summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/old/34580-h.htm
blob: e7adf980d979329b4514e06635665553f2bd5ab7 (plain) 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
2087
2088
2089
2090
2091
2092
2093
2094
2095
2096
2097
2098
2099
2100
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2184
2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
2204
2205
2206
2207
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
2217
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222
2223
2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
2301
2302
2303
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
2328
2329
2330
2331
2332
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
2352
2353
2354
2355
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364
2365
2366
2367
2368
2369
2370
2371
2372
2373
2374
2375
2376
2377
2378
2379
2380
2381
2382
2383
2384
2385
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395
2396
2397
2398
2399
2400
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
2415
2416
2417
2418
2419
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425
2426
2427
2428
2429
2430
2431
2432
2433
2434
2435
2436
2437
2438
2439
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
2445
2446
2447
2448
2449
2450
2451
2452
2453
2454
2455
2456
2457
2458
2459
2460
2461
2462
2463
2464
2465
2466
2467
2468
2469
2470
2471
2472
2473
2474
2475
2476
2477
2478
2479
2480
2481
2482
2483
2484
2485
2486
2487
2488
2489
2490
2491
2492
2493
2494
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
2500
2501
2502
2503
2504
2505
2506
2507
2508
2509
2510
2511
2512
2513
2514
2515
2516
2517
2518
2519
2520
2521
2522
2523
2524
2525
2526
2527
2528
2529
2530
2531
2532
2533
2534
2535
2536
2537
2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
2543
2544
2545
2546
2547
2548
2549
2550
2551
2552
2553
2554
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
2560
2561
2562
2563
2564
2565
2566
2567
2568
2569
2570
2571
2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
2581
2582
2583
2584
2585
2586
2587
2588
2589
2590
2591
2592
2593
2594
2595
2596
2597
2598
2599
2600
2601
2602
2603
2604
2605
2606
2607
2608
2609
2610
2611
2612
2613
2614
2615
2616
2617
2618
2619
2620
2621
2622
2623
2624
2625
2626
2627
2628
2629
2630
2631
2632
2633
2634
2635
2636
2637
2638
2639
2640
2641
2642
2643
2644
2645
2646
2647
2648
2649
2650
2651
2652
2653
2654
2655
2656
2657
2658
2659
2660
2661
2662
2663
2664
2665
2666
2667
2668
2669
2670
2671
2672
2673
2674
2675
2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681
2682
2683
2684
2685
2686
2687
2688
2689
2690
2691
2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2697
2698
2699
2700
2701
2702
2703
2704
2705
2706
2707
2708
2709
2710
2711
2712
2713
2714
2715
2716
2717
2718
2719
2720
2721
2722
2723
2724
2725
2726
2727
2728
2729
2730
2731
2732
2733
2734
2735
2736
2737
2738
2739
2740
2741
2742
2743
2744
2745
2746
2747
2748
2749
2750
2751
2752
2753
2754
2755
2756
2757
2758
2759
2760
2761
2762
2763
2764
2765
2766
2767
2768
2769
2770
2771
2772
2773
2774
2775
2776
2777
2778
2779
2780
2781
2782
2783
2784
2785
2786
2787
2788
2789
2790
2791
2792
2793
2794
2795
2796
2797
2798
2799
2800
2801
2802
2803
2804
2805
2806
2807
2808
2809
2810
2811
2812
2813
2814
2815
2816
2817
2818
2819
2820
2821
2822
2823
2824
2825
2826
2827
2828
2829
2830
2831
2832
2833
2834
2835
2836
2837
2838
2839
2840
2841
2842
2843
2844
2845
2846
2847
2848
2849
2850
2851
2852
2853
2854
2855
2856
2857
2858
2859
2860
2861
2862
2863
2864
2865
2866
2867
2868
2869
2870
2871
2872
2873
2874
2875
2876
2877
2878
2879
2880
2881
2882
2883
2884
2885
2886
2887
2888
2889
2890
2891
2892
2893
2894
2895
2896
2897
2898
2899
2900
2901
2902
2903
2904
2905
2906
2907
2908
2909
2910
2911
2912
2913
2914
2915
2916
2917
2918
2919
2920
2921
2922
2923
2924
2925
2926
2927
2928
2929
2930
2931
2932
2933
2934
2935
2936
2937
2938
2939
2940
2941
2942
2943
2944
2945
2946
2947
2948
2949
2950
2951
2952
2953
2954
2955
2956
2957
2958
2959
2960
2961
2962
2963
2964
2965
2966
2967
2968
2969
2970
2971
2972
2973
2974
2975
2976
2977
2978
2979
2980
2981
2982
2983
2984
2985
2986
2987
2988
2989
2990
2991
2992
2993
2994
2995
2996
2997
2998
2999
3000
3001
3002
3003
3004
3005
3006
3007
3008
3009
3010
3011
3012
3013
3014
3015
3016
3017
3018
3019
3020
3021
3022
3023
3024
3025
3026
3027
3028
3029
3030
3031
3032
3033
3034
3035
3036
3037
3038
3039
3040
3041
3042
3043
3044
3045
3046
3047
3048
3049
3050
3051
3052
3053
3054
3055
3056
3057
3058
3059
3060
3061
3062
3063
3064
3065
3066
3067
3068
3069
3070
3071
3072
3073
3074
3075
3076
3077
3078
3079
3080
3081
3082
3083
3084
3085
3086
3087
3088
3089
3090
3091
3092
3093
3094
3095
3096
3097
3098
3099
3100
3101
3102
3103
3104
3105
3106
3107
3108
3109
3110
3111
3112
3113
3114
3115
3116
3117
3118
3119
3120
3121
3122
3123
3124
3125
3126
3127
3128
3129
3130
3131
3132
3133
3134
3135
3136
3137
3138
3139
3140
3141
3142
3143
3144
3145
3146
3147
3148
3149
3150
3151
3152
3153
3154
3155
3156
3157
3158
3159
3160
3161
3162
3163
3164
3165
3166
3167
3168
3169
3170
3171
3172
3173
3174
3175
3176
3177
3178
3179
3180
3181
3182
3183
3184
3185
3186
3187
3188
3189
3190
3191
3192
3193
3194
3195
3196
3197
3198
3199
3200
3201
3202
3203
3204
3205
3206
3207
3208
3209
3210
3211
3212
3213
3214
3215
3216
3217
3218
3219
3220
3221
3222
3223
3224
3225
3226
3227
3228
3229
3230
3231
3232
3233
3234
3235
3236
3237
3238
3239
3240
3241
3242
3243
3244
3245
3246
3247
3248
3249
3250
3251
3252
3253
3254
3255
3256
3257
3258
3259
3260
3261
3262
3263
3264
3265
3266
3267
3268
3269
3270
3271
3272
3273
3274
3275
3276
3277
3278
3279
3280
3281
3282
3283
3284
3285
3286
3287
3288
3289
3290
3291
3292
3293
3294
3295
3296
3297
3298
3299
3300
3301
3302
3303
3304
3305
3306
3307
3308
3309
3310
3311
3312
3313
3314
3315
3316
3317
3318
3319
3320
3321
3322
3323
3324
3325
3326
3327
3328
3329
3330
3331
3332
3333
3334
3335
3336
3337
3338
3339
3340
3341
3342
3343
3344
3345
3346
3347
3348
3349
3350
3351
3352
3353
3354
3355
3356
3357
3358
3359
3360
3361
3362
3363
3364
3365
3366
3367
3368
3369
3370
3371
3372
3373
3374
3375
3376
3377
3378
3379
3380
3381
3382
3383
3384
3385
3386
3387
3388
3389
3390
3391
3392
3393
3394
3395
3396
3397
3398
3399
3400
3401
3402
3403
3404
3405
3406
3407
3408
3409
3410
3411
3412
3413
3414
3415
3416
3417
3418
3419
3420
3421
3422
3423
3424
3425
3426
3427
3428
3429
3430
3431
3432
3433
3434
3435
3436
3437
3438
3439
3440
3441
3442
3443
3444
3445
3446
3447
3448
3449
3450
3451
3452
3453
3454
3455
3456
3457
3458
3459
3460
3461
3462
3463
3464
3465
3466
3467
3468
3469
3470
3471
3472
3473
3474
3475
3476
3477
3478
3479
3480
3481
3482
3483
3484
3485
3486
3487
3488
3489
3490
3491
3492
3493
3494
3495
3496
3497
3498
3499
3500
3501
3502
3503
3504
3505
3506
3507
3508
3509
3510
3511
3512
3513
3514
3515
3516
3517
3518
3519
3520
3521
3522
3523
3524
3525
3526
3527
3528
3529
3530
3531
3532
3533
3534
3535
3536
3537
3538
3539
3540
3541
3542
3543
3544
3545
3546
3547
3548
3549
3550
3551
3552
3553
3554
3555
3556
3557
3558
3559
3560
3561
3562
3563
3564
3565
3566
3567
3568
3569
3570
3571
3572
3573
3574
3575
3576
3577
3578
3579
3580
3581
3582
3583
3584
3585
3586
3587
3588
3589
3590
3591
3592
3593
3594
3595
3596
3597
3598
3599
3600
3601
3602
3603
3604
3605
3606
3607
3608
3609
3610
3611
3612
3613
3614
3615
3616
3617
3618
3619
3620
3621
3622
3623
3624
3625
3626
3627
3628
3629
3630
3631
3632
3633
3634
3635
3636
3637
3638
3639
3640
3641
3642
3643
3644
3645
3646
3647
3648
3649
3650
3651
3652
3653
3654
3655
3656
3657
3658
3659
3660
3661
3662
3663
3664
3665
3666
3667
3668
3669
3670
3671
3672
3673
3674
3675
3676
3677
3678
3679
3680
3681
3682
3683
3684
3685
3686
3687
3688
3689
3690
3691
3692
3693
3694
3695
3696
3697
3698
3699
3700
3701
3702
3703
3704
3705
3706
3707
3708
3709
3710
3711
3712
3713
3714
3715
3716
3717
3718
3719
3720
3721
3722
3723
3724
3725
3726
3727
3728
3729
3730
3731
3732
3733
3734
3735
3736
3737
3738
3739
3740
3741
3742
3743
3744
3745
3746
3747
3748
3749
3750
3751
3752
3753
3754
3755
3756
3757
3758
3759
3760
3761
3762
3763
3764
3765
3766
3767
3768
3769
3770
3771
3772
3773
3774
3775
3776
3777
3778
3779
3780
3781
3782
3783
3784
3785
3786
3787
3788
3789
3790
3791
3792
3793
3794
3795
3796
3797
3798
3799
3800
3801
3802
3803
3804
3805
3806
3807
3808
3809
3810
3811
3812
3813
3814
3815
3816
3817
3818
3819
3820
3821
3822
3823
3824
3825
3826
3827
3828
3829
3830
3831
3832
3833
3834
3835
3836
3837
3838
3839
3840
3841
3842
3843
3844
3845
3846
3847
3848
3849
3850
3851
3852
3853
3854
3855
3856
3857
3858
3859
3860
3861
3862
3863
3864
3865
3866
3867
3868
3869
3870
3871
3872
3873
3874
3875
3876
3877
3878
3879
3880
3881
3882
3883
3884
3885
3886
3887
3888
3889
3890
3891
3892
3893
3894
3895
3896
3897
3898
3899
3900
3901
3902
3903
3904
3905
3906
3907
3908
3909
3910
3911
3912
3913
3914
3915
3916
3917
3918
3919
3920
3921
3922
3923
3924
3925
3926
3927
3928
3929
3930
3931
3932
3933
3934
3935
3936
3937
3938
3939
3940
3941
3942
3943
3944
3945
3946
3947
3948
3949
3950
3951
3952
3953
3954
3955
3956
3957
3958
3959
3960
3961
3962
3963
3964
3965
3966
3967
3968
3969
3970
3971
3972
3973
3974
3975
3976
3977
3978
3979
3980
3981
3982
3983
3984
3985
3986
3987
3988
3989
3990
3991
3992
3993
3994
3995
3996
3997
3998
3999
4000
4001
4002
4003
4004
4005
4006
4007
4008
4009
4010
4011
4012
4013
4014
4015
4016
4017
4018
4019
4020
4021
4022
4023
4024
4025
4026
4027
4028
4029
4030
4031
4032
4033
4034
4035
4036
4037
4038
4039
4040
4041
4042
4043
4044
4045
4046
4047
4048
4049
4050
4051
4052
4053
4054
4055
4056
4057
4058
4059
4060
4061
4062
4063
4064
4065
4066
4067
4068
4069
4070
4071
4072
4073
4074
4075
4076
4077
4078
4079
4080
4081
4082
4083
4084
4085
4086
4087
4088
4089
4090
4091
4092
4093
4094
4095
4096
4097
4098
4099
4100
4101
4102
4103
4104
4105
4106
4107
4108
4109
4110
4111
4112
4113
4114
4115
4116
4117
4118
4119
4120
4121
4122
4123
4124
4125
4126
4127
4128
4129
4130
4131
4132
4133
4134
4135
4136
4137
4138
4139
4140
4141
4142
4143
4144
4145
4146
4147
4148
4149
4150
4151
4152
4153
4154
4155
4156
4157
4158
4159
4160
4161
4162
4163
4164
4165
4166
4167
4168
4169
4170
4171
4172
4173
4174
4175
4176
4177
4178
4179
4180
4181
4182
4183
4184
4185
4186
4187
4188
4189
4190
4191
4192
4193
4194
4195
4196
4197
4198
4199
4200
4201
4202
4203
4204
4205
4206
4207
4208
4209
4210
4211
4212
4213
4214
4215
4216
4217
4218
4219
4220
4221
4222
4223
4224
4225
4226
4227
4228
4229
4230
4231
4232
4233
4234
4235
4236
4237
4238
4239
4240
4241
4242
4243
4244
4245
4246
4247
4248
4249
4250
4251
4252
4253
4254
4255
4256
4257
4258
4259
4260
4261
4262
4263
4264
4265
4266
4267
4268
4269
4270
4271
4272
4273
4274
4275
4276
4277
4278
4279
4280
4281
4282
4283
4284
4285
4286
4287
4288
4289
4290
4291
4292
4293
4294
4295
4296
4297
4298
4299
4300
4301
4302
4303
4304
4305
4306
4307
4308
4309
4310
4311
4312
4313
4314
4315
4316
4317
4318
4319
4320
4321
4322
4323
4324
4325
4326
4327
4328
4329
4330
4331
4332
4333
4334
4335
4336
4337
4338
4339
4340
4341
4342
4343
4344
4345
4346
4347
4348
4349
4350
4351
4352
4353
4354
4355
4356
4357
4358
4359
4360
4361
4362
4363
4364
4365
4366
4367
4368
4369
4370
4371
4372
4373
4374
4375
4376
4377
4378
4379
4380
4381
4382
4383
4384
4385
4386
4387
4388
4389
4390
4391
4392
4393
4394
4395
4396
4397
4398
4399
4400
4401
4402
4403
4404
4405
4406
4407
4408
4409
4410
4411
4412
4413
4414
4415
4416
4417
4418
4419
4420
4421
4422
4423
4424
4425
4426
4427
4428
4429
4430
4431
4432
4433
4434
4435
4436
4437
4438
4439
4440
4441
4442
4443
4444
4445
4446
4447
4448
4449
4450
4451
4452
4453
4454
4455
4456
4457
4458
4459
4460
4461
4462
4463
4464
4465
4466
4467
4468
4469
4470
4471
4472
4473
4474
4475
4476
4477
4478
4479
4480
4481
4482
4483
4484
4485
4486
4487
4488
4489
4490
4491
4492
4493
4494
4495
4496
4497
4498
4499
4500
4501
4502
4503
4504
4505
4506
4507
4508
4509
4510
4511
4512
4513
4514
4515
4516
4517
4518
4519
4520
4521
4522
4523
4524
4525
4526
4527
4528
4529
4530
4531
4532
4533
4534
4535
4536
4537
4538
4539
4540
4541
4542
4543
4544
4545
4546
4547
4548
4549
4550
4551
4552
4553
4554
4555
4556
4557
4558
4559
4560
4561
4562
4563
4564
4565
4566
4567
4568
4569
4570
4571
4572
4573
4574
4575
4576
4577
4578
4579
4580
4581
4582
4583
4584
4585
4586
4587
4588
4589
4590
4591
4592
4593
4594
4595
4596
4597
4598
4599
4600
4601
4602
4603
4604
4605
4606
4607
4608
4609
4610
4611
4612
4613
4614
4615
4616
4617
4618
4619
4620
4621
4622
4623
4624
4625
4626
4627
4628
4629
4630
4631
4632
4633
4634
4635
4636
4637
4638
4639
4640
4641
4642
4643
4644
4645
4646
4647
4648
4649
4650
4651
4652
4653
4654
4655
4656
4657
4658
4659
4660
4661
4662
4663
4664
4665
4666
4667
4668
4669
4670
4671
4672
4673
4674
4675
4676
4677
4678
4679
4680
4681
4682
4683
4684
4685
4686
4687
4688
4689
4690
4691
4692
4693
4694
4695
4696
4697
4698
4699
4700
4701
4702
4703
4704
4705
4706
4707
4708
4709
4710
4711
4712
4713
4714
4715
4716
4717
4718
4719
4720
4721
4722
4723
4724
4725
4726
4727
4728
4729
4730
4731
4732
4733
4734
4735
4736
4737
4738
4739
4740
4741
4742
4743
4744
4745
4746
4747
4748
4749
4750
4751
4752
4753
4754
4755
4756
4757
4758
4759
4760
4761
4762
4763
4764
4765
4766
4767
4768
4769
4770
4771
4772
4773
4774
4775
4776
4777
4778
4779
4780
4781
4782
4783
4784
4785
4786
4787
4788
4789
4790
4791
4792
4793
4794
4795
4796
4797
4798
4799
4800
4801
4802
4803
4804
4805
4806
4807
4808
4809
4810
4811
4812
4813
4814
4815
4816
4817
4818
4819
4820
4821
4822
4823
4824
4825
4826
4827
4828
4829
4830
4831
4832
4833
4834
4835
4836
4837
4838
4839
4840
4841
4842
4843
4844
4845
4846
4847
4848
4849
4850
4851
4852
4853
4854
4855
4856
4857
4858
4859
4860
4861
4862
4863
4864
4865
4866
4867
4868
4869
4870
4871
4872
4873
4874
4875
4876
4877
4878
4879
4880
4881
4882
4883
4884
4885
4886
4887
4888
4889
4890
4891
4892
4893
4894
4895
4896
4897
4898
4899
4900
4901
4902
4903
4904
4905
4906
4907
4908
4909
4910
4911
4912
4913
4914
4915
4916
4917
4918
4919
4920
4921
4922
4923
4924
4925
4926
4927
4928
4929
4930
4931
4932
4933
4934
4935
4936
4937
4938
4939
4940
4941
4942
4943
4944
4945
4946
4947
4948
4949
4950
4951
4952
4953
4954
4955
4956
4957
4958
4959
4960
4961
4962
4963
4964
4965
4966
4967
4968
4969
4970
4971
4972
4973
4974
4975
4976
4977
4978
4979
4980
4981
4982
4983
4984
4985
4986
4987
4988
4989
4990
4991
4992
4993
4994
4995
4996
4997
4998
4999
5000
5001
5002
5003
5004
5005
5006
5007
5008
5009
5010
5011
5012
5013
5014
5015
5016
5017
5018
5019
5020
5021
5022
5023
5024
5025
5026
5027
5028
5029
5030
5031
5032
5033
5034
5035
5036
5037
5038
5039
5040
5041
5042
5043
5044
5045
5046
5047
5048
5049
5050
5051
5052
5053
5054
5055
5056
5057
5058
5059
5060
5061
5062
5063
5064
5065
5066
5067
5068
5069
5070
5071
5072
5073
5074
5075
5076
5077
5078
5079
5080
5081
5082
5083
5084
5085
5086
5087
5088
5089
5090
5091
5092
5093
5094
5095
5096
5097
5098
5099
5100
5101
5102
5103
5104
5105
5106
5107
5108
5109
5110
5111
5112
5113
5114
5115
5116
5117
5118
5119
5120
5121
5122
5123
5124
5125
5126
5127
5128
5129
5130
5131
5132
5133
5134
5135
5136
5137
5138
5139
5140
5141
5142
5143
5144
5145
5146
5147
5148
5149
5150
5151
5152
5153
5154
5155
5156
5157
5158
5159
5160
5161
5162
5163
5164
5165
5166
5167
5168
5169
5170
5171
5172
5173
5174
5175
5176
5177
5178
5179
5180
5181
5182
5183
5184
5185
5186
5187
5188
5189
5190
5191
5192
5193
5194
5195
5196
5197
5198
5199
5200
5201
5202
5203
5204
5205
5206
5207
5208
5209
5210
5211
5212
5213
5214
5215
5216
5217
5218
5219
5220
5221
5222
5223
5224
5225
5226
5227
5228
5229
5230
5231
5232
5233
5234
5235
5236
5237
5238
5239
5240
5241
5242
5243
5244
5245
5246
5247
5248
5249
5250
5251
5252
5253
5254
5255
5256
5257
5258
5259
5260
5261
5262
5263
5264
5265
5266
5267
5268
5269
5270
5271
5272
5273
5274
5275
5276
5277
5278
5279
5280
5281
5282
5283
5284
5285
5286
5287
5288
5289
5290
5291
5292
5293
5294
5295
5296
5297
5298
5299
5300
5301
5302
5303
5304
5305
5306
5307
5308
5309
5310
5311
5312
5313
5314
5315
5316
5317
5318
5319
5320
5321
5322
5323
5324
5325
5326
5327
5328
5329
5330
5331
5332
5333
5334
5335
5336
5337
5338
5339
5340
5341
5342
5343
5344
5345
5346
5347
5348
5349
5350
5351
5352
5353
5354
5355
5356
5357
5358
5359
5360
5361
5362
5363
5364
5365
5366
5367
5368
5369
5370
5371
5372
5373
5374
5375
5376
5377
5378
5379
5380
5381
5382
5383
5384
5385
5386
5387
5388
5389
5390
5391
5392
5393
5394
5395
5396
5397
5398
5399
5400
5401
5402
5403
5404
5405
5406
5407
5408
5409
5410
5411
5412
5413
5414
5415
5416
5417
5418
5419
5420
5421
5422
5423
5424
5425
5426
5427
5428
5429
5430
5431
5432
5433
5434
5435
5436
5437
5438
5439
5440
5441
5442
5443
5444
5445
5446
5447
5448
5449
5450
5451
5452
5453
5454
5455
5456
5457
5458
5459
5460
5461
5462
5463
5464
5465
5466
5467
5468
5469
5470
5471
5472
5473
5474
5475
5476
5477
5478
5479
5480
5481
5482
5483
5484
5485
5486
5487
5488
5489
5490
5491
5492
5493
5494
5495
5496
5497
5498
5499
5500
5501
5502
5503
5504
5505
5506
5507
5508
5509
5510
5511
5512
5513
5514
5515
5516
5517
5518
5519
5520
5521
5522
5523
5524
5525
5526
5527
5528
5529
5530
5531
5532
5533
5534
5535
5536
5537
5538
5539
5540
5541
5542
5543
5544
5545
5546
5547
5548
5549
5550
5551
5552
5553
5554
5555
5556
5557
5558
5559
5560
5561
5562
5563
5564
5565
5566
5567
5568
5569
5570
5571
5572
5573
5574
5575
5576
5577
5578
5579
5580
5581
5582
5583
5584
5585
5586
5587
5588
5589
5590
5591
5592
5593
5594
5595
5596
5597
5598
5599
5600
5601
5602
5603
5604
5605
5606
5607
5608
5609
5610
5611
5612
5613
5614
5615
5616
5617
5618
5619
5620
5621
5622
5623
5624
5625
5626
5627
5628
5629
5630
5631
5632
5633
5634
5635
5636
5637
5638
5639
5640
5641
5642
5643
5644
5645
5646
5647
5648
5649
5650
5651
5652
5653
5654
5655
5656
5657
5658
5659
5660
5661
5662
5663
5664
5665
5666
5667
5668
5669
5670
5671
5672
5673
5674
5675
5676
5677
5678
5679
5680
5681
5682
5683
5684
5685
5686
5687
5688
5689
5690
5691
5692
5693
5694
5695
5696
5697
5698
5699
5700
5701
5702
5703
5704
5705
5706
5707
5708
5709
5710
5711
5712
5713
5714
5715
5716
5717
5718
5719
5720
5721
5722
5723
5724
5725
5726
5727
5728
5729
5730
5731
5732
5733
5734
5735
5736
5737
5738
5739
5740
5741
5742
5743
5744
5745
5746
5747
5748
5749
5750
5751
5752
5753
5754
5755
5756
5757
5758
5759
5760
5761
5762
5763
5764
5765
5766
5767
5768
5769
5770
5771
5772
5773
5774
5775
5776
5777
5778
5779
5780
5781
5782
5783
5784
5785
5786
5787
5788
5789
5790
5791
5792
5793
5794
5795
5796
5797
5798
5799
5800
5801
5802
5803
5804
5805
5806
5807
5808
5809
5810
5811
5812
5813
5814
5815
5816
5817
5818
5819
5820
5821
5822
5823
5824
5825
5826
5827
5828
5829
5830
5831
5832
5833
5834
5835
5836
5837
5838
5839
5840
5841
5842
5843
5844
5845
5846
5847
5848
5849
5850
5851
5852
5853
5854
5855
5856
5857
5858
5859
5860
5861
5862
5863
5864
5865
5866
5867
5868
5869
5870
5871
5872
5873
5874
5875
5876
5877
5878
5879
5880
5881
5882
5883
5884
5885
5886
5887
5888
5889
5890
5891
5892
5893
5894
5895
5896
5897
5898
5899
5900
5901
5902
5903
5904
5905
5906
5907
5908
5909
5910
5911
5912
5913
5914
5915
5916
5917
5918
5919
5920
5921
5922
5923
5924
5925
5926
5927
5928
5929
5930
5931
5932
5933
5934
5935
5936
5937
5938
5939
5940
5941
5942
5943
5944
5945
5946
5947
5948
5949
5950
5951
5952
5953
5954
5955
5956
5957
5958
5959
5960
5961
5962
5963
5964
5965
5966
5967
5968
5969
5970
5971
5972
5973
5974
5975
5976
5977
5978
5979
5980
5981
5982
5983
5984
5985
5986
5987
5988
5989
5990
5991
5992
5993
5994
5995
5996
5997
5998
5999
6000
6001
6002
6003
6004
6005
6006
6007
6008
6009
6010
6011
6012
6013
6014
6015
6016
6017
6018
6019
6020
6021
6022
6023
6024
6025
6026
6027
6028
6029
6030
6031
6032
6033
6034
6035
6036
6037
6038
6039
6040
6041
6042
6043
6044
6045
6046
6047
6048
6049
6050
6051
6052
6053
6054
6055
6056
6057
6058
6059
6060
6061
6062
6063
6064
6065
6066
6067
6068
6069
6070
6071
6072
6073
6074
6075
6076
6077
6078
6079
6080
6081
6082
6083
6084
6085
6086
6087
6088
6089
6090
6091
6092
6093
6094
6095
6096
6097
6098
6099
6100
6101
6102
6103
6104
6105
6106
6107
6108
6109
6110
6111
6112
6113
6114
6115
6116
6117
6118
6119
6120
6121
6122
6123
6124
6125
6126
6127
6128
6129
6130
6131
6132
6133
6134
6135
6136
6137
6138
6139
6140
6141
6142
6143
6144
6145
6146
6147
6148
6149
6150
6151
6152
6153
6154
6155
6156
6157
6158
6159
6160
6161
6162
6163
6164
6165
6166
6167
6168
6169
6170
6171
6172
6173
6174
6175
6176
6177
6178
6179
6180
6181
6182
6183
6184
6185
6186
6187
6188
6189
6190
6191
6192
6193
6194
6195
6196
6197
6198
6199
6200
6201
6202
6203
6204
6205
6206
6207
6208
6209
6210
6211
6212
6213
6214
6215
6216
6217
6218
6219
6220
6221
6222
6223
6224
6225
6226
6227
6228
6229
6230
6231
6232
6233
6234
6235
6236
6237
6238
6239
6240
6241
6242
6243
6244
6245
6246
6247
6248
6249
6250
6251
6252
6253
6254
6255
6256
6257
6258
6259
6260
6261
6262
6263
6264
6265
6266
6267
6268
6269
6270
6271
6272
6273
6274
6275
6276
6277
6278
6279
6280
6281
6282
6283
6284
6285
6286
6287
6288
6289
6290
6291
6292
6293
6294
6295
6296
6297
6298
6299
6300
6301
6302
6303
6304
6305
6306
6307
6308
6309
6310
6311
6312
6313
6314
6315
6316
6317
6318
6319
6320
6321
6322
6323
6324
6325
6326
6327
6328
6329
6330
6331
6332
6333
6334
6335
6336
6337
6338
6339
6340
6341
6342
6343
6344
6345
6346
6347
6348
6349
6350
6351
6352
6353
6354
6355
6356
6357
6358
6359
6360
6361
6362
6363
6364
6365
6366
6367
6368
6369
6370
6371
6372
6373
6374
6375
6376
6377
6378
6379
6380
6381
6382
6383
6384
6385
6386
6387
6388
6389
6390
6391
6392
6393
6394
6395
6396
6397
6398
6399
6400
6401
6402
6403
6404
6405
6406
6407
6408
6409
6410
6411
6412
6413
6414
6415
6416
6417
6418
6419
6420
6421
6422
6423
6424
6425
6426
6427
6428
6429
6430
6431
6432
6433
6434
6435
6436
6437
6438
6439
6440
6441
6442
6443
6444
6445
6446
6447
6448
6449
6450
6451
6452
6453
6454
6455
6456
6457
6458
6459
6460
6461
6462
6463
6464
6465
6466
6467
6468
6469
6470
6471
6472
6473
6474
6475
6476
6477
6478
6479
6480
6481
6482
6483
6484
6485
6486
6487
6488
6489
6490
6491
6492
6493
6494
6495
6496
6497
6498
6499
6500
6501
6502
6503
6504
6505
6506
6507
6508
6509
6510
6511
6512
6513
6514
6515
6516
6517
6518
6519
6520
6521
6522
6523
6524
6525
6526
6527
6528
6529
6530
6531
6532
6533
6534
6535
6536
6537
6538
6539
6540
6541
6542
6543
6544
6545
6546
6547
6548
6549
6550
6551
6552
6553
6554
6555
6556
6557
6558
6559
6560
6561
6562
6563
6564
6565
6566
6567
6568
6569
6570
6571
6572
6573
6574
6575
6576
6577
6578
6579
6580
6581
6582
6583
6584
6585
6586
6587
6588
6589
6590
6591
6592
6593
6594
6595
6596
6597
6598
6599
6600
6601
6602
6603
6604
6605
6606
6607
6608
6609
6610
6611
6612
6613
6614
6615
6616
6617
6618
6619
6620
6621
6622
6623
6624
6625
6626
6627
6628
6629
6630
6631
6632
6633
6634
6635
6636
6637
6638
6639
6640
6641
6642
6643
6644
6645
6646
6647
6648
6649
6650
6651
6652
6653
6654
6655
6656
6657
6658
6659
6660
6661
6662
6663
6664
6665
6666
6667
6668
6669
6670
6671
6672
6673
6674
6675
6676
6677
6678
6679
6680
6681
6682
6683
6684
6685
6686
6687
6688
6689
6690
6691
6692
6693
6694
6695
6696
6697
6698
6699
6700
6701
6702
6703
6704
6705
6706
6707
6708
6709
6710
6711
6712
6713
6714
6715
6716
6717
6718
6719
6720
6721
6722
6723
6724
6725
6726
6727
6728
6729
6730
6731
6732
6733
6734
6735
6736
6737
6738
6739
6740
6741
6742
6743
6744
6745
6746
6747
6748
6749
6750
6751
6752
6753
6754
6755
6756
6757
6758
6759
6760
6761
6762
6763
6764
6765
6766
6767
6768
6769
6770
6771
6772
6773
6774
6775
6776
6777
6778
6779
6780
6781
6782
6783
6784
6785
6786
6787
6788
6789
6790
6791
6792
6793
6794
6795
6796
6797
6798
6799
6800
6801
6802
6803
6804
6805
6806
6807
6808
6809
6810
6811
6812
6813
6814
6815
6816
6817
6818
6819
6820
6821
6822
6823
6824
6825
6826
6827
6828
6829
6830
6831
6832
6833
6834
6835
6836
6837
6838
6839
6840
6841
6842
6843
6844
6845
6846
6847
6848
6849
6850
6851
6852
6853
6854
6855
6856
6857
6858
6859
6860
6861
6862
6863
6864
6865
6866
6867
6868
6869
6870
6871
6872
6873
6874
6875
6876
6877
6878
6879
6880
6881
6882
6883
6884
6885
6886
6887
6888
6889
6890
6891
6892
6893
6894
6895
6896
6897
6898
6899
6900
6901
6902
6903
6904
6905
6906
6907
6908
6909
6910
6911
6912
6913
6914
6915
6916
6917
6918
6919
6920
6921
6922
6923
6924
6925
6926
6927
6928
6929
6930
6931
6932
6933
6934
6935
6936
6937
6938
6939
6940
6941
6942
6943
6944
6945
6946
6947
6948
6949
6950
6951
6952
6953
6954
6955
6956
6957
6958
6959
6960
6961
6962
6963
6964
6965
6966
6967
6968
6969
6970
6971
6972
6973
6974
6975
6976
6977
6978
6979
6980
6981
6982
6983
6984
6985
6986
6987
6988
6989
6990
6991
6992
6993
6994
6995
6996
6997
6998
6999
7000
7001
7002
7003
7004
7005
7006
7007
7008
7009
7010
7011
7012
7013
7014
7015
7016
7017
7018
7019
7020
7021
7022
7023
7024
7025
7026
7027
7028
7029
7030
7031
7032
7033
7034
7035
7036
7037
7038
7039
7040
7041
7042
7043
7044
7045
7046
7047
7048
7049
7050
7051
7052
7053
7054
7055
7056
7057
7058
7059
7060
7061
7062
7063
7064
7065
7066
7067
7068
7069
7070
7071
7072
7073
7074
7075
7076
7077
7078
7079
7080
7081
7082
7083
7084
7085
7086
7087
7088
7089
7090
7091
7092
7093
7094
7095
7096
7097
7098
7099
7100
7101
7102
7103
7104
7105
7106
7107
7108
7109
7110
7111
7112
7113
7114
7115
7116
7117
7118
7119
7120
7121
7122
7123
7124
7125
7126
7127
7128
7129
7130
7131
7132
7133
7134
7135
7136
7137
7138
7139
7140
7141
7142
7143
7144
7145
7146
7147
7148
7149
7150
7151
7152
7153
7154
7155
7156
7157
7158
7159
7160
7161
7162
7163
7164
7165
7166
7167
7168
7169
7170
7171
7172
7173
7174
7175
7176
7177
7178
7179
7180
7181
7182
7183
7184
7185
7186
7187
7188
7189
7190
7191
7192
7193
7194
7195
7196
7197
7198
7199
7200
7201
7202
7203
7204
7205
7206
7207
7208
7209
7210
7211
7212
7213
7214
7215
7216
7217
7218
7219
7220
7221
7222
7223
7224
7225
7226
7227
7228
7229
7230
7231
7232
7233
7234
7235
7236
7237
7238
7239
7240
7241
7242
7243
7244
7245
7246
7247
7248
7249
7250
7251
7252
7253
7254
7255
7256
7257
7258
7259
7260
7261
7262
7263
7264
7265
7266
7267
7268
7269
7270
7271
7272
7273
7274
7275
7276
7277
7278
7279
7280
7281
7282
7283
7284
7285
7286
7287
7288
7289
7290
7291
7292
7293
7294
7295
7296
7297
7298
7299
7300
7301
7302
7303
7304
7305
7306
7307
7308
7309
7310
7311
7312
7313
7314
7315
7316
7317
7318
7319
7320
7321
7322
7323
7324
7325
7326
7327
7328
7329
7330
7331
7332
7333
7334
7335
7336
7337
7338
7339
7340
7341
7342
7343
7344
7345
7346
7347
7348
7349
7350
7351
7352
7353
7354
7355
7356
7357
7358
7359
7360
7361
7362
7363
7364
7365
7366
7367
7368
7369
7370
7371
7372
7373
7374
7375
7376
7377
7378
7379
7380
7381
7382
7383
7384
7385
7386
7387
7388
7389
7390
7391
7392
7393
7394
7395
7396
7397
7398
7399
7400
7401
7402
7403
7404
7405
7406
7407
7408
7409
7410
7411
7412
7413
7414
7415
7416
7417
7418
7419
7420
7421
7422
7423
7424
7425
7426
7427
7428
7429
7430
7431
7432
7433
7434
7435
7436
7437
7438
7439
7440
7441
7442
7443
7444
7445
7446
7447
7448
7449
7450
7451
7452
7453
7454
7455
7456
7457
7458
7459
7460
7461
7462
7463
7464
7465
7466
7467
7468
7469
7470
7471
7472
7473
7474
7475
7476
7477
7478
7479
7480
7481
7482
7483
7484
7485
7486
7487
7488
7489
7490
7491
7492
7493
7494
7495
7496
7497
7498
7499
7500
7501
7502
7503
7504
7505
7506
7507
7508
7509
7510
7511
7512
7513
7514
7515
7516
7517
7518
7519
7520
7521
7522
7523
7524
7525
7526
7527
7528
7529
7530
7531
7532
7533
7534
7535
7536
7537
7538
7539
7540
7541
7542
7543
7544
7545
7546
7547
7548
7549
7550
7551
7552
7553
7554
7555
7556
7557
7558
7559
7560
7561
7562
7563
7564
7565
7566
7567
7568
7569
7570
7571
7572
7573
7574
7575
7576
7577
7578
7579
7580
7581
7582
7583
7584
7585
7586
7587
7588
7589
7590
7591
7592
7593
7594
7595
7596
7597
7598
7599
7600
7601
7602
7603
7604
7605
7606
7607
7608
7609
7610
7611
7612
7613
7614
7615
7616
7617
7618
7619
7620
7621
7622
7623
7624
7625
7626
7627
7628
7629
7630
7631
7632
7633
7634
7635
7636
7637
7638
7639
7640
7641
7642
7643
7644
7645
7646
7647
7648
7649
7650
7651
7652
7653
7654
7655
7656
7657
7658
7659
7660
7661
7662
7663
7664
7665
7666
7667
7668
7669
7670
7671
7672
7673
7674
7675
7676
7677
7678
7679
7680
7681
7682
7683
7684
7685
7686
7687
7688
7689
7690
7691
7692
7693
7694
7695
7696
7697
7698
7699
7700
7701
7702
7703
7704
7705
7706
7707
7708
7709
7710
7711
7712
7713
7714
7715
7716
7717
7718
7719
7720
7721
7722
7723
7724
7725
7726
7727
7728
7729
7730
7731
7732
7733
7734
7735
7736
7737
7738
7739
7740
7741
7742
7743
7744
7745
7746
7747
7748
7749
7750
7751
7752
7753
7754
7755
7756
7757
7758
7759
7760
7761
7762
7763
7764
7765
7766
7767
7768
7769
7770
7771
7772
7773
7774
7775
7776
7777
7778
7779
7780
7781
7782
7783
7784
7785
7786
7787
7788
7789
7790
7791
7792
7793
7794
7795
7796
7797
7798
7799
7800
7801
7802
7803
7804
7805
7806
7807
7808
7809
7810
7811
7812
7813
7814
7815
7816
7817
7818
7819
7820
7821
7822
7823
7824
7825
7826
7827
7828
7829
7830
7831
7832
7833
7834
7835
7836
7837
7838
7839
7840
7841
7842
7843
7844
7845
7846
7847
7848
7849
7850
7851
7852
7853
7854
7855
7856
7857
7858
7859
7860
7861
7862
7863
7864
7865
7866
7867
7868
7869
7870
7871
7872
7873
7874
7875
7876
7877
7878
7879
7880
7881
7882
7883
7884
7885
7886
7887
7888
7889
7890
7891
7892
7893
7894
7895
7896
7897
7898
7899
7900
7901
7902
7903
7904
7905
7906
7907
7908
7909
7910
7911
7912
7913
7914
7915
7916
7917
7918
7919
7920
7921
7922
7923
7924
7925
7926
7927
7928
7929
7930
7931
7932
7933
7934
7935
7936
7937
7938
7939
7940
7941
7942
7943
7944
7945
7946
7947
7948
7949
7950
7951
7952
7953
7954
7955
7956
7957
7958
7959
7960
7961
7962
7963
7964
7965
7966
7967
7968
7969
7970
7971
7972
7973
7974
7975
7976
7977
7978
7979
7980
7981
7982
7983
7984
7985
7986
7987
7988
7989
7990
7991
7992
7993
7994
7995
7996
7997
7998
7999
8000
8001
8002
8003
8004
8005
8006
8007
8008
8009
8010
8011
8012
8013
8014
8015
8016
8017
8018
8019
8020
8021
8022
8023
8024
8025
8026
8027
8028
8029
8030
8031
8032
8033
8034
8035
8036
8037
8038
8039
8040
8041
8042
8043
8044
8045
8046
8047
8048
8049
8050
8051
8052
8053
8054
8055
8056
8057
8058
8059
8060
8061
8062
8063
8064
8065
8066
8067
8068
8069
8070
8071
8072
8073
8074
8075
8076
8077
8078
8079
8080
8081
8082
8083
8084
8085
8086
8087
8088
8089
8090
8091
8092
8093
8094
8095
8096
8097
8098
8099
8100
8101
8102
8103
8104
8105
8106
8107
8108
8109
8110
8111
8112
8113
8114
8115
8116
8117
8118
8119
8120
8121
8122
8123
8124
8125
8126
8127
8128
8129
8130
8131
8132
8133
8134
8135
8136
8137
8138
8139
8140
8141
8142
8143
8144
8145
8146
8147
8148
8149
8150
8151
8152
8153
8154
8155
8156
8157
8158
8159
8160
8161
8162
8163
8164
8165
8166
8167
8168
8169
8170
8171
8172
8173
8174
8175
8176
8177
8178
8179
8180
8181
8182
8183
8184
8185
8186
8187
8188
8189
8190
8191
8192
8193
8194
8195
8196
8197
8198
8199
8200
8201
8202
8203
8204
8205
8206
8207
8208
8209
8210
8211
8212
8213
8214
8215
8216
8217
8218
8219
8220
8221
8222
8223
8224
8225
8226
8227
8228
8229
8230
8231
8232
8233
8234
8235
8236
8237
8238
8239
8240
8241
8242
8243
8244
8245
8246
8247
8248
8249
8250
8251
8252
8253
8254
8255
8256
8257
8258
8259
8260
8261
8262
8263
8264
8265
8266
8267
8268
8269
8270
8271
8272
8273
8274
8275
8276
8277
8278
8279
8280
8281
8282
8283
8284
8285
8286
8287
8288
8289
8290
8291
8292
8293
8294
8295
8296
8297
8298
8299
8300
8301
8302
8303
8304
8305
8306
8307
8308
8309
8310
8311
8312
8313
8314
8315
8316
8317
8318
8319
8320
8321
8322
8323
8324
8325
8326
8327
8328
8329
8330
8331
8332
8333
8334
8335
8336
8337
8338
8339
8340
8341
8342
8343
8344
8345
8346
8347
8348
8349
8350
8351
8352
8353
8354
8355
8356
8357
8358
8359
8360
8361
8362
8363
8364
8365
8366
8367
8368
8369
8370
8371
8372
8373
8374
8375
8376
8377
8378
8379
8380
8381
8382
8383
8384
8385
8386
8387
8388
8389
8390
8391
8392
8393
8394
8395
8396
8397
8398
8399
8400
8401
8402
8403
8404
8405
8406
8407
8408
8409
8410
8411
8412
8413
8414
8415
8416
8417
8418
8419
8420
8421
8422
8423
8424
8425
8426
8427
8428
8429
8430
8431
8432
8433
8434
8435
8436
8437
8438
8439
8440
8441
8442
8443
8444
8445
8446
8447
8448
8449
8450
8451
8452
8453
8454
8455
8456
8457
8458
8459
8460
8461
8462
8463
8464
8465
8466
8467
8468
8469
8470
8471
8472
8473
8474
8475
8476
8477
8478
8479
8480
8481
8482
8483
8484
8485
8486
8487
8488
8489
8490
8491
8492
8493
8494
8495
8496
8497
8498
8499
8500
8501
8502
8503
8504
8505
8506
8507
8508
8509
8510
8511
8512
8513
8514
8515
8516
8517
8518
8519
8520
8521
8522
8523
8524
8525
8526
8527
8528
8529
8530
8531
8532
8533
8534
8535
8536
8537
8538
8539
8540
8541
8542
8543
8544
8545
8546
8547
8548
8549
8550
8551
8552
8553
8554
8555
8556
8557
8558
8559
8560
8561
8562
8563
8564
8565
8566
8567
8568
8569
8570
8571
8572
8573
8574
8575
8576
8577
8578
8579
8580
8581
8582
8583
8584
8585
8586
8587
8588
8589
8590
8591
8592
8593
8594
8595
8596
8597
8598
8599
8600
8601
8602
8603
8604
8605
8606
8607
8608
8609
8610
8611
8612
8613
8614
8615
8616
8617
8618
8619
8620
8621
8622
8623
8624
8625
8626
8627
8628
8629
8630
8631
8632
8633
8634
8635
8636
8637
8638
8639
8640
8641
8642
8643
8644
8645
8646
8647
8648
8649
8650
8651
8652
8653
8654
8655
8656
8657
8658
8659
8660
8661
8662
8663
8664
8665
8666
8667
8668
8669
8670
8671
8672
8673
8674
8675
8676
8677
8678
8679
8680
8681
8682
8683
8684
8685
8686
8687
8688
8689
8690
8691
8692
8693
8694
8695
8696
8697
8698
8699
8700
8701
8702
8703
8704
8705
8706
8707
8708
8709
8710
8711
8712
8713
8714
8715
8716
8717
8718
8719
8720
8721
8722
8723
8724
8725
8726
8727
8728
8729
8730
8731
8732
8733
8734
8735
8736
8737
8738
8739
8740
8741
8742
8743
8744
8745
8746
8747
8748
8749
8750
8751
8752
8753
8754
8755
8756
8757
8758
8759
8760
8761
8762
8763
8764
8765
8766
8767
8768
8769
8770
8771
8772
8773
8774
8775
8776
8777
8778
8779
8780
8781
8782
8783
8784
8785
8786
8787
8788
8789
8790
8791
8792
8793
8794
8795
8796
8797
8798
8799
8800
8801
8802
8803
8804
8805
8806
8807
8808
8809
8810
8811
8812
8813
8814
8815
8816
8817
8818
8819
8820
8821
8822
8823
8824
8825
8826
8827
8828
8829
8830
8831
8832
8833
8834
8835
8836
8837
8838
8839
8840
8841
8842
8843
8844
8845
8846
8847
8848
8849
8850
8851
8852
8853
8854
8855
8856
8857
8858
8859
8860
8861
8862
8863
8864
8865
8866
8867
8868
8869
8870
8871
8872
8873
8874
8875
8876
8877
8878
8879
8880
8881
8882
8883
8884
8885
8886
8887
8888
8889
8890
8891
8892
8893
8894
8895
8896
8897
8898
8899
8900
8901
8902
8903
8904
8905
8906
8907
8908
8909
8910
8911
8912
8913
8914
8915
8916
8917
8918
8919
8920
8921
8922
8923
8924
8925
8926
8927
8928
8929
8930
8931
8932
8933
8934
8935
8936
8937
8938
8939
8940
8941
8942
8943
8944
8945
8946
8947
8948
8949
8950
8951
8952
8953
8954
8955
8956
8957
8958
8959
8960
8961
8962
8963
8964
8965
8966
8967
8968
8969
8970
8971
8972
8973
8974
8975
8976
8977
8978
8979
8980
8981
8982
8983
8984
8985
8986
8987
8988
8989
8990
8991
8992
8993
8994
8995
8996
8997
8998
8999
9000
9001
9002
9003
9004
9005
9006
9007
9008
9009
9010
9011
9012
9013
9014
9015
9016
9017
9018
9019
9020
9021
9022
9023
9024
9025
9026
9027
9028
9029
9030
9031
9032
9033
9034
9035
9036
9037
9038
9039
9040
9041
9042
9043
9044
9045
9046
9047
9048
9049
9050
9051
9052
9053
9054
9055
9056
9057
9058
9059
9060
9061
9062
9063
9064
9065
9066
9067
9068
9069
9070
9071
9072
9073
9074
9075
9076
9077
9078
9079
9080
9081
9082
9083
9084
9085
9086
9087
9088
9089
9090
9091
9092
9093
9094
9095
9096
9097
9098
9099
9100
9101
9102
9103
9104
9105
9106
9107
9108
9109
9110
9111
9112
9113
9114
9115
9116
9117
9118
9119
9120
9121
9122
9123
9124
9125
9126
9127
9128
9129
9130
9131
9132
9133
9134
9135
9136
9137
9138
9139
9140
9141
9142
9143
9144
9145
9146
9147
9148
9149
9150
9151
9152
9153
9154
9155
9156
9157
9158
9159
9160
9161
9162
9163
9164
9165
9166
9167
9168
9169
9170
9171
9172
9173
9174
9175
9176
9177
9178
9179
9180
9181
9182
9183
9184
9185
9186
9187
9188
9189
9190
9191
9192
9193
9194
9195
9196
9197
9198
9199
9200
9201
9202
9203
9204
9205
9206
9207
9208
9209
9210
9211
9212
9213
9214
9215
9216
9217
9218
9219
9220
9221
9222
9223
9224
9225
9226
9227
9228
9229
9230
9231
9232
9233
9234
9235
9236
9237
9238
9239
9240
9241
9242
9243
9244
9245
9246
9247
9248
9249
9250
9251
9252
9253
9254
9255
9256
9257
9258
9259
9260
9261
9262
9263
9264
9265
9266
9267
9268
9269
9270
9271
9272
9273
9274
9275
9276
9277
9278
9279
9280
9281
9282
9283
9284
9285
9286
9287
9288
9289
9290
9291
9292
9293
9294
9295
9296
9297
9298
9299
9300
9301
9302
9303
9304
9305
9306
9307
9308
9309
9310
9311
9312
9313
9314
9315
9316
9317
9318
9319
9320
9321
9322
9323
9324
9325
9326
9327
9328
9329
9330
9331
9332
9333
9334
9335
9336
9337
9338
9339
9340
9341
9342
9343
9344
9345
9346
9347
9348
9349
9350
9351
9352
9353
9354
9355
9356
9357
9358
9359
9360
9361
9362
9363
9364
9365
9366
9367
9368
9369
9370
9371
9372
9373
9374
9375
9376
9377
9378
9379
9380
9381
9382
9383
9384
9385
9386
9387
9388
9389
9390
9391
9392
9393
9394
9395
9396
9397
9398
9399
9400
9401
9402
9403
9404
9405
9406
9407
9408
9409
9410
9411
9412
9413
9414
9415
9416
9417
9418
9419
9420
9421
9422
9423
9424
9425
9426
9427
9428
9429
9430
9431
9432
9433
9434
9435
9436
9437
9438
9439
9440
9441
9442
9443
9444
9445
9446
9447
9448
9449
9450
9451
9452
9453
9454
9455
9456
9457
9458
9459
9460
9461
9462
9463
9464
9465
9466
9467
9468
9469
9470
9471
9472
9473
9474
9475
9476
9477
9478
9479
9480
9481
9482
9483
9484
9485
9486
9487
9488
9489
9490
9491
9492
9493
9494
9495
9496
9497
9498
9499
9500
9501
9502
9503
9504
9505
9506
9507
9508
9509
9510
9511
9512
9513
9514
9515
9516
9517
9518
9519
9520
9521
9522
9523
9524
9525
9526
9527
9528
9529
9530
9531
9532
9533
9534
9535
9536
9537
9538
9539
9540
9541
9542
9543
9544
9545
9546
9547
9548
9549
9550
9551
9552
9553
9554
9555
9556
9557
9558
9559
9560
9561
9562
9563
9564
9565
9566
9567
9568
9569
9570
9571
9572
9573
9574
9575
9576
9577
9578
9579
9580
9581
9582
9583
9584
9585
9586
9587
9588
9589
9590
9591
9592
9593
9594
9595
9596
9597
9598
9599
9600
9601
9602
9603
9604
9605
9606
9607
9608
9609
9610
9611
9612
9613
9614
9615
9616
9617
9618
9619
9620
9621
9622
9623
9624
9625
9626
9627
9628
9629
9630
9631
9632
9633
9634
9635
9636
9637
9638
9639
9640
9641
9642
9643
9644
9645
9646
9647
9648
9649
9650
9651
9652
9653
9654
9655
9656
9657
9658
9659
9660
9661
9662
9663
9664
9665
9666
9667
9668
9669
9670
9671
9672
9673
9674
9675
9676
9677
9678
9679
9680
9681
9682
9683
9684
9685
9686
9687
9688
9689
9690
9691
9692
9693
9694
9695
9696
9697
9698
9699
9700
9701
9702
9703
9704
9705
9706
9707
9708
9709
9710
9711
9712
9713
9714
9715
9716
9717
9718
9719
9720
9721
9722
9723
9724
9725
9726
9727
9728
9729
9730
9731
9732
9733
9734
9735
9736
9737
9738
9739
9740
9741
9742
9743
9744
9745
9746
9747
9748
9749
9750
9751
9752
9753
9754
9755
9756
9757
9758
9759
9760
9761
9762
9763
9764
9765
9766
9767
9768
9769
9770
9771
9772
9773
9774
9775
9776
9777
9778
9779
9780
9781
9782
9783
9784
9785
9786
9787
9788
9789
9790
9791
9792
9793
9794
9795
9796
9797
9798
9799
9800
9801
9802
9803
9804
9805
9806
9807
9808
9809
9810
9811
9812
9813
9814
9815
9816
9817
9818
9819
9820
9821
9822
9823
9824
9825
9826
9827
9828
9829
9830
9831
9832
9833
9834
9835
9836
9837
9838
9839
9840
9841
9842
9843
9844
9845
9846
9847
9848
9849
9850
9851
9852
9853
9854
9855
9856
9857
9858
9859
9860
9861
9862
9863
9864
9865
9866
9867
9868
9869
9870
9871
9872
9873
9874
9875
9876
9877
9878
9879
9880
9881
9882
9883
9884
9885
9886
9887
9888
9889
9890
9891
9892
9893
9894
9895
9896
9897
9898
9899
9900
9901
9902
9903
9904
9905
9906
9907
9908
9909
9910
9911
9912
9913
9914
9915
9916
9917
9918
9919
9920
9921
9922
9923
9924
9925
9926
9927
9928
9929
9930
9931
9932
9933
9934
9935
9936
9937
9938
9939
9940
9941
9942
9943
9944
9945
9946
9947
9948
9949
9950
9951
9952
9953
9954
9955
9956
9957
9958
9959
9960
9961
9962
9963
9964
9965
9966
9967
9968
9969
9970
9971
9972
9973
9974
9975
9976
9977
9978
9979
9980
9981
9982
9983
9984
9985
9986
9987
9988
9989
9990
9991
9992
9993
9994
9995
9996
9997
9998
9999
10000
10001
10002
10003
10004
10005
10006
10007
10008
10009
10010
10011
10012
10013
10014
10015
10016
10017
10018
10019
10020
10021
10022
10023
10024
10025
10026
10027
10028
10029
10030
10031
10032
10033
10034
10035
10036
10037
10038
10039
10040
10041
10042
10043
10044
10045
10046
10047
10048
10049
10050
10051
10052
10053
10054
10055
10056
10057
10058
10059
10060
10061
10062
10063
10064
10065
10066
10067
10068
10069
10070
10071
10072
10073
10074
10075
10076
10077
10078
10079
10080
10081
10082
10083
10084
10085
10086
10087
10088
10089
10090
10091
10092
10093
10094
10095
10096
10097
10098
10099
10100
10101
10102
10103
10104
10105
10106
10107
10108
10109
10110
10111
10112
10113
10114
10115
10116
10117
10118
10119
10120
10121
10122
10123
10124
10125
10126
10127
10128
10129
10130
10131
10132
10133
10134
10135
10136
10137
10138
10139
10140
10141
10142
10143
10144
10145
10146
10147
10148
10149
10150
10151
10152
10153
10154
10155
10156
10157
10158
10159
10160
10161
10162
10163
10164
10165
10166
10167
10168
10169
10170
10171
10172
10173
10174
10175
10176
10177
10178
10179
10180
10181
10182
10183
10184
10185
10186
10187
10188
10189
10190
10191
10192
10193
10194
10195
10196
10197
10198
10199
10200
10201
10202
10203
10204
10205
10206
10207
10208
10209
10210
10211
10212
10213
10214
10215
10216
10217
10218
10219
10220
10221
10222
10223
10224
10225
10226
10227
10228
10229
10230
10231
10232
10233
10234
10235
10236
10237
10238
10239
10240
10241
10242
10243
10244
10245
10246
10247
10248
10249
10250
10251
10252
10253
10254
10255
10256
10257
10258
10259
10260
10261
10262
10263
10264
10265
10266
10267
10268
10269
10270
10271
10272
10273
10274
10275
10276
10277
10278
10279
10280
10281
10282
10283
10284
10285
10286
10287
10288
10289
10290
10291
10292
10293
10294
10295
10296
10297
10298
10299
10300
10301
10302
10303
10304
10305
10306
10307
10308
10309
10310
10311
10312
10313
10314
10315
10316
10317
10318
10319
10320
10321
10322
10323
10324
10325
10326
10327
10328
10329
10330
10331
10332
10333
10334
10335
10336
10337
10338
10339
10340
10341
10342
10343
10344
10345
10346
10347
10348
10349
10350
10351
10352
10353
10354
10355
10356
10357
10358
10359
10360
10361
10362
10363
10364
10365
10366
10367
10368
10369
10370
10371
10372
10373
10374
10375
10376
10377
10378
10379
10380
10381
10382
10383
10384
10385
10386
10387
10388
10389
10390
10391
10392
10393
10394
10395
10396
10397
10398
10399
10400
10401
10402
10403
10404
10405
10406
10407
10408
10409
10410
10411
10412
10413
10414
10415
10416
10417
10418
10419
10420
10421
10422
10423
10424
10425
10426
10427
10428
10429
10430
10431
10432
10433
10434
10435
10436
10437
10438
10439
10440
10441
10442
10443
10444
10445
10446
10447
10448
10449
10450
10451
10452
10453
10454
10455
10456
10457
10458
10459
10460
10461
10462
10463
10464
10465
10466
10467
10468
10469
10470
10471
10472
10473
10474
10475
10476
10477
10478
10479
10480
10481
10482
10483
10484
10485
10486
10487
10488
10489
10490
10491
10492
10493
10494
10495
10496
10497
10498
10499
10500
10501
10502
10503
10504
10505
10506
10507
10508
10509
10510
10511
10512
10513
10514
10515
10516
10517
10518
10519
10520
10521
10522
10523
10524
10525
10526
10527
10528
10529
10530
10531
10532
10533
10534
10535
10536
10537
10538
10539
10540
10541
10542
10543
10544
10545
10546
10547
10548
10549
10550
10551
10552
10553
10554
10555
10556
10557
10558
10559
10560
10561
10562
10563
10564
10565
10566
10567
10568
10569
10570
10571
10572
10573
10574
10575
10576
10577
10578
10579
10580
10581
10582
10583
10584
10585
10586
10587
10588
10589
10590
10591
10592
10593
10594
10595
10596
10597
10598
10599
10600
10601
10602
10603
10604
10605
10606
10607
10608
10609
10610
10611
10612
10613
10614
10615
10616
10617
10618
10619
10620
10621
10622
10623
10624
10625
10626
10627
10628
10629
10630
10631
10632
10633
10634
10635
10636
10637
10638
10639
10640
10641
10642
10643
10644
10645
10646
10647
10648
10649
10650
10651
10652
10653
10654
10655
10656
10657
10658
10659
10660
10661
10662
10663
10664
10665
10666
10667
10668
10669
10670
10671
10672
10673
10674
10675
10676
10677
10678
10679
10680
10681
10682
10683
10684
10685
10686
10687
10688
10689
10690
10691
10692
10693
10694
10695
10696
10697
10698
10699
10700
10701
10702
10703
10704
10705
10706
10707
10708
10709
10710
10711
10712
10713
10714
10715
10716
10717
10718
10719
10720
10721
10722
10723
10724
10725
10726
10727
10728
10729
10730
10731
10732
10733
10734
10735
10736
10737
10738
10739
10740
10741
10742
10743
10744
10745
10746
10747
10748
10749
10750
10751
10752
10753
10754
10755
10756
10757
10758
10759
10760
10761
10762
10763
10764
10765
10766
10767
10768
10769
10770
10771
10772
10773
10774
10775
10776
10777
10778
10779
10780
10781
10782
10783
10784
10785
10786
10787
10788
10789
10790
10791
10792
10793
10794
10795
10796
10797
10798
10799
10800
10801
10802
10803
10804
10805
10806
10807
10808
10809
10810
10811
10812
10813
10814
10815
10816
10817
10818
10819
10820
10821
10822
10823
10824
10825
10826
10827
10828
10829
10830
10831
10832
10833
10834
10835
10836
10837
10838
10839
10840
10841
10842
10843
10844
10845
10846
10847
10848
10849
10850
10851
10852
10853
10854
10855
10856
10857
10858
10859
10860
10861
10862
10863
10864
10865
10866
10867
10868
10869
10870
10871
10872
10873
10874
10875
10876
10877
10878
10879
10880
10881
10882
10883
10884
10885
10886
10887
10888
10889
10890
10891
10892
10893
10894
10895
10896
10897
10898
10899
10900
10901
10902
10903
10904
10905
10906
10907
10908
10909
10910
10911
10912
10913
10914
10915
10916
10917
10918
10919
10920
10921
10922
10923
10924
10925
10926
10927
10928
10929
10930
10931
10932
10933
10934
10935
10936
10937
10938
10939
10940
10941
10942
10943
10944
10945
10946
10947
10948
10949
10950
10951
10952
10953
10954
10955
10956
10957
10958
10959
10960
10961
10962
10963
10964
10965
10966
10967
10968
10969
10970
10971
10972
10973
10974
10975
10976
10977
10978
10979
10980
10981
10982
10983
10984
10985
10986
10987
10988
10989
10990
10991
10992
10993
10994
10995
10996
10997
10998
10999
11000
11001
11002
11003
11004
11005
11006
11007
11008
11009
11010
11011
11012
11013
11014
11015
11016
11017
11018
11019
11020
11021
11022
11023
11024
11025
11026
11027
11028
11029
11030
11031
11032
11033
11034
11035
11036
11037
11038
11039
11040
11041
11042
11043
11044
11045
11046
11047
11048
11049
11050
11051
11052
11053
11054
11055
11056
11057
11058
11059
11060
11061
11062
11063
11064
11065
11066
11067
11068
11069
11070
11071
11072
11073
11074
11075
11076
11077
11078
11079
11080
11081
11082
11083
11084
11085
11086
11087
11088
11089
11090
11091
11092
11093
11094
11095
11096
11097
11098
11099
11100
11101
11102
11103
11104
11105
11106
11107
11108
11109
11110
11111
11112
11113
11114
11115
11116
11117
11118
11119
11120
11121
11122
11123
11124
11125
11126
11127
11128
11129
11130
11131
11132
11133
11134
11135
11136
11137
11138
11139
11140
11141
11142
11143
11144
11145
11146
11147
11148
11149
11150
11151
11152
11153
11154
11155
11156
11157
11158
11159
11160
11161
11162
11163
11164
11165
11166
11167
11168
11169
11170
11171
11172
11173
11174
11175
11176
11177
11178
11179
11180
11181
11182
11183
11184
11185
11186
11187
11188
11189
11190
11191
11192
11193
11194
11195
11196
11197
11198
11199
11200
11201
11202
11203
11204
11205
11206
11207
11208
11209
11210
11211
11212
11213
11214
11215
11216
11217
11218
11219
11220
11221
11222
11223
11224
11225
11226
11227
11228
11229
11230
11231
11232
11233
11234
11235
11236
11237
11238
11239
11240
11241
11242
11243
11244
11245
11246
11247
11248
11249
11250
11251
11252
11253
11254
11255
11256
11257
11258
11259
11260
11261
11262
11263
11264
11265
11266
11267
11268
11269
11270
11271
11272
11273
11274
11275
11276
11277
11278
11279
11280
11281
11282
11283
11284
11285
11286
11287
11288
11289
11290
11291
11292
11293
11294
11295
11296
11297
11298
11299
11300
11301
11302
11303
11304
11305
11306
11307
11308
11309
11310
11311
11312
11313
11314
11315
11316
11317
11318
11319
11320
11321
11322
11323
11324
11325
11326
11327
11328
11329
11330
11331
11332
11333
11334
11335
11336
11337
11338
11339
11340
11341
11342
11343
11344
11345
11346
11347
11348
11349
11350
11351
11352
11353
11354
11355
11356
11357
11358
11359
11360
11361
11362
11363
11364
11365
11366
11367
11368
11369
11370
11371
11372
11373
11374
11375
11376
11377
11378
11379
11380
11381
11382
11383
11384
11385
11386
11387
11388
11389
11390
11391
11392
11393
11394
11395
11396
11397
11398
11399
11400
11401
11402
11403
11404
11405
11406
11407
11408
11409
11410
11411
11412
11413
11414
11415
11416
11417
11418
11419
11420
11421
11422
11423
11424
11425
11426
11427
11428
11429
11430
11431
11432
11433
11434
11435
11436
11437
11438
11439
11440
11441
11442
11443
11444
11445
11446
11447
11448
11449
11450
11451
11452
11453
11454
11455
11456
11457
11458
11459
11460
11461
11462
11463
11464
11465
11466
11467
11468
11469
11470
11471
11472
11473
11474
11475
11476
11477
11478
11479
11480
11481
11482
11483
11484
11485
11486
11487
11488
11489
11490
11491
11492
11493
11494
11495
11496
11497
11498
11499
11500
11501
11502
11503
11504
11505
11506
11507
11508
11509
11510
11511
11512
11513
11514
11515
11516
11517
11518
11519
11520
11521
11522
11523
11524
11525
11526
11527
11528
11529
11530
11531
11532
11533
11534
11535
11536
11537
11538
11539
11540
11541
11542
11543
11544
11545
11546
11547
11548
11549
11550
11551
11552
11553
11554
11555
11556
11557
11558
11559
11560
11561
11562
11563
11564
11565
11566
11567
11568
11569
11570
11571
11572
11573
11574
11575
11576
11577
11578
11579
11580
11581
11582
11583
11584
11585
11586
11587
11588
11589
11590
11591
11592
11593
11594
11595
11596
11597
11598
11599
11600
11601
11602
11603
11604
11605
11606
11607
11608
11609
11610
11611
11612
11613
11614
11615
11616
11617
11618
11619
11620
11621
11622
11623
11624
11625
11626
11627
11628
11629
11630
11631
11632
11633
11634
11635
11636
11637
11638
11639
11640
11641
11642
11643
11644
11645
11646
11647
11648
11649
11650
11651
11652
11653
11654
11655
11656
11657
11658
11659
11660
11661
11662
11663
11664
11665
11666
11667
11668
11669
11670
11671
11672
11673
11674
11675
11676
11677
11678
11679
11680
11681
11682
11683
11684
11685
11686
11687
11688
11689
11690
11691
11692
11693
11694
11695
11696
11697
11698
11699
11700
11701
11702
11703
11704
11705
11706
11707
11708
11709
11710
11711
11712
11713
11714
11715
11716
11717
11718
11719
11720
11721
11722
11723
11724
11725
11726
11727
11728
11729
11730
11731
11732
11733
11734
11735
11736
11737
11738
11739
11740
11741
11742
11743
11744
11745
11746
11747
11748
11749
11750
11751
11752
11753
11754
11755
11756
11757
11758
11759
11760
11761
11762
11763
11764
11765
11766
11767
11768
11769
11770
11771
11772
11773
11774
11775
11776
11777
11778
11779
11780
11781
11782
11783
11784
11785
11786
11787
11788
11789
11790
11791
11792
11793
11794
11795
11796
11797
11798
11799
11800
11801
11802
11803
11804
11805
11806
11807
11808
11809
11810
11811
11812
11813
11814
11815
11816
11817
11818
11819
11820
11821
11822
11823
11824
11825
11826
11827
11828
11829
11830
11831
11832
11833
11834
11835
11836
11837
11838
11839
11840
11841
11842
11843
11844
11845
11846
11847
11848
11849
11850
11851
11852
11853
11854
11855
11856
11857
11858
11859
11860
11861
11862
11863
11864
11865
11866
11867
11868
11869
11870
11871
11872
11873
11874
11875
11876
11877
11878
11879
11880
11881
11882
11883
11884
11885
11886
11887
11888
11889
11890
11891
11892
11893
11894
11895
11896
11897
11898
11899
11900
11901
11902
11903
11904
11905
11906
11907
11908
11909
11910
11911
11912
11913
11914
11915
11916
11917
11918
11919
11920
11921
11922
11923
11924
11925
11926
11927
11928
11929
11930
11931
11932
11933
11934
11935
11936
11937
11938
11939
11940
11941
11942
11943
11944
11945
11946
11947
11948
11949
11950
11951
11952
11953
11954
11955
11956
11957
11958
11959
11960
11961
11962
11963
11964
11965
11966
11967
11968
11969
11970
11971
11972
11973
11974
11975
11976
11977
11978
11979
11980
11981
11982
11983
11984
11985
11986
11987
11988
11989
11990
11991
11992
11993
11994
11995
11996
11997
11998
11999
12000
12001
12002
12003
12004
12005
12006
12007
12008
12009
12010
12011
12012
12013
12014
12015
12016
12017
12018
12019
12020
12021
12022
12023
12024
12025
12026
12027
12028
12029
12030
12031
12032
12033
12034
12035
12036
12037
12038
12039
12040
12041
12042
12043
12044
12045
12046
12047
12048
12049
12050
12051
12052
12053
12054
12055
12056
12057
12058
12059
12060
12061
12062
12063
12064
12065
12066
12067
12068
12069
12070
12071
12072
12073
12074
12075
12076
12077
12078
12079
12080
12081
12082
12083
12084
12085
12086
12087
12088
12089
12090
12091
12092
12093
12094
12095
12096
12097
12098
12099
12100
12101
12102
12103
12104
12105
12106
12107
12108
12109
12110
12111
12112
12113
12114
12115
12116
12117
12118
12119
12120
12121
12122
12123
12124
12125
12126
12127
12128
12129
12130
12131
12132
12133
12134
12135
12136
12137
12138
12139
12140
12141
12142
12143
12144
12145
12146
12147
12148
12149
12150
12151
12152
12153
12154
12155
12156
12157
12158
12159
12160
12161
12162
12163
12164
12165
12166
12167
12168
12169
12170
12171
12172
12173
12174
12175
12176
12177
12178
12179
12180
12181
12182
12183
12184
12185
12186
12187
12188
12189
12190
12191
12192
12193
12194
12195
12196
12197
12198
12199
12200
12201
12202
12203
12204
12205
12206
12207
12208
12209
12210
12211
12212
12213
12214
12215
12216
12217
12218
12219
12220
12221
12222
12223
12224
12225
12226
12227
12228
12229
12230
12231
12232
12233
12234
12235
12236
12237
12238
12239
12240
12241
12242
12243
12244
12245
12246
12247
12248
12249
12250
12251
12252
12253
12254
12255
12256
12257
12258
12259
12260
12261
12262
12263
12264
12265
12266
12267
12268
12269
12270
12271
12272
12273
12274
12275
12276
12277
12278
12279
12280
12281
12282
12283
12284
12285
12286
12287
12288
12289
12290
12291
12292
12293
12294
12295
12296
12297
12298
12299
12300
12301
12302
12303
12304
12305
12306
12307
12308
12309
12310
12311
12312
12313
12314
12315
12316
12317
12318
12319
12320
12321
12322
12323
12324
12325
12326
12327
12328
12329
12330
12331
12332
12333
12334
12335
12336
12337
12338
12339
12340
12341
12342
12343
12344
12345
12346
12347
12348
12349
12350
12351
12352
12353
12354
12355
12356
12357
12358
12359
12360
12361
12362
12363
12364
12365
12366
12367
12368
12369
12370
12371
12372
12373
12374
12375
12376
12377
12378
12379
12380
12381
12382
12383
12384
12385
12386
12387
12388
12389
12390
12391
12392
12393
12394
12395
12396
12397
12398
12399
12400
12401
12402
12403
12404
12405
12406
12407
12408
12409
12410
12411
12412
12413
12414
12415
12416
12417
12418
12419
12420
12421
12422
12423
12424
12425
12426
12427
12428
12429
12430
12431
12432
12433
12434
12435
12436
12437
12438
12439
12440
12441
12442
12443
12444
12445
12446
12447
12448
12449
12450
12451
12452
12453
12454
12455
12456
12457
12458
12459
12460
12461
12462
12463
12464
12465
12466
12467
12468
12469
12470
12471
12472
12473
12474
12475
12476
12477
12478
12479
12480
12481
12482
12483
12484
12485
12486
12487
12488
12489
12490
12491
12492
12493
12494
12495
12496
12497
12498
12499
12500
12501
12502
12503
12504
12505
12506
12507
12508
12509
12510
12511
12512
12513
12514
12515
12516
12517
12518
12519
12520
12521
12522
12523
12524
12525
12526
12527
12528
12529
12530
12531
12532
12533
12534
12535
12536
12537
12538
12539
12540
12541
12542
12543
12544
12545
12546
12547
12548
12549
12550
12551
12552
12553
12554
12555
12556
12557
12558
12559
12560
12561
12562
12563
12564
12565
12566
12567
12568
12569
12570
12571
12572
12573
12574
12575
12576
12577
12578
12579
12580
12581
12582
12583
12584
12585
12586
12587
12588
12589
12590
12591
12592
12593
12594
12595
12596
12597
12598
12599
12600
12601
12602
12603
12604
12605
12606
12607
12608
12609
12610
12611
12612
12613
12614
12615
12616
12617
12618
12619
12620
12621
12622
12623
12624
12625
12626
12627
12628
12629
12630
12631
12632
12633
12634
12635
12636
12637
12638
12639
12640
12641
12642
12643
12644
12645
12646
12647
12648
12649
12650
12651
12652
12653
12654
12655
12656
12657
12658
12659
12660
12661
12662
12663
12664
12665
12666
12667
12668
12669
12670
12671
12672
12673
12674
12675
12676
12677
12678
12679
12680
12681
12682
12683
12684
12685
12686
12687
12688
12689
12690
12691
12692
12693
12694
12695
12696
12697
12698
12699
12700
12701
12702
12703
12704
12705
12706
12707
12708
12709
12710
12711
12712
12713
12714
12715
12716
12717
12718
12719
12720
12721
12722
12723
12724
12725
12726
12727
12728
12729
12730
12731
12732
12733
12734
12735
12736
12737
12738
12739
12740
12741
12742
12743
12744
12745
12746
12747
12748
12749
12750
12751
12752
12753
12754
12755
12756
12757
12758
12759
12760
12761
12762
12763
12764
12765
12766
12767
12768
12769
12770
12771
12772
12773
12774
12775
12776
12777
12778
12779
12780
12781
12782
12783
12784
12785
12786
12787
12788
12789
12790
12791
12792
12793
12794
12795
12796
12797
12798
12799
12800
12801
12802
12803
12804
12805
12806
12807
12808
12809
12810
12811
12812
12813
12814
12815
12816
12817
12818
12819
12820
12821
12822
12823
12824
12825
12826
12827
12828
12829
12830
12831
12832
12833
12834
12835
12836
12837
12838
12839
12840
12841
12842
12843
12844
12845
12846
12847
12848
12849
12850
12851
12852
12853
12854
12855
12856
12857
12858
12859
12860
12861
12862
12863
12864
12865
12866
12867
12868
12869
12870
12871
12872
12873
12874
12875
12876
12877
12878
12879
12880
12881
12882
12883
12884
12885
12886
12887
12888
12889
12890
12891
12892
12893
12894
12895
12896
12897
12898
12899
12900
12901
12902
12903
12904
12905
12906
12907
12908
12909
12910
12911
12912
12913
12914
12915
12916
12917
12918
12919
12920
12921
12922
12923
12924
12925
12926
12927
12928
12929
12930
12931
12932
12933
12934
12935
12936
12937
12938
12939
12940
12941
12942
12943
12944
12945
12946
12947
12948
12949
12950
12951
12952
12953
12954
12955
12956
12957
12958
12959
12960
12961
12962
12963
12964
12965
12966
12967
12968
12969
12970
12971
12972
12973
12974
12975
12976
12977
12978
12979
12980
12981
12982
12983
12984
12985
12986
12987
12988
12989
12990
12991
12992
12993
12994
12995
12996
12997
12998
12999
13000
13001
13002
13003
13004
13005
13006
13007
13008
13009
13010
13011
13012
13013
13014
13015
13016
13017
13018
13019
13020
13021
13022
13023
13024
13025
13026
13027
13028
13029
13030
13031
13032
13033
13034
13035
13036
13037
13038
13039
13040
13041
13042
13043
13044
13045
13046
13047
13048
13049
13050
13051
13052
13053
13054
13055
13056
13057
13058
13059
13060
13061
13062
13063
13064
13065
13066
13067
13068
13069
13070
13071
13072
13073
13074
13075
13076
13077
13078
13079
13080
13081
13082
13083
13084
13085
13086
13087
13088
13089
13090
13091
13092
13093
13094
13095
13096
13097
13098
13099
13100
13101
13102
13103
13104
13105
13106
13107
13108
13109
13110
13111
13112
13113
13114
13115
13116
13117
13118
13119
13120
13121
13122
13123
13124
13125
13126
13127
13128
13129
13130
13131
13132
13133
13134
13135
13136
13137
13138
13139
13140
13141
13142
13143
13144
13145
13146
13147
13148
13149
13150
13151
13152
13153
13154
13155
13156
13157
13158
13159
13160
13161
13162
13163
13164
13165
13166
13167
13168
13169
13170
13171
13172
13173
13174
13175
13176
13177
13178
13179
13180
13181
13182
13183
13184
13185
13186
13187
13188
13189
13190
13191
13192
13193
13194
13195
13196
13197
13198
13199
13200
13201
13202
13203
13204
13205
13206
13207
13208
13209
13210
13211
13212
13213
13214
13215
13216
13217
13218
13219
13220
13221
13222
13223
13224
13225
13226
13227
13228
13229
13230
13231
13232
13233
13234
13235
13236
13237
13238
13239
13240
13241
13242
13243
13244
13245
13246
13247
13248
13249
13250
13251
13252
13253
13254
13255
13256
13257
13258
13259
13260
13261
13262
13263
13264
13265
13266
13267
13268
13269
13270
13271
13272
13273
13274
13275
13276
13277
13278
13279
13280
13281
13282
13283
13284
13285
13286
13287
13288
13289
13290
13291
13292
13293
13294
13295
13296
13297
13298
13299
13300
13301
13302
13303
13304
13305
13306
13307
13308
13309
13310
13311
13312
13313
13314
13315
13316
13317
13318
13319
13320
13321
13322
13323
13324
13325
13326
13327
13328
13329
13330
13331
13332
13333
13334
13335
13336
13337
13338
13339
13340
13341
13342
13343
13344
13345
13346
13347
13348
13349
13350
13351
13352
13353
13354
13355
13356
13357
13358
13359
13360
13361
13362
13363
13364
13365
13366
13367
13368
13369
13370
13371
13372
13373
13374
13375
13376
13377
13378
13379
13380
13381
13382
13383
13384
13385
13386
13387
13388
13389
13390
13391
13392
13393
13394
13395
13396
13397
13398
13399
13400
13401
13402
13403
13404
13405
13406
13407
13408
13409
13410
13411
13412
13413
13414
13415
13416
13417
13418
13419
13420
13421
13422
13423
13424
13425
13426
13427
13428
13429
13430
13431
13432
13433
13434
13435
13436
13437
13438
13439
13440
13441
13442
13443
13444
13445
13446
13447
13448
13449
13450
13451
13452
13453
13454
13455
13456
13457
13458
13459
13460
13461
13462
13463
13464
13465
13466
13467
13468
13469
13470
13471
13472
13473
13474
13475
13476
13477
13478
13479
13480
13481
13482
13483
13484
13485
13486
13487
13488
13489
13490
13491
13492
13493
13494
13495
13496
13497
13498
13499
13500
13501
13502
13503
13504
13505
13506
13507
13508
13509
13510
13511
13512
13513
13514
13515
13516
13517
13518
13519
13520
13521
13522
13523
13524
13525
13526
13527
13528
13529
13530
13531
13532
13533
13534
13535
13536
13537
13538
13539
13540
13541
13542
13543
13544
13545
13546
13547
13548
13549
13550
13551
13552
13553
13554
13555
13556
13557
13558
13559
13560
13561
13562
13563
13564
13565
13566
13567
13568
13569
13570
13571
13572
13573
13574
13575
13576
13577
13578
13579
13580
13581
13582
13583
13584
13585
13586
13587
13588
13589
13590
13591
13592
13593
13594
13595
13596
13597
13598
13599
13600
13601
13602
13603
13604
13605
13606
13607
13608
13609
13610
13611
13612
13613
13614
13615
13616
13617
13618
13619
13620
13621
13622
13623
13624
13625
13626
13627
13628
13629
13630
13631
13632
13633
13634
13635
13636
13637
13638
13639
13640
13641
13642
13643
13644
13645
13646
13647
13648
13649
13650
13651
13652
13653
13654
13655
13656
13657
13658
13659
13660
13661
13662
13663
13664
13665
13666
13667
13668
13669
13670
13671
13672
13673
13674
13675
13676
13677
13678
13679
13680
13681
13682
13683
13684
13685
13686
13687
13688
13689
13690
13691
13692
13693
13694
13695
13696
13697
13698
13699
13700
13701
13702
13703
13704
13705
13706
13707
13708
13709
13710
13711
13712
13713
13714
13715
13716
13717
13718
13719
13720
13721
13722
13723
13724
13725
13726
13727
13728
13729
13730
13731
13732
13733
13734
13735
13736
13737
13738
13739
13740
13741
13742
13743
13744
13745
13746
13747
13748
13749
13750
13751
13752
13753
13754
13755
13756
13757
13758
13759
13760
13761
13762
13763
13764
13765
13766
13767
13768
13769
13770
13771
13772
13773
13774
13775
13776
13777
13778
13779
13780
13781
13782
13783
13784
13785
13786
13787
13788
13789
13790
13791
13792
13793
13794
13795
13796
13797
13798
13799
13800
13801
13802
13803
13804
13805
13806
13807
13808
13809
13810
13811
13812
13813
13814
13815
13816
13817
13818
13819
13820
13821
13822
13823
13824
13825
13826
13827
13828
13829
13830
13831
13832
13833
13834
13835
13836
13837
13838
13839
13840
13841
13842
13843
13844
13845
13846
13847
13848
13849
13850
13851
13852
13853
13854
13855
13856
13857
13858
13859
13860
13861
13862
13863
13864
13865
13866
13867
13868
13869
13870
13871
13872
13873
13874
13875
13876
13877
13878
13879
13880
13881
13882
13883
13884
13885
13886
13887
13888
13889
13890
13891
13892
13893
13894
13895
13896
13897
13898
13899
13900
13901
13902
13903
13904
13905
13906
13907
13908
13909
13910
13911
13912
13913
13914
13915
13916
13917
13918
13919
13920
13921
13922
13923
13924
13925
13926
13927
13928
13929
13930
13931
13932
13933
13934
13935
13936
13937
13938
13939
13940
13941
13942
13943
13944
13945
13946
13947
13948
13949
13950
13951
13952
13953
13954
13955
13956
13957
13958
13959
13960
13961
13962
13963
13964
13965
13966
13967
13968
13969
13970
13971
13972
13973
13974
13975
13976
13977
13978
13979
13980
13981
13982
13983
13984
13985
13986
13987
13988
13989
13990
13991
13992
13993
13994
13995
13996
13997
13998
13999
14000
14001
14002
14003
14004
14005
14006
14007
14008
14009
14010
14011
14012
14013
14014
14015
14016
14017
14018
14019
14020
14021
14022
14023
14024
14025
14026
14027
14028
14029
14030
14031
14032
14033
14034
14035
14036
14037
14038
14039
14040
14041
14042
14043
14044
14045
14046
14047
14048
14049
14050
14051
14052
14053
14054
14055
14056
14057
14058
14059
14060
14061
14062
14063
14064
14065
14066
14067
14068
14069
14070
14071
14072
14073
14074
14075
14076
14077
14078
14079
14080
14081
14082
14083
14084
14085
14086
14087
14088
14089
14090
14091
14092
14093
14094
14095
14096
14097
14098
14099
14100
14101
14102
14103
14104
14105
14106
14107
14108
14109
14110
14111
14112
14113
14114
14115
14116
14117
14118
14119
14120
14121
14122
14123
14124
14125
14126
14127
14128
14129
14130
14131
14132
14133
14134
14135
14136
14137
14138
14139
14140
14141
14142
14143
14144
14145
14146
14147
14148
14149
14150
14151
14152
14153
14154
14155
14156
14157
14158
14159
14160
14161
14162
14163
14164
14165
14166
14167
14168
14169
14170
14171
14172
14173
14174
14175
14176
14177
14178
14179
14180
14181
14182
14183
14184
14185
14186
14187
14188
14189
14190
14191
14192
14193
14194
14195
14196
14197
14198
14199
14200
14201
14202
14203
14204
14205
14206
14207
14208
14209
14210
14211
14212
14213
14214
14215
14216
14217
14218
14219
14220
14221
14222
14223
14224
14225
14226
14227
14228
14229
14230
14231
14232
14233
14234
14235
14236
14237
14238
14239
14240
14241
14242
14243
14244
14245
14246
14247
14248
14249
14250
14251
14252
14253
14254
14255
14256
14257
14258
14259
14260
14261
14262
14263
14264
14265
14266
14267
14268
14269
14270
14271
14272
14273
14274
14275
14276
14277
14278
14279
14280
14281
14282
14283
14284
14285
14286
14287
14288
14289
14290
14291
14292
14293
14294
14295
14296
14297
14298
14299
14300
14301
14302
14303
14304
14305
14306
14307
14308
14309
14310
14311
14312
14313
14314
14315
14316
14317
14318
14319
14320
14321
14322
14323
14324
14325
14326
14327
14328
14329
14330
14331
14332
14333
14334
14335
14336
14337
14338
14339
14340
14341
14342
14343
14344
14345
14346
14347
14348
14349
14350
14351
14352
14353
14354
14355
14356
14357
14358
14359
14360
14361
14362
14363
14364
14365
14366
14367
14368
14369
14370
14371
14372
14373
14374
14375
14376
14377
14378
14379
14380
14381
14382
14383
14384
14385
14386
14387
14388
14389
14390
14391
14392
14393
14394
14395
14396
14397
14398
14399
14400
14401
14402
14403
14404
14405
14406
14407
14408
14409
14410
14411
14412
14413
14414
14415
14416
14417
14418
14419
14420
14421
14422
14423
14424
14425
14426
14427
14428
14429
14430
14431
14432
14433
14434
14435
14436
14437
14438
14439
14440
14441
14442
14443
14444
14445
14446
14447
14448
14449
14450
14451
14452
14453
14454
14455
14456
14457
14458
14459
14460
14461
14462
14463
14464
14465
14466
14467
14468
14469
14470
14471
14472
14473
14474
14475
14476
14477
14478
14479
14480
14481
14482
14483
14484
14485
14486
14487
14488
14489
14490
14491
14492
14493
14494
14495
14496
14497
14498
14499
14500
14501
14502
14503
14504
14505
14506
14507
14508
14509
14510
14511
14512
14513
14514
14515
14516
14517
14518
14519
14520
14521
14522
14523
14524
14525
14526
14527
14528
14529
14530
14531
14532
14533
14534
14535
14536
14537
14538
14539
14540
14541
14542
14543
14544
14545
14546
14547
14548
14549
14550
14551
14552
14553
14554
14555
14556
14557
14558
14559
14560
14561
14562
14563
14564
14565
14566
14567
14568
14569
14570
14571
14572
14573
14574
14575
14576
14577
14578
14579
14580
14581
14582
14583
14584
14585
14586
14587
14588
14589
14590
14591
14592
14593
14594
14595
14596
14597
14598
14599
14600
14601
14602
14603
14604
14605
14606
14607
14608
14609
14610
14611
14612
14613
14614
14615
14616
14617
14618
14619
14620
14621
14622
14623
14624
14625
14626
14627
14628
14629
14630
14631
14632
14633
14634
14635
14636
14637
14638
14639
14640
14641
14642
14643
14644
14645
14646
14647
14648
14649
14650
14651
14652
14653
14654
14655
14656
14657
14658
14659
14660
14661
14662
14663
14664
14665
14666
14667
14668
14669
14670
14671
14672
14673
14674
14675
14676
14677
14678
14679
14680
14681
14682
14683
14684
14685
14686
14687
14688
14689
14690
14691
14692
14693
14694
14695
14696
14697
14698
14699
14700
14701
14702
14703
14704
14705
14706
14707
14708
14709
14710
14711
14712
14713
14714
14715
14716
14717
14718
14719
14720
14721
14722
14723
14724
14725
14726
14727
14728
14729
14730
14731
14732
14733
14734
14735
14736
14737
14738
14739
14740
14741
14742
14743
14744
14745
14746
14747
14748
14749
14750
14751
14752
14753
14754
14755
14756
14757
14758
14759
14760
14761
14762
14763
14764
14765
14766
14767
14768
14769
14770
14771
14772
14773
14774
14775
14776
14777
14778
14779
14780
14781
14782
14783
14784
14785
14786
14787
14788
14789
14790
14791
14792
14793
14794
14795
14796
14797
14798
14799
14800
14801
14802
14803
14804
14805
14806
14807
14808
14809
14810
14811
14812
14813
14814
14815
14816
14817
14818
14819
14820
14821
14822
14823
14824
14825
14826
14827
14828
14829
14830
14831
14832
14833
14834
14835
14836
14837
14838
14839
14840
14841
14842
14843
14844
14845
14846
14847
14848
14849
14850
14851
14852
14853
14854
14855
14856
14857
14858
14859
14860
14861
14862
14863
14864
14865
14866
14867
14868
14869
14870
14871
14872
14873
14874
14875
14876
14877
14878
14879
14880
14881
14882
14883
14884
14885
14886
14887
14888
14889
14890
14891
14892
14893
14894
14895
14896
14897
14898
14899
14900
14901
14902
14903
14904
14905
14906
14907
14908
14909
14910
14911
14912
14913
14914
14915
14916
14917
14918
14919
14920
14921
14922
14923
14924
14925
14926
14927
14928
14929
14930
14931
14932
14933
14934
14935
14936
14937
14938
14939
14940
14941
14942
14943
14944
14945
14946
14947
14948
14949
14950
14951
14952
14953
14954
14955
14956
14957
14958
14959
14960
14961
14962
14963
14964
14965
14966
14967
14968
14969
14970
14971
14972
14973
14974
14975
14976
14977
14978
14979
14980
14981
14982
14983
14984
14985
14986
14987
14988
14989
14990
14991
14992
14993
14994
14995
14996
14997
14998
14999
15000
15001
15002
15003
15004
15005
15006
15007
15008
15009
15010
15011
15012
15013
15014
15015
15016
15017
15018
15019
15020
15021
15022
15023
15024
15025
15026
15027
15028
15029
15030
15031
15032
15033
15034
15035
15036
15037
15038
15039
15040
15041
15042
15043
15044
15045
15046
15047
15048
15049
15050
15051
15052
15053
15054
15055
15056
15057
15058
15059
15060
15061
15062
15063
15064
15065
15066
15067
15068
15069
15070
15071
15072
15073
15074
15075
15076
15077
15078
15079
15080
15081
15082
15083
15084
15085
15086
15087
15088
15089
15090
15091
15092
15093
15094
15095
15096
15097
15098
15099
15100
15101
15102
15103
15104
15105
15106
15107
15108
15109
15110
15111
15112
15113
15114
15115
15116
15117
15118
15119
15120
15121
15122
15123
15124
15125
15126
15127
15128
15129
15130
15131
15132
15133
15134
15135
15136
15137
15138
15139
15140
15141
15142
15143
15144
15145
15146
15147
15148
15149
15150
15151
15152
15153
15154
15155
15156
15157
15158
15159
15160
15161
15162
15163
15164
15165
15166
15167
15168
15169
15170
15171
15172
15173
15174
15175
15176
15177
15178
15179
15180
15181
15182
15183
15184
15185
15186
15187
15188
15189
15190
15191
15192
15193
15194
15195
15196
15197
15198
15199
15200
15201
15202
15203
15204
15205
15206
15207
15208
15209
15210
15211
15212
15213
15214
15215
15216
15217
15218
15219
15220
15221
15222
15223
15224
15225
15226
15227
15228
15229
15230
15231
15232
15233
15234
15235
15236
15237
15238
15239
15240
15241
15242
15243
15244
15245
15246
15247
15248
15249
15250
15251
15252
15253
15254
15255
15256
15257
15258
15259
15260
15261
15262
15263
15264
15265
15266
15267
15268
15269
15270
15271
15272
15273
15274
15275
15276
15277
15278
15279
15280
15281
15282
15283
15284
15285
15286
15287
15288
15289
15290
15291
15292
15293
15294
15295
15296
15297
15298
15299
15300
15301
15302
15303
15304
15305
15306
15307
15308
15309
15310
15311
15312
15313
15314
15315
15316
15317
15318
15319
15320
15321
15322
15323
15324
15325
15326
15327
15328
15329
15330
15331
15332
15333
15334
15335
15336
15337
15338
15339
15340
15341
15342
15343
15344
15345
15346
15347
15348
15349
15350
15351
15352
15353
15354
15355
15356
15357
15358
15359
15360
15361
15362
15363
15364
15365
15366
15367
15368
15369
15370
15371
15372
15373
15374
15375
15376
15377
15378
15379
15380
15381
15382
15383
15384
15385
15386
15387
15388
15389
15390
15391
15392
15393
15394
15395
15396
15397
15398
15399
15400
15401
15402
15403
15404
15405
15406
15407
15408
15409
15410
15411
15412
15413
15414
15415
15416
15417
15418
15419
15420
15421
15422
15423
15424
15425
15426
15427
15428
15429
15430
15431
15432
15433
15434
15435
15436
15437
15438
15439
15440
15441
15442
15443
15444
15445
15446
15447
15448
15449
15450
15451
15452
15453
15454
15455
15456
15457
15458
15459
15460
15461
15462
15463
15464
15465
15466
15467
15468
15469
15470
15471
15472
15473
15474
15475
15476
15477
15478
15479
15480
15481
15482
15483
15484
15485
15486
15487
15488
15489
15490
15491
15492
15493
15494
15495
15496
15497
15498
15499
15500
15501
15502
15503
15504
15505
15506
15507
15508
15509
15510
15511
15512
15513
15514
15515
15516
15517
15518
15519
15520
15521
15522
15523
15524
15525
15526
15527
15528
15529
15530
15531
15532
15533
15534
15535
15536
15537
15538
15539
15540
15541
15542
15543
15544
15545
15546
15547
15548
15549
15550
15551
15552
15553
15554
15555
15556
15557
15558
15559
15560
15561
15562
15563
15564
15565
15566
15567
15568
15569
15570
15571
15572
15573
15574
15575
15576
15577
15578
15579
15580
15581
15582
15583
15584
15585
15586
15587
15588
15589
15590
15591
15592
15593
15594
15595
15596
15597
15598
15599
15600
15601
15602
15603
15604
15605
15606
15607
15608
15609
15610
15611
15612
15613
15614
15615
15616
15617
15618
15619
15620
15621
15622
15623
15624
15625
15626
15627
15628
15629
15630
15631
15632
15633
15634
15635
15636
15637
15638
15639
15640
15641
15642
15643
15644
15645
15646
15647
15648
15649
15650
15651
15652
15653
15654
15655
15656
15657
15658
15659
15660
15661
15662
15663
15664
15665
15666
15667
15668
15669
15670
15671
15672
15673
15674
15675
15676
15677
15678
15679
15680
15681
15682
15683
15684
15685
15686
15687
15688
15689
15690
15691
15692
15693
15694
15695
15696
15697
15698
15699
15700
15701
15702
15703
15704
15705
15706
15707
15708
15709
15710
15711
15712
15713
15714
15715
15716
15717
15718
15719
15720
15721
15722
15723
15724
15725
15726
15727
15728
15729
15730
15731
15732
15733
15734
15735
15736
15737
15738
15739
15740
15741
15742
15743
15744
15745
15746
15747
15748
15749
15750
15751
15752
15753
15754
15755
15756
15757
15758
15759
15760
15761
15762
15763
15764
15765
15766
15767
15768
15769
15770
15771
15772
15773
15774
15775
15776
15777
15778
15779
15780
15781
15782
15783
15784
15785
15786
15787
15788
15789
15790
15791
15792
15793
15794
15795
15796
15797
15798
15799
15800
15801
15802
15803
15804
15805
15806
15807
15808
15809
15810
15811
15812
15813
15814
15815
15816
15817
15818
15819
15820
15821
15822
15823
15824
15825
15826
15827
15828
15829
15830
15831
15832
15833
15834
15835
15836
15837
15838
15839
15840
15841
15842
15843
15844
15845
15846
15847
15848
15849
15850
15851
15852
15853
15854
15855
15856
15857
15858
15859
15860
15861
15862
15863
15864
15865
15866
15867
15868
15869
15870
15871
15872
15873
15874
15875
15876
15877
15878
15879
15880
15881
15882
15883
15884
15885
15886
15887
15888
15889
15890
15891
15892
15893
15894
15895
15896
15897
15898
15899
15900
15901
15902
15903
15904
15905
15906
15907
15908
15909
15910
15911
15912
15913
15914
15915
15916
15917
15918
15919
15920
15921
15922
15923
15924
15925
15926
15927
15928
15929
15930
15931
15932
15933
15934
15935
15936
15937
15938
15939
15940
15941
15942
15943
15944
15945
15946
15947
15948
15949
15950
15951
15952
15953
15954
15955
15956
15957
15958
15959
15960
15961
15962
15963
15964
15965
15966
15967
15968
15969
15970
15971
15972
15973
15974
15975
15976
15977
15978
15979
15980
15981
15982
15983
15984
15985
15986
15987
15988
15989
15990
15991
15992
15993
15994
15995
15996
15997
15998
15999
16000
16001
16002
16003
16004
16005
16006
16007
16008
16009
16010
16011
16012
16013
16014
16015
16016
16017
16018
16019
16020
16021
16022
16023
16024
16025
16026
16027
16028
16029
16030
16031
16032
16033
16034
16035
16036
16037
16038
16039
16040
16041
16042
16043
16044
16045
16046
16047
16048
16049
16050
16051
16052
16053
16054
16055
16056
16057
16058
16059
16060
16061
16062
16063
16064
16065
16066
16067
16068
16069
16070
16071
16072
16073
16074
16075
16076
16077
16078
16079
16080
16081
16082
16083
16084
16085
16086
16087
16088
16089
16090
16091
16092
16093
16094
16095
16096
16097
16098
16099
16100
16101
16102
16103
16104
16105
16106
16107
16108
16109
16110
16111
16112
16113
16114
16115
16116
16117
16118
16119
16120
16121
16122
16123
16124
16125
16126
16127
16128
16129
16130
16131
16132
16133
16134
16135
16136
16137
16138
16139
16140
16141
16142
16143
16144
16145
16146
16147
16148
16149
16150
16151
16152
16153
16154
16155
16156
16157
16158
16159
16160
16161
16162
16163
16164
16165
16166
16167
16168
16169
16170
16171
16172
16173
16174
16175
16176
16177
16178
16179
16180
16181
16182
16183
16184
16185
16186
16187
16188
16189
16190
16191
16192
16193
16194
16195
16196
16197
16198
16199
16200
16201
16202
16203
16204
16205
16206
16207
16208
16209
16210
16211
16212
16213
16214
16215
16216
16217
16218
16219
16220
16221
16222
16223
16224
16225
16226
16227
16228
16229
16230
16231
16232
16233
16234
16235
16236
16237
16238
16239
16240
16241
16242
16243
16244
16245
16246
16247
16248
16249
16250
16251
16252
16253
16254
16255
16256
16257
16258
16259
16260
16261
16262
16263
16264
16265
16266
16267
16268
16269
16270
16271
16272
16273
16274
16275
16276
16277
16278
16279
16280
16281
16282
16283
16284
16285
16286
16287
16288
16289
16290
16291
16292
16293
16294
16295
16296
16297
16298
16299
16300
16301
16302
16303
16304
16305
16306
16307
16308
16309
16310
16311
16312
16313
16314
16315
16316
16317
16318
16319
16320
16321
16322
16323
16324
16325
16326
16327
16328
16329
16330
16331
16332
16333
16334
16335
16336
16337
16338
16339
16340
16341
16342
16343
16344
16345
16346
16347
16348
16349
16350
16351
16352
16353
16354
16355
16356
16357
16358
16359
16360
16361
16362
16363
16364
16365
16366
16367
16368
16369
16370
16371
16372
16373
16374
16375
16376
16377
16378
16379
16380
16381
16382
16383
16384
16385
16386
16387
16388
16389
16390
16391
16392
16393
16394
16395
16396
16397
16398
16399
16400
16401
16402
16403
16404
16405
16406
16407
16408
16409
16410
16411
16412
16413
16414
16415
16416
16417
16418
16419
16420
16421
16422
16423
16424
16425
16426
16427
16428
16429
16430
16431
16432
16433
16434
16435
16436
16437
16438
16439
16440
16441
16442
16443
16444
16445
16446
16447
16448
16449
16450
16451
16452
16453
16454
16455
16456
16457
16458
16459
16460
16461
16462
16463
16464
16465
16466
16467
16468
16469
16470
16471
16472
16473
16474
16475
16476
16477
16478
16479
16480
16481
16482
16483
16484
16485
16486
16487
16488
16489
16490
16491
16492
16493
16494
16495
16496
16497
16498
16499
16500
16501
16502
16503
16504
16505
16506
16507
16508
16509
16510
16511
16512
16513
16514
16515
16516
16517
16518
16519
16520
16521
16522
16523
16524
16525
16526
16527
16528
16529
16530
16531
16532
16533
16534
16535
16536
16537
16538
16539
16540
16541
16542
16543
16544
16545
16546
16547
16548
16549
16550
16551
16552
16553
16554
16555
16556
16557
16558
16559
16560
16561
16562
16563
16564
16565
16566
16567
16568
16569
16570
16571
16572
16573
16574
16575
16576
16577
16578
16579
16580
16581
16582
16583
16584
16585
16586
16587
16588
16589
16590
16591
16592
16593
16594
16595
16596
16597
16598
16599
16600
16601
16602
16603
16604
16605
16606
16607
16608
16609
16610
16611
16612
16613
16614
16615
16616
16617
16618
16619
16620
16621
16622
16623
16624
16625
16626
16627
16628
16629
16630
16631
16632
16633
16634
16635
16636
16637
16638
16639
16640
16641
16642
16643
16644
16645
16646
16647
16648
16649
16650
16651
16652
16653
16654
16655
16656
16657
16658
16659
16660
16661
16662
16663
16664
16665
16666
16667
16668
16669
16670
16671
16672
16673
16674
16675
16676
16677
16678
16679
16680
16681
16682
16683
16684
16685
16686
16687
16688
16689
16690
16691
16692
16693
16694
16695
16696
16697
16698
16699
16700
16701
16702
16703
16704
16705
16706
16707
16708
16709
16710
16711
16712
16713
16714
16715
16716
16717
16718
16719
16720
16721
16722
16723
16724
16725
16726
16727
16728
16729
16730
16731
16732
16733
16734
16735
16736
16737
16738
16739
16740
16741
16742
16743
16744
16745
16746
16747
16748
16749
16750
16751
16752
16753
16754
16755
16756
16757
16758
16759
16760
16761
16762
16763
16764
16765
16766
16767
16768
16769
16770
16771
16772
16773
16774
16775
16776
16777
16778
16779
16780
16781
16782
16783
16784
16785
16786
16787
16788
16789
16790
16791
16792
16793
16794
16795
16796
16797
16798
16799
16800
16801
16802
16803
16804
16805
16806
16807
16808
16809
16810
16811
16812
16813
16814
16815
16816
16817
16818
16819
16820
16821
16822
16823
16824
16825
16826
16827
16828
16829
16830
16831
16832
16833
16834
16835
16836
16837
16838
16839
16840
16841
16842
16843
16844
16845
16846
16847
16848
16849
16850
16851
16852
16853
16854
16855
16856
16857
16858
16859
16860
16861
16862
16863
16864
16865
16866
16867
16868
16869
16870
16871
16872
16873
16874
16875
16876
16877
16878
16879
16880
16881
16882
16883
16884
16885
16886
16887
16888
16889
16890
16891
16892
16893
16894
16895
16896
16897
16898
16899
16900
16901
16902
16903
16904
16905
16906
16907
16908
16909
16910
16911
16912
16913
16914
16915
16916
16917
16918
16919
16920
16921
16922
16923
16924
16925
16926
16927
16928
16929
16930
16931
16932
16933
16934
16935
16936
16937
16938
16939
16940
16941
16942
16943
16944
16945
16946
16947
16948
16949
16950
16951
16952
16953
16954
16955
16956
16957
16958
16959
16960
16961
16962
16963
16964
16965
16966
16967
16968
16969
16970
16971
16972
16973
16974
16975
16976
16977
16978
16979
16980
16981
16982
16983
16984
16985
16986
16987
16988
16989
16990
16991
16992
16993
16994
16995
16996
16997
16998
16999
17000
17001
17002
17003
17004
17005
17006
17007
17008
17009
17010
17011
17012
17013
17014
17015
17016
17017
17018
17019
17020
17021
17022
17023
17024
17025
17026
17027
17028
17029
17030
17031
17032
17033
17034
17035
17036
17037
17038
17039
17040
17041
17042
17043
17044
17045
17046
17047
17048
17049
17050
17051
17052
17053
17054
17055
17056
17057
17058
17059
17060
17061
17062
17063
17064
17065
17066
17067
17068
17069
17070
17071
17072
17073
17074
17075
17076
17077
17078
17079
17080
17081
17082
17083
17084
17085
17086
17087
17088
17089
17090
17091
17092
17093
17094
17095
17096
17097
17098
17099
17100
17101
17102
17103
17104
17105
17106
17107
17108
17109
17110
17111
17112
17113
17114
17115
17116
17117
17118
17119
17120
17121
17122
17123
17124
17125
17126
17127
17128
17129
17130
17131
17132
17133
17134
17135
17136
17137
17138
17139
17140
17141
17142
17143
17144
17145
17146
17147
17148
17149
17150
17151
17152
17153
17154
17155
17156
17157
17158
17159
17160
17161
17162
17163
17164
17165
17166
17167
17168
17169
17170
17171
17172
17173
17174
17175
17176
17177
17178
17179
17180
17181
17182
17183
17184
17185
17186
17187
17188
17189
17190
17191
17192
17193
17194
17195
17196
17197
17198
17199
17200
17201
17202
17203
17204
17205
17206
17207
17208
17209
17210
17211
17212
17213
17214
17215
17216
17217
17218
17219
17220
17221
17222
17223
17224
17225
17226
17227
17228
17229
17230
17231
17232
17233
17234
17235
17236
17237
17238
17239
17240
17241
17242
17243
17244
17245
17246
17247
17248
17249
17250
17251
17252
17253
17254
17255
17256
17257
17258
17259
17260
17261
17262
17263
17264
17265
17266
17267
17268
17269
17270
17271
17272
17273
17274
17275
17276
17277
17278
17279
17280
17281
17282
17283
17284
17285
17286
17287
17288
17289
17290
17291
17292
17293
17294
17295
17296
17297
17298
17299
17300
17301
17302
17303
17304
17305
17306
17307
17308
17309
17310
17311
17312
17313
17314
17315
17316
17317
17318
17319
17320
17321
17322
17323
17324
17325
17326
17327
17328
17329
17330
17331
17332
17333
17334
17335
17336
17337
17338
17339
17340
17341
17342
17343
17344
17345
17346
17347
17348
17349
17350
17351
17352
17353
17354
17355
17356
17357
17358
17359
17360
17361
17362
17363
17364
17365
17366
17367
17368
17369
17370
17371
17372
17373
17374
17375
17376
17377
17378
17379
17380
17381
17382
17383
17384
17385
17386
17387
17388
17389
17390
17391
17392
17393
17394
17395
17396
17397
17398
17399
17400
17401
17402
17403
17404
17405
17406
17407
17408
17409
17410
17411
17412
17413
17414
17415
17416
17417
17418
17419
17420
17421
17422
17423
17424
17425
17426
17427
17428
17429
17430
17431
17432
17433
17434
17435
17436
17437
17438
17439
17440
17441
17442
17443
17444
17445
17446
17447
17448
17449
17450
17451
17452
17453
17454
17455
17456
17457
17458
17459
17460
17461
17462
17463
17464
17465
17466
17467
17468
17469
17470
17471
17472
17473
17474
17475
17476
17477
17478
17479
17480
17481
17482
17483
17484
17485
17486
17487
17488
17489
17490
17491
17492
17493
17494
17495
17496
17497
17498
17499
17500
17501
17502
17503
17504
17505
17506
17507
17508
17509
17510
17511
17512
17513
17514
17515
17516
17517
17518
17519
17520
17521
17522
17523
17524
17525
17526
17527
17528
17529
17530
17531
17532
17533
17534
17535
17536
17537
17538
17539
17540
17541
17542
17543
17544
17545
17546
17547
17548
17549
17550
17551
17552
17553
17554
17555
17556
17557
17558
17559
17560
17561
17562
17563
17564
17565
17566
17567
17568
17569
17570
17571
17572
17573
17574
17575
17576
17577
17578
17579
17580
17581
17582
17583
17584
17585
17586
17587
17588
17589
17590
17591
17592
17593
17594
17595
17596
17597
17598
17599
17600
17601
17602
17603
17604
17605
17606
17607
17608
17609
17610
17611
17612
17613
17614
17615
17616
17617
17618
17619
17620
17621
17622
17623
17624
17625
17626
17627
17628
17629
17630
17631
17632
17633
17634
17635
17636
17637
17638
17639
17640
17641
17642
17643
17644
17645
17646
17647
17648
17649
17650
17651
17652
17653
17654
17655
17656
17657
17658
17659
17660
17661
17662
17663
17664
17665
17666
17667
17668
17669
17670
17671
17672
17673
17674
17675
17676
17677
17678
17679
17680
17681
17682
17683
17684
17685
17686
17687
17688
17689
17690
17691
17692
17693
17694
17695
17696
17697
17698
17699
17700
17701
17702
17703
17704
17705
17706
17707
17708
17709
17710
17711
17712
17713
17714
17715
17716
17717
17718
17719
17720
17721
17722
17723
17724
17725
17726
17727
17728
17729
17730
17731
17732
17733
17734
17735
17736
17737
17738
17739
17740
17741
17742
17743
17744
17745
17746
17747
17748
17749
17750
17751
17752
17753
17754
17755
17756
17757
17758
17759
17760
17761
17762
17763
17764
17765
17766
17767
17768
17769
17770
17771
17772
17773
17774
17775
17776
17777
17778
17779
17780
17781
17782
17783
17784
17785
17786
17787
17788
17789
17790
17791
17792
17793
17794
17795
17796
17797
17798
17799
17800
17801
17802
17803
17804
17805
17806
17807
17808
17809
17810
17811
17812
17813
17814
17815
17816
17817
17818
17819
17820
17821
17822
17823
17824
17825
17826
17827
17828
17829
17830
17831
17832
17833
17834
17835
17836
17837
17838
17839
17840
17841
17842
17843
17844
17845
17846
17847
17848
17849
17850
17851
17852
17853
17854
17855
17856
17857
17858
17859
17860
17861
17862
17863
17864
17865
17866
17867
17868
17869
17870
17871
17872
17873
17874
17875
17876
17877
17878
17879
17880
17881
17882
17883
17884
17885
17886
17887
17888
17889
17890
17891
17892
17893
17894
17895
17896
17897
17898
17899
17900
17901
17902
17903
17904
17905
17906
17907
17908
17909
17910
17911
17912
17913
17914
17915
17916
17917
17918
17919
17920
17921
17922
17923
17924
17925
17926
17927
17928
17929
17930
17931
17932
17933
17934
17935
17936
17937
17938
17939
17940
17941
17942
17943
17944
17945
17946
17947
17948
17949
17950
17951
17952
17953
17954
17955
17956
17957
17958
17959
17960
17961
17962
17963
17964
17965
17966
17967
17968
17969
17970
17971
17972
17973
17974
17975
17976
17977
17978
17979
17980
17981
17982
17983
17984
17985
17986
17987
17988
17989
17990
17991
17992
17993
17994
17995
17996
17997
17998
17999
18000
18001
18002
18003
18004
18005
18006
18007
18008
18009
18010
18011
18012
18013
18014
18015
18016
18017
18018
18019
18020
18021
18022
18023
18024
18025
18026
18027
18028
18029
18030
18031
18032
18033
18034
18035
18036
18037
18038
18039
18040
18041
18042
18043
18044
18045
18046
18047
18048
18049
18050
18051
18052
18053
18054
18055
18056
18057
18058
18059
18060
18061
18062
18063
18064
18065
18066
18067
18068
18069
18070
18071
18072
18073
18074
18075
18076
18077
18078
18079
18080
18081
18082
18083
18084
18085
18086
18087
18088
18089
18090
18091
18092
18093
18094
18095
18096
18097
18098
18099
18100
18101
18102
18103
18104
18105
18106
18107
18108
18109
18110
18111
18112
18113
18114
18115
18116
18117
18118
18119
18120
18121
18122
18123
18124
18125
18126
18127
18128
18129
18130
18131
18132
18133
18134
18135
18136
18137
18138
18139
18140
18141
18142
18143
18144
18145
18146
18147
18148
18149
18150
18151
18152
18153
18154
18155
18156
18157
18158
18159
18160
18161
18162
18163
18164
18165
18166
18167
18168
18169
18170
18171
18172
18173
18174
18175
18176
18177
18178
18179
18180
18181
18182
18183
18184
18185
18186
18187
18188
18189
18190
18191
18192
18193
18194
18195
18196
18197
18198
18199
18200
18201
18202
18203
18204
18205
18206
18207
18208
18209
18210
18211
18212
18213
18214
18215
18216
18217
18218
18219
18220
18221
18222
18223
18224
18225
18226
18227
18228
18229
18230
18231
18232
18233
18234
18235
18236
18237
18238
18239
18240
18241
18242
18243
18244
18245
18246
18247
18248
18249
18250
18251
18252
18253
18254
18255
18256
18257
18258
18259
18260
18261
18262
18263
18264
18265
18266
18267
18268
18269
18270
18271
18272
18273
18274
18275
18276
18277
18278
18279
18280
18281
18282
18283
18284
18285
18286
18287
18288
18289
18290
18291
18292
18293
18294
18295
18296
18297
18298
18299
18300
18301
18302
18303
18304
18305
18306
18307
18308
18309
18310
18311
18312
18313
18314
18315
18316
18317
18318
18319
18320
18321
18322
18323
18324
18325
18326
18327
18328
18329
18330
18331
18332
18333
18334
18335
18336
18337
18338
18339
18340
18341
18342
18343
18344
18345
18346
18347
18348
18349
18350
18351
18352
18353
18354
18355
18356
18357
18358
18359
18360
18361
18362
18363
18364
18365
18366
18367
18368
18369
18370
18371
18372
18373
18374
18375
18376
18377
18378
18379
18380
18381
18382
18383
18384
18385
18386
18387
18388
18389
18390
18391
18392
18393
18394
18395
18396
18397
18398
18399
18400
18401
18402
18403
18404
18405
18406
18407
18408
18409
18410
18411
18412
18413
18414
18415
18416
18417
18418
18419
18420
18421
18422
18423
18424
18425
18426
18427
18428
18429
18430
18431
18432
18433
18434
18435
18436
18437
18438
18439
18440
18441
18442
18443
18444
18445
18446
18447
18448
18449
18450
18451
18452
18453
18454
18455
18456
18457
18458
18459
18460
18461
18462
18463
18464
18465
18466
18467
18468
18469
18470
18471
18472
18473
18474
18475
18476
18477
18478
18479
18480
18481
18482
18483
18484
18485
18486
18487
18488
18489
18490
18491
18492
18493
18494
18495
18496
18497
18498
18499
18500
18501
18502
18503
18504
18505
18506
18507
18508
18509
18510
18511
18512
18513
18514
18515
18516
18517
18518
18519
18520
18521
18522
18523
18524
18525
18526
18527
18528
18529
18530
18531
18532
18533
18534
18535
18536
18537
18538
18539
18540
18541
18542
18543
18544
18545
18546
18547
18548
18549
18550
18551
18552
18553
18554
18555
18556
18557
18558
18559
18560
18561
18562
18563
18564
18565
18566
18567
18568
18569
18570
18571
18572
18573
18574
18575
18576
18577
18578
18579
18580
18581
18582
18583
18584
18585
18586
18587
18588
18589
18590
18591
18592
18593
18594
18595
18596
18597
18598
18599
18600
18601
18602
18603
18604
18605
18606
18607
18608
18609
18610
18611
18612
18613
18614
18615
18616
18617
18618
18619
18620
18621
18622
18623
18624
18625
18626
18627
18628
18629
18630
18631
18632
18633
18634
18635
18636
18637
18638
18639
18640
18641
18642
18643
18644
18645
18646
18647
18648
18649
18650
18651
18652
18653
18654
18655
18656
18657
18658
18659
18660
18661
18662
18663
18664
18665
18666
18667
18668
18669
18670
18671
18672
18673
18674
18675
18676
18677
18678
18679
18680
18681
18682
18683
18684
18685
18686
18687
18688
18689
18690
18691
18692
18693
18694
18695
18696
18697
18698
18699
18700
18701
18702
18703
18704
18705
18706
18707
18708
18709
18710
18711
18712
18713
18714
18715
18716
18717
18718
18719
18720
18721
18722
18723
18724
18725
18726
18727
18728
18729
18730
18731
18732
18733
18734
18735
18736
18737
18738
18739
18740
18741
18742
18743
18744
18745
18746
18747
18748
18749
18750
18751
18752
18753
18754
18755
18756
18757
18758
18759
18760
18761
18762
18763
18764
18765
18766
18767
18768
18769
18770
18771
18772
18773
18774
18775
18776
18777
18778
18779
18780
18781
18782
18783
18784
18785
18786
18787
18788
18789
18790
18791
18792
18793
18794
18795
18796
18797
18798
18799
18800
18801
18802
18803
18804
18805
18806
18807
18808
18809
18810
18811
18812
18813
18814
18815
18816
18817
18818
18819
18820
18821
18822
18823
18824
18825
18826
18827
18828
18829
18830
18831
18832
18833
18834
18835
18836
18837
18838
18839
18840
18841
18842
18843
18844
18845
18846
18847
18848
18849
18850
18851
18852
18853
18854
18855
18856
18857
18858
18859
18860
18861
18862
18863
18864
18865
18866
18867
18868
18869
18870
18871
18872
18873
18874
18875
18876
18877
18878
18879
18880
18881
18882
18883
18884
18885
18886
18887
18888
18889
18890
18891
18892
18893
18894
18895
18896
18897
18898
18899
18900
18901
18902
18903
18904
18905
18906
18907
18908
18909
18910
18911
18912
18913
18914
18915
18916
18917
18918
18919
18920
18921
18922
18923
18924
18925
18926
18927
18928
18929
18930
18931
18932
18933
18934
18935
18936
18937
18938
18939
18940
18941
18942
18943
18944
18945
18946
18947
18948
18949
18950
18951
18952
18953
18954
18955
18956
18957
18958
18959
18960
18961
18962
18963
18964
18965
18966
18967
18968
18969
18970
18971
18972
18973
18974
18975
18976
18977
18978
18979
18980
18981
18982
18983
18984
18985
18986
18987
18988
18989
18990
18991
18992
18993
18994
18995
18996
18997
18998
18999
19000
19001
19002
19003
19004
19005
19006
19007
19008
19009
19010
19011
19012
19013
19014
19015
19016
19017
19018
19019
19020
19021
19022
19023
19024
19025
19026
19027
19028
19029
19030
19031
19032
19033
19034
19035
19036
19037
19038
19039
19040
19041
19042
19043
19044
19045
19046
19047
19048
19049
19050
19051
19052
19053
19054
19055
19056
19057
19058
19059
19060
19061
19062
19063
19064
19065
19066
19067
19068
19069
19070
19071
19072
19073
19074
19075
19076
19077
19078
19079
19080
19081
19082
19083
19084
19085
19086
19087
19088
19089
19090
19091
19092
19093
19094
19095
19096
19097
19098
19099
19100
19101
19102
19103
19104
19105
19106
19107
19108
19109
19110
19111
19112
19113
19114
19115
19116
19117
19118
19119
19120
19121
19122
19123
19124
19125
19126
19127
19128
19129
19130
19131
19132
19133
19134
19135
19136
19137
19138
19139
19140
19141
19142
19143
19144
19145
19146
19147
19148
19149
19150
19151
19152
19153
19154
19155
19156
19157
19158
19159
19160
19161
19162
19163
19164
19165
19166
19167
19168
19169
19170
19171
19172
19173
19174
19175
19176
19177
19178
19179
19180
19181
19182
19183
19184
19185
19186
19187
19188
19189
19190
19191
19192
19193
19194
19195
19196
19197
19198
19199
19200
19201
19202
19203
19204
19205
19206
19207
19208
19209
19210
19211
19212
19213
19214
19215
19216
19217
19218
19219
19220
19221
19222
19223
19224
19225
19226
19227
19228
19229
19230
19231
19232
19233
19234
19235
19236
19237
19238
19239
19240
19241
19242
19243
19244
19245
19246
19247
19248
19249
19250
19251
19252
19253
19254
19255
19256
19257
19258
19259
19260
19261
19262
19263
19264
19265
19266
19267
19268
19269
19270
19271
19272
19273
19274
19275
19276
19277
19278
19279
19280
19281
19282
19283
19284
19285
19286
19287
19288
19289
19290
19291
19292
19293
19294
19295
19296
19297
19298
19299
19300
19301
19302
19303
19304
19305
19306
19307
19308
19309
19310
19311
19312
19313
19314
19315
19316
19317
19318
19319
19320
19321
19322
19323
19324
19325
19326
19327
19328
19329
19330
19331
19332
19333
19334
19335
19336
19337
19338
19339
19340
19341
19342
19343
19344
19345
19346
19347
19348
19349
19350
19351
19352
19353
19354
19355
19356
19357
19358
19359
19360
19361
19362
19363
19364
19365
19366
19367
19368
19369
19370
19371
19372
19373
19374
19375
19376
19377
19378
19379
19380
19381
19382
19383
19384
19385
19386
19387
19388
19389
19390
19391
19392
19393
19394
19395
19396
19397
19398
19399
19400
19401
19402
19403
19404
19405
19406
19407
19408
19409
19410
19411
19412
19413
19414
19415
19416
19417
19418
19419
19420
19421
19422
19423
19424
19425
19426
19427
19428
19429
19430
19431
19432
19433
19434
19435
19436
19437
19438
19439
19440
19441
19442
19443
19444
19445
19446
19447
19448
19449
19450
19451
19452
19453
19454
19455
19456
19457
19458
19459
19460
19461
19462
19463
19464
19465
19466
19467
19468
19469
19470
19471
19472
19473
19474
19475
19476
19477
19478
19479
19480
19481
19482
19483
19484
19485
19486
19487
19488
19489
19490
19491
19492
19493
19494
19495
19496
19497
19498
19499
19500
19501
19502
19503
19504
19505
19506
19507
19508
19509
19510
19511
19512
19513
19514
19515
19516
19517
19518
19519
19520
19521
19522
19523
19524
19525
19526
19527
19528
19529
19530
19531
19532
19533
19534
19535
19536
19537
19538
19539
19540
19541
19542
19543
19544
19545
19546
19547
19548
19549
19550
19551
19552
19553
19554
19555
19556
19557
19558
19559
19560
19561
19562
19563
19564
19565
19566
19567
19568
19569
19570
19571
19572
19573
19574
19575
19576
19577
19578
19579
19580
19581
19582
19583
19584
19585
19586
19587
19588
19589
19590
19591
19592
19593
19594
19595
19596
19597
19598
19599
19600
19601
19602
19603
19604
19605
19606
19607
19608
19609
19610
19611
19612
19613
19614
19615
19616
19617
19618
19619
19620
19621
19622
19623
19624
19625
19626
19627
19628
19629
19630
19631
19632
19633
19634
19635
19636
19637
19638
19639
19640
19641
19642
19643
19644
19645
19646
19647
19648
19649
19650
19651
19652
19653
19654
19655
19656
19657
19658
19659
19660
19661
19662
19663
19664
19665
19666
19667
19668
19669
19670
19671
19672
19673
19674
19675
19676
19677
19678
19679
19680
19681
19682
19683
19684
19685
19686
19687
19688
19689
19690
19691
19692
19693
19694
19695
19696
19697
19698
19699
19700
19701
19702
19703
19704
19705
19706
19707
19708
19709
19710
19711
19712
19713
19714
19715
19716
19717
19718
19719
19720
19721
19722
19723
19724
19725
19726
19727
19728
19729
19730
19731
19732
19733
19734
19735
19736
19737
19738
19739
19740
19741
19742
19743
19744
19745
19746
19747
19748
19749
19750
19751
19752
19753
19754
19755
19756
19757
19758
19759
19760
19761
19762
19763
19764
19765
19766
19767
19768
19769
19770
19771
19772
19773
19774
19775
19776
19777
19778
19779
19780
19781
19782
19783
19784
19785
19786
19787
19788
19789
19790
19791
19792
19793
19794
19795
19796
19797
19798
19799
19800
19801
19802
19803
19804
19805
19806
19807
19808
19809
19810
19811
19812
19813
19814
19815
19816
19817
19818
19819
19820
19821
19822
19823
19824
19825
19826
19827
19828
19829
19830
19831
19832
19833
19834
19835
19836
19837
19838
19839
19840
19841
19842
19843
19844
19845
19846
19847
19848
19849
19850
19851
19852
19853
19854
19855
19856
19857
19858
19859
19860
19861
19862
19863
19864
19865
19866
19867
19868
19869
19870
19871
19872
19873
19874
19875
19876
19877
19878
19879
19880
19881
19882
19883
19884
19885
19886
19887
19888
19889
19890
19891
19892
19893
19894
19895
19896
19897
19898
19899
19900
19901
19902
19903
19904
19905
19906
19907
19908
19909
19910
19911
19912
19913
19914
19915
19916
19917
19918
19919
19920
19921
19922
19923
19924
19925
19926
19927
19928
19929
19930
19931
19932
19933
19934
19935
19936
19937
19938
19939
19940
19941
19942
19943
19944
19945
19946
19947
19948
19949
19950
19951
19952
19953
19954
19955
19956
19957
19958
19959
19960
19961
19962
19963
19964
19965
19966
19967
19968
19969
19970
19971
19972
19973
19974
19975
19976
19977
19978
19979
19980
19981
19982
19983
19984
19985
19986
19987
19988
19989
19990
19991
19992
19993
19994
19995
19996
19997
19998
19999
20000
20001
20002
20003
20004
20005
20006
20007
20008
20009
20010
20011
20012
20013
20014
20015
20016
20017
20018
20019
20020
20021
20022
20023
20024
20025

<!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=iso-8859-1" />
    <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>


<pre>

The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Ego and His Own, by Max Stirner

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org


Title: The Ego and His Own

Author: Max Stirner

Translator: Steven T. Byington

Release Date: December 5, 2010 [EBook #34580]

Language: English

Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE EGO AND HIS OWN ***




Produced by Fritz Ohrenschall and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)






</pre>





<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 D&Auml;HNHARDT</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'>&nbsp;</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'>&nbsp;</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'>&nbsp;</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'>&nbsp; &nbsp; I.&mdash;<span class="smcap">A Human Life</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_9">9</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align='left'>&nbsp; &nbsp; II.&mdash;<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'>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I.&mdash;<span class="smcap">The Ancients</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_17">17</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align='left'>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; II.&mdash;<span class="smcap">The Moderns</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_30">30</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align='left'>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &sect; 1.&mdash;<span class="smcap">The Spirit</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_34">34</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align='left'>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &sect; 2.&mdash;<span class="smcap">The Possessed</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_42">42</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align='left'>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &sect; 3.&mdash;<span class="smcap">The Hierarchy</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_85">85</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align='left'>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; III.&mdash;<span class="smcap">The Free</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_127">127</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align='left'>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &sect; 1.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Political Liberalism</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_128">128</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align='left'>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &sect; 2.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Social Liberalism</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_152">152</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align='left'>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &sect; 3.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Humane Liberalism</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_163">163</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align='left' colspan='2'>&nbsp;</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'>&nbsp; &nbsp; I.&mdash;<span class="smcap">Ownness</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_203">203</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align='left'>&nbsp; &nbsp; II.&mdash;<span class="smcap">The Owner</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_225">225</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align='left'>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I.&mdash;<span class="smcap">My Power</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_242">242</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align='left'>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; II.&mdash;<span class="smcap">My Intercourse</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_275">275</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align='left'>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; III.&mdash;<span class="smcap">My Self-enjoyment</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_425">425</a></td></tr>
<tr><td align='left'>&nbsp; &nbsp; III.&mdash;<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'>&nbsp;</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,&mdash;"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&mdash;<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,&mdash;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>&nbsp; &nbsp; <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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;as a religion
of humanity,&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;his spurning of
the sense of moral obligation as the last form of superstition,&mdash;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,&mdash;that is, in order not to miss any indication
of the drift of the thought,&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;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."&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;<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>&mdash;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>&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;<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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;<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&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;but it is in mature years, in the
man, that we find it so,&mdash;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,&mdash;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>,&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;in short, how he
has to-day become what yesterday or years ago he was
not,&mdash;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.&mdash;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&mdash;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>,&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;to wit, the capability of
playing freely with and over every concern,&mdash;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,&mdash;and
he is so till the end of antiquity, because his
heart still has to struggle for independence from the
worldly,&mdash;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,&mdash;so
altogether indifferent to the world that even its falling
in ruins would not move him,&mdash;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&mdash;understanding and heart&mdash;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>,&mdash;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?)&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;<i>thinking</i>;
the rest does not bother him; let him
busy himself with the spiritual in any way that he can
and chooses,&mdash;in devotion, in contemplation, or in
philosophic cognition,&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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.&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;<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>,&mdash;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,&mdash;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),&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;<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&mdash;<i>spirit</i>, is the modern,
the&mdash;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.&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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>&sect; 1.&mdash;<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,&mdash;<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&mdash;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,&mdash;for such a one
will not go astray as far as this,&mdash;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,&mdash;<i>i. e.</i>
a spiritual thing&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;<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,"&mdash;<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&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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>,&mdash;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>&sect; 2.&mdash;<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&mdash;what is
naively reckoned as synonymous even in our use of
words&mdash;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&mdash;out of men millions
of spirits speak. The mountains may sink, the
flowers fade, the world of stars fall in ruins, the men
die&mdash;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,"&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;and you never as a
sensual man discover its trace,&mdash;but for your faith, or,
more definitely still, for your <i>spirit</i>; for it itself, you
know, is a spiritual thing, a spirit,&mdash;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&mdash;"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,"&mdash;<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,&mdash;<i>i. e.</i> that you are not only creature, but
likewise your creator,&mdash;just this, as an involuntary
egoist, you fail to recognize; and therefore the
"higher essence" is to you&mdash;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&mdash;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>&ecirc;tre supr&ecirc;me</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&mdash;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&mdash;though he be "his
essence"&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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>&ecirc;tre supr&ecirc;me</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&mdash;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")&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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,"&mdash;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&mdash;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.&mdash;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&mdash;<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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;"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&mdash;lese-majesty); virtue, against which the
censor is not to let a word pass, that morality may be
kept pure; etc.,&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;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.,&mdash;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>,&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;inspiration
and enthusiasm. I add that complete enthusiasm&mdash;for
we cannot stop with the sluggish, half-way kind&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;in short, everything in man,&mdash;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,"&mdash;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,&mdash;I am bound; it is freedom with reference
to the mind,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;<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?&mdash;"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&mdash;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."&mdash;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&mdash;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!&mdash;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&mdash;<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&mdash;<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&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;as they actually are,&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;good.&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;<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>&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;sacred. And everything
"truly human" is to me&mdash;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&mdash;<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&mdash;for <i>homo homini
Deus</i>&mdash;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&mdash;self-renunciation. The low man, like
the exalted one, reaches out for a "good,"&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;fixed idea;
where it begins to inspire, enthuse, fanaticize us; in
short, where it passes into our <i>stubbornness</i> and becomes
our&mdash;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.&mdash;</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&mdash;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&mdash;<i>the soul was at rest</i>. You fell asleep,
to awake in the morning to a new combat and a new&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;despised. To
assure to themselves heaven, to occupy the heavenly
standpoint firmly and for ever,&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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,"&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;our
crops.</p>

<p>We shall come back later to many another wheel in
the head,&mdash;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,&mdash;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>,&mdash;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>&sect; 3.&mdash;<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>corv&eacute;e</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&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;ladder to heaven.</p>

<p>If Mongoldom has settled the existence of spiritual
beings,&mdash;if it has created a world of spirits, a heaven,&mdash;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&mdash;better one on the cleared site, to wreck all
customs in order to put new and better customs in
their place, etc.,&mdash;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&mdash;<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.,&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;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.&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;conscience.</p>

<p>Sacred is everything which for the egoist is to be
unapproachable, not to be touched, outside his <i>power</i>,&mdash;<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&mdash;the
proper standpoint of religion&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;<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,&mdash;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.&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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 &#964;&#959;&#965;&#962; &#945;&#957;&#952;&#961;&#974;&#960;&#959;&#965;&#962;, men, but
&#964;&#959;&#957; &#945;&#957;&#952;&#961;&#969;&#960;&#959;&#957;,
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&mdash;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,&mdash;and is
so in fact,&mdash;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&mdash;<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&mdash;<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&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;<i>thought</i>,&mdash;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 medi&aelig;val 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 medi&aelig;val 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>,&mdash;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&mdash;<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&mdash;<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&mdash;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.&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;<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&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;as a free alliance of love, of course&mdash;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&mdash;church's
welfare?</p>

<p>The genuinely&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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 medi&aelig;val
(Christian) struggle is a struggle against <i>self</i>, the
mind; the former against the outer world, the latter
against the inner world. The medi&aelig;val 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&mdash;<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.&mdash;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>&sect; 1.&mdash;<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&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;"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&mdash;State&mdash;all egoism
vanished, and before it all were equal; they were
without any other distinction&mdash;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&mdash;<i>nation</i> now became
proprietor and master. From this time on the
ideal is spoken of as&mdash;"popular liberty"&mdash;"a free
people," etc.</p>

<p>As early as July 8, 1789, the declaration of the
bishop of Autun and Barr&egrave;re 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&mdash;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&mdash;<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&mdash;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 r&eacute;gime</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,&mdash;to wit, to find that absolute lord beside
whom no other lords and lordlings any longer exist
to clip his power,&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;<i>equal</i>,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;<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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;<i>reason</i>,
that which, like State and Church, gives&mdash;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 Cr&#339;sus or poor as Job&mdash;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&mdash;<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&mdash;penalty.
What is wanted is not free movement and
realization of the person or of me, but of reason,&mdash;<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&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;and we are not allowed
to understand it otherwise,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;<i>i. e.</i>, a real
ruler that <i>wills</i>&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;<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&mdash;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&mdash;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.,&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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>&mdash;and he
alone is <i>Man</i>&mdash;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&mdash;<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&mdash;precepts? Should I profess this
all-subversive view? No, I am a&mdash;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>prol&eacute;tariat</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;&mdash;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>prol&eacute;tariat</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>prol&eacute;tariat</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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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 medi&aelig;val "truth."&mdash;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>prot&eacute;g&eacute;</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&mdash;suck his blood. The State is a&mdash;<i>commoners'
State</i>, is the estate of the commonalty. It protects
man not according to his labor, but according to his
tractableness ("loyalty"),&mdash;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>r&eacute;gime</i> of the commonalty the laborers
always fall into the hands of the possessors,&mdash;<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.&mdash;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.,&mdash;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&mdash;<i>slavery of labor</i>. If <i>labor</i>
becomes <i>free</i>, the State is lost.</p>


<h4>&sect; 2.&mdash;<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"?&mdash;It is
"society"!&mdash;But is it corporeal, then?&mdash;<i>We</i> are its
body!&mdash;You? Why, you are not a body yourselves;&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;ragamuffin.
Let property be <i>impersonal</i>, let it belong
to&mdash;<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&mdash;<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,&mdash;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,&mdash;in the
present situation with regard to the State, therefore,&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;raised, the aristocrat&mdash;degraded;
the <i>third</i> estate became sole estate,&mdash;<i>viz.</i>,
the estate of&mdash;<i>citizens of the State</i>. Now Communism
responds: Our dignity and our essence consist not in
our being all&mdash;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>,&mdash;<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&mdash;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&mdash;<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,&mdash;<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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;<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>,&mdash;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,&mdash;of this the
Socialists do not think, because they&mdash;as liberals&mdash;are
imprisoned in the religious principle, and zealously aspire
after&mdash;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>&sect; 3.&mdash;<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,&mdash;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>r&eacute;gime</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&mdash;<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&mdash;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,&mdash;let Isaacs be ever so
Jewish,&mdash;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&mdash;and
this is the point&mdash;I can, as a Jew, be entirely what I&mdash;<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&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;all superhuman, heavenly, unhuman powers,&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;<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&mdash;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>&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;or, like Schiller, a Swabian; like Kant, a Prussian;
like Gustavus Adolphus, a near-sighted person&mdash;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&mdash;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>,&mdash;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>&mdash;&mdash;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&mdash;&mdash;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,&mdash;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.,&mdash;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;&mdash;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;&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;all,
in short,&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;<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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;for it betrays this to us already&mdash;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&mdash;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;&mdash;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&mdash;yes,
unhuman&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;<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&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;dogma. For
the critic remains on one and the same ground with
the dogmatist,&mdash;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&mdash;and
this is the world of thoughts&mdash;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&mdash;"higher" in which it dissolves;
for he moves only&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,"&mdash;criticism is not able to
produce, because it itself is only the priest of thinking,
and sees nothing beyond thinking but&mdash;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,&mdash;<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&mdash;"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&mdash;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?"&mdash;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&mdash;but
let us not follow the pains further.&mdash;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!&mdash;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,"&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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"!&mdash;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&mdash;"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?"&mdash;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,&mdash;inveighs
the first again,&mdash;do not cast all faith from you, else
the power of brutality breaks in. We must have the
republic,&mdash;a third makes himself heard,&mdash;and be<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_209" id="Page_209">[Pg 209]</a></span>come&mdash;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.&mdash;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&mdash;<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,&mdash;yes,
you consider it insanity even to wish
this?&mdash;Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom,
and spend your pains on something better than the&mdash;<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>,&mdash;for
I will not speak here of your piecemeal bits of
freedom,&mdash;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),&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;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.&mdash;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.&mdash;Thus each deems
himself the&mdash;<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&mdash;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&mdash;<i>for your sake</i> again.&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;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 &aelig;gis 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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;"supreme good"; to gain this
I no longer regard any other of my desires, and do
not slake them.&mdash;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,&mdash;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"&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;in presence of another&mdash;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&mdash;<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&mdash;self-liberation,&mdash;<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&mdash;or calm; it requires always a&mdash;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&mdash;emancipated man. The
Protestant State can certainly set free (emancipate)
the Catholics; but, because they do not make themselves
free, they remain simply&mdash;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&mdash;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>,&mdash;a doctrine of living together, and that of
man with God as well as of man with man,&mdash;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&mdash;in short, such members of a court of justice as
can by mere administrative process be damaged and
endangered,&mdash;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,&mdash;<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,&mdash;<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&mdash;<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&mdash;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,&mdash;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>,&mdash;nay,
in a strict following out of his principle
sets no value at all on it,&mdash;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>,&mdash;<i>i. e.</i> men,&mdash;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,&mdash;<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&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;<i>un-men</i>.
What individual can have corresponded to his concept?
Christianity knows only one Man, and this
one&mdash;Christ&mdash;is at once an un-man again in the reverse
sense, to wit, a superhuman man, a "God."
Only the&mdash;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,&mdash;<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,&mdash;<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,&mdash;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,&mdash;to wit,
"Man." He says, "The history of the Christian world
is the history of the supreme fight for truth, for in it&mdash;and
in it only!&mdash;the thing at issue is the discovery
of the final or the primal truth&mdash;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&mdash;<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,&mdash;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!&mdash;</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,&mdash;anthropocracy.
But it is I alone who have everything that I&mdash;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>,&mdash;<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&mdash;<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&mdash;if the talk is to be of better at all&mdash;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.,&mdash;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.,&mdash;in short, my expression
or manifestation&mdash;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&mdash;<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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;<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,&mdash;whether, therefore, anything
is held sacred for God's sake or for Man's (Humanity's),&mdash;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,"&mdash;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>,&mdash;to wit, our
own value, or all that we are worth,&mdash;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.&mdash;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&mdash;<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&mdash;<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,&mdash;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&mdash;<i>loyal</i>. Whether I am loyal under
a despotism or in a "society" <i>&agrave; 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>fraternit&eacute;</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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;"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,&mdash;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&mdash;alas!&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;<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&mdash;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&mdash;<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&mdash;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&mdash;in
China and Japan&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;to
wit, a particular expression of will&mdash;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&mdash;I
might just as well say, at worst&mdash;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&mdash;monarchy; if
all have it&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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.,&mdash;in short, the
turning of State affairs into a comedy,&mdash;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&mdash;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>?&mdash;<i>You</i> are a&mdash;&mdash;<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&mdash;I,
as I belong to myself alone&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;and this we originally are, and in
our secret inward parts we remain so always&mdash;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)&mdash;the people is full of police
sentiments through and through.&mdash;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]<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_263" id="Page_263">[Pg 263]</a></span></a>
"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?&mdash;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.&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;for you are devil-fearing&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;<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,&mdash;in short, all <i>radical breaking off</i>, all tearing
asunder of venerable <i>ties</i>,&mdash;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&mdash;<i>parsons</i>, and will not
become pure and coherent so long as it is worked out
only by&mdash;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&mdash;<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?"&mdash;</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,&mdash;as Christian, Jew, Mussulman,
good citizen, loyal subject, freeman, patriot, etc.,&mdash;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&mdash;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>&mdash;on
these two concepts turns a stubborn fight. Excluded
or admitted&mdash;would mean the same. But where
should there be a power&mdash;be it an imaginary one like
God, law, or a real one like I, you&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;<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&mdash;<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&mdash;<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&mdash;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&mdash;is a wheel in the head, put there by a
spook; power&mdash;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.&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;<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,&mdash;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,&mdash;mankind or the family,&mdash;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,&mdash;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]<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_280" id="Page_280">[Pg 280]</a></span></a>
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 "&mdash;&mdash; &mdash;&mdash; &mdash;&mdash;," 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 &AElig;schylus, 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&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;that all may become
free whom you so long have held in fetters.&mdash;The<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_285" id="Page_285">[Pg 285]</a></span>
<i>people</i> is dead.&mdash;Up with <i>me</i>!</p>

<p>O thou my much-tormented German people&mdash;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&mdash;thought,
thou dear&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;<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:&mdash;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&mdash;weak.
But the weak, as we have long known, are the&mdash;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.&mdash;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&mdash;"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&mdash;Mother of the Country&mdash;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&mdash;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.&mdash;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&mdash;<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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;<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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;<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&mdash;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&mdash;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.&mdash;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&mdash;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,"&mdash;<i>e. g.</i> in the ancient Persian monarchy
and to-day,&mdash;then these "peoples" rank only as
"provinces." For me the people is in any case an&mdash;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 soci&eacute;t&eacute;, pour
ainsi dire ac&eacute;phale, 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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;from
the <i>family spirit</i>,&mdash;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&mdash;life of the people.&mdash;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&mdash;then
it does not recognize in the "absolute master" its own
will, the so-called will of the people&mdash;, or to seat on
the throne a prince who gives effect to <i>no</i> will of his
<i>own</i>&mdash;then it has a prince <i>without will</i>, whose place
some ingenious clockwork would perhaps fill just as
well.&mdash;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&mdash;law. The
people's I, therefore, is a&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;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
Ant&aelig;us."</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.&mdash;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"&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;<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&mdash;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&mdash;<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&mdash;and this the State is&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;<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>,&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;<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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;what,
therefore, man and the human are,&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;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>propri&eacute;taire</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&mdash;even
though one were allowed only the hundredth part
of this benefit, this fruit&mdash;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>soci&eacute;t&eacute;</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&mdash;<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>propri&eacute;taire</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.&mdash;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&mdash;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>)."&mdash;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 propri&eacute;t&eacute; 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.&mdash;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,&mdash;<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&mdash;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 Propri&eacute;taire 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&mdash;for possession is not yet
property, it becomes "mine" only by assent of the
law&mdash;; 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&mdash;<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,&mdash;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.&mdash;</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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;to wit, the State&mdash;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>,&mdash;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>prol&eacute;tariat</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&mdash;<i>mediator</i>, must&mdash;<i>intervene</i>.
What Christ was, what the saints, the Church
were, the State has become,&mdash;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?&mdash; &mdash;</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&mdash;<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.&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;<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>&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;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.&mdash;</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&mdash;bestow
anything on it; and, when it learns to know itself, it&mdash;or
rather: whoever of the rabble learns to know himself,
he&mdash;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>&mdash;<i>rise</i>.
Bestow ever so much on them, they will still
always want more; for they want nothing less than
that at last&mdash;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&mdash;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>&eacute;galit&eacute;</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,&mdash;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>&eacute;galit&eacute;</i> is&mdash;free competition. All are, before the
State,&mdash;simple individuals; in society, or in relation
to each other,&mdash;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,"&mdash;to wit, one of <i>persons</i>,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;<i>partition</i>.</p>

<p>To be looked upon as a mere <i>part</i>, part of society,
the individual cannot bear&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;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?&mdash; &mdash;</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&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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?&mdash;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,&mdash;that
neither any longer needs to&mdash;<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&mdash;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&mdash;stupidity,
have doled out the mite of the poor and given to
the masters the things that are&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;purchase the fulfiment of your wishes.</p>

<p>Whether money is to be retained among egoists?&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;in short, their
competition,&mdash;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.&mdash;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>,&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;<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,&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;yes, as if Man were
as much as I or you,&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;for the impudence
of such people goes far&mdash;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&mdash;the terrifying word must be
uttered&mdash;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.&mdash;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&mdash;that is too little&mdash;it must be <i>mine</i>:&mdash;<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&mdash;<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!"&mdash;</p>

<p>Now, what have you to reply to him who gives you
so impudent an answer?&mdash;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>,&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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?&mdash;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&mdash;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>v&eacute;rit&eacute;</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&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;<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&mdash;as such
I rather keep it in my possession as property&mdash;, 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,&mdash;<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>fianc&eacute;e</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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;love. The ugly&mdash;<i>e. g.</i>&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;</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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;and it comes
in my way everywhere&mdash;I consume it to quiet the
hunger of my egoism. For me you are nothing but&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;remains unpunished; if he
confesses, he is candid and&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;<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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;martyrs! Martyrs!&mdash;for what? For
yourselves, for self-ownership? No, for your goddess,&mdash;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.&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;an oath-breaker.
The court "absolves me from my oath";&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;besides themselves&mdash;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&mdash;<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&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;<i>dead</i> as a union, it is the corpse of
the union or the coalition, <i>i. e.</i> it is&mdash;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,"&mdash;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&mdash;<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.&mdash;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&mdash;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,"&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;<i>mis&egrave;re</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&mdash;society. The principle
of men exalts itself into a sovereign power over them,
becomes their supreme essence, their God, and, as
such,&mdash;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&mdash;"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&mdash;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&mdash;<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&mdash;<i>begging</i>, be it by
my lamentable appearance, by my need of help, my
misery, my&mdash;<i>suffering</i>. What can I offer him for his
assistance? Nothing! I must accept it as a&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;like
a family, a tribe, a nation, yes, mankind&mdash;the individuals
have only the value of <i>specimens</i> of the same
species or genus; in a spiritual league&mdash;like a commune,
a church&mdash;the individual signifies only a <i>member</i>
of the same spirit; what you are in both cases as a
unique person must be&mdash;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."&mdash;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.&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;<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&mdash;and he is talking of this alone&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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?&mdash;</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>
C&aelig;sar, 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,&mdash;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,&mdash;brand the memory of the&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;self-enjoyment.</p>


<h3>III.&mdash;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&mdash;<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,"&mdash;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&mdash;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>,&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;<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&mdash;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&mdash;to introduce the liberal concept of it at once&mdash;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&mdash;this is the next point&mdash;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&mdash;live on and preserve
oneself nicely. The Christian lets everything
happen and come upon him if he&mdash;the arch-Jew&mdash;can
only haggle and smuggle himself into heaven; he
must not kill himself, he must only&mdash;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]<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_432" id="Page_432">[Pg 432]</a></span></a>
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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;destiny&mdash;task!&mdash;</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,&mdash;<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&mdash;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,&mdash;and which, like an enchanting
dream, people remove to humanity's golden
future,&mdash;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>&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;since
my thinking cannot, and accordingly does not,
cause all men to live rationally, but this must still be
left to the men themselves,&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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,"&mdash;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&mdash;so ran the inference&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;thinkable, it
is an&mdash;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&mdash;<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&mdash;<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>.&mdash;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&mdash;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.,&mdash;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&mdash;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,"&mdash;is the Christian less present
then than before? Is not the old discord between
good and evil,&mdash;is not a judge over us, man,&mdash;is not a
calling, the calling to make oneself man&mdash;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&mdash;<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&mdash;<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&mdash;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&mdash;to
the extent of my powers. I elect for myself what I
have a fancy for, and in electing I show myself&mdash;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&mdash;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,"&mdash;in short, that which shall be "sacred,"&mdash;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&mdash;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, &#338;dipus'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&mdash;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>&mdash;for it
is not I that am free, not <i>I</i> that busy myself, but
thinking is free and busies me&mdash;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>,&mdash;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&mdash;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>&mdash;"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,&mdash;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&mdash;<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&mdash;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&mdash;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,"&mdash;"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,&mdash;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."&mdash;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&mdash;and,
as aforesaid, faith is also thinking, as thinking is
faith&mdash;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&mdash;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
(&#955;&#972;&#947;&#959;&#962;); 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.&mdash;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&mdash;<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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;<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&mdash;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>&ecirc;tre supr&ecirc;me</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&mdash;<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&mdash;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&mdash;<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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;<i>servant</i>, a&mdash;<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,"&mdash;to wit, one that should be higher
than you,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;<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&mdash;who would dare doubt their justification for
this?&mdash;they wanted to be "inspired by an idea."
They wanted to be dominated,&mdash;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&mdash;and we
will not spare it this "ignominy"!&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;could achieve,
the result of their development, just as Luther's faith
in the Bible was all that he was&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;under all circumstances&mdash;<i>myself</i>.
But thus I am not merely in fact or in being, but also
for my consciousness, the&mdash;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&mdash;myself.</p>

<p>This is the meaning of the&mdash;<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&mdash;<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&mdash;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."&mdash;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?"&mdash;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&mdash;perhaps oftenest from the Bible&mdash;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 Barr&egrave;re, 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>Prol&eacute;tariat</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>Cr&eacute;ation 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 Propri&eacute;t&eacute;?</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>&mdash;"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">&mdash;<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 Cr&eacute;ation 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 id&eacute;es et des m&#339;urs.</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>Cr&eacute;ation 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.&mdash;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 &amp; 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&mdash;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,&mdash;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>Cr&eacute;ation 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 Propri&eacute;t&eacute;?</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 &pound;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&mdash;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&mdash;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.&mdash;
</p><p>
<span class="smcap">Emilia.</span> But not above the reach of any seduction.&mdash;Violence! violence!
who cannot defy violence? What is called violence is nothing; seduction
is the true violence.&mdash;I have blood, father; blood as youthful and warm as
anybody's. My senses are senses.&mdash;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&mdash;and there arose in my soul so much tumult
as the strictest exercises of religion could hardly quiet in weeks.&mdash;Religion!
And what religion?&mdash;To escape nothing worse, thousands sprang into the
water and are saints.&mdash;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&mdash;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>&mdash;"<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,&mdash;one from the
nobility, one from the <i>bourgeoisie</i>, one from the <i>petite bourgeoisie</i>,
and one from the working people,&mdash;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,&mdash;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.&mdash;<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>&mdash;"'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>&mdash;"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."&mdash;<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>&mdash;"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>&mdash;"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>&mdash;"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 &amp; 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>&mdash;"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>&mdash;"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>&mdash;"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>&mdash;"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."&mdash;<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.&mdash;Legitimate Government and Majority Rule. II.&mdash;Trial by
Jury as a Palladium of Liberty. III.&mdash;Trial by Jury as Defined by
Magna Carta. IV.&mdash;Objections Answered. V.&mdash;The Criminal Intent.
VI.&mdash;Moral Considerations for Jurors. VII.&mdash;Free Administration
of Justice. VIII.&mdash;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>








<pre>





End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Ego and His Own, by Max Stirner

*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE EGO AND HIS OWN ***

***** This file should be named 34580-h.htm or 34580-h.zip *****
This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
        https://www.gutenberg.org/3/4/5/8/34580/

Produced by Fritz Ohrenschall and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)


Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
will be renamed.

Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
redistribution.



*** START: FULL LICENSE ***

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
https://gutenberg.org/license).


Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works

1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works.  See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
States.

1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org

1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
1.E.9.

1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.

1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg-tm License.

1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
that

- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."

- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
     License.  You must require such a user to return or
     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
     Project Gutenberg-tm works.

- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
     of receipt of the work.

- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.

1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
your equipment.

1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.

1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.


Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm

Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org.


Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
https://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.

The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
page at https://pglaf.org

For additional contact information:
     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
     Chief Executive and Director
     gbnewby@pglaf.org


Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
particular state visit https://pglaf.org

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including including checks, online payments and credit card
donations.  To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate


Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works.

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.


Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.


Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:

     https://www.gutenberg.org

This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.


</pre>

</body>
</html>
generated by cgit v1.2.3 (git 2.25.1) at 2026-05-20 16:07:38 +0000