_417" id="Page_417">[Pg 417]</a></span>faithfully +when you see no way to use it further. If a +society is more than you, then it is more to you than +yourself; a union is only your instrument, or the +sword with which you sharpen and increase your +natural force; the union exists for you and through +you, the society conversely lays claim to you for itself +and exists even without you; in short, the society is +<i>sacred</i>, the union your <i>own</i>; the society consumes <i>you</i>, +<i>you</i> consume the union.</p> + +<p>Nevertheless people will not be backward with the +objection that the agreement which has been concluded +may again become burdensome to us and limit our +freedom; they will say, we too would at last come to +this, that "every one must sacrifice a part of his freedom +for the sake of the generality." But the sacrifice +would not be made for the "generality's" sake a bit, +as little as I concluded the agreement for the "generality's" +or even, for any other man's sake; rather I +came into it only for the sake of my own benefit, from +<i>selfishness</i>.<a name="FNanchor_209_209" id="FNanchor_209_209"></a><a href="#Footnote_209_209" class="fnanchor">[209]</a> But, as regards the sacrificing, surely +I "sacrifice" only that which does not stand in my +power, <i>i. e.</i> I "sacrifice" nothing at all.</p> + +<p>To come back to property, the lord is proprietor. +Choose then whether you want to be lord, or whether +society shall be! On this depends whether you are to +be an <i>owner</i> or a <i>ragamuffin!</i> The egoist is owner, +the Socialist a ragamuffin. But ragamuffinism or +propertylessness is the sense of feudalism, of the feudal +system, which since the last century has only changed +its overlord, putting "Man" in the place of God, and<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_418" id="Page_418">[Pg 418]</a></span> +accepting as a fief from Man what had before been a +fief from the grace of God. That the ragamuffinism +of Communism is carried out by the humane principle +into the absolute or most ragamuffinly ragamuffinism +has been shown above; but at the same time also, how +ragamuffinism can only thus swing around into ownness. +The <i>old</i> feudal system was so thoroughly +trampled into the ground in the Revolution that +since then all reactionary craft has remained fruitless, +and will always remain fruitless, because the dead is—dead; +but the resurrection too had to prove itself a +truth in Christian history, and has so proved itself: +for in another world feudalism is risen again with a +glorified body, the <i>new</i> feudalism under the suzerainty +of "Man."</p> + +<p>Christianity is not annihilated, but the faithful are +right in having hitherto trustfully assumed of every +combat against it that this could serve only for the +purgation and confirmation of Christianity; for it has +really only been glorified, and "Christianity exposed" +is the—<i>human Christianity</i>. We are still living +entirely in the Christian age, and the very ones who +feel worst about it are the most zealously contributing +to "complete" it. The more human, the dearer +has feudalism become to us; for we the less believe +that it still is feudalism, we take it the more confidently +for ownness and think we have found what is +"most absolutely our own" when we discover "the +human."</p> + +<p>Liberalism wants to give me what is mine, but it +thinks to procure it for me not under the title of +mine, but under that of the "human." As if it were<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_419" id="Page_419">[Pg 419]</a></span> +attainable under this mask! The rights of man, the +precious work of the Revolution, have the meaning +that the Man in me <i>entitles</i><a name="FNanchor_210_210" id="FNanchor_210_210"></a><a href="#Footnote_210_210" class="fnanchor">[210]</a> me to this and that; I +as individual, <i>i. e.</i> as this man, am not entitled, but +Man has the right and entitles me. Hence as man I +may well be entitled; but, as I am more than man, to +wit, a <i>special</i> man, it may be refused to this very me, +the special one. If on the other hand you insist on +the <i>value</i> of your gifts, keep up their price, do not +let yourselves be forced to sell out below price, do not +let yourselves be talked into the idea that your ware is +not worth its price, do not make yourselves ridiculous +by a "ridiculous price," but imitate the brave man +who says, I will <i>sell</i> my life (property) dear, the +enemy shall not have it at a cheap <i>bargain</i>; then you +have recognized the reverse of Communism as the correct +thing, and the word then is not "Give up your +property!" but "<i>Get the value out of</i> your property!"</p> + +<p>Over the portal of our time stands not that "Know +thyself" of Apollo, but a "<i>Get the value out of +thyself!</i>"</p> + +<p>Proudhon calls property "robbery" (<i>le vol</i>). +But alien property—and he is talking of this alone—is +not less existent by renunciation, cession, and humility; +it is a <i>present</i>. Why so sentimentally call +for compassion as a poor victim of robbery, when one +is just a foolish, cowardly giver of presents? Why +here again put the fault on others as if they were +robbing us, while we ourselves do bear the fault in +leaving the others, unrobbed? The poor are to<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_420" id="Page_420">[Pg 420]</a></span> +blame for there being rich men.</p> + +<p>Universally, no one grows indignant at <i>his</i>, but at +<i>alien</i> property. They do not in truth attack property, +but the alienation of property. They want to be able +to call <i>more</i>, not less, <i>theirs</i>; they want to call everything +<i>theirs</i>. They are fighting, therefore, against +<i>alienness</i>, or, to form a word similar to property, +against alienty. And how do they help themselves +therein? Instead of transforming the alien into +own, they play impartial and ask only that all property +be left to a third party (<i>e. g.</i> human society). +They revendicate the alien not in their own name but +in a third party's. Now the "egoistic" coloring is +wiped off, and everything is so clean and—human!</p> + +<p>Propertylessness or ragamuffinism, this then is the +"essence of Christianity," as it is the essence of all +religiousness (<i>i. e.</i> godliness, morality, humanity), and +only announced itself most clearly, and, as glad tidings, +became a gospel capable of development, in the +"absolute religion." We have before us the most +striking development in the present fight against +property, a fight which is to bring "Man" to victory +and make propertylessness complete: victorious humanity +is the victory of—Christianity. But the +"Christianity exposed" thus is feudalism completed, +the most all-embracing feudal system, <i>i. e.</i> perfect +ragamuffinism.</p> + +<p>Once more then, doubtless, a "revolution" against +the feudal system?—</p> + +<p>Revolution and insurrection must not be looked +upon as synonymous. The former consists in an overturning +of conditions, of the established condition or<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_421" id="Page_421">[Pg 421]</a></span> +<i>status</i>, the State or society, and is accordingly a <i>political</i> +or <i>social</i> act; the latter has indeed for its unavoidable +consequence a transformation of circumstances, +yet does not start from it but from men's discontent +with themselves, is not an armed rising, but a rising +of individuals, a getting up, without regard to the +arrangements that spring from it. The Revolution +aimed at new <i>arrangements</i>; insurrection leads us no +longer to let ourselves be arranged, but to arrange +ourselves, and sets no glittering hopes on "institutions." +It is not a fight against the established, +since, if it prospers, the established collapses of itself; +it is only a working forth of me out of the established. +If I leave the established, it is dead and passes into +decay. Now, as my object is not the overthrow of an +established order but my elevation above it, my purpose +and deed are not a political or social but (as directed +toward myself and my ownness alone) an <i>egoistic</i> +purpose and deed.</p> + +<p>The revolution commands one to make <i>arrangements</i>, +the insurrection<a name="FNanchor_211_211" id="FNanchor_211_211"></a><a href="#Footnote_211_211" class="fnanchor">[211]</a> demands that he <i>rise or exalt +himself</i>.<a name="FNanchor_212_212" id="FNanchor_212_212"></a><a href="#Footnote_212_212" class="fnanchor">[212]</a> What <i>constitution</i> was to be chosen, +this question busied the revolutionary heads, and the +whole political period foams with constitutional fights +and constitutional questions, as the social talents too +were uncommonly inventive in societary arrangement +(phalansteries and the like). The insurgent<a name="FNanchor_213_213" id="FNanchor_213_213"></a><a href="#Footnote_213_213" class="fnanchor">[213]</a> strives +to become constitutionless.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_422" id="Page_422">[Pg 422]</a></span></p> + +<p>While, to get greater clearness, I am thinking up a +comparison, the founding of Christianity comes unexpectedly +into my mind. On the liberal side it is +noted as a bad point in the first Christians that they +preached obedience to the established heathen civil +order, enjoined recognition of the heathen authorities, +and confidently delivered a command, "Give to the +emperor that which is the emperor's." Yet how much +disturbance arose at the same time against the Roman +supremacy, how mutinous did the Jews and even the +Romans show themselves against their own temporal +government! in short, how popular was "political +discontent"! Those Christians would hear nothing +of it; would not side with the "liberal tendencies." +The time was politically so agitated that, as is said in +the gospels, people thought they could not accuse the +founder of Christianity more successfully than if they +arraigned him for "political intrigue," and yet the +same gospels report that he was precisely the one who +took least part in these political doings. But why +was he not a revolutionist, not a demagogue, as the +Jews would gladly have seen him? why was he not a +liberal? Because he expected no salvation from a +change of <i>conditions</i>, and this whole business was indifferent +to him. He was not a revolutionist like <i>e. g.</i> +Cæsar, but an insurgent; not a State-overturner, +but one who straightened <i>himself</i> up. That was +why it was for him only a matter of "Be ye wise +as serpents," which expresses the same sense as, in the +special case, that "Give to the emperor that which is +the emperor's"; for he was not carrying on any liberal +or political fight against the established authorities,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_423" id="Page_423">[Pg 423]</a></span> +but wanted to walk his <i>own</i> way, untroubled about, +and undisturbed by, these authorities. Not less indifferent +to him than the government were its enemies, +for neither understood what he wanted, and he had +only to keep them off from him with the wisdom of +the serpent. But, even though not a ringleader of +popular mutiny, not a demagogue or revolutionist, he +(and every one of the ancient Christians) was so much +the more an <i>insurgent</i>, who lifted himself above everything +that seemed sublime to the government and its +opponents, and absolved himself from everything +that they remained bound to, and who at the same +time cut off the sources of life of the whole heathen +world, with which the established State must wither +away as a matter of course; precisely because he put +from him the upsetting of the established, he was its +deadly enemy and real annihilator; for he walled it +in, confidently and recklessly carrying up the building +of <i>his</i> temple over it, without heeding the pains of the +immured.</p> + +<p>Now, as it happened to the heathen order of the +world, will the Christian order fare likewise? A +revolution certainly does not bring on the end if an +insurrection is not consummated first!</p> + +<p>My intercourse with the world, what does it aim at? +I want to have the enjoyment of it, therefore it must +be my property, and therefore I want to win it. I do +not want the liberty of men, nor their equality; I +want only <i>my</i> power over them, I want to make them +my property, <i>i. e.</i> <i>material for enjoyment</i>. And, if I +do not succeed in that, well, then I call even the +power over life and death, which Church and State<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_424" id="Page_424">[Pg 424]</a></span> +reserved to themselves,—mine. Brand that officer's +widow who, in the flight in Russia, after her leg has +been shot away, takes the garter from it, strangles her +child therewith, and then bleeds to death alongside the +corpse,—brand the memory of the—infanticide. +Who knows, if this child had remained alive, how +much it might have "been of use to the world"! +The mother murdered it because she wanted to die +<i>satisfied</i> and at rest. Perhaps this case still appeals to +your sentimentality, and you do not know how to +read out of it anything further. Be it so; I on my +part use it as an example for this, that <i>my</i> satisfaction +decides about my relation to men, and that I do not +renounce, from any access of humility, even the power +over life and death.</p> + +<p>As regards "social duties" in general, another does +not give me my position toward others, therefore +neither God nor humanity prescribes to me my relation +to men, but I give myself this position. This is +more strikingly said thus: I have no <i>duty</i> to others, +as I have a duty even to myself (<i>e. g.</i> that of self-preservation, +and therefore not suicide) only so long +as I distinguish myself from myself (my immortal +soul from my earthly existence, etc.).</p> + +<p>I no longer <i>humble</i> myself before any power, and I +recognize that all powers are only my power, which I +have to subject at once when they threaten to become +a power <i>against</i> or <i>above</i> me; each of them must be +only one of <i>my means</i> to carry my point, as a hound +is our power against game, but is killed by us if it +should fall upon us ourselves. All powers that dominate +me I then reduce to serving me. The idols exist<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_425" id="Page_425">[Pg 425]</a></span> +through me; I need only refrain from creating them +anew, then they exist no longer: "higher powers" +exist only through my exalting them and abasing +myself.</p> + +<p>Consequently my relation to the world is this: I no +longer do anything for it "for God's sake," I do nothing +"for man's sake," but what I do I do "for my +sake." Thus alone does the world satisfy me, while it +is characteristic of the religious standpoint, in which +I include the moral and humane also, that from it +everything remains a <i>pious wish</i> (<i>pium desiderium</i>), +<i>i. e.</i> an other-world matter, something unattained. +Thus the general salvation of men, the moral world of +a general love, eternal peace, the cessation of egoism, +etc. "Nothing in this world is perfect." With this +miserable phrase the good part from it, and take +flight into their closet to God, or into their proud +"self-consciousness." But we remain in this "imperfect" +world, because even so we can use it for our—self-enjoyment.</p> + +<p>My intercourse with the world consists in my enjoying +it, and so consuming it for my self-enjoyment. +<i>Intercourse</i> is the <i>enjoyment of the world</i>, and belongs +to my—self-enjoyment.</p> + + +<h3>III.—MY SELF-ENJOYMENT</h3> + +<p>We stand at the boundary of a period. The world +hitherto took thought for nothing but the gain of life, +took care for—<i>life</i>. For whether all activity is put +on the stretch for the life of this world or of the other, +for the temporal or for the eternal, whether one hank<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_426" id="Page_426">[Pg 426]</a></span>ers +for "daily bread" ("Give us our daily bread") +or for "holy bread" ("the true bread from heaven"; +"the bread of God, that comes from heaven and <i>gives +life</i> to the world"; "the bread of life," John 6), +whether one takes care for "dear life" or for "life to +eternity,"—this does not change the object of the +strain and care, which in the one case as in the other +shows itself to be <i>life</i>. Do the modern tendencies announce +themselves otherwise? People now want nobody +to be embarrassed for the most indispensable +necessaries of life, but want every one to feel secure as +to these; and on the other hand they teach that man +has this life to attend to and the real world to adapt +himself to, without vain care for another.</p> + +<p>Let us take up the same thing from another side. +When one is anxious only to <i>live</i>, he easily, in this solicitude, +forgets the <i>enjoyment</i> of life. If his only concern +is for life, and he thinks "if I only have my dear +life," he does not apply his full strength to using, +<i>i. e.</i> enjoying, life. But how does one use life? In +using it up, like the candle, which one uses in burning +it up. One uses life, and consequently himself the +living one, in <i>consuming</i> it and himself. <i>Enjoyment +of life</i> is using life up.</p> + +<p>Now—we are in search of the <i>enjoyment</i> of life! +And what did the religious world do? It went in +search of <i>life</i>. "Wherein consists the true life, the +blessed life, etc.? How is it to be attained? What +must man do and become in order to become a truly +living man? How does he fulfil this calling?" These +and similar questions indicate that the askers were +still seeking for <i>themselves</i>,—to wit, themselves in the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_427" id="Page_427">[Pg 427]</a></span> +true sense, in the sense of true living. "What I am is +foam and shadow; what I shall be is my true self." +To chase after this self, to produce it, to realize it, constitutes +the hard task of mortals, who die only to <i>rise +again</i>, live only to die, live only to find the true life.</p> + +<p>Not till I am certain of myself, and no longer seeking +for myself, am I really my property; I have myself, +therefore I use and enjoy myself. On the other +hand, I can never take comfort in myself so long as I +think that I have still to find my true self and that it +must come to this, that not I but Christ or some other +spiritual, <i>i. e.</i> ghostly, self (<i>e. g.</i> the true man, the essence +of man, and the like) lives in me.</p> + +<p>A vast interval separates the two views. In the old +I go toward myself, in the new I start from myself; in +the former I long for myself, in the latter I have myself +and do with myself as one does with any other +property,—I enjoy myself at my pleasure. I am no +longer afraid for my life, but "squander" it.</p> + +<p>Henceforth the question runs, not how one can +acquire life, but how one can squander, enjoy it; or, +not how one is to produce the true self in himself, but +how one is to dissolve himself, to live himself out.</p> + +<p>What else should the ideal be but the sought-for, +ever-distant self? One seeks for himself, consequently +one does not yet have himself; one aspires toward +what one <i>ought</i> to be, consequently one is not it. +One lives in <i>longing</i> and has lived thousands of years +in it, in <i>hope</i>. Living is quite another thing in—<i>enjoyment</i>!</p> + +<p>Does this perchance apply only to the so-called +pious? No, it applies to all who belong to the de<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_428" id="Page_428">[Pg 428]</a></span>parting +period of history, even to its men of pleasure. +For them too the work-days were followed by a Sunday, +and the rush of the world by the dream of a +better world, of a general happiness of humanity; in +short, by an ideal. But philosophers especially are +contrasted with the pious. Now, have they been +thinking of anything else than the ideal, been planning +for anything else than the absolute self? Longing +and hope everywhere, and nothing but these. For me, +call it romanticism.</p> + +<p>If the <i>enjoyment of life</i> is to triumph over the <i>longing +for life</i> or hope of life, it must vanquish this in +its double significance, which Schiller introduces in his +"Ideal and Life"; it must crush spiritual and secular +poverty, exterminate the ideal and—the want of daily +bread. He who must expend his life to prolong life +cannot enjoy it, and he who is still seeking for his life +does not have it and can as little enjoy it: both are +poor, but "blessed are the poor."</p> + +<p>Those who are hungering for the true life have no +power over their present life, but must apply it for the +purpose of thereby gaining that true life, and must +sacrifice it entirely to this aspiration and this task. +If in the case of those devotees who hope for a life in +the other world, and look upon that in this world as +merely a preparation for it, the tributariness of their +earthly existence, which they put solely into the service +of the hoped-for heavenly existence, is pretty distinctly +apparent; one would yet go far wrong if one wanted +to consider the most rationalistic and enlightened as +less self-sacrificing. Oh, there is to be found in the +"true life" a much more comprehensive significance<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_429" id="Page_429">[Pg 429]</a></span> +than the "heavenly" is competent to express. Now, +is not—to introduce the liberal concept of it at once—the +"human" and "truly human" life the true one? +And is every one already leading this truly human life +from the start, or must he first raise himself to it with +hard toil? Does he already have it as his present life, +or must he struggle for it as his future life, which will +become his part only when he "is no longer tainted +with any egoism"? In this view life exists only to +gain life, and one lives only to make the essence of +man alive in oneself, one lives for the sake of this essence. +One has his life only in order to procure by +means of it the "true" life cleansed of all egoism. +Hence one is afraid to make any use he likes of his +life: it is to serve only for the "right use."</p> + +<p>In short, one has a <i>calling in life</i>, a task in life; +one has something to realize and produce by his life, a +something for which our life is only means and implement, +a something that is worth more than this life, a +something to which one <i>owes</i> his life. One has a God +who asks a <i>living sacrifice</i>. Only the rudeness of human +sacrifice has been lost with time; human sacrifice +itself has remained unabated, and criminals hourly fall +sacrifices to justice, and we "poor sinners" slay our +own selves as sacrifices for "the human essence," the +"idea of mankind," "humanity," and whatever the +idols or gods are called besides.</p> + +<p>But, because we owe our life to that something, +therefore—this is the next point—we have no right to +take it from us.</p> + +<p>The conservative tendency of Christianity does not +permit thinking of death otherwise than with the pur<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_430" id="Page_430">[Pg 430]</a></span>pose +to take its sting from it and—live on and preserve +oneself nicely. The Christian lets everything +happen and come upon him if he—the arch-Jew—can +only haggle and smuggle himself into heaven; he +must not kill himself, he must only—preserve himself +and work at the "preparation of a future abode." +Conservatism or "conquest of death" lies at his heart; +"the last enemy that is abolished is death."<a name="FNanchor_214_214" id="FNanchor_214_214"></a><a href="#Footnote_214_214" class="fnanchor">[214]</a> "Christ +has taken the power from death and brought life and +<i>imperishable</i> being to light by the gospel."<a name="FNanchor_215_215" id="FNanchor_215_215"></a><a href="#Footnote_215_215" class="fnanchor">[215]</a> "Imperishableness," +stability.</p> + +<p>The moral man wants the good, the right; and, if +he takes to the means that lead to this goal, really +lead to it, then these means are not <i>his</i> means, but +those of the good, right, etc., itself. These means are +never immoral, because the good end itself mediates itself +through them: the end sanctifies the means. +They call this maxim jesuitical, but it is "moral" +through and through. The moral man acts <i>in the +service</i> of an end or an idea: he makes himself the +<i>tool</i> of the idea of the good, as the pious man counts +it his glory to be a tool or instrument of God. To +await death is what the moral commandment postulates +as the good; to give it to oneself is immoral and +bad: <i>suicide</i> finds no excuse before the judgment-seat +of morality. If the religious man forbids it because +"you have not given yourself life, but God, who alone +can also take it from you again" (as if, even talking +in this conception, God did not take it from me just +as much when I kill myself as when a tile from the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_431" id="Page_431">[Pg 431]</a></span> +roof, or a hostile bullet, fells me; for he would have +aroused the resolution of death in me too!), the moral +man forbids it because I owe my life to the fatherland, +etc., "because I do not know whether I may not +yet accomplish good by my life." Of course, for in me +good loses a tool, as God does an instrument. If I am +immoral, the good is served in my <i>amendment</i>; if I am +"ungodly," God has joy in my <i>penitence</i>. Suicide, +therefore, is ungodly as well as nefarious. If one +whose standpoint is religiousness takes his own life, he +acts in forgetfulness of God; but, if the suicide's +standpoint is morality, he acts in forgetfulness of +duty, immorally. People worried themselves much +with the question whether Emilia Galotti's death can +be justified before morality (they take it as if it were +suicide, which it is too in substance). That she is so +infatuated with chastity, this moral good, as to yield +up even her life for it is certainly moral; but, again, +that she fears the weakness of her flesh is immoral.<a name="FNanchor_216_216" id="FNanchor_216_216"></a><a href="#Footnote_216_216" class="fnanchor">[216]</a><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_432" id="Page_432">[Pg 432]</a></span> +Such contradictions form the tragic conflict universally +in the moral drama; and one must think and feel +morally to be able to take an interest in it.</p> + +<p>What holds good of piety and morality will necessarily +apply to humanity also, because one owes his +life likewise to man, mankind or the species. Only +when I am under obligation to no being is the maintaining +of life—my affair. "A leap from this bridge +makes me free!"</p> + +<p>But, if we owe the maintaining of our life to that +being that we are to make alive in ourselves, it is not +less our duty not to lead this life according to <i>our</i> +pleasure, but to shape it in conformity to that being. +All my feeling, thinking, and willing, all my doing +and designing, belongs to—him.</p> + +<p>What is in conformity to that being is to be inferred +from his concept; and how differently has this +concept been conceived! or how differently has that +being been imagined! What demands the Supreme +Being makes on the Mohammedan; what different ones +the Christian, again, thinks he hears from him; how +divergent, therefore, must the shaping of the lives of +the two turn out! Only this do all hold fast, that the +Supreme Being is to <i>judge</i><a name="FNanchor_217_217" id="FNanchor_217_217"></a><a href="#Footnote_217_217" class="fnanchor">[217]</a> our life.</p> + +<p>But the pious who have their judge in God, and in +his word a book of directions for their life, I everywhere +pass by only reminiscently, because they belong +to a period of development that has been lived +through, and as petrifactions they may remain in +their fixed place right along; in our time it is no<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_433" id="Page_433">[Pg 433]</a></span> +longer the pious, but the liberals, who have the floor, +and piety itself cannot keep from reddening its pale +face with liberal coloring. But the liberals do not +adore their judge in God, and do not unfold their life +by the directions of the divine word, but regulate<a name="FNanchor_218_218" id="FNanchor_218_218"></a><a href="#Footnote_218_218" class="fnanchor">[218]</a> +themselves by man: they want to be not "divine" but +"human," and to live so.</p> + +<p>Man is the liberal's supreme being, man the <i>judge</i> +of his life, humanity his <i>directions</i>, or catechism. +God is spirit, but man is the "most perfect spirit," the +final result of the long chase after the spirit or of the +"searching in the depths of the Godhead," <i>i. e.</i> in the +depths of the spirit.</p> + +<p>Every one of your traits is to be human; you yourself +are to be so from top to toe, in the inward as in +the outward; for humanity is your <i>calling</i>.</p> + +<p>Calling—destiny—task!—</p> + +<p>What one can become he does become. A born +poet may well be hindered by the disfavor of circumstances +from standing on the high level of his time, +and, after the great studies that are indispensable for +this, producing <i>consummate</i> works of art; but he will +make poetry, be he a plowman or so lucky as to live +at the court of Weimar. A born musician will make +music, no matter whether on all instruments or only +on an oaten pipe. A born philosophical head can +give proof of itself as university philosopher or as village +philosopher. Finally, a born dolt, who, as is very +well compatible with this, may at the same time be a +sly-boots, will (as probably every one who has visited<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_434" id="Page_434">[Pg 434]</a></span> +schools is in a position to exemplify to himself by +many instances of fellow-scholars) always remain a +blockhead, let him have been drilled and trained into +the chief of a bureau, or let him serve that same chief +as bootblack. Nay, the born shallow-pates indisputably +form the most numerous class of men. And why, +indeed, should not the same distinctions show themselves +in the human species that are unmistakable in +every species of beasts? The more gifted and the less +gifted are to be found everywhere.</p> + +<p>Only a few, however, are so imbecile that one could +not get ideas into them. Hence people usually consider +all men capable of having religion. In a certain +degree they may be trained to other ideas too, +<i>e. g.</i> to some musical intelligence, even some philosophy, +etc. At this point then the priesthood of +religion, of morality, of culture, of science, etc., takes +its start, and the Communists, <i>e. g.</i>, want to make +everything accessible to all by their "public school." +There is heard a common assertion that this "great +mass" cannot get along without religion; the Communists +broaden it into the proposition that not only +the "great mass," but absolutely all, are called to +everything.</p> + +<p>Not enough that the great mass has been trained to +religion, now it is actually to have to occupy itself +with "everything human." Training is growing +ever more general and more comprehensive.</p> + +<p>You poor beings who could live so happily if you +might skip according to your mind, you are to dance +to the pipe of schoolmasters and bear-leaders, in order +to perform tricks that you yourselves would never use<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_435" id="Page_435">[Pg 435]</a></span> +yourselves for. And you do not even kick out of the +traces at last against being always taken otherwise +than you want to give yourselves. No, you mechanically +recite to yourselves the question that is recited to +you: "What am I called to? What <i>ought</i> I to do?" +You need only ask thus, to have yourselves <i>told</i> what +you ought to do and <i>ordered</i> to do it, to have your +<i>calling</i> marked out for you, or else to order yourselves +and impose it on yourselves according to the spirit's +prescription. Then in reference to the will the word +is, I will to do what I <i>ought</i>.</p> + +<p>A man is "called" to nothing, and has no "calling," +no "destiny," as little as a plant or a beast has +a "calling." The flower does not follow the calling +to complete itself, but it spends all its forces to enjoy +and consume the world as well as it can,—<i>i. e.</i> it sucks +in as much of the juices of the earth, as much air of +the ether, as much light of the sun, as it can get and +lodge. The bird lives up to no calling, but it uses its +forces as much as is practicable; it catches beetles and +sings to its heart's delight. But the forces of the +flower and the bird are slight in comparison to those +of a man, and a man who applies his forces will affect +the world much more powerfully than flower and +beast. A calling he has not, but he has forces that +manifest themselves where they are because their being +consists solely in their manifestation, and are as little +able to abide inactive as life, which, if it "stood still" +only a second, would no longer be life. Now, one +might call out to the man, "use your force." Yet to +this imperative would be given the meaning that it +was man's task to use his force. It is not so. Rather,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_436" id="Page_436">[Pg 436]</a></span> +each one really uses his force without first looking +upon this as his calling: at all times every one uses as +much force as he possesses. One does say of a beaten +man that he ought to have exerted his force more; +but one forgets that, if in the moment of succumbing +he had had the force to exert his forces (<i>e. g.</i> bodily +forces), he would not have failed to do it: even if it +was only the discouragement of a minute, this was yet +a—destitution of force, a minute long. Forces may +assuredly be sharpened and redoubled, especially by +hostile resistance or friendly assistance; but where one +misses their application one may be sure of their absence +too. One can strike fire out of a stone, but +without the blow none comes out; in like manner a +man too needs "impact."</p> + +<p>Now, for this reason that forces always of themselves +show themselves operative, the command to use them +would be superfluous and senseless. To use his forces +is not man's <i>calling</i> and task, but is his <i>act</i>, real and +extant at all times. Force is only a simpler word for +manifestation of force.</p> + +<p>Now, as this rose is a true rose to begin with, this +nightingale always a true nightingale, so I am not for +the first time a true man when I fulfil my calling, live +up to my destiny, but I am a "true man" from the +start. My first babble is the token of the life of a +"true man," the struggles of my life are the outpourings +of his force, my last breath is the last exhalation +of the force of the "man."</p> + +<p>The true man does not lie in the future, an object +of longing, but lies, existent and real, in the present. +Whatever and whoever I may be, joyous and suffering,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_437" id="Page_437">[Pg 437]</a></span> +a child or a graybeard, in confidence or doubt, in +sleep or in waking, I am it, I am the true man.</p> + +<p>But, if I am Man, and have really found in myself +him whom religious humanity designated as the distant +goal, then everything "truly human" is also <i>my +own</i>. What was ascribed to the idea of humanity belongs +to me. That freedom of trade, <i>e. g.</i>, which humanity +has yet to attain,—and which, like an enchanting +dream, people remove to humanity's golden +future,—I take by anticipation as my property, and +carry it on for the time in the form of smuggling. +There may indeed be but few smugglers who have +sufficient understanding to thus account to themselves +for their doings, but the instinct of egoism replaces +their consciousness. Above I have shown the same +thing about freedom of the press.</p> + +<p>Everything is my own, therefore I bring back to +myself what wants to withdraw from me; but above all +I always bring myself back when I have slipped away +from myself to any tributariness. But this too is not +my calling, but my natural act.</p> + +<p>Enough, there is a mighty difference whether I +make myself the starting-point or the goal. As the +latter I do not have myself, am consequently still +alien to myself, am my <i>essence</i>, my "true essence," +and this "true essence," alien to me, will mock me as +a spook of a thousand different names. Because I am +not yet I, another (like God, the true man, the truly +pious man, the rational man, the freeman, etc.) is I, +my ego.</p> + +<p>Still far from myself, I separate myself into two +halves, of which one, the one unattained and to be ful<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_438" id="Page_438">[Pg 438]</a></span>filled, +is the true one. The one, the untrue, must be +brought as a sacrifice; to wit, the unspiritual one. +The other, the true, is to be the whole man; to wit, +the spirit. Then it is said, "The spirit is man's +proper essence," or, "man exists as man only spiritually." +Now there is a greedy rush to catch the spirit, +as if one would then have bagged <i>himself</i>; and so, in +chasing after himself, one loses sight of himself, whom +he is.</p> + +<p>And, as one stormily pursues his own self, the +never-attained, so one also despises shrewd people's +rule to take men as they are, and prefers to take them +as they should be; and, for this reason, hounds every +one on after his should-be self and "endeavors to make +all into equally entitled, equally respectable, equally +moral or rational men."<a name="FNanchor_219_219" id="FNanchor_219_219"></a><a href="#Footnote_219_219" class="fnanchor">[219]</a></p> + +<p>Yes, "if men were what they <i>should</i> be, <i>could</i> be, if +all men were rational, all loved each other as brothers," +then it would be a paradisiacal life.<a name="FNanchor_220_220" id="FNanchor_220_220"></a><a href="#Footnote_220_220" class="fnanchor">[220]</a>—All right, +men are as they should be, can be. What should +they be? Surely not more than they can be! And +what can they be? Not more, again, than they—can, +<i>i. e.</i> than they have the competence, the force, to be. +But this they really are, because what they are not +they are <i>incapable</i> of being; for to be capable means—really +to be. One is not capable for anything that +one really is not; one is not capable of anything that +one does not really do. Could a man blinded by +cataract see? Oh, yes, if he had his cataract successfully +removed. But now he cannot see because he does<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_439" id="Page_439">[Pg 439]</a></span> +not see. Possibility and reality always coincide. One +can do nothing that one does not, as one does nothing +that one cannot.</p> + +<p>The singularity of this assertion vanishes when one +reflects that the words "it is possible that ..." almost +never contain another meaning than "I can +imagine that ...," <i>e. g.</i>, It is possible for all men to +live rationally, <i>i. e.</i> I can imagine that all, etc. Now,—since +my thinking cannot, and accordingly does not, +cause all men to live rationally, but this must still be +left to the men themselves,—general reason is for me +only thinkable, a thinkableness, but as such in fact a +<i>reality</i> that is called a possibility only in reference to +what I <i>can</i> not bring to pass, to wit, the rationality of +others. So far as depends on you, all men might be +rational, for you have nothing against it; nay, so far +as your thinking reaches, you perhaps cannot discover +any hindrance either, and accordingly nothing +does stand in the way of the thing in your thinking; +it is thinkable to you.</p> + +<p>As men are not all rational, though, it is probable +that they—cannot be so.</p> + +<p>If something which one imagines to be easily possible +is not, or does not happen, then one may be +assured that something stands in the way of the thing, +and that it is—impossible. Our time has its art, +science, etc.; the art may be bad in all conscience; +but may one say that we deserved to have a better, +and "could" have it if we only would? We have +just as much art as we can have. Our art of to-day +is the <i>only art possible</i>, and therefore real, at the +time.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_440" id="Page_440">[Pg 440]</a></span></p> + +<p>Even in the sense to which one might at last still +reduce the word "possible," that it should mean +"future," it retains the full force of the "real." If +one says, <i>e. g.</i>, "It is possible that the sun will rise +to-morrow,"—this means only, "for to-day to-morrow +is the real future"; for I suppose there is hardly need +of the suggestion that a future is real "future" only +when it has not yet appeared.</p> + +<p>Yet wherefore this dignifying of a word? If the +most prolific misunderstanding of thousands of years +were not in ambush behind it, if this single concept +of the little word "possible" were not haunted by +all the spooks of possessed men, its contemplation +should trouble us little here.</p> + +<p>The thought, it was just now shown, rules the possessed +world. Well, then, possibility is nothing but +thinkableness, and innumerable sacrifices have hitherto +been made to hideous <i>thinkableness</i>. It was <i>thinkable</i> +that men might become rational; thinkable, that +they might know Christ; thinkable, that they might +become moral and enthusiastic for the good; thinkable, +that they might all take refuge in the Church's +lap; thinkable, that they might meditate, speak, and +do, nothing dangerous to the State; thinkable, that +they <i>might</i> be obedient subjects; but, because it was +thinkable, it was—so ran the inference—possible, and +further, because it was possible to men (right here lies +the deceptive point: because it is thinkable to me, it +is possible to <i>men</i>), therefore they <i>ought</i> to be so, it +was their <i>calling</i>; and finally—one is to take men +only according to this calling, only as <i>called</i> men, +"not as they are, but as they ought to be."<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_441" id="Page_441">[Pg 441]</a></span></p> + +<p>And the further inference? Man is not the individual, +but man is a <i>thought</i>, an <i>ideal</i>, to which the +individual is related not even as the child to the man, +but as a chalk point to a point thought of, or as a—finite +creature to the eternal Creator, or, according to +modern views, as the specimen to the species. Here +then comes to light the glorification of "humanity," +the "eternal, immortal," for whose glory (<i>in majorem +humanitatis gloriam</i>) the individual must devote himself +and find his "immortal renown" in having done +something for the "spirit of humanity."</p> + +<p>Thus the <i>thinkers</i> rule in the world as long as the +age of priests or of schoolmasters lasts, and what they +think of is possible, but what is possible must be realized. +They <i>think</i> an ideal of man, which for the time +is real only in their thoughts; but they also think the +possibility of carrying it out, and there is no chance +for dispute, the carrying out is really—thinkable, it +is an—idea.</p> + +<p>But you and I, we may indeed be people of whom +a Krummacher can <i>think</i> that we might yet become +good Christians; if, however, he wanted to "labor +with" us, we should soon make it palpable to him +that our Christianity is only <i>thinkable</i>, but in other +respects <i>impossible</i>; if he grinned on and on at us +with his obtrusive <i>thoughts</i>, his "good belief," he +would have to learn that we do not at all <i>need</i> to become +what we do not like to become.</p> + +<p>And so it goes on, far beyond the most pious of the +pious. "If all men were rational, if all did right, +if all were guided by philanthropy, etc."! Reason, +right, philanthropy, etc., are put before the eyes of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_442" id="Page_442">[Pg 442]</a></span> +men as their calling, as the goal of their aspiration. +And what does being rational mean? Giving oneself +a hearing?<a name="FNanchor_221_221" id="FNanchor_221_221"></a><a href="#Footnote_221_221" class="fnanchor">[221]</a> No, reason is a book full of laws, +which are all enacted against egoism.</p> + +<p>History hitherto is the history of the <i>intellectual</i> +man. After the period of sensuality, history proper +begins; <i>i. e.</i>, the period of intellectuality,<a name="FNanchor_222_222" id="FNanchor_222_222"></a><a href="#Footnote_222_222" class="fnanchor">[222]</a> spirituality,<a name="FNanchor_223_223" id="FNanchor_223_223"></a><a href="#Footnote_223_223" class="fnanchor">[223]</a> +non-sensuality, supersensuality, nonsensicality. +Man now begins to want to be and become <i>something</i>. +What? Good, beautiful, true; more precisely, moral, +pious, agreeable, etc. He wants to make of himself a +"proper man," "something proper." <i>Man</i> is his +goal, his ought, his destiny, calling, task, his—<i>ideal</i>; +he is to himself a future, otherworldly he. And <i>what</i> +makes a "proper fellow" of him? Being true, being +good, being moral, and the like. Now he looks askance +at every one who does not recognize the same +"what," seek the same morality, have the same faith; +he chases out "separatists, heretics, sects," etc.</p> + +<p>No sheep, no dog, exerts itself to become a "proper +sheep, a proper dog"; no beast has its essence appear +to it as a task, <i>i. e.</i> as a concept that it has to realize. +It realizes itself in living itself out, <i>i. e.</i> dissolving +itself, passing away. It does not ask to be or to +become anything <i>other</i> than it is.</p> + +<p>Do I mean to advise you to be like the beasts? +That you ought to become beasts is an exhortation +which I certainly cannot give you, as that would +again be a task, an ideal ("How doth the little busy +bee improve each shining hour.... In works of labor<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_443" id="Page_443">[Pg 443]</a></span> +or of skill I would be busy too, for Satan finds some +mischief still for idle hands to do"). It would be the +same, too, as if one wished for the beasts that they +should become human beings. Your nature is, once +for all, a human one; you are human natures, <i>i. e.</i> human +beings. But, just because you already are so, +you do not still need to become so. Beasts too are +"trained," and a trained beast executes many unnatural +things. But a trained dog is no better for itself +than a natural one, and has no profit from it, even +if it is more companionable for us.</p> + +<p>Exertions to "form" all men into moral, rational, +pious, human, etc., "beings" (<i>i. e.</i> training) were in +vogue from of yore. They are wrecked against the +indomitable quality of I, against own nature, against +egoism. Those who are trained never attain their +ideal, and only profess with their <i>mouth</i> the sublime +principles, or make a <i>profession</i>, a profession of faith. +In face of this profession they must in <i>life</i> "acknowledge +themselves sinners altogether," and they fall short +of their ideal, are "weak men," and bear with them +the consciousness of "human weakness."</p> + +<p>It is different if you do not chase after an <i>ideal</i> as +your "destiny," but dissolve yourself as time dissolves +everything. The dissolution is not your "destiny," +because it is present time.</p> + +<p>Yet the <i>culture</i>, the religiousness, of men has assuredly +made them free, but only free from one lord, +to lead them to another. I have learned by religion +to tame my appetite, I break the world's resistance by +the cunning that is put in my hand by <i>science</i>; I even +serve no man: "I am, no man's lackey." But then it<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_444" id="Page_444">[Pg 444]</a></span> +comes, You must obey God more than man. Just so +I am indeed free from irrational determination by my +impulses, but obedient to the master <i>Reason</i>. I have +gained "spiritual freedom," "freedom of the spirit." +But with that <i>I</i> have then become subject to that very +<i>spirit</i>. The spirit gives me orders, reason guides me, +they are my leaders and commanders. The "rational," +the "servants of the spirit," rule. But, if <i>I</i> +am not flesh, I am in truth not spirit either. Freedom +of the spirit is servitude of me, because I am +more than spirit or flesh.</p> + +<p>Without doubt culture has made me <i>powerful</i>. It +has given me power over all <i>motives</i>, over the impulses +of my nature as well as over the exactions and violences +of the world. I know, and have gained the +force for it by culture, that I need not let myself be +coerced by any of my appetites, pleasures, emotions, +etc.; I am their—<i>master</i>; in like manner I become, +through the sciences and arts, the <i>master</i> of the refractory +world, whom sea and earth obey, and to whom +even the stars must give an account of themselves. +The spirit has made me <i>master</i>.—But I have no power +over the spirit itself. From religion (culture) I do +learn the means for the "vanquishing of the world," +but not how I am to subdue <i>God</i> too and become +master of him; for God "is the spirit." And this +same spirit, of which I am unable to become master, +may have the most manifold shapes: he may be called +God or National Spirit, State, Family, Reason, also—Liberty, +Humanity, Man.</p> + +<p><i>I</i> receive with thanks what the centuries of culture +have acquired for me; I am not willing to throw<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_445" id="Page_445">[Pg 445]</a></span> +away and give up anything of it: <i>I</i> have not lived in +vain. The experience that I have <i>power</i> over my +nature, and need not be the slave of my appetites, +shall not be lost to me; the experience that I can subdue +the world by culture's means is too dear-bought +for me to be able to forget it. But I want still more.</p> + +<p>People ask, what can man do? what can he accomplish? +what goods procure? and put down the highest +of everything as a calling. As if everything were possible +to <i>me</i>!</p> + +<p>If one sees somebody going to ruin in a mania, a +passion, etc. (<i>e. g.</i> in the huckster-spirit, in jealousy), +the desire is stirred to deliver him out of this possession +and to help him to "self-conquest." "We want +to make a man of him!" That would be very fine if +another possession were not immediately put in the +place of the earlier one. But one frees from the love +of money him who is a thrall to it, only to deliver him +over to piety, humanity, or some principle else, and to +transfer him to a <i>fixed standpoint</i> anew.</p> + +<p>This transference from a narrow standpoint to a +sublime one is declared in the words that the sense +must not be directed to the perishable, but to the imperishable +alone: not to the temporal, but to the +eternal, absolute, divine, purely human, etc.,—to the +<i>spiritual</i>.</p> + +<p>People very soon discerned that it was not indifferent +what one set his affections on, or what one occupied +himself with; they recognized the importance of +the <i>object</i>. An object exalted above the individuality +of things is the <i>essence</i> of things; yes, the essence is +alone the thinkable in them, it is for the <i>thinking</i><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_446" id="Page_446">[Pg 446]</a></span> +man. Therefore direct no longer your <i>sense</i> to the +<i>things</i>, but your <i>thoughts</i> to the <i>essence</i>. "Blessed +are they who see not, and yet believe"; <i>i. e.</i>, blessed +are the <i>thinkers</i> for they have to do with the invisible +and believe in it. Yet even an object of thought, that +constituted an essential point of contention centuries +long, comes at last to the point of being "no longer +worth speaking of." This was discerned, but nevertheless +people always kept before their eyes again a +self-valid importance of the object, an absolute value +of it, as if the doll were not the most important thing +to the child, the Koran to the Turk. As long as I +am not the sole important thing to myself, it is indifferent +of what object I "make much," and only my +greater or lesser <i>delinquency</i> against it is of value. +The degree of my attachment and devotion marks the +standpoint of my liability to service, the degree of my +sinning shows the measure of my ownness.</p> + +<p>But finally, and in general, one must know how to +"put everything out of his mind," if only so as to be +able to—go to sleep. Nothing may occupy us with +which <i>we</i> do not occupy ourselves: the victim of ambition +cannot run away from his ambitious plans, nor +the God-fearing man from the thought of God; infatuation +and possessedness coincide.</p> + +<p>To want to realize his essence or live conformably +to his concept (which with believers in God signifies +as much as to be "pious," and with believers in humanity +means living "humanly") is what only the +sensual and sinful man can propose to himself, the +man so long as he has the anxious choice between +happiness of sense and peace of soul, so long as he is<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_447" id="Page_447">[Pg 447]</a></span> +a "poor sinner." The Christian is nothing but a sensual +man who, knowing of the sacred and being conscious +that he violates it, sees in himself a poor sinner: +sensualness, recognized as "sinfulness," is Christian +consciousness, is the Christian himself. And if "sin" +and "sinfulness" are now no longer taken into the +mouths of moderns, but, instead of that, "egoism," +"self-seeking," "selfishness," and the like, engage +them; if the devil has been translated into the "un-man" +or "egoistic man,"—is the Christian less present +then than before? Is not the old discord between +good and evil,—is not a judge over us, man,—is not a +calling, the calling to make oneself man—left? If +they no longer name it calling, but "task" or, very +likely, "duty," the change of name is quite correct, +because "man" is not, like God, a personal being +that can "call"; but outside the name the thing +remains as of old.</p> + +<hr style='width: 45%;' /> + +<p>Every one has a relation to objects, and more, every +one is differently related to them. Let us choose as +an example that book to which millions of men had a +relation for two thousand years, the Bible. What is +it, what was it, to each? Absolutely, only what he +<i>made out of it</i>! For him who makes to himself nothing +at all out of it, it is nothing at all; for him who +uses it as an amulet, it has solely the value, the significance, +of a means of sorcery; for him who, like children, +plays with it, it is nothing but a plaything; etc.</p> + +<p>Now, Christianity asks that it shall <i>be the same for +all</i>: say, the sacred book or the "sacred Scriptures." +This means as much as that the Christian's view shall<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_448" id="Page_448">[Pg 448]</a></span> +also be that of other men, and that no one may be +otherwise related to that object. And with this the +ownness of the relation is destroyed, and one mind, +one disposition, is fixed as the "<i>true</i>," the "only +true" one. In the limitation of the freedom to make +of the Bible what I will, the freedom of making in +general is limited; and the coercion of a view or a +judgment is put in its place. He who should pass the +judgment that the Bible was a long error of mankind +would judge—<i>criminally</i>.</p> + +<p>In fact, the child who tears it to pieces or plays with +it, the Inca Atahualpa who lays his ear to it and +throws it away contemptuously when it remains dumb, +judges just as correctly about the Bible as the priest +who praises in it the "Word of God," or the critic +who calls it a job of men's hands. For how we toss +things about is the affair of our <i>option</i>, our <i>free will</i>: +we use them according to our <i>heart's pleasure</i>, or, +more clearly, we use them just as we <i>can</i>. Why, what +do the parsons scream about when they see how Hegel +and the speculative theologians make speculative +thoughts out of the contents of the Bible? Precisely +this, that they deal with it according to their heart's +pleasure, or "proceed arbitrarily with it."</p> + +<p>But, because we all show ourselves arbitrary in the +handling of objects, <i>i. e.</i> do with them as we <i>like</i> best, +at our <i>liking</i> (the philosopher likes nothing so well +as when he can trace out an "idea" in everything, +as the God-fearing man likes to make God his +friend by everything, and so, <i>e. g.</i>, by keeping the +Bible sacred), therefore we nowhere meet such grievous +arbitrariness, such a frightful tendency to vio<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_449" id="Page_449">[Pg 449]</a></span>lence, +such stupid coercion, as in this very domain of +our—<i>own free will</i>. If <i>we</i> proceed arbitrarily in +taking the sacred objects thus or so, how is it then +that we want to take it ill of the parson-spirits if they +take us just as arbitrarily <i>in their fashion</i>, and esteem +us worthy of the heretic's fire or of another punishment, +perhaps of the—censorship?</p> + +<p>What a man is, he makes out of things; "as you +look at the world, so it looks at you again." Then +the wise advice makes itself heard again at once, You +must only look at it "rightly, unbiasedly," etc. As +if the child did not look at the Bible "rightly and unbiasedly" +when it makes it a plaything. That shrewd +precept is given us, <i>e. g.</i>, by Feuerbach. One does +look at things rightly when one makes of them what +one <i>will</i> (by things objects in general are here understood, +such as God, our fellow-men, a sweetheart, a +book, a beast, etc.). And therefore the things and the +looking at them are not first, but I am, my will is. +One <i>will</i> bring thoughts out of the things, <i>will</i> discover +reason in the world, <i>will</i> have sacredness in it: +therefore one shall find them. "Seek and ye shall +find." <i>What</i> I will seek, <i>I</i> determine: I want, <i>e. g.</i>, +to get edification from the Bible; it is to be found; I +want to read and test the Bible thoroughly; my outcome +will be a thorough instruction and criticism—to +the extent of my powers. I elect for myself what I +have a fancy for, and in electing I show myself—arbitrary.</p> + +<p>Connected with this is the discernment that every +judgment which I pass upon an object is the <i>creature</i> +of my will; and that discernment again leads me to<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_450" id="Page_450">[Pg 450]</a></span> +not losing myself in the <i>creature</i>, the judgment, but +remaining the <i>creator</i>, the judger, who is ever creating +anew. All predicates of objects are my statements, +my judgments, my—creatures. If they want to tear +themselves loose from me and be something for themselves, +or actually overawe me, then I have nothing +more pressing to do than to take them back into their +nothing, <i>i. e.</i> into me the creator. God, Christ, +trinity, morality, the good, etc., are such creatures, of +which I must not merely allow myself to say that they +are truths, but also that they are deceptions. As I +once willed and decreed their existence, so I want to +have license to will their non-existence too; I must +not let them grow over my head, must not have the +weakness to let them become something "absolute," +whereby they would be eternalized and withdrawn from +my power and decision. With that I should fall a +prey to the <i>principle of stability</i>, the proper life-principle +of religion, which concerns itself with creating +"sanctuaries that must not be touched," "eternal +truths,"—in short, that which shall be "sacred,"—and +depriving you of what is <i>yours</i>.</p> + +<p>The object makes us into possessed men in its +sacred form just as in its profane; as a supersensuous +object, just as it does as a sensuous one. The appetite +or mania refers to both, and avarice and longing for +heaven stand on a level. When the rationalists +wanted to win people for the sensuous world, Lavater +preached the longing for the invisible. The one +party wanted to call forth <i>emotion</i>, the other <i>motion</i>, +activity.</p> + +<p>The conception of objects is altogether diverse, even<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_451" id="Page_451">[Pg 451]</a></span> +as God, Christ, the world, etc., were and are conceived +of in the most manifold wise. In this every one is a +"dissenter," and after bloody combats so much has +at last been attained, that opposite views about one +and the same object are no longer condemned as heresies +worthy of death. The "dissenters" reconcile +themselves to each other. But why should I only dissent +(think otherwise) about a thing? why not push +the thinking otherwise to its last extremity, <i>viz.</i>, +that of no longer having any regard at all for the +thing, and therefore thinking its nothingness, crushing +it? Then the <i>conception</i> itself has an end, because +there is no longer anything to conceive of. Why am +I to say, let us suppose, "God is not Allah, not +Brahma, not Jehovah, but—God"; but not, "God is +nothing but a deception"? Why do people brand +me if I am an "atheist"? Because they put the +creature above the creator ("They honor and serve the +creature more than the Creator"<a name="FNanchor_224_224" id="FNanchor_224_224"></a><a href="#Footnote_224_224" class="fnanchor">[224]</a>) and require a <i>ruling +object</i>, that the subject may be right <i>submissive</i>. +I am to bend <i>beneath</i> the absolute, I <i>ought</i> to.</p> + +<p>By the "realm of thoughts" Christianity has completed +itself; the thought is that inwardness in which +all the world's lights go out, all existence becomes existenceless, +the inward man (the heart, the head) is all +in all. This realm of thoughts awaits its deliverance, +awaits, like the Sphinx, Œdipus's key-word to the +riddle, that it may enter in at last to its death. I am +the annihilator of its continuance, for in the creator's +realm it no longer forms a realm of its own, not a +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_452" id="Page_452">[Pg 452]</a></span>State in the State, but a creature of my creative—thoughtlessness. +Only together and at the same time +with the benumbed <i>thinking</i> world can the world of +Christians, Christianity and religion itself, come to its +downfall; only when thoughts run out are there no +more believers. To the thinker his thinking is a +"sublime labor, a sacred activity," and it rests on +a firm <i>faith</i>, the faith in truth. At first praying is a +sacred activity, then this sacred "devotion" passes +over into a rational and reasoning "thinking," which, +however, likewise retains in the "sacred truth" its un-derangeable +basis of faith, and is only a marvelous +machine that the spirit of truth winds up for its service. +Free thinking and free science busy <i>me</i>—for it +is not I that am free, not <i>I</i> that busy myself, but +thinking is free and busies me—with heaven and the +heavenly or "divine"; that is, properly, with the +world and the worldly, not this world but "another" +world; it is only the reversing and deranging of +the world, a busying with the <i>essence</i> of the world, +therefore a <i>derangement</i>. The thinker is blind to the +immediateness of things, and incapable of mastering +them: he does not eat, does not drink, does not +enjoy; for the eater and drinker is never the thinker, +nay, the latter forgets eating and drinking, his getting +on in life, the cares of nourishment, etc., over his +thinking; he forgets it as the praying man too forgets +it. This is why he appears to the forceful son of +nature as a queer Dick, a <i>fool</i>,—even if he does look +upon him as holy, just as lunatics appeared so to the +ancients. Free thinking is lunacy, because it is <i>pure +movement of the inwardness</i>, of the merely <i>inward<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_453" id="Page_453">[Pg 453]</a></span> +man</i>, which guides and regulates the rest of the man. +The shaman and the speculative philosopher mark the +bottom and top rounds on the ladder of the <i>inward</i> +man, the—Mongol. Shaman and philosopher fight +with ghosts, demons, <i>spirits</i>, gods.</p> + +<p>Totally different from this <i>free</i> thinking is <i>own</i> +thinking, <i>my</i> thinking, a thinking which does not +guide me, but is guided, continued, or broken off, by +me at my pleasure. The distinction of this own +thinking from free thinking is similar to that of own +sensuality, which I satisfy at pleasure, from free, unruly +sensuality to which I succumb.</p> + +<p>Feuerbach, in the "Principles of the Philosophy of +the Future," is always harping upon <i>being</i>. In this +he too, with all his antagonism to Hegel and the +absolute philosophy, is stuck fast in abstraction; for +"being" is abstraction, as is even "the I." Only <i>I +am</i> not abstraction alone: <i>I am</i> all in all, consequently +even abstraction or nothing; I am all and +nothing; I am not a mere thought, but at the same +time I am full of thoughts, a thought-world. Hegel +condemns the own, mine,<a name="FNanchor_225_225" id="FNanchor_225_225"></a><a href="#Footnote_225_225" class="fnanchor">[225]</a>—"opinion."<a name="FNanchor_226_226" id="FNanchor_226_226"></a><a href="#Footnote_226_226" class="fnanchor">[226]</a> "Absolute +thinking" is that thinking which forgets that it is <i>my</i> +thinking, that I think, and that it exists only through +<i>me</i>. But I, as I, swallow up again what is mine, am +its master; it is only my <i>opinion</i>, which I can at any +moment <i>change</i>, <i>i. e.</i> annihilate, take back into myself, +and consume. Feuerbach wants to smite Hegel's +"absolute thinking" with <i>unconquered being</i>. But +in me being is as much conquered as thinking is. It<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_454" id="Page_454">[Pg 454]</a></span> +is <i>my</i> being, as the other is <i>my</i> thinking.</p> + +<p>With this, of course, Feuerbach does not get further +than to the proof, trivial in itself, that I require the +<i>senses</i> for everything, or that I cannot entirely do +without these organs. Certainly I cannot think if I +do not exist sensuously. But for thinking as well as +for feeling, and so for the abstract as well as for the +sensuous, I need above all things <i>myself</i>, this quite +particular myself, this <i>unique</i> myself. If I were not +this one, <i>e. g.</i> Hegel, I should not look at the world +as I do look at it, I should not pick out of it that +philosophical system which just I as Hegel do, etc. I +should indeed have senses, as do other people too, but +I should not utilize them as I do.</p> + +<p>Thus the reproach is brought up against Hegel by +Feuerbach<a name="FNanchor_227_227" id="FNanchor_227_227"></a><a href="#Footnote_227_227" class="fnanchor">[227]</a> that he misuses language, understanding +by many words something else than what natural consciousness +takes them for; and yet he too commits the +same fault when he gives the "sensuous" a sense of +unusual eminence. Thus it is said, p. 69, "the sensuous +is not the profane, the destitute of thought, the +obvious, that which is understood of itself." But, if +it is the sacred, the full of thought, the recondite, that +which can be understood only through mediation,—well, +then it is no longer what people call the sensuous. +The sensuous is only that which exists for <i>the senses</i>; +what, on the other hand, is enjoyable only to those +who enjoy with <i>more</i> than the senses, who go beyond +sense-enjoyment or sense-reception, is at most mediated +or introduced by the senses, <i>i. e.</i> the senses constitute<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_455" id="Page_455">[Pg 455]</a></span> +a <i>condition</i> for obtaining it, but it is no longer anything +sensuous. The sensuous, whatever it may be, +when taken up into me becomes something non-sensuous, +which, however, may again have sensuous effects, +<i>e. g.</i> by the stirring of my emotions and my blood.</p> + +<p>It is well that Feuerbach brings sensuousness to +honor, but the only thing he is able to do with it is to +clothe the materialism of his "new philosophy" with +what had hitherto been the property of idealism, the +"absolute philosophy." As little as people let it +be talked into them that one can live on the "spiritual" +alone without bread, so little will they believe +his word that as a sensuous being one is already everything, +and so spiritual, full of thoughts, etc.</p> + +<p>Nothing at all is justified by <i>being</i>. What is +thought of <i>is</i> as well as what is not thought of; the +stone in the street <i>is</i>, and my notion of it <i>is</i> too. +Both are only in different <i>spaces</i>, the former in airy +space, the latter in my head, in <i>me</i>; for I am space +like the street.</p> + +<p>The professionals, the privileged, brook no freedom +of thought, <i>i. e.</i> no thoughts that do not come from +the "Giver of all good," be he called God, pope, +church, or whatever else. If anybody has such illegitimate +thoughts, he must whisper them into his confessor's +ear, and have himself chastised by him till the +slave-whip becomes unendurable to the free thoughts. +In other ways too the professional spirit takes care +that free thoughts shall not come at all: first and foremost, +by a wise education. He on whom the principles +of morality have been duly inculcated never becomes +free again from moralizing thoughts, and rob<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_456" id="Page_456">[Pg 456]</a></span>bery, +perjury, overreaching, and the like, remain to +him fixed ideas against which no freedom of thought +protects him. He has his thoughts "from above," +and gets no further.</p> + +<p>It is different with the holders of concessions or +patents. Every one must be able to have and form +thoughts as he will. If he has the patent, or the concession, +of a capacity to think, he needs no special +<i>privilege</i>. But, as "all men are rational," it is free +to every one to put into his head any thoughts whatever, +and, to the extent of the patent of his natural endowment, +to have a greater or less wealth of thoughts. +Now one hears the admonitions that one "is to honor +all opinions and convictions," that "every conviction +is authorized," that one must be "tolerant to the +views of others," etc.</p> + +<p>But "your thoughts are not my thoughts, and your +ways are not my ways." Or rather, I mean the reverse: +Your thoughts are <i>my</i> thoughts, which I dispose +of as I will, and which I strike down unmercifully; +they are my property, which I annihilate as I list. I +do not wait for authorization from you first, to decompose +and blow away your thoughts. It does not matter +to me that you call these thoughts yours too, they +remain mine nevertheless, and how I will proceed with +them is <i>my affair</i>, not a usurpation. It may please +me to leave you in your thoughts; then I keep still. +Do you believe thoughts fly around free like birds, so +that every one may get himself some which he may +then make good against me as his inviolable property? +What is flying around is all—<i>mine</i>.</p> + +<p>Do you believe you have your thoughts for your<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_457" id="Page_457">[Pg 457]</a></span>selves +and need answer to no one for them, or, as you +do also say, you have to give an account of them to +God only? No, your great and small thoughts belong +to me, and I handle them at my pleasure.</p> + +<p>The thought is my <i>own</i> only when I have no misgiving +about bringing it in danger of death every +moment, when I do not have to fear its loss as a <i>loss +for me</i>, a loss of me. The thought is my own only +when I can indeed subjugate it, but it never can subjugate +me, never fanaticizes me, makes me the tool of +its realization.</p> + +<p>So freedom of thought exists when I can have all +possible thoughts; but the thoughts become property +only by not being able to become masters. In the +time of freedom of thought, thoughts (ideas) <i>rule</i>; +but, if I attain to property in thought, they stand as +my creatures.</p> + +<p>If the hierarchy had not so penetrated men to the +innermost as to take from them all courage to pursue +free thoughts, <i>i. e.</i> thoughts perhaps displeasing to +God, one would have to consider freedom of thought +just as empty a word as, say, a freedom of digestion.</p> + +<p>According to the professionals' opinion, the +thought is <i>given</i> to me; according to the freethinkers', +<i>I seek</i> the thought. There the <i>truth</i> is already found +and extant, only I must—receive it from its Giver by +grace; here the truth is to be sought and is my goal, +lying in the future, toward which I have to run.</p> + +<p>In both cases the truth (the true thought) lies outside +me, and I aspire to <i>get</i> it, be it by presentation +(grace), be it by earning (merit of my own). Therefore, +(1) The truth is a <i>privilege</i>, (2) No, the way to<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_458" id="Page_458">[Pg 458]</a></span> +it is <i>patent</i> to all, and neither the Bible nor the holy +fathers nor the church nor any one else is in possession +of the truth; but one can come into possession of it by—speculating.</p> + +<p>Both, one sees, are <i>propertyless</i> in relation to the +truth: they have it either as a <i>fief</i> (for the "holy +father," <i>e. g.</i>, is not a unique person; as unique he is +this Sixtus, Clement, etc., but he does not have the +truth as Sixtus, Clement, etc., but as "holy father," +<i>i. e.</i> as a spirit) or as an <i>ideal</i>. As a fief, it is only for +a few (the privileged); as an ideal, for <i>all</i> (the +patentees).</p> + +<p>Freedom of thought, then, has the meaning that we +do indeed all walk in the dark and in the paths of +error, but every one can on this path approach <i>the +truth</i> and is accordingly on the right path ("All +roads lead to Rome, to the world's end, etc."). Hence +freedom of thought means this much, that the true +thought is not my <i>own</i>; for, if it were this, how +should people want to shut me off from it?</p> + +<p>Thinking has become entirely free, and has laid +down a lot of truths which <i>I</i> must accommodate myself +to. It seeks to complete itself into a <i>system</i> and +to bring itself to an absolute "constitution." In the +State <i>e. g.</i> it seeks for the idea, say, till it has brought +out the "rational State," in which I am then obliged +to be suited; in man (anthropology), till it "has +found man."</p> + +<p>The thinker is distinguished from the believer only +by believing <i>much more</i> than the latter, who on his +part thinks of much less as signified by his faith +(creed). The thinker has a thousand tenets of faith<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_459" id="Page_459">[Pg 459]</a></span> +where the believer gets along with few; but the former +brings <i>coherence</i> into his tenets, and takes the coherence +in turn for the scale to estimate their worth by. +If one or the other does not fit into his budget, he +throws it out.</p> + +<p>The thinkers run parallel to the believers in their +pronouncements. Instead of "If it is from God you +will not root it out," the word is "If it is from the +<i>truth</i>, is true, etc."; instead of "Give God the glory,"—"Give +truth the glory." But it is very much the +same to me whether God or the truth wins; first and +foremost <i>I</i> want to win.</p> + +<p>Aside from this, how is an "unlimited freedom" to +be thinkable inside of the State or society? The State +may well protect one against another, but yet it must +not let itself be endangered by an unmeasured freedom, +a so-called unbridledness. Thus in "freedom of +instruction" the State declares only this,—that it is +suited with every one who instructs as the State (or, +speaking more comprehensibly, the political power) +would have it. The point for the competitors is this +"as the State would have it." If the clergy, <i>e. g.</i>, +does not will as the State does, then it itself excludes +itself from <i>competition</i> (<i>vid.</i> France). The limit +that is necessarily drawn in the State for any and all +competition is called "the oversight and superintendence +of the State." In bidding freedom of instruction +keep within the due bounds, the State at the same +time fixes the scope of freedom of thought; because, as +a rule, people do not think farther than their teachers +have thought.</p> + +<p>Hear Minister Guizot: "The great difficulty of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_460" id="Page_460">[Pg 460]</a></span> +to-day is the <i>guiding and dominating of the mind</i>. +Formerly the church fulfilled this mission; now it is +not adequate to it. It is from the university that this +great service must be expected, and the university will +not fail to perform it. We, the <i>government</i>, have the +duty of supporting it therein. The charter calls for +the freedom of thought and that of conscience."<a name="FNanchor_228_228" id="FNanchor_228_228"></a><a href="#Footnote_228_228" class="fnanchor">[228]</a> So, +in favor of freedom of thought and conscience, the +minister demands "the guiding and dominating of the +mind."</p> + +<p>Catholicism haled the examinee before the forum of +ecclesiasticism, Protestantism before that of biblical +Christianity. It would be but little bettered if one +haled him before that of reason, as Ruge, <i>e. g.</i>, wants +to.<a name="FNanchor_229_229" id="FNanchor_229_229"></a><a href="#Footnote_229_229" class="fnanchor">[229]</a> Whether the church, the Bible, or reason (to +which, moreover, Luther and Huss already appealed) +is the <i>sacred authority</i> makes no difference in +essentials.</p> + +<p>The "question of our time" does not become soluble +even when one puts it thus: Is anything general +authorized, or only the individual? Is the generality +(such as State, law, custom, morality, etc.) authorized, +or individuality? It becomes soluble for the first time +when one no longer asks after an "authorization" at +all, and does not carry on a mere fight against "privileges."—A +"rational" freedom of teaching, which +"recognizes only the conscience of reason,"<a name="FNanchor_230_230" id="FNanchor_230_230"></a><a href="#Footnote_230_230" class="fnanchor">[230]</a> does not +bring us to the goal; we require an <i>egoistic</i> freedom +of teaching rather, a freedom of teaching for all own<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_461" id="Page_461">[Pg 461]</a></span>ness, +wherein <i>I</i> become <i>audible</i> and can announce +myself unchecked. That I make myself "<i>audible</i>,"<a name="FNanchor_231_231" id="FNanchor_231_231"></a><a href="#Footnote_231_231" class="fnanchor">[231]</a> +this alone is "reason,"<a name="FNanchor_232_232" id="FNanchor_232_232"></a><a href="#Footnote_232_232" class="fnanchor">[232]</a> be I ever so irrational; in my +making myself heard, and so hearing myself, others as +well as I myself enjoy me, and at the same time consume +me.</p> + +<p>What would be gained if, as formerly the orthodox +I, the loyal I, the moral I, etc., was free, now the +rational I should become free? Would this be the +freedom of me?</p> + +<p>If I am free as "rational I," then the rational in +me, or reason, is free; and this freedom of reason, or +freedom of the thought, was the ideal of the Christian +world from of old. They wanted to make thinking—and, +as aforesaid, faith is also thinking, as thinking is +faith—free; the thinkers, <i>i. e.</i> the believers as well as +the rational, were to be free; for the rest freedom was +impossible. But the freedom of thinkers is the "freedom +of the children of God," and at the same time the +most merciless—hierarchy or dominion of the thought; +for <i>I</i> succumb to the thought. If thoughts are free, I +am their slave; I have no power over them, and am +dominated by them. But I want to have the thought, +want to be full of thoughts, but at the same time I +want to be thoughtless, and, instead of freedom of +thought, I preserve for myself thoughtlessness.</p> + +<p>If the point is to have myself understood and to +make communications, then assuredly I can make use +only of <i>human</i> means, which are at my command +because I am at the same time man. And really I<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_462" id="Page_462">[Pg 462]</a></span> +have thoughts only as <i>man</i>; as I, I am at the same +time <i>thoughtless</i>.<a name="FNanchor_233_233" id="FNanchor_233_233"></a><a href="#Footnote_233_233" class="fnanchor">[233]</a> He who cannot get rid of a +thought is so far only man, is a thrall of <i>language</i>, +this human institution, this treasury of <i>human</i> +thoughts. Language or "the word" tyrannizes +hardest over us, because it brings up against us a +whole army of <i>fixed ideas</i>. Just observe yourself in +the act of reflection, right now, and you will find how +you make progress only by becoming thoughtless and +speechless every moment. You are not thoughtless +and speechless merely in (say) sleep, but even in the +deepest reflection; yes, precisely then most so. And +only by this thoughtlessness, this unrecognized "freedom +of thought" or freedom from the thought, are +you your own. Only from it do you arrive at putting +language to use as your <i>property</i>.</p> + +<p>If thinking is not <i>my</i> thinking, it is merely a spun-out +thought; it is slave work, or the work of a "servant +obeying at the word." For not a thought, but I, +am the beginning for my thinking, and therefore I am +its goal too, even as its whole course is only a course +of my self-enjoyment; for absolute or free thinking, +on the other hand, thinking itself is the beginning, +and it plagues itself with propounding this beginning +as the extremest "abstraction" (<i>e. g.</i> as being). +This very abstraction, or this thought, is then spun +out further.</p> + +<p>Absolute thinking is the affair of the human spirit, +and this is a holy spirit. Hence this thinking is an +affair of the parsons, who have "a sense for it," a sense<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_463" id="Page_463">[Pg 463]</a></span> +for the "highest interests of mankind," for "the +spirit."</p> + +<p>To the believer, truths are a <i>settled</i> thing, a fact; +to the freethinker, a thing that is still to be <i>settled</i>. +Be absolute thinking ever so unbelieving, its incredulity +has its limits, and there does remain a belief in +the truth, in the spirit, in the idea and its final victory: +this thinking does not sin against the holy +spirit. But all thinking that does not sin against +the holy spirit is belief in spirits or ghosts.</p> + +<p>I can as little renounce thinking as feeling, the +spirit's activity as little as the activity of the senses. +As feeling is our sense for things, so thinking is our +sense for essences (thoughts). Essences have their existence +in everything sensuous, especially in the word. +The power of words follows that of things: first one is +coerced by the rod, afterward by conviction. The +might of things overcomes our courage, our spirit; +against the power of a conviction, and so of the word, +even the rack and the sword lose their overpoweringness +and force. The men of conviction are the +priestly men, who resist every enticement of Satan.</p> + +<p>Christianity took away from the things of this world +only their irresistibleness, made us independent of +them. In like manner I raise myself above truths and +their power: as I am supersensual, so I am supertrue. +<i>Before me</i> truths are as common and as indifferent +as things; they do not carry me away, and do not +inspire me with enthusiasm. There exists not even +one truth, not right, not freedom, humanity, etc., that +has stability before me, and to which I subject myself. +They are <i>words</i>, nothing but words, as all things are<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_464" id="Page_464">[Pg 464]</a></span> +to the Christian nothing but "vain things." In +words and truths (every word is a truth, as Hegel asserts +that one cannot <i>tell</i> a lie) there is no salvation +for me, as little as there is for the Christian in things +and vanities. As the riches of this world do not +make me happy, so neither do its truths. It is now no +longer Satan, but the spirit, that plays the story of +the temptation; and he does not seduce by the things +of this world, but by its thoughts, by the "glitter of +the idea."</p> + +<p>Along with worldly goods, all sacred goods too must +be put away as no longer valuable.</p> + +<p>Truths are phrases, ways of speaking, words +(λόγος); brought into connection, or into an articulate +series, they form logic, science, philosophy.</p> + +<p>For thinking and speaking I need truths and words, +as I do foods for eating; without them I cannot think +nor speak. Truths are men's thoughts, set down in +words and therefore just as extant as other things, although +extant only for the mind or for thinking, +they are human institutions and human creatures, +and, even if they are given out for divine revelations, +there still remains in them the quality of alienness +for me; yes, as my own creatures they are already +alienated from me after the act of creation.</p> + +<p>The Christian man is the man with faith in thinking, +who believes in the supreme dominion of thoughts +and wants to bring thoughts, so-called "principles," to +dominion. Many a one does indeed test the thoughts, +and chooses none of them for his master without +criticism, but in this he is like the dog who sniffs at +people to smell out "his master": he is always aim<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_465" id="Page_465">[Pg 465]</a></span>ing +at the <i>ruling</i> thought. The Christian may reform +and revolt an infinite deal, may demolish the +ruling concepts of centuries; he will always aspire +to a new "principle" or new master again, always +set up a higher or "deeper" truth again, always call +forth a cult again, always proclaim a spirit called to +dominion, lay down a <i>law</i> for all.</p> + +<p>If there is even one truth only to which man has to +devote his life and his powers because he is man, then +he is subjected to a rule, dominion, law, etc.; he is a +servingman. It is supposed that, <i>e. g.</i>, man, humanity, +liberty, etc., are such truths.</p> + +<p>On the other hand, one can say thus: Whether you +will further occupy yourself with thinking depends on +you; only know that, <i>if</i> in your thinking you would +like to make out anything worthy of notice, many hard +problems are to be solved, without vanquishing which +you cannot get far. There exists, therefore, no duty +and no calling for you to meddle with thoughts (ideas, +truths); but, if you will do so, you will do well to +utilize what the forces of others have already achieved +toward clearing up these difficult subjects.</p> + +<p>Thus, therefore, he who will think does assuredly +have a task, which <i>he</i> consciously or unconsciously sets +for himself in willing that; but no one has the task of +thinking or of believing.—In the former case it may +be said, You do not go far enough, you have a narrow +and biased interest, you do not go to the bottom of the +thing; in short, you do not completely subdue it. But, +on the other hand, however far you may come at any +time, you are still always at the end, you have no call +to step farther, and you can have it as you will or as<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_466" id="Page_466">[Pg 466]</a></span> +you are able. It stands with this as with any other +piece of work, which you can give up when the humor +for it wears off. Just so, if you can no longer <i>believe</i> a +thing, you do not have to force yourself into faith or +to busy yourself lastingly as if with a sacred truth of +the faith, as theologians or philosophers do, but you +can tranquilly draw back your interest from it and let +it run. Priestly spirits will indeed expound this your +lack of interest as "laziness, thoughtlessness, obduracy, +self-deception," and the like. But do you just let +the trumpery lie, notwithstanding. No thing,<a name="FNanchor_234_234" id="FNanchor_234_234"></a><a href="#Footnote_234_234" class="fnanchor">[234]</a> no +so-called "highest interest of mankind," no "sacred +cause,"<a name="FNanchor_235_235" id="FNanchor_235_235"></a><a href="#Footnote_235_235" class="fnanchor">[235]</a> is worth your serving it, and occupying yourself +with it for <i>its sake</i>; you may seek its worth in +this alone, whether it is worth anything to <i>you</i> for +your sake. Become like children, the biblical saying +admonishes us. But children have no sacred interest +and know nothing of a "good cause." They know +all the more accurately what they have a fancy for; +and they think over, to the best of their powers, how +they are to arrive at it.</p> + +<p>Thinking will as little cease as feeling. But the +power of thoughts and ideas, the dominion of theories +and principles, the sovereignty of the spirit, in short +the—<i>hierarchy</i>, lasts as long as the parsons, <i>i. e.</i> theologians, +philosophers, statesmen, philistines, liberals, +schoolmasters, servants, parents, children, married +couples, Proudhon, George Sand, Bluntschli, etc., etc., +have the floor; the hierarchy will endure as long as +people believe in, think of, or even criticise, principles;<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_467" id="Page_467">[Pg 467]</a></span> +for even the most inexorable criticism, which undermines +all current principles, still does finally <i>believe</i> in +<i>the principle</i>.</p> + +<p>Every one criticises, but the criterion is different. +People run after the "right" criterion. The right +criterion is the first presupposition. The critic starts +from a proposition, a truth, a belief. This is not a +creation of the critic, but of the dogmatist; nay, commonly +it is actually taken up out of the culture of the +time without further ceremony, like <i>e. g.</i> "liberty," +"humanity," etc. The critic has not "discovered +man," but this truth has been established as "man" +by the dogmatist, and the critic (who, besides, may be +the same person with him) believes in this truth, this +article of faith. In this faith, and possessed by this +faith, he criticises.</p> + +<p>The secret of criticism is some "truth" or other: +this remains its energizing mystery.</p> + +<p>But I distinguish between <i>servile</i> and <i>own</i> criticism. +If I criticise under the presupposition of a supreme +being, my criticism <i>serves</i> the being and is carried on +for its sake: if, <i>e. g.</i>, I am possessed by the belief in a +"free State," then everything that has a bearing on +it I criticise from the standpoint of whether it is suitable +to this State, for I <i>love</i> this State; if I criticise +as a pious man, then for me everything falls into the +classes of divine and diabolical, and before my criticism +nature consists of traces of God or traces of the +devil (hence names like Godsgift, Godmount, the +Devil's Pulpit, etc.), men of believers and unbelievers, +etc.; if I criticise while believing in man as the "true +essence," then for me everything falls primarily into<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_468" id="Page_468">[Pg 468]</a></span> +the classes of man and the un-man, etc.</p> + +<p>Criticism has to this day remained a work of love: +for at all times we exercised it for the love of some +being. All servile criticism is a product of love, a +possessedness, and proceeds according to that New +Testament precept, "Test everything and hold fast the +<i>good</i>."<a name="FNanchor_236_236" id="FNanchor_236_236"></a><a href="#Footnote_236_236" class="fnanchor">[236]</a> "The good" is the touchstone, the criterion. +The good, returning under a thousand names and +forms, remained always the presupposition, remained +the dogmatic fixed point for this criticism, remained +the—fixed idea.</p> + +<p>The critic, in setting to work, impartially presupposes +the "truth," and seeks for the truth in the belief +that it is to be found. He wants to ascertain the +true, and has in it that very "good."</p> + +<p>Presuppose means nothing else than put a <i>thought</i> +in front, or think something before everything else and +think the rest from the starting-point of this that has +<i>been thought</i>, <i>i. e.</i> measure and criticise it by this. +In other words, this is as much as to say that thinking +is to begin with something already thought. If thinking +began at all, instead of being begun, if thinking +were a subject, an acting personality of its own, as +even the plant is such, then indeed there would be no +abandoning the principle that thinking must begin +with itself. But it is just the personification of thinking +that brings to pass those innumerable errors. In +the Hegelian system they always talk as if thinking or +"the thinking spirit" (<i>i. e.</i> personified thinking, +thinking as a ghost) thought and acted; in critical<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_469" id="Page_469">[Pg 469]</a></span> +liberalism it is always said that "criticism" does this +and that, or else that "self-consciousness" finds this +and that. But, if thinking ranks as the personal +actor, thinking itself must be presupposed; if criticism +ranks as such, a thought must likewise stand in front. +Thinking and criticism could be active only starting +from themselves, would have to be themselves the presupposition +of their activity, as without being they +could not be active. But thinking, as a thing presupposed, +is a fixed thought, a <i>dogma</i>; thinking and +criticism, therefore, can start only from a <i>dogma</i>, <i>i. e.</i> +from a thought, a fixed idea, a presupposition.</p> + +<p>With this we come back again to what was enunciated +above, that Christianity consists in the development +of a world of thoughts, or that it is the proper +"freedom of thought," the "free thought," the "free +spirit." The "true" criticism, which I called "servile," +is therefore just as much "free" criticism, for it +is not <i>my own</i>.</p> + +<p>The case stands otherwise when what is yours is not +made into something that is of itself, not personified, +not made independent an a "spirit" to itself. <i>Your</i> +thinking has for a presupposition not "thinking," but +<i>you</i>. But thus you do presuppose yourself after all? +Yes, but not for myself, but for my thinking. Before +my thinking, there is—I. From this it follows that +my thinking is not preceded by a <i>thought</i>, or that my +thinking is without a "presupposition." For the presupposition +which I am for my thinking is not one +<i>made by thinking</i>, not one <i>thought of</i>, but it is <i>posited</i> +thinking <i>itself</i>, it is the <i>owner</i> of the thought, and +proves only that thinking is nothing more than—<i>prop</i><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_470" id="Page_470">[Pg 470]</a></span><i>erty</i>, +<i>i. e.</i> that an "independent" thinking, a "thinking +spirit," does not exist at all.</p> + +<p>This reversal of the usual way of regarding things +might so resemble an empty playing with abstractions +that even those against whom it is directed would acquiesce +in the harmless aspect I give it, if practical +consequences were not connected with it.</p> + +<p>To bring these into a concise expression, the assertion +now made is that man is not the measure of all +things, but I am this measure. The servile critic has +before his eye another being, an idea, which he means +to serve; therefore he only slays the false idols for his +God. What is done for the love of this being, what +else should it be but a—work of love? But I, when I +criticise, do not even have myself before my eyes, but +am only doing myself a pleasure, amusing myself according +to my taste; according to my several needs I +chew the thing up or only inhale its odor.</p> + +<p>The distinction between the two attitudes will come +out still more strikingly if one reflects that the servile +critic, because love guides him, supposes he is serving +the thing [cause] itself.</p> + +<p><i>The</i> truth, or "truth in general," people are bound +not to give up, but to seek for. What else is it but +the <i>être suprême</i>, the highest essence? Even "true +criticism" would have to despair if it lost faith in the +truth. And yet the truth is only a—<i>thought</i>; but it +is not merely "a" thought, but the thought that is +above all thoughts, the irrefragable thought; it is <i>the</i> +thought itself, which gives the first hallowing to all +others; it is the consecration of thoughts, the "absolute," +the "sacred" thought. The truth wears longer<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_471" id="Page_471">[Pg 471]</a></span> +than all the gods; for it is only in the truth's service, +and for love of it, that people have overthrown the +gods and at last God himself. "The truth" outlasts +the downfall of the world of gods, for it is the immortal +soul of this transitory world of gods, it is Deity +itself.</p> + +<p>I will answer Pilate's question, What is truth? +Truth is the free thought, the free idea, the free spirit; +truth is what is free from you, what is not your own, +what is not in your power. But truth is also the +completely unindependent, impersonal, unreal, and incorporeal; +truth cannot step forward as you do, cannot +move, change, develop; truth awaits and receives +everything from you, and itself is only through you; +for it exists only—in your head. You concede that +the truth is a thought, but say that not every thought +is a true one, or, as you are also likely to express it, not +every thought is truly and really a thought. And by +what do you measure and recognize the thought? +By <i>your impotence</i>, to wit, by your being no longer +able to make any successful assault on it! When it +overpowers you, inspires you, and carries you away, +then you hold it to be the true one. Its dominion +over you certifies to you its truth; and, when it possesses +you, and you are possessed by it, then you feel +well with it, for then you have found your—<i>lord and +master</i>. When you were seeking the truth, what did +your heart then long for? For your master! You +did not aspire to <i>your</i> might, but to a Mighty One, +and wanted to exalt a Mighty One ("Exalt ye the +Lord our God!"). The truth, my dear Pilate, is—the +Lord, and all who seek the truth are seeking and<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_472" id="Page_472">[Pg 472]</a></span> +praising the Lord. Where does the Lord exist? +Where else but in your head? He is only spirit, and, +wherever you believe you really see him, there he is a—ghost; +for the Lord is merely something that is +thought of, and it was only the Christian pains and +agony to make the invisible visible, the spiritual corporeal, +that generated the ghost and was the frightful +misery of the belief in ghosts.</p> + +<p>As long as you believe in the truth, you do not believe +in yourself, and you are a—<i>servant</i>, a—<i>religious +man</i>. You alone are the truth, or rather, you +are more than the truth, which is nothing at all before +you. You too do assuredly ask about the truth, you +too do assuredly "criticise," but you do not ask about +a "higher truth,"—to wit, one that should be higher +than you,—nor criticise according to the criterion +of such a truth. You address yourself to thoughts +and notions, as you do to the appearances of things, +only for the purpose of making them palatable to you, +enjoyable to you, and your <i>own</i>: you want only to +subdue them and become their <i>owner</i>, you want to +orient yourself and feel at home in them, and you find +them true, or see them in their true light, when they +can no longer slip away from you, no longer have +any unseized or uncomprehended place, or when they +are <i>right for you</i>, when they are your <i>property</i>. If +afterward they become heavier again, if they wriggle +themselves out of your power again, then that is just +their untruth,—to wit, your impotence. Your impotence +is their power, your humility their exaltation. +Their truth, therefore, is you, or is the nothing which +you are for them and in which they dissolve: their<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_473" id="Page_473">[Pg 473]</a></span> +truth is their <i>nothingness</i>.</p> + +<p>Only as the property of me do the spirits, the +truths, get to rest; and they then for the first time +really are, when they have been deprived of their +sorry existence and made a property of mine, when +it is no longer said "the truth develops itself, rules, +asserts itself; history (also a concept) wins the victory," +and the like. The truth never has won a victory, +but was always my <i>means</i> to the victory, like the +sword ("the sword of truth"). The truth is dead, a +letter, a word, a material that I can use up. All +truth by itself is dead, a corpse; it is alive only in the +same way as my lungs are alive,—to wit, in the measure +of my own vitality. Truths are material, like +vegetables and weeds; as to whether vegetable or +weed, the decision lies in me.</p> + +<p>Objects are to me only material that I use up. +Wherever I put my hand I grasp a truth, which I +trim for myself. The truth is certain to me, and I do +not need to long after it. To do the truth a service +is in no case my intent; it is to me only a nourishment +for my thinking head, as potatoes are for my +digesting stomach, or as a friend is for my social heart. +As long as I have the humor and force for thinking, +every truth serves me only for me to work it up according +to my powers. As reality or worldliness is "vain +and a thing of naught" for Christians, so is the truth +for me. It exists, exactly as much as the things of this +world go on existing although the Christian has +proved their nothingness; but it is vain, because it +has its <i>value</i> not <i>in itself</i> but <i>in me</i>. <i>Of itself</i> it is +<i>valueless</i>. The truth is a—<i>creature</i>.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_474" id="Page_474">[Pg 474]</a></span></p> + +<p>As you produce innumerable things by your activity, +yes, shape the earth's surface anew and set up +works of men everywhere, so too you may still ascertain +numberless truths by your thinking, and we will +gladly take delight in them. Nevertheless, as I do not +please to hand myself over to serve your newly discovered +machines mechanically, but only help to set +them running for my benefit, so too I will only use +your truths, without letting myself be used for their +demands.</p> + +<p>All truths <i>beneath</i> me are to my liking; a truth +<i>above</i> me, a truth that I should have to <i>direct</i> myself +by, I am not acquainted with. For me there is no +truth, for nothing is more than I! Not even my +essence, not even the essence of man, is more than I! +than I, this "drop in the bucket," this "insignificant +man!"</p> + +<p>You believe that you have done the utmost when +you boldly assert that, because every time has its own +truth, there is no "absolute truth." Why, with this +you nevertheless still leave to each time its truth, and +you quite genuinely create an "absolute truth," +a truth that no time lacks, because every time, however +its truth may be, still has a "truth."</p> + +<p>Is it meant only that people have been thinking in +every time, and so have had thoughts or truths, and +that in the subsequent time these were other than they +were in the earlier? No, the word is to be that every +time had its "truth of faith"; and in fact none has +yet appeared in which a "higher truth" has not been +recognized, a truth that people believed they must +subject themselves to as "highness and majesty."<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_475" id="Page_475">[Pg 475]</a></span> +Every truth of a time is its fixed idea, and, if people +later found another truth, this always happened only +because they sought for another; they only reformed +the folly and put a modern dress on it. For they did +want—who would dare doubt their justification for +this?—they wanted to be "inspired by an idea." +They wanted to be dominated,—possessed, by a +<i>thought</i>! The most modern ruler of this kind is +"our essence," or "man."</p> + +<p>For all free criticism a thought was the criterion; +for own criticism I am, I the unspeakable, and so not +the merely thought-of; for what is merely thought of +is always speakable, because word and thought coincide. +That is true which is mine, untrue that whose +own I am; true, <i>e. g.</i>, the union; untrue, the State +and society. "Free and true" criticism takes care +for the consistent dominion of a thought, an idea, a +spirit; "own" criticism, for nothing but my <i>self-enjoyment</i>. +But in this the latter is in fact—and we +will not spare it this "ignominy"!—like the bestial +criticism of instinct. I, like the criticising beast, am +concerned only for <i>myself</i>, not "for the cause." <i>I</i> am +the criterion of truth, but I am not an idea, but more +than idea, <i>i. e.</i> unutterable. <i>My</i> criticism is not a +"free" criticism, not free from me, and not "servile," +not in the service of an idea, but an <i>own</i> criticism.</p> + +<p>True or human criticism makes out only whether +something is <i>suitable</i> to man, to the true man; but by +own criticism you ascertain whether it is suitable to +<i>you</i>.</p> + +<p>Free criticism busies itself with <i>ideas</i>, and therefore +is always theoretical. However it may rage against<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_476" id="Page_476">[Pg 476]</a></span> +ideas, it still does not get clear of them. It pitches +into the ghosts, but it can do this only as it holds +them to be ghosts. The ideas it has to do with do +not fully disappear; the morning breeze of a new day +does not scare them away.</p> + +<p>The critic may indeed come to ataraxy before ideas, +but he never gets <i>rid</i> of them, <i>i. e.</i> he will never comprehend +that above the <i>bodily man</i> there does not exist +something higher,—to wit, liberty, his humanity, etc. +He always has a "calling" of man still left, "humanity." +And this idea of humanity remains unrealized, +just because it is an "idea" and is to remain such.</p> + +<p>If, on the other hand, I grasp the idea as <i>my</i> idea, +then it is already realized, because <i>I</i> am its reality; its +reality consists in the fact that I, the bodily, have it.</p> + +<p>They say, the idea of liberty realizes itself in the history +of the world. The reverse is the case; this idea +is real as a man thinks it, and it is real in the measure +in which it is idea, <i>i. e.</i> in which I think it or <i>have</i> +it. It is not the idea of liberty that develops itself, +but men develop themselves, and, of course, in this +self-development develop their thinking too.</p> + +<p>In short, the critic is not yet <i>owner</i>; because he still +fights with ideas as with powerful aliens,—as the +Christian is not owner of his "bad desires" so long +as he has to combat them; for him who contends +against vice, vice <i>exists</i>.</p> + +<p>Criticism remains stuck fast in the "freedom of +knowing," the freedom of the spirit, and the spirit +gains its proper freedom when it fills itself with the +pure, true idea; this is the freedom of thinking, which +cannot be without thoughts.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_477" id="Page_477">[Pg 477]</a></span></p> + +<p>Criticism smites one idea only by another, <i>e. g.</i> +that of privilege by that of manhood, or that of egoism +by that of unselfishness.</p> + +<p>In general, the beginning of Christianity comes on +the stage again in its critical end, egoism being combated +here as there. I am not to make myself (the +individual) count, but the idea, the general.</p> + +<p>Why, warfare of the priesthood with <i>egoism</i>, of the +spiritually-minded with the worldly-minded, constitutes +the substance of all Christian history. In the +newest criticism this war only becomes all-embracing, +fanaticism complete. Indeed, neither can it pass +away till it passes thus, after it has had its life and its +rage out.</p> + +<hr style='width: 45%;' /> + +<p>Whether what I think and do is Christian, what do +I care? Whether it is human, liberal, humane, +whether unhuman, illiberal, inhuman, what do I ask +about that? If only it accomplishes what I want, if +only I satisfy myself in it, then overlay it with predicates +as you will; it is all alike to me.</p> + +<p>Perhaps I too, in the very next moment, defend myself +against my former thoughts; I too am likely to +change suddenly my mode of action; but not on account +of its not corresponding to Christianity, not on +account of its running counter to the eternal rights of +man, not on account of its affronting the idea of mankind, +humanity, and humanitarianism, but—because I +am no longer all in it, because it no longer furnishes +me any full enjoyment, because I doubt the earlier +thought or no longer please myself in the mode of +action just now practised.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_478" id="Page_478">[Pg 478]</a></span></p> + +<p>As the world as property has become a <i>material</i> +with which I undertake what I will, so the spirit too +as property must sink down into a <i>material</i> before +which I no longer entertain any sacred dread. Then, +firstly, I shall shudder no more before a thought, let it +appear as presumptuous and "devilish" as it will, because, +if it threatens to become too inconvenient and +unsatisfactory for <i>me</i>, its end lies in my power; but +neither shall I recoil from any deed because there +dwells in it a spirit of godlessness, immorality, wrongfulness, +as little as St. Boniface pleased to desist, +through religious scrupulousness, from cutting down +the sacred oak of the heathens. If the <i>things</i> of the +world have once become vain, the <i>thoughts</i> of the +spirit must also become vain.</p> + +<p>No thought is sacred, for let no thought rank as +"devotions";<a name="FNanchor_237_237" id="FNanchor_237_237"></a><a href="#Footnote_237_237" class="fnanchor">[237]</a> no feeling is sacred (no sacred feeling +of friendship, mother's feelings, etc.), no belief is +sacred. They are all <i>alienable</i>, my alienable property, +and are annihilated, as they are created, by <i>me</i>.</p> + +<p>The Christian can lose all <i>things</i> or objects, the +most loved persons, these "objects" of his love, without +giving up himself (<i>i. e.</i>, in the Christian sense, his +spirit, his soul) as lost. The owner can cast from him +all the <i>thoughts</i> that were dear to his heart and kindled +his zeal, and will likewise "gain a thousandfold +again," because he, their creator, remains.</p> + +<p>Unconsciously and involuntarily we all strive toward +ownness, and there will hardly be one among us +who has not given up a sacred feeling, a sacred<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_479" id="Page_479">[Pg 479]</a></span> +thought, a sacred belief; nay, we probably meet no +one who could not still deliver himself from one or +another of his sacred thoughts. All our contention +against convictions starts from the opinion that maybe +we are capable of driving our opponent out of his intrenchments +of thought. But what I do unconsciously +I half do, and therefore after every victory over a faith +I become again the <i>prisoner</i> (possessed) of a faith +which then takes my whole self anew into its <i>service</i>, +and makes me an enthusiast for reason after I have +ceased to be enthusiastic for the Bible, or an enthusiast +for the idea of humanity after I have fought long +enough for that of Christianity.</p> + +<p>Doubtless, as owner of thoughts, I shall cover my +property with my shield, just as I do not, as owner +of things, willingly let everybody help himself to them; +but at the same time I shall look forward smilingly to +the outcome of the battle, smilingly lay the shield on +the corpses of my thoughts and my faith, smilingly +triumph when I am beaten. That is the very humor +of the thing. Every one who has "sublimer feelings" +is able to vent his humor on the pettinesses of men; +but to let it play with all "great thoughts, sublime +feelings, noble inspiration, and sacred faith" presupposes +that I am the owner of all.</p> + +<p>If religion has set up the proposition that we are +sinners altogether, I set over against it the other: we +are perfect altogether! For we are, every moment, +all that we can be; and we never need be more. +Since no defect cleaves to us, sin has no meaning +either. Show me a sinner in the world still, if no one +any longer needs to do what suits a superior! If I<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_480" id="Page_480">[Pg 480]</a></span> +only need do what suits myself, I am no sinner if I +do not do what suits myself, as I do not injure in myself +a "holy one"; if, on the other hand, I am to be +pious, then I must do what suits God; if I am to act +humanly, I must do what suits the essence of man, the +idea of mankind, etc. What religion calls the "sinner," +humanitarianism calls the "egoist." But, once +more: if I need not do what suits any other, is the +"egoist," in whom humanitarianism has borne to itself +a new-fangled devil, anything more than a piece +of nonsense? The egoist, before whom the humane +shudder, is a spook as much as the devil is: he exists +only as a bogie and phantasm in their brain. If +they were not unsophisticatedly drifting back and +forth in the antediluvian opposition of good and evil, +to which they have given the modern names of "human" +and "egoistic," they would not have freshened +up the hoary "sinner" into an "egoist" either, and +put a new patch on an old garment. But they could +not do otherwise, for they hold it for their task to be +"men." They are rid of the Good One; good is +left!<a name="FNanchor_238_238" id="FNanchor_238_238"></a><a href="#Footnote_238_238" class="fnanchor">[238]</a></p> + +<p>We are perfect altogether, and on the whole earth +there is not one man who is a sinner! There are +crazy people who imagine that they are God the +Father, God the Son, or the man in the moon, and so +too the world swarms with fools who seem to themselves +to be sinners; but, as the former are not the +man in the moon, so the latter are—not sinners. +Their sin is imaginary.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_481" id="Page_481">[Pg 481]</a></span></p> + +<p>Yet, it is insidiously objected, their craziness or +their possessedness is at least their sin. Their possessedness +is nothing but what they—could achieve, +the result of their development, just as Luther's faith +in the Bible was all that he was—competent to make +out. The one brings himself into the madhouse with +his development, the other brings himself therewith +into the Pantheon and to the loss of—Valhalla.</p> + +<p>There is no sinner and no sinful egoism!</p> + +<p>Get away from me with your "philanthropy"! +Creep in, you philanthropist, into the "dens of vice," +linger awhile in the throng of the great city: will you +not everywhere find sin, and sin, and again sin? +Will you not wail over corrupt humanity, not lament +at the monstrous egoism? Will you see a rich man +without finding him pitiless and "egoistic"? Perhaps +you already call yourself an atheist, but you +remain true to the Christian feeling that a camel will +sooner go through a needle's eye than a rich man +not be an "un-man." How many do you see anyhow +that you would not throw into the "egoistic +mass"? What, therefore, has your philanthropy +[love of man] found? Nothing but unlovable men! +And where do they all come from? From you, from +your philanthropy! You brought the sinner with +you in your head, therefore you found him, therefore +you inserted him everywhere. Do not call men sinners, +and they are not: you alone are the creator of +sinners; you, who fancy that you love men, are the +very one to throw them into the mire of sin, the very +one to divide them into vicious and virtuous, into men +and un-men, the very one to befoul them with the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_482" id="Page_482">[Pg 482]</a></span> +slaver of your possessedness; for you love not <i>men</i>, but +<i>man</i>. But I tell you, you have never seen a sinner, +you have only—dreamed of him.</p> + +<p>Self-enjoyment is embittered to me by my thinking +I must serve another, by my fancying myself under +obligation to him, by my holding myself called to +"self-sacrifice," "resignation," "enthusiasm." All +right: if I no longer serve any idea, any "higher +essence," then it is clear of itself that I no longer serve +any man either, but—under all circumstances—<i>myself</i>. +But thus I am not merely in fact or in being, but also +for my consciousness, the—unique.<a name="FNanchor_239_239" id="FNanchor_239_239"></a><a href="#Footnote_239_239" class="fnanchor">[239]</a></p> + +<p>There pertains to <i>you</i> more than the divine, the +human, etc.; <i>yours</i> pertains to you.</p> + +<p>Look upon yourself as more powerful than they give +you out for, and you have more power; look upon +yourself as more, and you have more.</p> + +<p>You are then not merely <i>called</i> to everything divine, +<i>entitled</i> to everything human, but <i>owner</i> of what is +yours, <i>i. e.</i> of all that you possess the force to make +your own;<a name="FNanchor_240_240" id="FNanchor_240_240"></a><a href="#Footnote_240_240" class="fnanchor">[240]</a> <i>i. e.</i> you are <i>appropriate</i><a name="FNanchor_241_241" id="FNanchor_241_241"></a><a href="#Footnote_241_241" class="fnanchor">[241]</a> and capacitated +for everything that is yours.</p> + +<p>People have always supposed that they must give +me a destiny lying outside myself, so that at last they +demanded that I should lay claim to the human because +I am = man. This is the Christian magic +circle. Fichte's ego too is the same essence outside +me, for every one is ego; and, if only this ego has +rights, then it is "the ego," it is not I. But I am not +an ego along with other egos, but the sole ego: I am<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_483" id="Page_483">[Pg 483]</a></span> +unique. Hence my wants too are unique, and my +deeds; in short, everything about me is unique. And +it is only as this unique I that I take everything for +my own, as I set myself to work, and develop myself, +only as this. I do not develop man, nor as man, but, +as I, I develop—myself.</p> + +<p>This is the meaning of the—<i>unique one</i>.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_484" id="Page_484">[Pg 484]</a></span></p> +<h2>III</h2> + +<h2>THE UNIQUE ONE</h2> + + +<p>Pre-Christian and Christian times pursue opposite +goals; the former wants to idealize the real, the latter +to realize the ideal; the former seeks the "holy spirit," +the latter the "glorified body." Hence the former +closes with insensitiveness to the real, with "contempt +for the world"; the latter will end with the +casting off of the ideal, with "contempt for the spirit."</p> + +<p>The opposition of the real and the ideal is an irreconcilable +one, and the one can never become the other: +if the ideal became the real, it would no longer be the +ideal; and, if the real became the ideal, the ideal +alone would be, but not at all the real. The opposition +of the two is not to be vanquished otherwise +than if <i>some one</i> annihilates both. Only in this "some +one," the third party, does the opposition find its end; +otherwise idea and reality will ever fail to coincide. +The idea cannot be so realized as to remain idea, but +is realized only when it dies as idea; and it is the +same with the real.</p> + +<p>But now we have before us in the ancients adherents +of the idea, in the moderns adherents of reality. +Neither can get clear of the opposition, and both pine +only, the one party for the spirit, and, when this crav<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_485" id="Page_485">[Pg 485]</a></span>ing +of the ancient world seemed to be satisfied and +this spirit to have come, the others immediately for the +secularization of this spirit again, which must forever +remain a "pious wish."</p> + +<p>The pious wish of the ancients was <i>sanctity</i>, the +pious wish of the moderns is <i>corporeity</i>. But, as antiquity +had to go down if its longing was to be satisfied +(for it consisted only in the longing), so too corporeity +can never be attained within the ring of Christianness. +As the trait of sanctification or purification goes +through the old world (the washings, etc.), so that of +incorporation goes through the Christian world: God +plunges down into this world, becomes flesh, and +wants to redeem it, <i>i. e.</i> fill it with himself; but, since +he is "the idea" or "the spirit," people (<i>e. g.</i> Hegel) +in the end introduce the idea into everything, into the +world, and prove "that the idea is, that reason is, in +everything." "Man" corresponds in the culture of +to-day to what the heathen Stoics set up as "the wise +man"; the latter, like the former, a—<i>fleshless</i> being. +The unreal "wise man," this bodiless "holy one" of +the Stoics, became a real person, a bodily "Holy +One," in God <i>made flesh</i>; the unreal "man," the +bodiless ego, will become real in the <i>corporeal ego</i>, in +me.</p> + +<p>There winds its way through Christianity the question +about the "existence of God," which, taken up +ever and ever again, gives testimony that the craving +for existence, corporeity, personality, reality, was +incessantly busying the heart because it never found a +satisfying solution. At last the question about the +existence of God fell, but only to rise up again in the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_486" id="Page_486">[Pg 486]</a></span> +proposition that the "divine" had existence (Feuerbach). +But this too has no existence, and neither will +the last refuge, that the "purely human" is realizable, +afford shelter much longer. No idea has existence, +for none is capable of corporeity. The scholastic +contention of realism and nominalism has the same +content; in short, this spins itself out through all +Christian history, and cannot end <i>in</i> it.</p> + +<p>The world of Christians is working at <i>realizing +ideas</i> in the individual relations of life, the institutions +and laws of the Church and the State; but they make +resistance, and always keep back something unembodied +(unrealizable). Nevertheless this embodiment +is restlessly rushed after, no matter in what degree +<i>corporeity</i> constantly fails to result.</p> + +<p>For realities matter little to the realizer, but it matters +everything that they be realizations of the idea. +Hence he is ever examining anew whether the realized +does in truth have the idea, its kernel, dwelling in it; +and in testing the real he at the same time tests the +idea, whether it is realizable as he thinks it, or is only +thought by him incorrectly, and for that reason +unfeasibly.</p> + +<p>The Christian is no longer to care for family, State, +etc., as <i>existences</i>; Christians are not to sacrifice themselves +for these "divine things" like the ancients, but +these are only to be utilized to make the <i>spirit alive</i> in +them. The <i>real</i> family has become indifferent, and +there is to arise out of it an <i>ideal</i> one which would +then be the "truly real," a sacred family, blessed by +God, or, according to the liberal way of thinking, a +"rational" family. With the ancients family, State,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_487" id="Page_487">[Pg 487]</a></span> +fatherland, etc., is divine as a thing <i>extant</i>; with the +moderns it is still awaiting divinity, as extant it is +only sinful, earthly, and has still to be "redeemed," +<i>i. e.</i> to become truly real. This has the following +meaning: The family, etc., is not the extant and real, +but the divine, the idea, is extant and real; whether +<i>this</i> family will make itself real by taking up the truly +real, the idea, is still unsettled. It is not the individual's +task to serve the family as the divine, but, reversely, +to serve the divine and to bring to it the still +undivine family, <i>i. e.</i> to subject everything in the +idea's name, to set up the idea's banner everywhere, to +bring the idea to real efficacy.</p> + +<p>But, since the concern of Christianity, as of antiquity, +is for the <i>divine</i>, they always come out at this +again on their opposite ways. At the end of heathenism +the divine becomes the <i>extramundane</i>, at the end +of Christianity the <i>intramundane</i>. Antiquity does +not succeed in putting it entirely outside the world, +and, when Christianity accomplishes this task, the +divine instantly longs to get back into the world and +wants to "redeem" the world. But within Christianity +it does not and cannot come to this, that the +divine as <i>intramundane</i> should really become the +<i>mundane itself</i>: there is enough left that does and +must maintain itself unpenetrated as the "bad," irrational, +accidental, "egoistic," the "mundane" in the +bad sense. Christianity begins with God's becoming +man, and carries on its work of conversion and redemption +through all time in order to prepare for God +a reception in all men and in everything human, and +to penetrate everything with the spirit: it sticks to<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_488" id="Page_488">[Pg 488]</a></span> +preparing a place for the "spirit."</p> + +<p>When the accent was at last laid on Man or mankind, +it was again the idea that they "<i>pronounced +eternal</i>." "Man does not die!" They thought they +had now found the reality of the idea: <i>Man</i> is the +I of history, of the world's history; it is he, this +<i>ideal</i>, that really develops, <i>i. e.</i> <i>realizes</i>, himself. He +is the really real and corporeal one, for history is his +body, in which individuals are only members. Christ +is the I of the world's history, even of the pre-Christian; +in modern apprehension it is man, the figure of +Christ has developed into the <i>figure of man</i>: man as +such, man absolutely, is the "central point" of history. +In "man" the imaginary beginning returns +again; for "man" is as imaginary as Christ is. +"Man," as the I of the world's history, closes the +cycle of Christian apprehensions.</p> + +<p>Christianity's magic circle would be broken if the +strained relation between existence and calling, <i>i. e.</i> +between me as I am and me as I should be, ceased; it +persists only as the longing of the idea for its bodiliness, +and vanishes with the relaxing separation of the +two: only when the idea remains—idea, as man or +mankind is indeed a bodiless idea, is Christianity still +extant. The corporeal idea, the corporeal or "completed" +spirit, floats before the Christian as "the end +of the days" or as the "goal of history"; it is not +present time to him.</p> + +<p>The individual can only have a part in the founding +of the Kingdom of God, or, according to the +modern notion of the same thing, in the development +and history of humanity; and only so far as he has a<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_489" id="Page_489">[Pg 489]</a></span> +part in it does a Christian, or according to the modern +expression human, value pertain to him; for the rest +he is dust and a worm-bag.</p> + +<p>That the individual is of himself a world's history, +and possesses his property in the rest of the world's +history, goes beyond what is Christian. To the Christian +the world's history is the higher thing, because it +is the history of Christ or "man"; to the egoist only +<i>his</i> history has value, because he wants to develop only +<i>himself</i>, not the mankind-idea, not God's plan, not the +purposes of Providence, not liberty, and the like. He +does not look upon himself as a tool of the idea or a +vessel of God, he recognizes no calling, he does not +fancy that he exists for the further development of +mankind and that he must contribute his mite to it, +but he lives himself out, careless of how well or ill humanity +may fare thereby. If it were not open to confusion +with the idea that a state of nature is to be +praised, one might recall Lenau's "Three Gypsies."—What, +am I in the world to realize ideas? To do my +part by my citizenship, say, toward the realization +of the idea "State," or by marriage, as husband and +father, to bring the idea of the family into an existence? +What does such a calling concern me! I live +after a calling as little as the flower grows and gives +fragrance after a calling.</p> + +<p>The ideal "Man" is <i>realized</i> when the Christian +apprehension turns about and becomes the proposition, +"I, this unique one, am man." The conceptual question, +"what is man?"—has then changed into the +personal question, "who is man?" With "what" +the concept was sought for, in order to realize it; with<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_490" id="Page_490">[Pg 490]</a></span> +"who" it is no longer any question at all, but the +answer is personally on hand at once in the asker: the +question answers itself.</p> + +<p>They say of God, "Names name thee not." That +holds good of me: no <i>concept</i> expresses me, nothing +that is designated as my essence exhausts me; they are +only names. Likewise they say of God that he is perfect +and has no calling to strive after perfection. +That too holds good of me alone.</p> + +<p>I am <i>owner</i> of my might, and I am so when I know +myself as <i>unique</i>. In the <i>unique one</i> the owner himself +returns into his creative nothing, out of which he is +born. Every higher essence above me, be it God, be it +man, weakens the feeling of my uniqueness, and pales +only before the sun of this consciousness. If I concern +myself for myself,<a name="FNanchor_242_242" id="FNanchor_242_242"></a><a href="#Footnote_242_242" class="fnanchor">[242]</a> the unique one, then my concern +rests on its transitory, mortal creator, who consumes +himself, and I may say:</p> + +<p>All things are nothing to me.<a name="FNanchor_243_243" id="FNanchor_243_243"></a><a href="#Footnote_243_243" class="fnanchor">[243]</a></p> + + + +<h3>THE END</h3> + +<hr style="width: 100%;" /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_491" id="Page_491">[Pg 491]</a></span></p> +<h2>INDEX</h2> + + +<p>The following index to this translation of "<i>Der Einzige und sein +Eigentum</i>" is intended to help one, after reading the book, to find +a passage which he remembers. It is not a concordance to aid in +analytical study. Hence the designations of the matter referred to +are in a form intended to be recognized by the person who remembers +the passage; I have generally preferred, so far as convenience +permitted, to use the words of the text itself, being confident that a +description of the subject-matter in words more appropriate to the +summary form of the index would never help any person to find +his passage. If the designations are recognizable, I have permitted +them to be rough.</p> + +<p>Of necessity the index has been made hastily, and I hereby confess +it to be guilty of all the faults that an index can possess, +though I hope that the page numbers will prove to be accurate. +The faults that I am most ashamed of are the incompleteness +which usually omits the shorter occurrences of a given word or idea +and the indefiniteness of the "ff." which does not tell the reader +how far the reference extends. It has actually not been in my +power to avoid either of these faults, and I hope they will not prevent +the index from being of very considerable use to those who +pay continued attention to the book. These two faults will be +found least noticeable in the references to proper names and quotations: +therefore the reader who wants to find a passage will do +best to remember, if possible, a conspicuous proper name or a +quotation whose source is known—perhaps oftenest from the Bible—and +look up his passage by that. In the indexing of quotations, +however, I have omitted anonymous proverbs, lines of German +hymns, and quotations of whose authorship I was (whether pardonably +or unpardonably) ignorant.</p> + +<p>The abbreviations are: ftn., "footnote"; f., "and next page"; +ff., "and following pages."</p> + +<p class="author"> +S. T. B.<br /> +</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_492" id="Page_492">[Pg 492]</a></span></p> + +<p> +Age: coming of age, <a href="#Page_220">220</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Alcibiades: <a href="#Page_282">282 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Alexis, Wilibald: "Cabanis," <a href="#Page_291">291</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Algiers: <a href="#Page_343">343</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Alien: the same in German as "strange," <a href="#Page_47">47</a> ftn.<br /> +<br /> +America:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">citizens presumed respectable, <a href="#Page_233">233</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">duelists how treated, <a href="#Page_314">314</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Germans sold to, <a href="#Page_351">351</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">kings not valued in, <a href="#Page_351">351</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Ananias and Sapphira: <a href="#Page_102">102</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Anarchism: <a href="#Page_xv">xv ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +<a name="Ancients" id="Ancients"></a>Ancients: <a href="#Page_17">17 ff.</a><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">conquered the world, <a href="#Page_120">120 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Aristippus: <a href="#Page_26">26</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Aristotle: "<i>zoon politicon</i>," <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_307">307</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Arnim: see <a href="#Bettina">Bettina</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Art: support of, <a href="#Page_360">360</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Atahualpa: <a href="#Page_448">448</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Athanasius: "God making men divine," <a href="#Page_382">382</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Athenians: age of their popular freedom, <a href="#Page_281">281 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Augsburg Confession: Art. 11, <a href="#Page_117">117 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Authorization: limits constitutional legislatures, etc., <a href="#Page_146">146 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Autun and Barrère, bishop of: <a href="#Page_131">131</a>.<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +Babeuf, Babouvism, <a href="#Page_245">245</a>, <a href="#Page_248">248</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Bacon: "clear head," no philosopher, <a href="#Page_111">111</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Bailly:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"no extra reason," <a href="#Page_306">306</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">what is my property, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +<a name="Bauer" id="Bauer"></a>Bauer, Bruno:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"<i>Anekdota</i>" 2.152, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"<i>Denkwuerdigkeiten</i>" 6.6-7: <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"<i>Die gute Sache der Freiheit</i>" pp. 62-63: <a href="#Page_178">178 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"<i>Judenfrage</i>" p. 60: <a href="#Page_180">180</a>, <a href="#Page_414">414</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">61: <a href="#Page_229">229</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">66: <a href="#Page_178">178</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">84: <a href="#Page_235">235</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">114: <a href="#Page_185">185</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"<i>Lit. Ztg.</i>" 5.18: <a href="#Page_164">164</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">No. 8: <a href="#Page_190">190 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">8.22: <a href="#Page_321">321</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"man just discovered," <a href="#Page_8">8</a>, <a href="#Page_180">180</a>, <a href="#Page_326">326</a>, <a href="#Page_467">467</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">treats Jew question as relating to privilege, <a href="#Page_271">271 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">who he was, <a href="#Footnote_83_83">163 ftn.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Bauer, E.:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"<i>Liberale Bestrebungen</i>"</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">2.50-94: <a href="#Page_299">299 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">2.95 ff.: <a href="#Page_378">378 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">2.130: <a href="#Page_301">301</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">2.132: <a href="#Page_302">302</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Bavaria: its government worth more than a man, <a href="#Footnote_184_184">345 ftn.</a><br /> +<br /> +Beasts: how they live, <a href="#Page_435">435</a>, <a href="#Page_442">442 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Becker, A.:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"<i>Volksphilosophie unserer Tage</i>" p. 22 f.: <a href="#Page_103">103</a>, <a href="#Page_249">249</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">32: <a href="#Page_103">103</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Bee:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">in beehood, <a href="#Page_303">303 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">little busy, <a href="#Page_442">442</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Being:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">in Feuerbach's philosophy, <a href="#Page_453">453 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">same word in Grennan as "essence," <a href="#Footnote_15_15">41 ftn.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">see also <a href="#Essence">Essence</a>; also <a href="#Supreme">Supreme</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +<a name="Bettina" id="Bettina"></a>Bettina: "This book belongs to the King" pp. 374-385: <a href="#Page_261">261 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Bible:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Gen. 22.1-12: <a href="#Page_198">198</a>.</span><br /> +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_493" id="Page_493">[Pg 493]</a></span><span style="margin-left: 1em;">Ex. 20.13: <a href="#Page_65">65</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Deut. 5.16: <a href="#Page_216">216</a>, <a href="#Page_249">249</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">32.3: <a href="#Page_459">459</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Ps. 46.3: <a href="#Page_121">121</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">99.9: <a href="#Page_471">471</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Prov. 3.2: <a href="#Page_216">216</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Is. 55.8: <a href="#Page_338">338</a>, <a href="#Page_456">456</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">55.9: <a href="#Page_26">26</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Jer. 13.16: <a href="#Page_459">459</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Matt. 4.1-11: <a href="#Page_464">464</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">5.18: <a href="#Page_125">125</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">5.22: <a href="#Page_56">56</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">5.48: <a href="#Page_321">321</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">6.11: <a href="#Page_426">426</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">6.13: <a href="#Page_181">181</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">6.24: <a href="#Page_279">279</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">6.34: <a href="#Page_166">166</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">7.7: <a href="#Page_449">449</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">8.22: <a href="#Page_19">19</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">9.11: <a href="#Page_70">70</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">10.16: <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_422">422</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">10.35: <a href="#Page_114">114</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">11.27: <a href="#Page_122">122</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">12.30: <a href="#Page_259">259</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">12.45: <a href="#Page_102">102</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">13.25: <a href="#Page_213">213</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">16.24: <a href="#Page_215">215</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">16.26: <a href="#Page_36">36</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">18.3: <a href="#Page_466">466</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">19.21: <a href="#Page_102">102</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">19.24: <a href="#Page_481">481</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">22.21: <a href="#Page_359">359</a>, <a href="#Page_422">422</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">23.24: <a href="#Page_297">297</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">26.53: <a href="#Page_282">282</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Mark 2.21: <a href="#Page_480">480</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">3.29: <a href="#Page_240">240</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">9.23: <a href="#Page_122">122</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">10.29: <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Luke 5.11: <a href="#Page_102">102</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">6.20: <a href="#Page_428">428</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">10.7: <a href="#Page_157">157</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">11.13: <a href="#Page_14">14</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">14.11: <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">17.6: <a href="#Page_122">122</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">23.2: <a href="#Page_422">422</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">John 1.14: <a href="#Page_269">269</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">1.18 Revised Version margin: <a href="#Page_34">34</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">2.4: <a href="#Page_114">114</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">3.4: <a href="#Page_304">304</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">3.6: <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">4.24a: <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, <a href="#Page_433">433</a>, <a href="#Page_444">444</a>, <a href="#Page_472">472</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">4.24b: <a href="#Page_410">410</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">6.32-35: <a href="#Page_426">426</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">8.44: <a href="#Page_240">240</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">16.33: <a href="#Page_33">33</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">18.36: <a href="#Page_13">13</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">18.38: <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_471">471</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">20.22: <a href="#Page_42">42</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">20.29: <a href="#Page_446">446</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Acts 5.1-2: <a href="#Page_102">102</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">5.4: <a href="#Page_398">398</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">5.29: <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_215">215</a>, <a href="#Page_444">444</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">5.39: <a href="#Page_459">459</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Rom. 1.25: <a href="#Page_451">451</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">6.18: <a href="#Page_205">205</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">8.9: <a href="#Page_42">42</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">8.14, 16: <a href="#Page_226">226</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">8.21: <a href="#Page_461">461</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">9.21: <a href="#Page_259">259</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">12.1: <a href="#Page_429">429</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">1 Cor. 2.10: <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_433">433</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">3.16: <a href="#Page_42">42</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">8.4: <a href="#Page_133">133</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">15.26, 55: <a href="#Page_430">430</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">2 Cor. 5.17: <a href="#Page_30">30</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">6.15: <a href="#Page_212">212</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Gal. 2.20: <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, <a href="#Page_427">427</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">4.26: <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Phil. 2.9: <a href="#Page_170">170</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">1 Thess. 5.21: <a href="#Page_468">468</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">2 Tim. 1.10: <a href="#Page_430">430</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Heb. 11.13: <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">James 1.17: <a href="#Page_455">455</a>.</span><br /> +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_494" id="Page_494">[Pg 494]</a></span><span style="margin-left: 2em;">2.12: <a href="#Page_206">206</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">1 Pet. 2.16(?): <a href="#Page_205">205</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">5.2: <a href="#Page_399">399</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">1 John 3.10: <a href="#Page_226">226</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">4.8: <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_382">382</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">4.16: <a href="#Page_382">382</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">different men's relation to, <a href="#Page_447">447 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">quotations from, <a href="#Page_xx">xx</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Birthright: <a href="#Page_248">248 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Blanc, Louis: "<i>Histoire des Dix Ans</i>" I. 138: <a href="#Page_139">139</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Bluntschli: <a href="#Page_466">466</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Body recognized in manhood: <a href="#Page_14">14 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Boniface, St.:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">cuts down sacred oak, <a href="#Page_218">218</a>, <a href="#Page_478">478</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">risks life as missionary, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +<i>Bourgeoisie</i>: see <a href="#Commonalty">Commonalty</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Burns, Robert: <a href="#Page_433">433</a>.<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +Caitiff: <a href="#Page_398">398</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Calling:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">helping men to realize, <a href="#Page_383">383 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">no calling, one does what he can, <a href="#Page_433">433 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Calvinism: puritanical, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Capacities:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">common to all, <a href="#Page_434">434</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">differ, <a href="#Page_433">433 f.</a>, <a href="#Page_438">438 f.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Carriere:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"<i>Koelner Dom</i>," <a href="#Page_305">305</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Catholicism: lets the profane world stand, <a href="#Page_116">116 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Catholics: had regard for church, <a href="#Page_290">290</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Cause: mine and others, <a href="#Page_3">3 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Censorship: more legal than murder, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Chamisso: "Valley of Murder," <a href="#Page_247">247</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Charles V: <a href="#Page_399">399 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Children: <a href="#Page_9">9 ff.</a><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">competent to get a living, <a href="#Page_350">350 f.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Chinese: family responsibilty, <a href="#Page_291">291</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Chinese ways: <a href="#Page_86">86 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Christ:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">no revolutionist, <a href="#Page_422">422</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">would not call legions of angels, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Christianity:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">founding of, <a href="#Page_422">422 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">liberalism completes, <a href="#Page_226">226 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Christianizing: <a href="#Page_296">296</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Christians:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">asserting their distinctiveness, <a href="#Page_271">271 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">trying to conquer the Spirit, <a href="#Page_122">122 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Cicero: <a href="#Page_28">28</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Clericalism: <a href="#Page_98">98 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Clootz, Anacharsis: <a href="#Page_276">276</a>.<br /> +<br /> +<a name="Commonalty" id="Commonalty"></a>Commonalty:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">holds that a man's a man, <a href="#Page_129">129 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">magnifies desert, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Communism:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">see <a href="#Proudhon">Proudhon</a>, <a href="#Socialism">Socialism</a>, <a href="#Weitling">Weitling</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">all for society, <a href="#Page_412">412 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">an advanced feudalism, <a href="#Page_415">415 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">not advantageous to all, <a href="#Page_410">410 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">runs to regulations, <a href="#Page_340">340</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">useful, <a href="#Page_355">355 f.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Competence: <a href="#Page_348">348 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Competition:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">characteristic of <i>bourgeois</i> society, <a href="#Page_344">344</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">how to abolish, <a href="#Page_364">364 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">produces poor work, <a href="#Page_354">354</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">restricted by control of opportunities, <a href="#Page_345">345 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Confidence: breach of, <a href="#Page_400">400 ff.</a><br /> +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_495" id="Page_495">[Pg 495]</a></span><br /> +Conscience in Protestantism, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Consequences are not penalties, <a href="#Page_314">314 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Constitutional Monarchy: <a href="#Page_300">300 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Corporeity the modern wish, <a href="#Page_485">485 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Cotters: <a href="#Page_327">327 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Crime:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">a man's own affair, <a href="#Page_317">317</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">results from the recognition of Man and right, <a href="#Page_266">266 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">the only way to beat the law, <a href="#Page_258">258</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">treatment as disease, <a href="#Page_316">316 f.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Criminal:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">how to make him ashamed, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">ill treated, <a href="#Page_383">383</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">made by the State, <a href="#Page_261">261 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Cripples: wages to, <a href="#Page_358">358 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Crispin, St.: <a href="#Page_64">64 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Critical philosophy: its new morality, <a href="#Page_72">72 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Criticism:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">limited by love, <a href="#Page_381">381 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">makes progress, <a href="#Page_190">190 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">of Bible, <a href="#Footnote_83_83">163 ftn.</a>, <a href="#Page_381">381</a>, <a href="#Page_448">448 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">servile and own, <a href="#Page_467">467 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">starts from presuppositions, <a href="#Page_467">467 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">victorious, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">what it was, <a href="#Footnote_83_83">163 ftn.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Crito: <a href="#Page_72">72</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Culture: its results, <a href="#Page_443">443 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Cultured people: <a href="#Page_94">94 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Curative means against crime: <a href="#Page_316">316 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Curtius leaps into chasm, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>.<br /> +<br /> +<a name="Custom" id="Custom"></a>Custom makes earth a heaven, <a href="#Page_87">87 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +Daehnhardt, Marie: <a href="#Page_xi">xi</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Descartes: <i>Cogito, ergo sum</i>, "I think, therefore I am," <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109 f.</a>, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>, <a href="#Page_173">173</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Despicable: <a href="#Page_401">401</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Desert, watchword of <i>bourgeoisie</i>, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Devil, natural objects named after, <a href="#Page_467">467</a><br /> +<br /> +Diogenes: <a href="#Page_26">26</a>.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"Get out of my sunshine," <a href="#Page_307">307</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Directions for life: <a href="#Page_432">432 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Disgruntlement: <a href="#Page_192">192</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Dissolving: the price of liberty, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Divine: ancient and modern times are concerned for the, <a href="#Page_486">486 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Dogma: <a href="#Page_194">194 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Dueling:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">boycotted in America, <a href="#Page_314">314 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">prohibited by State, <a href="#Page_243">243</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Dupin: <a href="#Page_296">296</a>.<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +Education: <a href="#Page_320">320 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Ego: in title of this book, <a href="#Page_ix">ix f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Egoism:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">everybody repudiates, <a href="#Page_185">185 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">exemplified in God, races, States, etc., <a href="#Page_3">3 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">hypocritical, <a href="#Page_216">216 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">remains under democracy and Socialism, <a href="#Page_163">163 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">the enemy of liberalism, <a href="#Page_185">185 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Egoists:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">all bodies of men are unjust to, <a href="#Page_284">284</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">have brought peoples to ruin, <a href="#Page_277">277 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">involuntary, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +<i>Einzige</i> (<i>der</i>): translation of the word, <a href="#Page_ix">ix f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Ends: <a href="#Page_78">78 f.</a><br /> +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_496" id="Page_496">[Pg 496]</a></span><br /> +England:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">allows free press, <a href="#Page_374">374</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">disregards popular turmoil, <a href="#Page_297">297 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">law-abiding, <a href="#Page_254">254</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Enjoyment: rather than life, as object, <a href="#Page_426">426 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Epicureans: <a href="#Page_27">27 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Equal: who are our equals? <a href="#Page_225">225 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +<a name="Equality" id="Equality"></a>Equality:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">of political rights, <a href="#Page_133">133 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">to result from Communism, <a href="#Page_154">154 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +<a name="Essence" id="Essence"></a>Essence:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">essences are spooks, <a href="#Page_50">50 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><a name="hEssence" id="hEssence"></a>higher and highest essences, <a href="#Page_47">47 ff.</a> See also <a href="#SupremeBeing">Supreme Being</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">of man, as supreme, <a href="#Page_40">40 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">recognized in men, <a href="#Page_52">52 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">same as "being," <a href="#Footnote_15_15">41 ftn.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Established: <a href="#Page_293">293 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Estates: previous to Revolution, <a href="#Page_134">134 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Euripides: "Orestes," 418: <a href="#Page_254">254</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Exclusiveness:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">criticism excludes, <a href="#Page_176">176 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">in Jew and Christian, <a href="#Page_271">271 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +Faith: in morality, <a href="#Page_57">57 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Family:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">as court judging son, <a href="#Page_291">291</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">depends on piety, <a href="#Page_288">288 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">respect for idea of, <a href="#Page_113">113 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">self must be sacrificed to, <a href="#Page_289">289 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Fellow-feeling: <a href="#Page_386">386 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Feudalism: ended by Revolution, <a href="#Page_132">132 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +<a name="Feuerbach" id="Feuerbach"></a>Feuerbach:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"<i>Anekdota</i>" 2.64: <a href="#Page_60">60</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"Essence of Christianity," <a href="#Page_40">40 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">p. 394: <a href="#Page_391">391 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">401: <a href="#Page_238">238</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">402: <a href="#Page_41">41</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">402, 403: <a href="#Page_74">74</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">403: <a href="#Page_118">118</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">408: <a href="#Page_75">75</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"Principles of the Philosophy of the Future," <a href="#Page_453">453 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">humanizing the divine, <a href="#Page_227">227</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">insists on "being," <a href="#Page_453">453 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">look "rightly and unbiasedly," <a href="#Page_449">449</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">love a divine power, <a href="#Page_391">391</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">love is the essence of man, <a href="#Page_412">412</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"man the supreme being," <a href="#Page_8">8</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">opposes Hegel, <a href="#Page_453">453 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">religion displaces the human, <a href="#Page_320">320</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">the "divine" exists, <a href="#Page_486">486</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"theology is anthropology," <a href="#Page_74">74</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"the world a truth to the ancients," <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Fichte:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">his ego is not I, <a href="#Page_482">482</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on casuistry of lying, <a href="#Page_401">401</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"The ego is all," <a href="#Page_237">237</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +<a name="FixedIdea" id="FixedIdea"></a>Fixed idea: <a href="#Page_55">55 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Forces: man is to exert, <a href="#Page_435">435 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Fortune: weak point of present society, <a href="#Page_158">158 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +France: laws about education, <a href="#Page_459">459 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Francis II (of France): <a href="#Page_399">399 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Franke: <a href="#Page_77">77</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Frederick the Great:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">his cane, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">tolerant, <a href="#Page_230">230</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Freedom:<br /> +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_497" id="Page_497">[Pg 497]</a></span><span style="margin-left: 1em;">all want freedom, but not the same freedom, <a href="#Page_208">208 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">an ignoble cause, <a href="#Page_214">214</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">if given, is a sham, <a href="#Page_219">219 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">is riddance, <a href="#Page_203">203 ff.</a>, <a href="#Page_214">214 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">of press, <a href="#Page_259">259 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">of thought, <a href="#Page_455">455 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">thirsting for, <a href="#Page_203">203 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Fun prohibited, <a href="#Page_259">259 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +Galotti, Emilia: <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_431">431</a>.<br /> +<br /> +German unity: <a href="#Page_303">303 ff.</a><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">a dream, <a href="#Page_377">377</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Germany: millennial anniversary, <a href="#Page_284">284 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +God:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">my God and the God of all, <a href="#Page_189">189 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">natural objects named after, <a href="#Page_467">467</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +God-man: <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Goethe:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"Faust," 159: <a href="#Page_108">108</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">1624-5: <a href="#Page_250">250</a>, <a href="#Page_252">252</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">2154: <a href="#Page_112">112</a>, <a href="#Page_215">215</a>, <a href="#Page_480">480</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"<i>Vanitas! vanitatum vanitas!</i>" <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>, <a href="#Page_328">328</a>, <a href="#Page_330">330</a>, <a href="#Page_353">353</a>, <a href="#Page_377">377</a>, <a href="#Page_490">490</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"Venetian Epigrams," <a href="#Page_46">46</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"Humanus the saint's name," <a href="#Page_370">370</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"The spirit 'tis that builds itself the body," <a href="#Page_110">110</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">poet of <i>bourgeoisie</i>, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">in lucky circumstances, <a href="#Page_433">433</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Good intentions: as pavement (proverbially), <a href="#Page_96">96</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Government: everybody feels competent for, <a href="#Page_356">356 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Grandmother: saw spirits, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Greeks:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">intrigue ended their liberty, <a href="#Page_282">282 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">their philosophy, <a href="#Page_19">19 f.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Guerrillas in Spain: <a href="#Page_65">65</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Guizot: <a href="#Page_460">460</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Gustavus Adolphus: <a href="#Page_176">176</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Gutenberg: served mankind, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>.<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +Habit: see <a href="#Custom">Custom</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Half: see <a href="#Hypocrisy">Hypocrisy</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Hartmann, Eduard von: <a href="#Page_xiii">xiii f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Heart:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">cultivated by Socrates, <a href="#Page_20">20 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">cultivated by the Reformation, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Heartlessness: is crime, <a href="#Page_265">265 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Heautontimorumenos: <a href="#Page_216">216</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Heaven-storming: <a href="#Page_88">88 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Hegel:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"absolute philosophy," <a href="#Page_453">453 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">condemns "opinion" and what is "mine," <a href="#Page_453">453</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">finds his own speculations in Bible, <a href="#Page_448">448</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">in Christian party, <a href="#Page_311">311</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">insists on reality, "things," <a href="#Page_95">95</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">it is impossible to tell a lie, <a href="#Page_464">464</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">personifies thinking, <a href="#Page_468">468</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">philosopher of <i>bourgeoisie</i>, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">proves philosophy religious, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">puts the idea into everything, <a href="#Page_485">485</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">systematizes religion, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">wants match-making left to parents, <a href="#Page_291">291</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">wants to remain Lutheran, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Henry VII, Emperor: <a href="#Page_120">120</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Hess:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"<i>Ein und zwanzig Bogen</i>," p. 12: <a href="#Page_138">138</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">89 ff.: <a href="#Page_321">321</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"<i>Triarchie</i>," p. 76: <a href="#Page_234">234</a>.</span><br /> +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_498" id="Page_498">[Pg 498]</a></span><br /> +Hierarchy: <a href="#Page_95">95 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Higher world: "introduction of," <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Highest: same as "supreme," <a href="#Footnote_15_15">41 ftn.</a><br /> +<br /> +Hinrichs: "<i>Politische Vorlesungen</i>," 1.280: <a href="#Footnote_184_184">345 ftn.</a><br /> +<br /> +History: as dominant thought, <a href="#Page_473">473</a>, <a href="#Page_488">488 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Holbach: head of "plot," <a href="#Page_57">57</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Holy: the same in German as "sacred," <a href="#Page_50">50</a> ftn.<br /> +<br /> +Holy Spirit: has to be conquered by Christians, <a href="#Page_122">122 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Horace:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"<i>impavidum ferient ruinae</i>" <a href="#Page_121">121</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"<i>nil admirari</i>," <a href="#Page_121">121</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">his philosophy, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +<a name="Human" id="Human"></a>Human:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">exclusive regard for general human interests, <a href="#Page_168">168 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">you are more than human being, <a href="#Page_166">166 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">human beings desire democracy, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Humanism: <a href="#Page_30">30</a>.<br /> +<br /> +<a name="Humanity" id="Humanity"></a>Humanity:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">labor must relate to, <a href="#Page_170">170 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">laborers must be allowed to develop, <a href="#Page_157">157 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Hume: "clear head," <a href="#Page_111">111</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Huss: <a href="#Page_460">460</a>.<br /> +<br /> +<a name="Hypocrisy" id="Hypocrisy"></a>Hypocrisy: half moral and half egoist, <a href="#Page_66">66 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +Idea:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">accepted as truth, and fixed, <a href="#Page_474">474 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">as object of respect, <a href="#Page_112">112 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">see <a href="#FixedIdea">Fixed</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Ideal:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">constitutes religion, <a href="#Page_321">321</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">versus real, <a href="#Page_484">484 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Immoral: only class known to moralists besides "moral," <a href="#Page_69">69 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Imparted feelings: <a href="#Page_82">82 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Inca: <a href="#Page_448">448</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Individual: "simple," <a href="#Page_344">344 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Inequality: see <a href="#Equality">Equality</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Infanticide: <a href="#Page_424">424</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Insurrection: <a href="#Page_420">420 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Intercourse:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">not made by a hall, <a href="#Page_285">285 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">preferred to society, <a href="#Page_407">407</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Interests: ideal and personal, <a href="#Page_98">98 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Ireland: suffrage in, <a href="#Page_343">343</a>.<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +Jesuits:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">substantially grant indulgences, <a href="#Page_116">116 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"the end hallows the means," <a href="#Page_118">118 ff.</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, <a href="#Page_430">430</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Jews:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">asserting their distinctiveness, <a href="#Page_271">271 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">emancipated, <a href="#Page_220">220 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">heathen, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">not altogether egoistic or exclusive, <a href="#Page_235">235 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">unspiritual, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">whether they are men, <a href="#Page_166">166 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">will not read this book, <a href="#Page_35">35 f.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Judge:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Supreme Being as, <a href="#Page_432">432 f.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Judges:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">mechanical: <a href="#Page_253">253</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">what makes them unreliable, <a href="#Page_223">223 f.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Juliet: <a href="#Page_290">290</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Justice: a hate commanded by love, <a href="#Page_383">383</a>.<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +Kaiser: worthless pamphlet, <a href="#Page_344">344</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Kant: <a href="#Page_176">176</a>.<br /> +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_499" id="Page_499">[Pg 499]</a></span><br /> +Klopstock: <a href="#Page_83">83</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Koerner: <a href="#Page_77">77</a>.<br /> +<br /> +"<i>Kommunisten in der Schweiz</i>":<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">report on, p. 3: <a href="#Page_245">245</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">pp. 24, 63: <a href="#Page_438">438</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Kosciusko: <a href="#Page_404">404</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Kotzebue: <a href="#Page_64">64 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Krummacher: <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_266">266</a>, <a href="#Page_441">441</a>.<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +Labor:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">fundamental in Communist society, <a href="#Page_156">156 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">human vs. unique, <a href="#Page_354">354 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">lofty and petty, <a href="#Page_174">174 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">must be thoroughly human, <a href="#Page_170">170 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">must not be drudgery, <a href="#Page_157">157 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">of the right kind develops man, <a href="#Page_173">173 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">problem, <a href="#Page_149">149 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">too narrow, <a href="#Page_163">163 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">wanting higher pay, <a href="#Page_336">336 f.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Lais: <a href="#Page_80">80</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Lang, Ritter von: <a href="#Page_69">69</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Lavater: <a href="#Page_450">450</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Law:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">common or general law, same word in German as "right," <a href="#Footnote_129_129">242 ftn.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">particular law, not same word as "right," <a href="#Footnote_136_136">254 ftn.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">how to break, <a href="#Page_258">258</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">is a declaration of will, <a href="#Page_255">255 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">is impersonal, <a href="#Page_141">141 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">paralyzes will, <a href="#Page_256">256 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">sacred in the State, <a href="#Page_313">313 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">to be respected as such, <a href="#Page_254">254 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Leisure:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">to be enjoyed humanly, <a href="#Page_164">164 f.</a>, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">to be enjoyed uniquely, <a href="#Page_356">356</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Lenau: "Three Gypsies," <a href="#Page_489">489</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Lessing:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"Emilia Galotti," <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_431">431</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"Nathan der Weise," <a href="#Page_71">71</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Level: rascal and honest man on same, <a href="#Page_69">69 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Liberalism:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">completes Christianity, <a href="#Page_226">226 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">has made valuable gains, <a href="#Page_188">188 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">rational, <a href="#Page_137">137 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">sees only Man in me, <a href="#Page_225">225 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Liberals: the most modern moderns, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Liberty:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">individual, does not mean the individual is free, <a href="#Page_140">140 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">political, means direct subjection State, <a href="#Page_138">138 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">of the people, is not mine, <a href="#Page_280">280 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">no objection to its diminution, <a href="#Page_408">408 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Lie: <a href="#Page_395">395 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Life:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">caring for, <a href="#Page_425">425 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">should conform to the Supreme Being, <a href="#Page_432">432 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">true, <a href="#Page_426">426 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +"<i>Lit. Ztg.</i>":<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">5.12 ff: <a href="#Page_185">185</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">5.15, 23: <a href="#Page_185">185</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">5.24: <a href="#Page_173">173</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">5.26: <a href="#Page_166">166</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">No. 8: <a href="#Page_190">190 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">see also <a href="#Bauer">Bauer</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Love:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">as law of our intercourse, <a href="#Page_380">380 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">how it goes wrong, <a href="#Page_388">388 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">how originated, <a href="#Page_388">388</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">in egoism, <a href="#Page_385">385 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Lunatics: see <a href="#FixedIdea">Fixed Idea</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Lusatia: <a href="#Page_304">304</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Luther:<br /> +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_500" id="Page_500">[Pg 500]</a></span><span style="margin-left: 1em;">appealed to reason, <a href="#Page_460">460</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">broke his vow, <a href="#Page_398">398</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">demanded safe conduct to Worms, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">did his best, <a href="#Page_481">481</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise," <a href="#Page_78">78</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"He who believes is a God," <a href="#Page_109">109</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">not understood at first, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">shows the way to truth, <a href="#Page_107">107 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Lutheranism: goes beyond Puritanism, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>.<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +Mackay, John Henry: <a href="#Page_vii">vii f.</a>, <a href="#Page_xi">xi</a>, <a href="#Page_xiii">xiii</a>, <a href="#Footnote_83_83">163 ftn.</a><br /> +<br /> +Making something out of us: <a href="#Page_320">320 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Man (adult male): <a href="#Page_14">14 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Man (with capital M):<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">by being man we are equal, <a href="#Page_225">225 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">cared for to the disregard of men, <a href="#Page_100">100 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">criticism begins to gibe at, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">every laborer must be, <a href="#Page_170">170 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">I am not, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">I am the real, <a href="#Page_233">233 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">I am true man, <a href="#Page_436">436 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">nothing else recognized in me, <a href="#Page_225">225 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">takes the place of God in the new morality, <a href="#Page_72">72 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">see also <a href="#Human">Human</a>, <a href="#Humanity">Humanity</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Manlius: <a href="#Page_99">99</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Marat: <a href="#Page_99">99</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Marriage: against will of family, <a href="#Page_289">289 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Marx: "<i>Deutsch-franzoesische Jahrbuecher</i>" p. 197: <a href="#Page_229">229</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Masses:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">attacked by criticism, <a href="#Page_185">185 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">attacked as "a spiritual being by criticism," <a href="#Page_191">191 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Maxim: as fixed idea, <a href="#Page_80">80 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Metternich: "path of genuine freedom," <a href="#Page_209">209</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Middle class: not idealistic, <a href="#Page_96">96 f.</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Might: stereotyped into right, <a href="#Page_366">366 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Mind:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">in antiquity, <a href="#Page_19">19 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">in youth, <a href="#Page_11">11 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">same German word as "spirit," <a href="#Footnote_6_6">10 ftn.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Mirabeau: <a href="#Page_131">131</a>.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">the people the source of right and power, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">no power may command the nation's representatives, <a href="#Page_306">306</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Misalliance: <a href="#Page_289">289 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Moderation: <a href="#Page_403">403</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Moderns: <a href="#Page_30">30 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Monarchy: Revolution produces an absolute, <a href="#Page_132">132 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Money: what we shall do about, <a href="#Page_363">363 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Mongolism. <a href="#Page_85">85 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Montgelas: <a href="#Footnote_184_184">345 ftn.</a><br /> +<br /> +Moral influence: <a href="#Page_105">105 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Morality:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">a form of faith, and Christian, <a href="#Page_57">57 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">becomes a religion when critically completed, <a href="#Page_73">73 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">in critical philosophy, <a href="#Page_72">72 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">is religious, <a href="#Page_59">59 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +Napoleon:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">did not object to conquering, <a href="#Page_369">369</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">helped himself, <a href="#Page_343">343</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Nationality: <a href="#Page_322">322</a>.<br /> +<br /> +"Nationals" of Germany: <a href="#Page_303">303 ff.</a><br /> +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_501" id="Page_501">[Pg 501]</a></span><br /> +Nauwerk: <a href="#Page_307">307 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Negroid age of Caucasian history: <a href="#Page_86">86</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Nero: <a href="#Page_68">68 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Nietzsche: <a href="#Page_viii">viii</a>, <a href="#Page_xiv">xiv ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Ninon: <a href="#Page_80">80</a>.<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +Oath: <a href="#Page_399">399 ff.</a>, <a href="#Page_402">402 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +O'Connell: his motives, <a href="#Page_77">77 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Old: wages to, <a href="#Page_358">358 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Opposition ends when completed, <a href="#Page_273">273 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Opposition party: <a href="#Page_66">66 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Order: in State, <a href="#Page_293">293</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Orders: must not be given, <a href="#Page_141">141 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Origen: <a href="#Page_71">71</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Ownness:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">inalienable, <a href="#Page_206">206 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">meaning, <a href="#Footnote_104_104">203 ftn.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">must be defended against society, <a href="#Page_408">408 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">served by union, <a href="#Page_410">410 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +Pages cited: <a href="#Page_xx">xx</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Parcellation: <a href="#Page_327">327 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Party: <a href="#Page_310">310 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Paul, Emperor of Russia: <a href="#Page_404">404</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Pauperism a consequence of the State, <a href="#Page_333">333 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Penalty: product of right, <a href="#Page_266">266 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +People:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">general name for societies, <a href="#Page_276">276 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">German, its thousand years' history, <a href="#Page_284">284 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">hound the police on, <a href="#Page_318">318</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">its liberty is not mine, <a href="#Page_280">280 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">peoples have filled history, <a href="#Page_276">276 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Periclean age: <a href="#Page_19">19 ff.</a>, <a href="#Page_281">281 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Personification: <a href="#Page_468">468 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Pettifoggery: <a href="#Page_282">282 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Philanthropism: <a href="#Page_100">100 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Philanthropy: hates men, <a href="#Page_481">481 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Philosophy:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Greek, see <a href="#Ancients">Ancients</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">modern, <a href="#Page_109">109 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Piety:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">family depends on, <a href="#Page_288">288 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">meaning of word, <a href="#Footnote_160_160">288 ftn.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Pilate: <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_471">471 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Plowmen: wages for, <a href="#Page_359">359 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Plumb-line: <a href="#Page_xvii">xvii</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Poles: oath imposed upon, <a href="#Page_404">404 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Poor-rates: voting by, <a href="#Page_343">343</a><br /> +<br /> +Possession: the how much of, <a href="#Page_347">347 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +<a name="Possessions" id="Possessions"></a>Possessions:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">depend on the State, <a href="#Page_150">150 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">fundamental in <i>bourgeois</i> society, <a href="#Page_147">147 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">inward or spiritual, <a href="#Page_324">324 ff.</a>, <a href="#Page_369">369 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">to be respected, <a href="#Page_126">126 f.</a>, <a href="#Page_323">323 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Possibility:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">coincides with reality, <a href="#Page_438">438 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">means thinkableness, <a href="#Page_439">439 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Precepts: are Mongoloid, <a href="#Page_87">87 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Press:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">why not left free, <a href="#Page_259">259 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">liberty of, how to get, <a href="#Page_371">371 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Presupposition: <a href="#Page_199">199 f.</a>, <a href="#Page_467">467 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Principle: as fixed idea, <a href="#Page_80">80 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Prison society and intercourse: <a href="#Page_286">286 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Private:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">criticism has to leave the private free, <a href="#Page_178">178 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">the private not recognized by liberalism, <a href="#Page_168">168 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Privilege: <a href="#Page_270">270 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +<i>Prolétariat</i>: <a href="#Page_147">147 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Propaganda: <a href="#Page_320">320</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Property:<br /> +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_502" id="Page_502">[Pg 502]</a></span><span style="margin-left: 1em;">civic and egoistic, contrasted, <a href="#Page_326">326 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">definitions in Roman law, <a href="#Page_331">331 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">derived from man through Right, <a href="#Page_365">365 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">individual, opposed by Socialism, <a href="#Page_154">154 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">is what men really want when they say freedom, <a href="#Page_204">204 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">mine is what I make my might cover, <a href="#Page_338">338 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Proudhon on, <a href="#Page_328">328 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">recognition of under egoism, <a href="#Page_369">369</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">see <a href="#Possessions">Possessions</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Proprietors, small: <a href="#Page_327">327 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Protestantism:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">conscientious, <a href="#Page_115">115 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">consecrates everything, <a href="#Page_116">116 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +<a name="Proudhon" id="Proudhon"></a>Proudhon:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"<i>Création de l'Ordre</i>," <a href="#Page_60">60</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">p. 414: <a href="#Page_162">162</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">p. 485: <a href="#Page_302">302</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"<i>Qu'est-ce que la Propriété?</i>"</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">p. 83: <a href="#Page_328">328</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">p. 90: <a href="#Page_391">391</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">as parson, <a href="#Page_466">466</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">property a fact, <a href="#Page_332">332</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"property is robbery," <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_330">330 ff.</a>, <a href="#Page_419">419</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">substantially agrees with Stirner, <a href="#Page_xv">xv</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Provence, Count of: <a href="#Page_209">209</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Punishment: involves sacredness, <a href="#Page_315">315 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Pyrrho: <a href="#Page_28">28</a>.<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +Rabble: <a href="#Page_341">341 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Ragamuffin: <a href="#Page_152">152 ff.</a><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">going beyond ragamuffinhood, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Raphael: <a href="#Page_355">355</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Rational: etymology of "rational" in German, <a href="#Footnote_42_42">81 ftn.</a><br /> +<br /> +Reality: versus ideality, <a href="#Page_484">484 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Realizing value from self: <a href="#Page_335">335 ff.</a>, <a href="#Page_360">360 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Reason: as supreme, <a href="#Page_460">460 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Reciprocity: <a href="#Page_413">413 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +References to pages: <a href="#Page_xx">xx</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Reform is Mongoloid, <a href="#Page_86">86 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Reformation (the Protestant):<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">takes hold of heart, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">alters hierarchy, <a href="#Page_107">107 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Regulus: <a href="#Page_99">99</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Reimarus: "Most Notable Truths of Natural Religion," <a href="#Page_62">62 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Reisach, Count von: <a href="#Footnote_184_184">345 ftn.</a><br /> +<br /> +Relation: of different persons to objects, <a href="#Page_447">447 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Religion:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">is freedom of mind, <a href="#Page_62">62 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">morality is religious, <a href="#Page_59">59 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">of humanity, <a href="#Page_229">229 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">tolerance in, <a href="#Page_229">229 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Republic: <a href="#Page_299">299 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Revenge:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">the people's just, <a href="#Page_266">266 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Reverence: <a href="#Page_92">92 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Revolution (the French):<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">began over property, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">equality of rights, <a href="#Page_246">246</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">established absolute government, <a href="#Page_132">132 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">immoral, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">its true nature, <a href="#Page_143">143 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">made men citizens, <a href="#Page_155">155 f.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Revolutionist: is to lie, <a href="#Page_396">396 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Rid: freedom is being rid, <a href="#Page_203">203 ff.</a>, <a href="#Page_214">214 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Right:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">absolute, <a href="#Page_269">269</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">as basis of property, <a href="#Page_366">366 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">commonwealth of (<i>Rechtsstaat</i>), <a href="#Page_244">244</a>, <a href="#Page_253">253</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">equality of, <a href="#Page_270">270 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_503" id="Page_503">[Pg 503]</a></span><span style="margin-left: 1em;">is a law foreign to me, <a href="#Page_242">242 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">my right derived from myself, <a href="#Page_245">245 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">rights by birth, <a href="#Page_248">248 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">same word in German as "law," <a href="#Footnote_129_129">242 ftn.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">serves him right, <a href="#Page_254">254</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">well-earned rights, <a href="#Page_248">248 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">rights change hands at the Revolution, <a href="#Page_132">132 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Robespierre: <a href="#Page_77">77</a>.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">a priest, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">consistent, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">devoted to virtue, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">not serviceable to middle class, <a href="#Page_102">102 f.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Romans:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">in philosophy, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">killed children, <a href="#Page_250">250</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Romanticists:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">rehabilitate the idea of spirits, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Rome: decline and fall of, <a href="#Page_277">277 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Rousseau: hostile to culture, <a href="#Footnote_48_48">96 ftn.</a><br /> +<br /> +Rudolph (in Sue's story): <a href="#Page_387">387</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Ruge: "<i>Anekdota</i>" 1. 120, 127: <a href="#Page_460">460</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Russia:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">boundary sentinels, <a href="#Page_247">247</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">flight of army in, <a href="#Page_424">424</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Russians: as Mongolian, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>.<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +Sacred:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">gibing at, <a href="#Page_369">369 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">the same in German as "holy," <a href="#Page_50">50</a> ftn.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">things are sacred of themselves, <a href="#Page_118">118 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">wherein the sacred consists, <a href="#Page_92">92 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Sacred things:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">their diagnosis and extension, <a href="#Page_45">45 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Sacrifice: when I sacrifice somebody else's comfort to my principles, etc., <a href="#Page_97">97 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +"<i>Saechsische Vaterlandsblaetter</i>": <a href="#Page_57">57</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Saint-Just: <a href="#Page_99">99</a>.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"Political Speeches," 10, p. 153: <a href="#Page_268">268</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"criminal for not hating," <a href="#Page_267">267</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Sake:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">acting for one's own sake, <a href="#Page_210">210 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">immoralities for God's sake and for mine, <a href="#Page_398">398 f.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Sand, George: <a href="#Page_466">466</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Sand (murderer of Kotzebue): <a href="#Page_64">64 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Sander: <a href="#Page_379">379</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Schiller:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"Ideal and Life," <a href="#Page_428">428</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"The Maiden from a Foreign Land," <a href="#Page_35">35</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"<i>Worte des Glaubens</i>," <a href="#Page_111">111</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">complete in his poems, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">have I a right to my nose? <a href="#Page_246">246</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Swabian, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Schlemihl, Peter: <a href="#Page_25">25</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Schlosser: "<i>Achtzehntes Jahrhundert</i>," <a href="#Page_57">57</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Scholarships at universities: <a href="#Footnote_185_185">347 ftn.</a><br /> +<br /> +Seducing young people to morality, <a href="#Page_212">212 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Self:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">as starting-point or goal, <a href="#Page_427">427 f.</a>, <a href="#Page_437">437 f.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Self-discovery:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">first, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">second, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Selfishness:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">groundlessly decried, <a href="#Page_221">221 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">in "unselfish" acts, <a href="#Page_77">77 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">the only thing that is really trusted, <a href="#Page_223">223 f.</a></span><br /> +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_504" id="Page_504">[Pg 504]</a></span><br /> +Self-renunciation: of holy and unholy men, <a href="#Page_75">75 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Self-sacrificing:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">discussion of the implications of the German word, <a href="#Page_96">96 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">literal force of the German word, <a href="#Footnote_49_49">97 ftn.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Self-seekers always acted so: <a href="#Page_341">341</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Sensuality: in Protestantism and Catholicism, <a href="#Page_116">116 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +September laws: <a href="#Page_374">374</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Seriousness: <a href="#Page_85">85</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Settled life: necessary to respectability, <a href="#Page_147">147 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Shabbiness: <a href="#Page_400">400</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Shakspere: "Romeo and Juliet," <a href="#Page_290">290</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Sick: wages to, <a href="#Page_358">358 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Sigismund: <a href="#Page_398">398</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Simonides: <a href="#Page_26">26</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Sinner: does not exist, <a href="#Page_479">479 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Skeptics (Greek): <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Small properties: <a href="#Page_327">327 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +<a name="Socialism" id="Socialism"></a>Socialism: <a href="#Page_152">152 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Society:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">is to be sole owner, <a href="#Page_153">153 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">its character depends on its members, <a href="#Page_276">276 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">made by a hall, <a href="#Page_285">285 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">man's state of nature, <a href="#Page_406">406 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">may provide consequences where State provides penalties, <a href="#Page_314">314 f.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Socrates:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">in history of philosophy, <a href="#Page_20">20 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">should not have respected the sentence of the court, <a href="#Page_281">281 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">too moral to break jail, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Sophists: <a href="#Page_19">19 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Sordidness: <a href="#Page_400">400</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Spartans: killed children, <a href="#Page_250">250</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Speculation: <a href="#Page_405">405</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Sphinx: <a href="#Page_451">451</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Spirit:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">as the essential part of man, <a href="#Page_36">36 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">free from the world, <a href="#Page_32">32 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">has to be conquered by moderns, <a href="#Page_122">122 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">same German word as "mind," <a href="#Footnote_6_6">10 ftn.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">the seat of equality, <a href="#Page_226">226 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Spirits: are all around us, <a href="#Page_42">42 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Spiritual goods: shall we hold them sacred? <a href="#Page_369">369 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Spook: "essences" are spooks, <a href="#Page_50">50 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Spy: <a href="#Page_395">395</a>, <a href="#Page_403">403</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Standpoint: as fixed idea, <a href="#Page_80">80 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +State:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">a fellowship of human beings, <a href="#Page_128">128 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">cannot exist if I have a will of my own, <a href="#Page_255">255 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">cares not for me, but for itself, <a href="#Page_333">333 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Christianizes people, <a href="#Page_296">296</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">claims to be a person, <a href="#Page_295">295 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">criticism gives up, <a href="#Page_190">190 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">has to be harsh, <a href="#Page_259">259 ff.</a>, <a href="#Page_262">262 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">holds laws sacred, <a href="#Page_313">313 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">is the established, <a href="#Page_293">293 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">its relation to property, <a href="#Page_333">333 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">means order, <a href="#Page_293">293</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">officials and plutocrats overcharge us, <a href="#Page_151">151 f.</a>, <a href="#Page_357">357 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">sick, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">taking part in, <a href="#Page_307">307 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Stein: his disloyalty to a "simple individual," <a href="#Footnote_184_184">345 ftn.</a><br /> +<br /> +Stirner: motives for writing, <a href="#Page_393">393 f.</a>, <a href="#Page_406">406</a>.<br /> +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_505" id="Page_505">[Pg 505]</a></span><br /> +Stoics: <a href="#Page_27">27 f.</a><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">apathy, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"wise man," <a href="#Page_121">121</a>, <a href="#Page_485">485</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Strange: the same in German as "alien," <a href="#Page_47">47</a> ftn.<br /> +<br /> +Strike: <a href="#Page_359">359 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Students:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">are immature Philistines, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">custom of, as to word of honor, <a href="#Page_403">403 f.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Sue: "Mysteries of Paris," <a href="#Page_387">387</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Suicide: <a href="#Page_429">429 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Suit: "it suits me" expressed in German by "right," <a href="#Footnote_132_132">248 ftn.</a><br /> +<br /> +<a name="Supreme" id="Supreme"></a>Supreme: same as "highest," <a href="#Footnote_15_15">41 ftn.</a><br /> +<br /> +<a name="SupremeBeing" id="SupremeBeing"></a>Supreme Being:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">according to Feuerbach, <a href="#Page_40">40 ff.</a> (See also <a href="#Feuerbach">Feuerbach</a>.)</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">see also <a href="#hEssence">Essence (highest)</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Swan-knights: <a href="#Page_342">342 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +Tak Kak: <a href="#Page_vii">vii</a>, <a href="#Page_xi">xi ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Terence:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"Heautontimorumenos," <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"<i>humani nihil alienum puto</i>," <a href="#Page_367">367</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Theft: <a href="#Page_99">99 f.</a><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">depends on property, <a href="#Page_331">331 f.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Things: essential in competition, <a href="#Page_346">346 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Third: end of opposition, <a href="#Page_484">484</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Thinkable: real sense of "possible," <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_439">439 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Thinker: characteristics of <a href="#Page_452">452 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Thought:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">freedom of, <a href="#Page_455">455 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">I do not respect your independence of, <a href="#Page_456">456 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">necessary conditions of, <a href="#Page_465">465 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">optional, <a href="#Page_465">465 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">realm of, <a href="#Page_451">451 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Thoughts:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">as owned, <a href="#Page_477">477 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">combated by disregard, <a href="#Page_196">196 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">combated by force, <a href="#Page_197">197 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">combated by thinking, <a href="#Page_194">194 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">criticism moves only in, <a href="#Page_194">194 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Tie:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">everything sacred is, <a href="#Page_283">283</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">man the enemy of, <a href="#Page_283">283</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Tieck: "<i>Der gestiefelte Kater</i>," <a href="#Page_342">342</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Timon: <a href="#Page_28">28</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Title of this book: <a href="#Page_ix">ix f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Tolerance: <a href="#Page_229">229 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Training: <a href="#Page_434">434 f.</a>, <a href="#Page_443">443 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Truth:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">telling, <a href="#Page_395">395 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">to possess truth you must be true, <a href="#Page_106">106 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">what is, <a href="#Page_471">471 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">I am above truths, <a href="#Page_463">463 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +Understanding: in antiquity, <a href="#Page_19">19 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Unhuman: an artificial name for the real, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>.<br /> +<br /> +Union:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">distinction from society, <a href="#Page_407">407 ff.</a>, <a href="#Page_415">415 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">everything is mine in, <a href="#Page_415">415 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Uniqueness: constitutes greatness, <a href="#Page_175">175 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Un-man:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">real man, <a href="#Page_230">230 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">the "devil" of liberalism, <a href="#Page_184">184 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Unselfishness:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">literal sense of the German word, <a href="#Footnote_41_41">77 ftn.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">supposed, and real, <a href="#Page_77">77 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_506" id="Page_506">[Pg 506]</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Vagabonds: <a href="#Page_147">147 ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +Value:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">of me, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_333">333 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">to be realized from self, <a href="#Page_335">335 ff.</a>, <a href="#Page_360">360 f.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Von Hartmann: <a href="#Page_xiii">xiii f.</a><br /> +<br /> +"<i>Vossische Zeitung</i>": <a href="#Page_244">244</a>, <a href="#Page_253">253</a>.<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +Wages:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">instead of alms, <a href="#Page_358">358 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">of the upper classes and the lower, <a href="#Page_151">151 f.</a>, <a href="#Page_357">357 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Walker, James L.: <a href="#Page_vii">vii</a>, <a href="#Page_xi">xi ff.</a><br /> +<br /> +War of all against all: <a href="#Page_341">341</a>, <a href="#Page_343">343</a>.<br /> +<br /> +<a name="Weitling" id="Weitling"></a>Weitling:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"Trio," on head of people, <a href="#Page_302">302</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Communism seeks welfare of all, <a href="#Page_410">410</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"harmony of society," <a href="#Page_284">284</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">hours of labor, <a href="#Page_411">411</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on crime and "curative means," <a href="#Page_316">316 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">on property, <a href="#Page_331">331 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">preaches "society," <a href="#Page_245">245</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">substitutes work for money, <a href="#Page_352">352</a>.</span><br /> +<br /> +Welcker: on dependence of judges, <a href="#Page_223">223 f.</a><br /> +<br /> +Wheels in the head:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">formal aspects of, <a href="#Page_75">75 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">what are such, <a href="#Page_54">54 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Will:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">incompatible with the State, <a href="#Page_255">255 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">law is a declaration of, <a href="#Page_255">255 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">law paralyzes, <a href="#Page_255">255 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">morality commands submission of, <a href="#Page_66">66 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">the only practical agency of reform, <a href="#Page_68">68 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Words:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">power of, <a href="#Page_462">462 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Stirner's style of using, <a href="#Page_xix">xix f.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Work:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">for pay's sake, <a href="#Page_354">354</a>.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">is not the only competence, <a href="#Page_349">349 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +World:<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">among ancients, <a href="#Page_18">18 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">conquered by the ancients, <a href="#Page_120">120 ff.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">is haunted, and is itself a ghost, <a href="#Page_43">43 f.</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">spirit free from, <a href="#Page_32">32 ff.</a></span><br /> +<br /> +Writing: Stirner's motives for, <a href="#Page_393">393 f.</a>, <a href="#Page_406">406</a>.<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +Youth: <a href="#Page_11">11 ff.</a><br /> +</p> + + + + +<hr style="width: 100%;" /> +<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES</h3> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> ["<i>Ich hab' Mein' Sach' auf Nichts gestellt</i>," first line of Goethe's +poem, "<i>Vanitas! Vanitatum Vanitas!</i>" Literal translation: "I have set +my affair on nothing."]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> [<i>Sache</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_3_3" id="Footnote_3_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> [<i>Sache</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_4_4" id="Footnote_4_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> [<i>der Einzige</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_5_5" id="Footnote_5_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> [<i>einzig</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_6_6" id="Footnote_6_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> [<i>Geist.</i> This word will be translated sometimes "mind" and sometimes +"spirit" in the following pages.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_7_7" id="Footnote_7_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> Luke 11. 13.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_8_8" id="Footnote_8_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> Heb. 11. 13.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_9_9" id="Footnote_9_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> Mark 10. 29.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_10_10" id="Footnote_10_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> Italicized in the original for the sake of its etymology, <i>Scharfsinn</i>—"sharp-sense." +Compare next paragraph.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_11_11" id="Footnote_11_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> 2 Cor. 5. 17. [The words "new" and "modern" are the same in German.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_12_12" id="Footnote_12_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> [Title of a poem by Schiller.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_13_13" id="Footnote_13_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> [The reader will remember (it is to be hoped he has never forgotten) +that "mind" and "spirit" are one and the same word in German. For several +pages back the connection of the discourse has seemed to require the +almost exclusive use of the translation "spirit," but to complete the sense +it has often been necessary that the reader recall the thought of its identity +with "mind," as stated in a previous note.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_14_14" id="Footnote_14_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> "Essence of Christianity."</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_15_15" id="Footnote_15_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> [Or, "highest essence." The word <i>Wesen</i>, which means both "essence" +and "being," will be translated now one way and now the other in +the following pages. The reader must bear in mind that these two words +are identical in German: and so are "supreme" and "highest."]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_16_16" id="Footnote_16_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16_16"><span class="label">[16]</span></a> Cf. <i>e. g.</i> "Essence of Christianity," p. 402.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_17_17" id="Footnote_17_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17_17"><span class="label">[17]</span></a> [That is, the abstract conception of man, as in the preceding sentence.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_18_18" id="Footnote_18_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18_18"><span class="label">[18]</span></a> <i>E. g.</i>, Rom. 8. 9, 1 Cor. 3. 16, John 20. 22, and innumerable other passages.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_19_19" id="Footnote_19_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19_19"><span class="label">[19]</span></a> [<i>Heil</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_20_20" id="Footnote_20_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20_20"><span class="label">[20]</span></a> +[<a href="#typos"><i>heilig</i></a>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_21_21" id="Footnote_21_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21_21"><span class="label">[21]</span></a> +</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> +How the priests tinkle! how important they<br /> +Would make it out, that men should come their way<br /> +And babble, just as yesterday, to-day!<br /> +</p><p> +Oh! blame them not! They know man's need, I say;<br /> +For he takes all his happiness this way,<br /> +To babble just to-morrow as to-day.<br /> +</p> +<p class="author">—<i>Translated from Goethe's "Venetian Epigrams."</i></p> +</div> +</div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_22_22" id="Footnote_22_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22_22"><span class="label">[22]</span></a> [<i>fremd</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_23_23" id="Footnote_23_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23_23"><span class="label">[23]</span></a> [<i>fremd</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_24_24" id="Footnote_24_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24_24"><span class="label">[24]</span></a> [<i>einzig</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_25_25" id="Footnote_25_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25_25"><span class="label">[25]</span></a> ["the supreme being."]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_26_26" id="Footnote_26_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26_26"><span class="label">[26]</span></a> [<i>heilig</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_27_27" id="Footnote_27_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27_27"><span class="label">[27]</span></a> [<i>heilig</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_28_28" id="Footnote_28_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28_28"><span class="label">[28]</span></a> [<i>einzig</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_29_29" id="Footnote_29_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29_29"><span class="label">[29]</span></a> [<i>gefangen und befangen</i>, literally "imprisoned and prepossessed."]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_30_30" id="Footnote_30_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30_30"><span class="label">[30]</span></a> [<i>besessene</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_31_31" id="Footnote_31_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31_31"><span class="label">[31]</span></a> [<i>versessen</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_32_32" id="Footnote_32_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_32_32"><span class="label">[32]</span></a> "<i>Achtzehntes Jahrhundert</i>," II, 519.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_33_33" id="Footnote_33_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_33_33"><span class="label">[33]</span></a> "<i>De la Création de l'Ordre</i>" etc., p. 36.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_34_34" id="Footnote_34_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_34_34"><span class="label">[34]</span></a> "<i>Anekdota</i>," II, 64.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_35_35" id="Footnote_35_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_35_35"><span class="label">[35]</span></a> [<i>dieselbe Phantastin wie die Phantasie</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_36_36" id="Footnote_36_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36_36"><span class="label">[36]</span></a> [The same word as "intellectual" as "mind" and "spirit" are the +same.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_37_37" id="Footnote_37_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37_37"><span class="label">[37]</span></a> "Essence of Christianity," second edition, p. 402.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_38_38" id="Footnote_38_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_38_38"><span class="label">[38]</span></a> P. 403.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_39_39" id="Footnote_39_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_39_39"><span class="label">[39]</span></a> P. 408.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_40_40" id="Footnote_40_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_40_40"><span class="label">[40]</span></a> [Literally "the man."]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_41_41" id="Footnote_41_41"></a><a href="#FNanchor_41_41"><span class="label">[41]</span></a> [<i>Uneigennuetzigkeit</i>, literally "un-self-benefitingness."]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_42_42" id="Footnote_42_42"></a><a href="#FNanchor_42_42"><span class="label">[42]</span></a> [<i>vernuenftig</i>, derived from <i>vernehmen</i>, to hear.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_43_43" id="Footnote_43_43"></a><a href="#FNanchor_43_43"><span class="label">[43]</span></a> [A German idiom for destructive radicalism.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_44_44" id="Footnote_44_44"></a><a href="#FNanchor_44_44"><span class="label">[44]</span></a> [The same word that has been translated "custom" several times in +this section.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_45_45" id="Footnote_45_45"></a><a href="#FNanchor_45_45"><span class="label">[45]</span></a> [<i>Ehrfurcht</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_46_46" id="Footnote_46_46"></a><a href="#FNanchor_46_46"><span class="label">[46]</span></a> [<i>gefuerchtet</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_47_47" id="Footnote_47_47"></a><a href="#FNanchor_47_47"><span class="label">[47]</span></a> [<i>geehrt</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_48_48" id="Footnote_48_48"></a><a href="#FNanchor_48_48"><span class="label">[48]</span></a> Rousseau, the Philanthropists, and others were hostile to culture and +intelligence, but they overlooked the fact that this is present in <i>all</i> men of +the Christian type, and assailed only learned and refined culture.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_49_49" id="Footnote_49_49"></a><a href="#FNanchor_49_49"><span class="label">[49]</span></a> [Literally, "sacrificing"; the German word has not the prefix "self."]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_50_50" id="Footnote_50_50"></a><a href="#FNanchor_50_50"><span class="label">[50]</span></a> "<i>Volksphilosophie unserer Tage</i>," p. 22.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_51_51" id="Footnote_51_51"></a><a href="#FNanchor_51_51"><span class="label">[51]</span></a> [<i>Muth</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_52_52" id="Footnote_52_52"></a><a href="#FNanchor_52_52"><span class="label">[52]</span></a> [<i>Demuth</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_53_53" id="Footnote_53_53"></a><a href="#FNanchor_53_53"><span class="label">[53]</span></a> [Called in English theology "original sin."]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_54_54" id="Footnote_54_54"></a><a href="#FNanchor_54_54"><span class="label">[54]</span></a> [Goethe, "Faust."]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_55_55" id="Footnote_55_55"></a><a href="#FNanchor_55_55"><span class="label">[55]</span></a> "<i>Anekdota</i>," II, 152.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_56_56" id="Footnote_56_56"></a><a href="#FNanchor_56_56"><span class="label">[56]</span></a> [Schiller, "<i>Die Worte des Glaubens</i>."]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_57_57" id="Footnote_57_57"></a><a href="#FNanchor_57_57"><span class="label">[57]</span></a> [Parodied from the words of Mephistopheles in the witch's kitchen in +"Faust."]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_59_59" id="Footnote_59_59"></a><a href="#FNanchor_59_59"><span class="label">[58]</span></a> John 2. 4.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_58_58" id="Footnote_58_58"></a><a href="#FNanchor_58_58"><span class="label">[59]</span></a> Matt. 10. 35.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_60_60" id="Footnote_60_60"></a><a href="#FNanchor_60_60"><span class="label">[60]</span></a> [<i>heilig</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_61_61" id="Footnote_61_61"></a><a href="#FNanchor_61_61"><span class="label">[61]</span></a> [<i>heilig</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_62_62" id="Footnote_62_62"></a><a href="#FNanchor_62_62"><span class="label">[62]</span></a> [<i>Geistlicher</i>, literally "spiritual man."]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_63_63" id="Footnote_63_63"></a><a href="#FNanchor_63_63"><span class="label">[63]</span></a> "Essence of Christianity," p. 403.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_64_64" id="Footnote_64_64"></a><a href="#FNanchor_64_64"><span class="label">[64]</span></a> Mark 9. 23.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_65_65" id="Footnote_65_65"></a><a href="#FNanchor_65_65"><span class="label">[65]</span></a> [<i>Herrlichkeit</i>, which, according to its derivation, means "lordliness."]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_66_66" id="Footnote_66_66"></a><a href="#FNanchor_66_66"><span class="label">[66]</span></a> [Or "citizenhood." The word (<i>das Buergertum</i>) means either the condition +of being a citizen, or citizen-like principles, or the body of citizens or +of the middle or business class, the <i>bourgeoisie</i>.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_67_67" id="Footnote_67_67"></a><a href="#FNanchor_67_67"><span class="label">[67]</span></a> [<i>Man hatte im Staate "die ungleiche Person angesehen,"</i> there had +been "respect of unequal persons" in the State.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_68_68" id="Footnote_68_68"></a><a href="#FNanchor_68_68"><span class="label">[68]</span></a> [<i>Gewalt</i>, a word which is also commonly used like the English "violence," +denoting especially unlawful violence.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_69_69" id="Footnote_69_69"></a><a href="#FNanchor_69_69"><span class="label">[69]</span></a> [<i>Vorrechte</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_70_70" id="Footnote_70_70"></a><a href="#FNanchor_70_70"><span class="label">[70]</span></a> [<i>Rechte</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_71_71" id="Footnote_71_71"></a><a href="#FNanchor_71_71"><span class="label">[71]</span></a> 1 Corinthians 8.4.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_72_72" id="Footnote_72_72"></a><a href="#FNanchor_72_72"><span class="label">[72]</span></a> "<i>Ein und zwanzig Bogen</i>," p. 12.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_73_73" id="Footnote_73_73"></a><a href="#FNanchor_73_73"><span class="label">[73]</span></a> Louis Blanc says ("<i>Histoire des Dix Ans</i>," I, p. 138) of the time of the +Restoration: "<i>Le protestantisme devint le fond des idées et des mœurs.</i>"</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_74_74" id="Footnote_74_74"></a><a href="#FNanchor_74_74"><span class="label">[74]</span></a> [<i>Sache</i>, which commonly means <i>thing</i>.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_75_75" id="Footnote_75_75"></a><a href="#FNanchor_75_75"><span class="label">[75]</span></a> [<i>Sache</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_76_76" id="Footnote_76_76"></a><a href="#FNanchor_76_76"><span class="label">[76]</span></a> [Or "righteous." German <i>rechtlich</i>.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_77_77" id="Footnote_77_77"></a><a href="#FNanchor_77_77"><span class="label">[77]</span></a> [<i>gerecht</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_78_78" id="Footnote_78_78"></a><a href="#FNanchor_78_78"><span class="label">[78]</span></a> [<i>das Geld gibt Geltung.</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_79_79" id="Footnote_79_79"></a><a href="#FNanchor_79_79"><span class="label">[79]</span></a> [<i>ausgebeutet</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_80_80" id="Footnote_80_80"></a><a href="#FNanchor_80_80"><span class="label">[80]</span></a> [<i>Kriegsbeute</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_81_81" id="Footnote_81_81"></a><a href="#FNanchor_81_81"><span class="label">[81]</span></a> [In German an exact quotation of Luke 10.7.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_82_82" id="Footnote_82_82"></a><a href="#FNanchor_82_82"><span class="label">[82]</span></a> Proudhon ("<i>Création de l'Ordre</i>") cries out, <i>e. g.</i>, p. 414, "In industry, +as in science, the publication of an invention is the first and <i>most sacred of +duties</i>!"</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_83_83" id="Footnote_83_83"></a><a href="#FNanchor_83_83"><span class="label">[83]</span></a> [In his strictures on "criticism" Stirner refers to a special movement +known by that name in the early forties of the last century, of which Bruno +Bauer was the principal exponent. After his official separation from the +faculty of the university of Bonn on account of his views in regard to the +Bible, Bruno Bauer in 1843 settled near Berlin and founded the <i>Allgemeine +Literatur-Zeitung</i>, in which he and his friends, at war with their surroundings, +championed the "absolute emancipation" of the individual within +the limits of "pure humanity" and fought as their foe "the mass," comprehending +in that term the radical aspirations of political liberalism and +the communistic demands of the rising Socialist movement of that time. +For a brief account of Bruno Bauer's movement of criticism, see John +Henry Mackay, "<i>Max Stirner</i>. <i>Sein Leben und sein Werk.</i>"]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_84_84" id="Footnote_84_84"></a><a href="#FNanchor_84_84"><span class="label">[84]</span></a> Br. Bauer. "<i>Lit. Ztg.</i>" V. 18.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_85_85" id="Footnote_85_85"></a><a href="#FNanchor_85_85"><span class="label">[85]</span></a> "<i>Lit. Ztg.</i>" V. 26.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_86_86" id="Footnote_86_86"></a><a href="#FNanchor_86_86"><span class="label">[86]</span></a> [<i>Eigentum</i>, "owndom."]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_87_87" id="Footnote_87_87"></a><a href="#FNanchor_87_87"><span class="label">[87]</span></a> [<i>Eigenwille</i>, "own-will."]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_88_88" id="Footnote_88_88"></a><a href="#FNanchor_88_88"><span class="label">[88]</span></a> [Referring to minute subdivision of labor, whereby the single workman +produces, not a whole, but a part.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_89_89" id="Footnote_89_89"></a><a href="#FNanchor_89_89"><span class="label">[89]</span></a> "<i>Lit. Ztg.</i>" V. 24.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_90_90" id="Footnote_90_90"></a><a href="#FNanchor_90_90"><span class="label">[90]</span></a> "<i>Lit. Ztg.</i>" <i>ibid.</i></p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_91_91" id="Footnote_91_91"></a><a href="#FNanchor_91_91"><span class="label">[91]</span></a> ["<i>einziger</i>"]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_92_92" id="Footnote_92_92"></a><a href="#FNanchor_92_92"><span class="label">[92]</span></a> [<i>Einzigkeit</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_93_93" id="Footnote_93_93"></a><a href="#FNanchor_93_93"><span class="label">[93]</span></a> Bruno Bauer, "<i>Judenfrage</i>," p. 66.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_94_94" id="Footnote_94_94"></a><a href="#FNanchor_94_94"><span class="label">[94]</span></a> Bruno Bauer, "<i>Die gute Sache der Freiheit</i>," pp. 62-63.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_95_95" id="Footnote_95_95"></a><a href="#FNanchor_95_95"><span class="label">[95]</span></a> Bruno Bauer, "<i>Judenfrage</i>," p. 60.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_96_96" id="Footnote_96_96"></a><a href="#FNanchor_96_96"><span class="label">[96]</span></a> [<i>Einzige</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_97_97" id="Footnote_97_97"></a><a href="#FNanchor_97_97"><span class="label">[97]</span></a> [<i>einzig</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_98_98" id="Footnote_98_98"></a><a href="#FNanchor_98_98"><span class="label">[98]</span></a> [It should be remembered that to be an <i>Unmensch</i> ("un-man") one +must be a man. The word means an inhuman or unhuman man, a man +who is not man. A tiger, an avalanche, a drought, a cabbage, is not an +un-man.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_99_99" id="Footnote_99_99"></a><a href="#FNanchor_99_99"><span class="label">[99]</span></a> "<i>Lit. Ztg.</i>" V. 23; as comment, V. 12 ff.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_100_100" id="Footnote_100_100"></a><a href="#FNanchor_100_100"><span class="label">[100]</span></a> "<i>Lit. Ztg.</i>" V. 15.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_101_101" id="Footnote_101_101"></a><a href="#FNanchor_101_101"><span class="label">[101]</span></a> [<i>Rechthaberei</i>, literally the character of always insisting on making +one's self out to be in the right.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_102_102" id="Footnote_102_102"></a><a href="#FNanchor_102_102"><span class="label">[102]</span></a> [<i>einzig</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_103_103" id="Footnote_103_103"></a><a href="#FNanchor_103_103"><span class="label">[103]</span></a> [<i>des Einzigen</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_104_104" id="Footnote_104_104"></a><a href="#FNanchor_104_104"><span class="label">[104]</span></a> [This is a literal translation of the German word <i>Eigenheit</i>, which, with +its primitive <i>eigen</i>, "own," is used in this chapter in a way that the German +dictionaries do not quite recognize. The author's conception being +new, he had to make an innovation in the German language to express it. +The translator is under the like necessity. In most passages "self-ownership," +or else "personality," would translate the word, but there are some +where the thought is so <i>eigen</i>, that is, so peculiar or so thoroughly the +author's <i>own</i>, that no English word I can think of would express it. It will +explain itself to one who has read Part First intelligently.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_105_105" id="Footnote_105_105"></a><a href="#FNanchor_105_105"><span class="label">[105]</span></a> [<i>Eigenheit</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_106_106" id="Footnote_106_106"></a><a href="#FNanchor_106_106"><span class="label">[106]</span></a> Rom. 6. 18.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_107_107" id="Footnote_107_107"></a><a href="#FNanchor_107_107"><span class="label">[107]</span></a> 1 Pet. 2. 16.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_108_108" id="Footnote_108_108"></a><a href="#FNanchor_108_108"><span class="label">[108]</span></a> James 2. 12.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_109_109" id="Footnote_109_109"></a><a href="#FNanchor_109_109"><span class="label">[109]</span></a> [See note, p. 112.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_110_110" id="Footnote_110_110"></a><a href="#FNanchor_110_110"><span class="label">[110]</span></a> [Meaning "German." Written in this form because of the censorship.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_111_111" id="Footnote_111_111"></a><a href="#FNanchor_111_111"><span class="label">[111]</span></a> [<i>Einzige</i>].</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_112_112" id="Footnote_112_112"></a><a href="#FNanchor_112_112"><span class="label">[112]</span></a> [I take <i>Entbehrung</i>, "destitution," to be a misprint for <i>Entehrung</i>.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_113_113" id="Footnote_113_113"></a><a href="#FNanchor_113_113"><span class="label">[113]</span></a> [<i>Eigennutz</i>, literally "own-use."]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_114_114" id="Footnote_114_114"></a><a href="#FNanchor_114_114"><span class="label">[114]</span></a> [<i>Einzigen</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_115_115" id="Footnote_115_115"></a><a href="#FNanchor_115_115"><span class="label">[115]</span></a> Rom. 8. 14.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_116_116" id="Footnote_116_116"></a><a href="#FNanchor_116_116"><span class="label">[116]</span></a> Cf. 1 John 3. 10 with Rom. 8. 16.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_117_117" id="Footnote_117_117"></a><a href="#FNanchor_117_117"><span class="label">[117]</span></a> [<i>Eigenschaften</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_118_118" id="Footnote_118_118"></a><a href="#FNanchor_118_118"><span class="label">[118]</span></a> [<i>Eigentum</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_119_119" id="Footnote_119_119"></a><a href="#FNanchor_119_119"><span class="label">[119]</span></a> <i>E. g.</i> Marx in the "<i>Deutsch-franzoesische Jahrbuecher</i>," p. 197.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_120_120" id="Footnote_120_120"></a><a href="#FNanchor_120_120"><span class="label">[120]</span></a> Br. Bauer, "<i>Judenfrage</i>," p. 61.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_121_121" id="Footnote_121_121"></a><a href="#FNanchor_121_121"><span class="label">[121]</span></a> Hess, "<i>Triarchie</i>," p. 76.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_122_122" id="Footnote_122_122"></a><a href="#FNanchor_122_122"><span class="label">[122]</span></a> [<i>Vorrecht</i>, literally "precedent right."]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_123_123" id="Footnote_123_123"></a><a href="#FNanchor_123_123"><span class="label">[123]</span></a> [<i>Eigenschaft</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_124_124" id="Footnote_124_124"></a><a href="#FNanchor_124_124"><span class="label">[124]</span></a> [<i>Eigentum</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_125_125" id="Footnote_125_125"></a><a href="#FNanchor_125_125"><span class="label">[125]</span></a> "Essence of Christianity," 2d ed., p. 401.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_126_126" id="Footnote_126_126"></a><a href="#FNanchor_126_126"><span class="label">[126]</span></a> [<i>bestimmt</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_127_127" id="Footnote_127_127"></a><a href="#FNanchor_127_127"><span class="label">[127]</span></a> [<i>Bestimmung</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_128_128" id="Footnote_128_128"></a><a href="#FNanchor_128_128"><span class="label">[128]</span></a> Mark 3. 29.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_129_129" id="Footnote_129_129"></a><a href="#FNanchor_129_129"><span class="label">[129]</span></a> [This word has also, in German, the meaning of "common law," and +will sometimes be translated "law" in the following paragraphs.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_130_130" id="Footnote_130_130"></a><a href="#FNanchor_130_130"><span class="label">[130]</span></a> Cf. "<i>Die Kommunisten in der Schweiz</i>," committee report, p. 3.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_131_131" id="Footnote_131_131"></a><a href="#FNanchor_131_131"><span class="label">[131]</span></a> [<i>Rechtsstreit</i>, a word which usually means "lawsuit."]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_132_132" id="Footnote_132_132"></a><a href="#FNanchor_132_132"><span class="label">[132]</span></a> [A common German phrase for "it suits me."]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_133_133" id="Footnote_133_133"></a><a href="#FNanchor_133_133"><span class="label">[133]</span></a> A. Becker, "<i>Volksphilosophie</i>," p. 22 f.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_134_134" id="Footnote_134_134"></a><a href="#FNanchor_134_134"><span class="label">[134]</span></a> [Mephistopheles in "Faust."]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_135_135" id="Footnote_135_135"></a><a href="#FNanchor_135_135"><span class="label">[135]</span></a> "I beg you, spare my lungs! He who insists on proving himself +right, if he but has one of these things called tongues, can hold his own in +all the world's despite!" [Faust's words to Mephistopheles, slightly misquoted.—For +<i>Rechthaberei</i> see note on p. 185.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_136_136" id="Footnote_136_136"></a><a href="#FNanchor_136_136"><span class="label">[136]</span></a> [<i>Gesetz</i>, statute; no longer the same German word as "right."]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_137_137" id="Footnote_137_137"></a><a href="#FNanchor_137_137"><span class="label">[137]</span></a> [<i>Verbrechen</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_138_138" id="Footnote_138_138"></a><a href="#FNanchor_138_138"><span class="label">[138]</span></a> [<i>brechen</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_139_139" id="Footnote_139_139"></a><a href="#FNanchor_139_139"><span class="label">[139]</span></a> "This Book Belongs to the King," p. 376.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_140_140" id="Footnote_140_140"></a><a href="#FNanchor_140_140"><span class="label">[140]</span></a> P. 376.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_141_141" id="Footnote_141_141"></a><a href="#FNanchor_141_141"><span class="label">[141]</span></a> P. 374.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_142_142" id="Footnote_142_142"></a><a href="#FNanchor_142_142"><span class="label">[142]</span></a> [An unnatural mother]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_143_143" id="Footnote_143_143"></a><a href="#FNanchor_143_143"><span class="label">[143]</span></a> P. 381.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_144_144" id="Footnote_144_144"></a><a href="#FNanchor_144_144"><span class="label">[144]</span></a> P. 385.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_145_145" id="Footnote_145_145"></a><a href="#FNanchor_145_145"><span class="label">[145]</span></a> [<i>Gerechte</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_146_146" id="Footnote_146_146"></a><a href="#FNanchor_146_146"><span class="label">[146]</span></a> [<i>macht Alles huebsch gerecht</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_147_147" id="Footnote_147_147"></a><a href="#FNanchor_147_147"><span class="label">[147]</span></a> [<i>Einzige</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_148_148" id="Footnote_148_148"></a><a href="#FNanchor_148_148"><span class="label">[148]</span></a> See "Political Speeches," 10, p. 153.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_149_149" id="Footnote_149_149"></a><a href="#FNanchor_149_149"><span class="label">[149]</span></a> [Literally, "precedent right."]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_150_150" id="Footnote_150_150"></a><a href="#FNanchor_150_150"><span class="label">[150]</span></a> [<i>Spannung</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_151_151" id="Footnote_151_151"></a><a href="#FNanchor_151_151"><span class="label">[151]</span></a> [<i>gespannt</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_152_152" id="Footnote_152_152"></a><a href="#FNanchor_152_152"><span class="label">[152]</span></a> [<i>spannen</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_153_153" id="Footnote_153_153"></a><a href="#FNanchor_153_153"><span class="label">[153]</span></a> [<i>einzig</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_154_154" id="Footnote_154_154"></a><a href="#FNanchor_154_154"><span class="label">[154]</span></a> [<i>Einzigkeit</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_155_155" id="Footnote_155_155"></a><a href="#FNanchor_155_155"><span class="label">[155]</span></a> [<i>Volk</i>; but the etymological remark following applies equally to the +English word "people." See Liddell & Scott's Greek lexicon, under +<i>pimplemi</i>.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_156_156" id="Footnote_156_156"></a><a href="#FNanchor_156_156"><span class="label">[156]</span></a> [<i>kuschen</i>, a word whose only use is in ordering dogs to keep quiet.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_157_157" id="Footnote_157_157"></a><a href="#FNanchor_157_157"><span class="label">[157]</span></a> [This is the word for "of age"; but it is derived from <i>Mund</i>, "mouth," +and refers properly to the right of speaking through one's own <i>mouth</i>, not +by a guardian.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_158_158" id="Footnote_158_158"></a><a href="#FNanchor_158_158"><span class="label">[158]</span></a> ["occupy"; literally, "have within"]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_159_159" id="Footnote_159_159"></a><a href="#FNanchor_159_159"><span class="label">[159]</span></a> [The word <i>Genosse</i>, "companion," signifies originally a companion in +<i>enjoyment</i>.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_160_160" id="Footnote_160_160"></a><a href="#FNanchor_160_160"><span class="label">[160]</span></a> [This word in German does not mean religion, but, as in Latin, faithfulness +to family ties—as we speak of "filial piety." But the word elsewhere +translated "pious" (<i>fromm</i>) means "religious," as usually in English.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_161_161" id="Footnote_161_161"></a><a href="#FNanchor_161_161"><span class="label">[161]</span></a> [It should be remembered that the words "establish" and "State" are +both derived from the root "stand."]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_162_162" id="Footnote_162_162"></a><a href="#FNanchor_162_162"><span class="label">[162]</span></a> [<i>huldigen</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_163_163" id="Footnote_163_163"></a><a href="#FNanchor_163_163"><span class="label">[163]</span></a> [<i>Huld</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_164_164" id="Footnote_164_164"></a><a href="#FNanchor_164_164"><span class="label">[164]</span></a> What was said in the concluding remarks after Humane Liberalism +holds good of the following,—to wit, that it was likewise written immediately +after the appearance of the book cited.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_165_165" id="Footnote_165_165"></a><a href="#FNanchor_165_165"><span class="label">[165]</span></a> [In the philosophical sense (a thinking and acting being), not in the +political sense.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_166_166" id="Footnote_166_166"></a><a href="#FNanchor_166_166"><span class="label">[166]</span></a> ["<i>Création de l'Ordre</i>," p. 485.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_167_167" id="Footnote_167_167"></a><a href="#FNanchor_167_167"><span class="label">[167]</span></a> ["<i>Koelner Dom</i>," p. 4.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_168_168" id="Footnote_168_168"></a><a href="#FNanchor_168_168"><span class="label">[168]</span></a> [<i>einzig</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_169_169" id="Footnote_169_169"></a><a href="#FNanchor_169_169"><span class="label">[169]</span></a> [<i>am Einzigen</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_170_170" id="Footnote_170_170"></a><a href="#FNanchor_170_170"><span class="label">[170]</span></a> [<i>Einzigen</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_171_171" id="Footnote_171_171"></a><a href="#FNanchor_171_171"><span class="label">[171]</span></a> [<i>heilig</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_172_172" id="Footnote_172_172"></a><a href="#FNanchor_172_172"><span class="label">[172]</span></a> [<i>unheilig</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_173_173" id="Footnote_173_173"></a><a href="#FNanchor_173_173"><span class="label">[173]</span></a> [<i>Heiliger</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_174_174" id="Footnote_174_174"></a><a href="#FNanchor_174_174"><span class="label">[174]</span></a> B. Bauer. "<i>Lit. Ztg.</i>" 8.22.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_175_175" id="Footnote_175_175"></a><a href="#FNanchor_175_175"><span class="label">[175]</span></a> "<i>E. u. Z. B.</i>," p. 89 ff.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_176_176" id="Footnote_176_176"></a><a href="#FNanchor_176_176"><span class="label">[176]</span></a> [<i>Einzigkeit</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_177_177" id="Footnote_177_177"></a><a href="#FNanchor_177_177"><span class="label">[177]</span></a> [See note on p. 184.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_178_178" id="Footnote_178_178"></a><a href="#FNanchor_178_178"><span class="label">[178]</span></a> [The words "cot" and "dung" are alike in German.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_179_179" id="Footnote_179_179"></a><a href="#FNanchor_179_179"><span class="label">[179]</span></a> <i>E. g.</i>, "<i>Qu'est-ce que la Propriété?</i>" p. 83.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_180_180" id="Footnote_180_180"></a><a href="#FNanchor_180_180"><span class="label">[180]</span></a> [<i>Einzige</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_181_181" id="Footnote_181_181"></a><a href="#FNanchor_181_181"><span class="label">[181]</span></a> [A German idiom for "take upon myself," "assume."]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_182_182" id="Footnote_182_182"></a><a href="#FNanchor_182_182"><span class="label">[182]</span></a> [Apparently some benevolent scheme of the day; compare note on +p. 343.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_183_183" id="Footnote_183_183"></a><a href="#FNanchor_183_183"><span class="label">[183]</span></a> In a registration bill for Ireland the government made the proposal to +let those be electors who pay £5 sterling of poor-rates. He who gives alms, +therefore, acquires political rights, or elsewhere becomes a swan-knight. +[See p. 342.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_184_184" id="Footnote_184_184"></a><a href="#FNanchor_184_184"><span class="label">[184]</span></a> Minister Stein used this expression about Count von Reisach, when he +cold-bloodedly left the latter at the mercy of the Bavarian government because +to him, as he said, "a government like Bavaria must be worth more +than a simple individual." Reisach had written against Montgelas at +Stein's bidding, and Stein later agreed to the giving up of Reisach, which +was demanded by Montgelas on account of this very book. See Hinrichs, +"<i>Politische Vorlesungen</i>," I, 280.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_185_185" id="Footnote_185_185"></a><a href="#FNanchor_185_185"><span class="label">[185]</span></a> In colleges and universities, etc., poor men compete with rich. But +they are able to do so in most cases only through scholarships, which—a +significant point almost all come down to us from a time when free competition +was still far from being a controlling principle. The principle of +competition founds no scholarship, but says, Help yourself, <i>i. e.</i> provide +yourself the means. What the State gives for such purposes it pays out +from interested motives, to educate "servants" for itself.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_186_186" id="Footnote_186_186"></a><a href="#FNanchor_186_186"><span class="label">[186]</span></a> [<i>preisgeben</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_187_187" id="Footnote_187_187"></a><a href="#FNanchor_187_187"><span class="label">[187]</span></a> [<i>Preis</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_188_188" id="Footnote_188_188"></a><a href="#FNanchor_188_188"><span class="label">[188]</span></a> [<i>Preis</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_189_189" id="Footnote_189_189"></a><a href="#FNanchor_189_189"><span class="label">[189]</span></a> [<i>Geld</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_190_190" id="Footnote_190_190"></a><a href="#FNanchor_190_190"><span class="label">[190]</span></a> [<i>gelten</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_191_191" id="Footnote_191_191"></a><a href="#FNanchor_191_191"><span class="label">[191]</span></a> [Equivalent in ordinary German use to our "possessed of a competence."]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_192_192" id="Footnote_192_192"></a><a href="#FNanchor_192_192"><span class="label">[192]</span></a> [<i>Einzige</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_193_193" id="Footnote_193_193"></a><a href="#FNanchor_193_193"><span class="label">[193]</span></a> [Literally, "given."]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_194_194" id="Footnote_194_194"></a><a href="#FNanchor_194_194"><span class="label">[194]</span></a> [A German phrase for sharpers.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_195_195" id="Footnote_195_195"></a><a href="#FNanchor_195_195"><span class="label">[195]</span></a> [Literally, "unhomely."]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_196_196" id="Footnote_196_196"></a><a href="#FNanchor_196_196"><span class="label">[196]</span></a> II, p. 91 ff. (See my note above.)</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_197_197" id="Footnote_197_197"></a><a href="#FNanchor_197_197"><span class="label">[197]</span></a> Athanasius.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_198_198" id="Footnote_198_198"></a><a href="#FNanchor_198_198"><span class="label">[198]</span></a> [<i>Wesen</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_199_199" id="Footnote_199_199"></a><a href="#FNanchor_199_199"><span class="label">[199]</span></a> [<i>Wesen</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_200_200" id="Footnote_200_200"></a><a href="#FNanchor_200_200"><span class="label">[200]</span></a> Feuerbach, "Essence of Chr.," 394.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_201_201" id="Footnote_201_201"></a><a href="#FNanchor_201_201"><span class="label">[201]</span></a> [<i>gebrauche</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_202_202" id="Footnote_202_202"></a><a href="#FNanchor_202_202"><span class="label">[202]</span></a> [<i>brauche</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_203_203" id="Footnote_203_203"></a><a href="#FNanchor_203_203"><span class="label">[203]</span></a> [<i>Verein</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_204_204" id="Footnote_204_204"></a><a href="#FNanchor_204_204"><span class="label">[204]</span></a> [<i>Vereinigung</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_205_205" id="Footnote_205_205"></a><a href="#FNanchor_205_205"><span class="label">[205]</span></a> [<i>Muthlosigkeit</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_206_206" id="Footnote_206_206"></a><a href="#FNanchor_206_206"><span class="label">[206]</span></a> [<i>Demuth</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_207_207" id="Footnote_207_207"></a><a href="#FNanchor_207_207"><span class="label">[207]</span></a> [<i>Muth</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_208_208" id="Footnote_208_208"></a><a href="#FNanchor_208_208"><span class="label">[208]</span></a> [Literally, "love-services."]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_209_209" id="Footnote_209_209"></a><a href="#FNanchor_209_209"><span class="label">[209]</span></a> [Literally, "own-benefit."]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_210_210" id="Footnote_210_210"></a><a href="#FNanchor_210_210"><span class="label">[210]</span></a> [Literally, furnishes me with a <i>right</i>.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_211_211" id="Footnote_211_211"></a><a href="#FNanchor_211_211"><span class="label">[211]</span></a> [<i>Empoerung</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_212_212" id="Footnote_212_212"></a><a href="#FNanchor_212_212"><span class="label">[212]</span></a> [<i>sich auf-oder emporzurichten</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_213_213" id="Footnote_213_213"></a><a href="#FNanchor_213_213"><span class="label">[213]</span></a> To secure myself against a criminal charge I superfluously make the +express remark that I choose the word "insurrection" on account of its +<i>etymological sense</i>, and therefore am not using it in the limited sense which +is disallowed by the penal code.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_214_214" id="Footnote_214_214"></a><a href="#FNanchor_214_214"><span class="label">[214]</span></a> 1 Cor. 15. 26.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_215_215" id="Footnote_215_215"></a><a href="#FNanchor_215_215"><span class="label">[215]</span></a> 2 Tim. 1. 10.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_216_216" id="Footnote_216_216"></a><a href="#FNanchor_216_216"><span class="label">[216]</span></a> [See the next to the last scene of the tragedy:</p> +<div class="blockquot"><p> +<span class="smcap">Odoardo.</span> Under the pretext of a judicial investigation he tears you out +of our arms and takes you to Grimaldi.... +</p><p> +<span class="smcap">Emilia.</span> Give me that dagger, father, me!... +</p><p> +<span class="smcap">Odoardo.</span> No, no! Reflect—You too have only one life to lose. +</p><p> +<span class="smcap">Emilia.</span> And only one innocence! +</p><p> +<span class="smcap">Odoardo.</span> Which is above the reach of any violence.— +</p><p> +<span class="smcap">Emilia.</span> But not above the reach of any seduction.—Violence! violence! +who cannot defy violence? What is called violence is nothing; seduction +is the true violence.—I have blood, father; blood as youthful and warm as +anybody's. My senses are senses.—I can warrant nothing. I am sure of +nothing. I know Grimaldi's house. It is the house of pleasure. An hour +there, under my mother's eyes—and there arose in my soul so much tumult +as the strictest exercises of religion could hardly quiet in weeks.—Religion! +And what religion?—To escape nothing worse, thousands sprang into the +water and are saints.—Give me that dagger, father, give it to me.... +</p><p> +<span class="smcap">Emilia.</span> Once indeed there was a father who, to save his daughter from +shame, drove into her heart whatever steel he could quickest find—gave life +to her for the second time. But all such deeds are of the past! Of such +fathers there are no more! +</p><p> +<span class="smcap">Odoardo.</span> Yes, daughter, yes! (<i>Stabs her.</i>)] +</p></div> +</div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_217_217" id="Footnote_217_217"></a><a href="#FNanchor_217_217"><span class="label">[217]</span></a> [Or, "<i>regulate</i>" (<i>richten</i>)]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_218_218" id="Footnote_218_218"></a><a href="#FNanchor_218_218"><span class="label">[218]</span></a> [<i>richten</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_219_219" id="Footnote_219_219"></a><a href="#FNanchor_219_219"><span class="label">[219]</span></a> "<i>Der Kommunismus in der Schweiz</i>," p. 24.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_220_220" id="Footnote_220_220"></a><a href="#FNanchor_220_220"><span class="label">[220]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i> p. 63.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_221_221" id="Footnote_221_221"></a><a href="#FNanchor_221_221"><span class="label">[221]</span></a> [Cf. note p. 81.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_222_222" id="Footnote_222_222"></a><a href="#FNanchor_222_222"><span class="label">[222]</span></a> [<i>Geistigkeit</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_223_223" id="Footnote_223_223"></a><a href="#FNanchor_223_223"><span class="label">[223]</span></a> [<i>Geistlichkeit</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_224_224" id="Footnote_224_224"></a><a href="#FNanchor_224_224"><span class="label">[224]</span></a> Rom. 1. 25.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_225_225" id="Footnote_225_225"></a><a href="#FNanchor_225_225"><span class="label">[225]</span></a> [<i>das Meinige</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_226_226" id="Footnote_226_226"></a><a href="#FNanchor_226_226"><span class="label">[226]</span></a> [<i>die</i>—"<i>Meinung</i>"]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_227_227" id="Footnote_227_227"></a><a href="#FNanchor_227_227"><span class="label">[227]</span></a> P. 47 ff.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_228_228" id="Footnote_228_228"></a><a href="#FNanchor_228_228"><span class="label">[228]</span></a> Chamber of peers, Apr. 25, 1844.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_229_229" id="Footnote_229_229"></a><a href="#FNanchor_229_229"><span class="label">[229]</span></a> "<i>Anecdota</i>," 1. 120.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_230_230" id="Footnote_230_230"></a><a href="#FNanchor_230_230"><span class="label">[230]</span></a> "<i>Anecdota</i>," 1. 127.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_231_231" id="Footnote_231_231"></a><a href="#FNanchor_231_231"><span class="label">[231]</span></a> [<i>vernehmbar</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_232_232" id="Footnote_232_232"></a><a href="#FNanchor_232_232"><span class="label">[232]</span></a> [<i>Vernunft</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_233_233" id="Footnote_233_233"></a><a href="#FNanchor_233_233"><span class="label">[233]</span></a> [Literally "thought-rid."]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_234_234" id="Footnote_234_234"></a><a href="#FNanchor_234_234"><span class="label">[234]</span></a> [<i>Sache</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_235_235" id="Footnote_235_235"></a><a href="#FNanchor_235_235"><span class="label">[235]</span></a> [<i>Sache</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_236_236" id="Footnote_236_236"></a><a href="#FNanchor_236_236"><span class="label">[236]</span></a> 1 Thess. 5. 21.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_237_237" id="Footnote_237_237"></a><a href="#FNanchor_237_237"><span class="label">[237]</span></a> [<i>Andacht</i>, a compound form of the word "thought."]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_238_238" id="Footnote_238_238"></a><a href="#FNanchor_238_238"><span class="label">[238]</span></a> [See note on p. 112.]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_239_239" id="Footnote_239_239"></a><a href="#FNanchor_239_239"><span class="label">[239]</span></a> [<i>Einzige</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_240_240" id="Footnote_240_240"></a><a href="#FNanchor_240_240"><span class="label">[240]</span></a> [<i>eigen</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_241_241" id="Footnote_241_241"></a><a href="#FNanchor_241_241"><span class="label">[241]</span></a> [<i>geeignet</i>]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_242_242" id="Footnote_242_242"></a><a href="#FNanchor_242_242"><span class="label">[242]</span></a> [<i>Stell' Ich auf Mich meine Sache.</i> Literally, "if I set my affair on +myself."]</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_243_243" id="Footnote_243_243"></a><a href="#FNanchor_243_243"><span class="label">[243]</span></a> ["<i>Ich hab' Mein' Sach' auf Nichts gestellt.</i>" Literally, "I have set my +affair on nothing." See note on p. 3.]</p></div> +</div> + + + + + +<hr style="width: 100%;" /> +<h4>Send for</h4> + +<h3>BENJ. R. TUCKER'S<br /> +Unique Catalogue of<br /> +Advanced Literature</h3> + +<h5>THE LITERATURE<br /> +THAT MAKES FOR<br /><br /> + +<big>EGOISM IN PHILOSOPHY<br /> +ANARCHISM IN POLITICS<br /> +ICONOCLASM IN ART</big></h5> + + +<p>128 pages, representing more than 400 authors and +listing nearly 1,000 titles, besides being enriched by +about 600 pithy and epigrammatic quotations, of an +Anarchistic and Egoistic character, from some of the +works catalogued.</p> + +<p>Benj. R. Tucker carries the most complete line of +advanced literature in the English language offered for +sale at any one place in the entire world.</p> + +<p>All books listed in his catalogue are carried +constantly in stock, and may be seen at</p> + +<p class="center"> +Benj. R. Tucker's Bookstore<br /> +225 Fourth Avenue, Room 13<br /> +NEW YORK CITY</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>LIBERTY</h2> + +<p class="center">BENJ. R. TUCKER, <i>Editor</i></p> + +<p>An Anarchistic journal, expounding the doctrine +that in Equal Liberty is to be found the most satisfactory +solution of social questions, and that majority +rule, or democracy, equally with monarchical +rule, is a denial of Equal Liberty.</p> + + +<h4><i>APPRECIATIONS</i></h4> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>G. BERNARD SHAW, <i>author of</i> "<i>Man and Superman</i>":<br /> +"Liberty is a lively paper, in which the usual proportions +of a half-pennyworth of discussion to an intolerable +deal of balderdash are reversed."</p> + +<p>ERNEST H. CROSBY, <i>author of</i> "<i>Captain Jinks, Hero</i>":<br /> +"In these days of running after false gods, it is refreshing +to find one American remaining unflinchingly +true to Liberty, and using in her defence not his emotions, +but a peculiarly keen and vigorous intellect and +style."</p> + +<p>JOHN COTTON DANA, <i>Librarian of the Free Public Library, +Newark, N.J.</i>:<br /> +"Liberty is good for your intellectuals, being full of +plain, hard thinking."</p> + +<p>HENRY BOOL, <i>merchant</i>, <i>manufacturer</i>, <i>farmer</i>, <i>dairyman</i>, +<i>and florist</i>, <i>Ithaca, N. Y.</i>:<br /> +"Pursuing its policy of equal liberty with consummate +ability and unswerving purpose, Liberty is the unrivaled +exponent of Absolute Free Trade."</p> + +<p>SAMUEL W. COOPER, <i>counsellor at law, Philadelphia</i>:<br /> +"Liberty is a journal that Thomas Jefferson would +have loved."</p> + +<p>EDWARD OSGOOD BROWN, <i>Judge of the Illinois Circuit +Court</i>:<br /> +"I have seen much in Liberty that I agreed with, and +much that I disagreed with, but I never saw any cant, +hypocrisy, or insincerity in it, which makes it an almost +unique publication."</p></div> + + +<p class="center"> +<i>Published Bimonthly. Twelve Issues, $1.00</i><br /> +<i>Single Copies, 10 Cents</i><br /> +<br /> +ADDRESS:<br /> +BENJ. R. TUCKER, P. O. Box 1312, <span class="smcap">New York City</span></p> + + + +<hr style="width: 100%;" /> +<h2>MODERN MARRIAGE</h2> + +<p class="center">BY<br /> +<b>Emile Zola</b><br /> +<br /> +TRANSLATED FROM THE FRENCH BY<br /> +BENJ. R. TUCKER</p> + +<p>In this story Zola takes four typical marriages,—one from the +nobility, one from the <i>bourgeoisie</i>, one from the <i>petite bourgeoisie</i>, +and one from the working people,—and describes, with all the +power of his wondrous art, how each originates, by what motive +each is inspired, how each is consummated, and how each results.</p> + +<p>A new edition from new plates, and at a reduced price.</p> + +<p class="center"> +<i>Price, 10 cents</i><br /> +</p> + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>CARLOTTA CORTINA</h2> +<p class="center">BY<br /> +<b>FRANCIS DU BOSQUE</b></p> + +<p>A very remarkable story of New York's Italian quarter,—in +fact, one of the best short stories ever written in America.</p> + +<p class="center"> +<i>Price, 10 cents</i><br /> +</p> + + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>Here's Luck to Lora<br /> +<small>AND<br /> +OTHER POEMS</small></h2> + +<p class="center">BY<br /> +<b>WILLIAM WALSTEIN GORDAK</b></p> + +<p>Mr. Gordak comes entirely unannounced, but his +verse speaks well for him. He is a natural poet who +writes evenly and melodiously of the beauties of nature +and the daintier side of love. Nothing in his little book +is cheap. His muse has a lofty flight, and his teachings +uplift.—<i>Oregonian</i>, Portland, Ore.</p> + +<p class="center"> +<i>PRICE, ONE DOLLAR</i><br /> +</p> + + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>The Anarchists</h2> + +<p class="center">A Picture of Civilization at the Close +of the Nineteenth Century</p> + +<p class="center">BY<br /> +<b>JOHN HENRY MACKAY</b></p> + +<p class="center"><i>Translated from the German by</i><br /> +GEORGE SCHUMM</p> + +<h4>PRESS COMMENTS</h4> + +<p><i>New York Morning Journal.</i>—"'The Anarchists' is one of +the very few books that have a right to live. For insight into +life and manners, for dramatic strength, for incisiveness of +phrase, and for cold, pitiless logic, no book of this generation +equals it."</p> + +<p><i>St. Louis Republic.</i>—"The book is a prose poem."</p> + +<p class="center"> +<i>Cloth, One Dollar; Paper, Fifty cents</i><br /> +</p> + + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>JOSIAH WARREN</h2> +<h4>The First American Anarchist</h4> + +<p class="center">A Biography, with portrait</p> + +<p class="center">BY<br /> +<b>WILLIAM BAILIE</b></p> + +<p>The biography is preceded by an essay on "The +Anarchist Spirit," in which Mr. Bailie defines Anarchist +belief in relation to other social forces.</p> + +<p class="center"> +<i>Price, One Dollar</i><br /> +</p> + + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>The Philosophy of Egoism</h2> + +<p class="center">BY<br /> +<b>JAMES L. WALKER</b></p> + +<p class="center">(Tak Kak)</p> + +<p class="center"> +My nose I've used for smelling, and I've blown it:<br /> +But how to prove the <small>RIGHT</small> by which I own it?<br /> +</p> + +<p class="author"><span class="smcap">Schiller</span>, <i>freely translated</i></p> + +<p>"No more concise exposition of the philosophy of Egoism +has ever been given to the world. In this book Duty, Conscience, +Moralism, Right, and all the fetiches and superstitions +which have infested the human intellect since man ceased to +walk on four feet, are annihilated, swept away, relegated to +the rubbish heap of the waste of human intelligence that has +gone on through the progress of the race from its infancy."—<i>Liberty.</i></p> + +<p class="center"> +<i>Cloth, 75 cents; Paper, 35 cents</i><br /> +</p> + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>Slaves to Duty</h2> + +<p class="center">BY<br /> +<b>JOHN BADCOCK, JR.</b></p> + +<p>Assailing the morality superstition as the foundation of the +various schemes for the exploitation of mankind. Max Stirner +himself does not expound the doctrine of Egoism in bolder +fashion.</p> + +<p class="center"> +<i>Price, 5 cents</i><br /> +</p> + + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>State Socialism<br /> +<small>AND<br /> +Anarchism</small></h2> + +<p class="center"><i>How Far They Agree and Wherein They Differ</i></p> + +<p class="center">BY<br /> +<b>BENJ. R. TUCKER</b></p> + +<p>The opening chapter of "Instead of a Book," reprinted +separately. The best pamphlet with which +to meet the demand for a compact exposition of +Anarchism.</p> + +<p class="center"> +<i>Price, 5 cents</i><br /> +</p> + + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>The Attitude of Anarchism<br /> +<small>TOWARD<br /> +Industrial Combinations</small></h2> + +<p class="center">BY<br /> +<b>BENJ. R. TUCKER</b></p> + +<p>An address delivered in Central Music Hall, Chicago, on +September 14, 1899, before the Conference on Trusts held under +the auspices of the Civic Federation.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Chicago Chronicle.</i>—"The speech which roused the most intense +degree of enthusiasm and called forth the greatest applause at +yesterday's sessions of the trust conference fell in rounded periods +and with polished utterance from the lips of a professed Anarchist."</p> + +<p><i>Prof. Edward W. Bemis in the New York Journal.</i>—"Benj. R. +Tucker, the famous Anarchist writer, gave the most brilliant literary +effort of the conference thus far."</p> + +<p><i>Prof. John R. Commons in the Chicago Tribune.</i>—"The most +brilliant piece of pure logic that has yet been heard. It probably +cannot be equaled. It was a marvel of audacity and cogency. The +prolonged applause which followed was a magnificent tribute to pure +intellect. That the undiluted doctrines of Anarchism should so +transport a great gathering of all classes here in Chicago would not +have been predicted."</p></div> + +<p class="center"> +<i>Price, 5 cents</i><br /> +</p> + + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>MUTUAL BANKING</h2> + +<p class="center">BY<br /> +<b>WILLIAM B. GREENE</b></p> + +<p>Showing the radical deficiency of the existing +circulating medium, and the advantages of a free +currency; a plan whereby to abolish interest, not by +State intervention, but by first abolishing State intervention +itself.</p> + +<p>A new edition, <i>from new plates</i>, of one of the +most important works on finance in the English language, +and presenting, for the first time, a portrait +of the author.</p> + +<p class="center"> +<i>Price, 10 cents</i><br /> +</p> + + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><small><i>CHARLES A. DANA'S</i></small><br /> +<i>PLEA FOR ANARCHY</i></h2> + +<p class="center">Proudhon<br /> +and<br /> +His "Bank of the People"</p> + +<p class="center">BY<br /> +<b>CHARLES A. DANA</b></p> + +<p>A defence of the great French Anarchist; showing the evils +of a specie currency, and that interest on capital can and +ought to be abolished by a system of free and mutual banking.</p> + +<p>The series of newspaper articles composing this pamphlet +appeared originally in the New York "Tribune," of which Mr. +Dana was then managing editor, and a little later in "The +Spirit of the Age," a weekly paper published in New York in +1849 by Fowlers & Wells and edited by Rev. William Henry +Channing. Editor Channing accompanied the publication of the +series by a foot-note, in which he stated that the articles had +already appeared in the "Tribune," but that "Mr. Dana, judging +them worthy of being preserved in a form convenient for +binding, has consented to revise them for our paper."</p> + +<p class="center"> +<i>Price, 5 cents; in leatherette, 10 cents</i><br /> +</p> + + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>The Ballad of Reading Gaol</h2> + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap">By</span> C. 3. 3<br /> +<b>[OSCAR WILDE]</b></p> + +<p>A poem of more than 600 lines, dedicated to the memory of a +trooper of the Horse Guards who was hanged in Reading Gaol +during the poet's confinement there. An English classic.</p> + +<p class="center"> +<i>Cloth, One Dollar; Paper, Ten Cents</i><br /> +</p> + +<p>The cloth edition has covers of blue and vellum, and is beautifully +printed from large type on hand-made antique deckle-edge +paper. It is a sumptuous book of 96 pages, and should be in every +library.</p> + +<h4><i>PRESS COMMENTS</i></h4> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Albany Press.</i>—"Strong writing, almost too strong; it is horrible, +gruesome, uncanny, and yet most fascinating and highly +ethical.... One of the greatest poems of the century, a permanent +addition to English literature.... It is the best +Lenten and Easter sermon of the year."</p> + +<p><i>Brooklyn Citizen.</i>—"Many of the stanzas are cries out of the +lowest hell. The poem, indeed, takes rank with the most extraordinary +psychological phenomena of this or any time."</p> + +<p><i>Indianapolis Journal.</i>—"The work is one of singular power, +holding the reader fascinated to the last line. Nothing approaching +it in strength has been produced in recent years."</p> + +<p><i>Philadelphia Conservator.</i>—"People who imagine themselves +superior to the prisoners in jails should read this poem. People +who love invasive laws should read this poem. People who think +existing governmental methods of meeting social invasion civilized +should read this poem. People who do not know that laws may +make as well as punish crime should read this poem. In fact, +everybody should read this poem. For somewhere it touches everybody, +accuses everybody, appeals to everybody."</p></div> + + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>God and the State</h2> + +<p class="center">BY<br /> +<b>MICHAEL BAKOUNINE</b></p> + +<p class="center">TRANSLATED FROM THE FRENCH BY<br /> +BENJ. R. TUCKER</p> + +<p>"One of the most eloquent pleas for liberty ever +written. Paine's 'Age of Reason' and 'Rights of Man' +consolidated and improved. It stirs the pulse like a +trumpet-call."—<i>The Truth Seeker.</i></p> + +<p class="center"> +<i>Price, 15 Cents</i><br /> +</p> + + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>Free Political Institutions</h2> +<p class="center"><i>Their Nature, Essence, and Maintenance</i></p> + +<p class="center">AN ABRIDGMENT AND REARRANGEMENT OF<br /> +LYSANDER SPOONER'S "TRIAL BY JURY"</p> + +<p class="center">EDITED BY<br /> +VICTOR YARROS</p> + +<p class="center"><i>One of the most important works in the propaganda +of Anarchism</i></p> + +<h4>CHAPTERS</h4> + +<p>I.—Legitimate Government and Majority Rule. II.—Trial by +Jury as a Palladium of Liberty. III.—Trial by Jury as Defined by +Magna Carta. IV.—Objections Answered. V.—The Criminal Intent. +VI.—Moral Considerations for Jurors. VII.—Free Administration +of Justice. VIII.—Juries of the Present Day Illegal.</p> + +<p class="center"> +<i>Price, 15 cents</i><br /> +</p> + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>A Blow at Trial by Jury</h2> + +<p class="center">BY<br /> +<b>BENJ. R. TUCKER</b></p> + +<p>An examination of the special jury law passed by the New York +legislature in 1896. A speech delivered by the editor of Liberty at +a mass meeting held in Cooper Union, New York, June 25, 1897, +under the auspices of the Central Labor Union, Typographical +Union No. 6, and other labor organizations. Distribution of this +pamphlet among lawyers and legislators will tend indirectly to +interest them in Anarchism.</p> + +<p class="center"> +<i>Price, 5 cents</i><br /> +</p> + + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>Instead of a Book</h2> + +<p class="center">BY A MAN TOO BUSY TO WRITE ONE<br /> +<br /> +A FRAGMENTARY EXPOSITION OF<br /> + +PHILOSOPHICAL ANARCHISM</p> + +<p class="center"><i>Culled from the writings of</i><br /> + +<b>BENJ. R. TUCKER</b><br /> + +EDITOR OF LIBERTY</p> + +<p class="center"><i>With a Full-Page Half-Tone Portrait of the Author</i></p> + +<p>A large, well-printed, and excessively cheap volume of 524 +pages, consisting of articles selected from Liberty and classified +under the following headings: (1) State Socialism and +Anarchism: How Far They Agree, and Wherein They Differ; +(2) The Individual, Society, and the State; (3) Money and +Interest; (4) Land and Rent; (5) Socialism; (6) Communism; +(7) Methods; (8) Miscellaneous. The whole elaborately indexed.</p> + +<p class="center"><i>Cloth, One Dollar; Paper, Fifty cents</i></p> + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h4>MAILED, POST-PAID, BY</h4> + +<h3>BENJ. R. TUCKER, P. O. Box 1312, <span class="smcap">New York City</span>.</h3> + + +<hr style="width: 100%;" /> + + +<div class="trans_notes"> +<h4>TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES</h4> + +<p><a name="typos" id="typos"></a>The following misprints have been corrected:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p> + <a href="#p7">"p." corrected to "p. 7,"</a> (page 96)<br /> + <a href="#aristotocratic">"aristotocratic" corrected to "aristocratic"</a> (page 143)<br /> + <a href="#woful">"woful" corrected to "woeful"</a> (page 222)<br /> + <a href="#peoplet">"peoplet" corrected to "people"</a> (page 277)<br /> + <a href="#Footnote_20_20">"heiling" corrected to "heilig"</a> (footnote 20)<br /> +</p></div> + +<p>Other than the corrections listed above, printer's inconsistencies +in spelling, punctuation, hyphenation, and ligature usage have been +retained.</p> +</div> + +<div style='text-align:center'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE EGO AND HIS OWN ***</div> +</body> +</html> |