weak—take at once the most important instance. All

weak—take at once the most important instance. All the world’s efforts against the “aristocrats,” the ” mighty,” the ” masters,” the ” holders of power,” are negligible by comparison with what
has been accomplished against those classes by
the Jews—the Jews, that priestly nation which
eventually realised that the one method of effect- ing satisfaction on its enemies and tyrants was by means of a radical transvaluation of values, which was at the same time an act of the cleverest revenge. Yet the method was only appropriate to a nation of priests, to a nation of the most
jealously nursed priestly revengefulness. It was the Jews who, in opposition to the aristocratic equa- tion (good = aristocratic = beautiful = happy =
loved by the gods), dared with a terrifying logic to suggest the contrary equation, and indeed to maintain with the teeth of the most profound hatred (the hatred of weakness) this contrary equation, namely, ” the wretched are alone the good ; the poor, the weak, the lowly, are alone the good ; the suffering, the needy, the sick, the loathsome, are the only ones who are pious, the only ones who are blessed, for them alone is salvation—but you, on the other hand, you
aristocrats, you men of power, you are to all eternity the evil, the horrible, the covetous, the insatiate, the godless ; eternally also shall you be the unblessed, the cursed, the damned ! ” We
know who it was who reaped the heritage of this Jewish transvaluation. In the context of the monstrous and inordinately fateful initiative which the Jews have exhibited in connection with”GOOD AND EVIL,” “GOOD AND BAD.” 3
1
this most fundamental of all declarations of war, I remember the passage which came to my pen on
another occasion {Beyond Good and Evil, Aph.
195)—that it was, in fact, with the Jews that the revolt of the slaves begins in the sphere of
morals; that revolt which has behind it a history
of two millennia, and which at the present day has
only moved out of our sight, because it—has
achieved victory.
8, But you understand this not? You have no
eyes for a force which hcis taken two thousand
years to achieve victory?—There is nothing
wonderful in this : all lengthy processes are hard
to see and to realise. But this is what took
place : from the trunk of that tree of revenge and
hate, Jewish hate,—that most profound and
sublime hate, which creates ideals and changes
old values to new creations, the like of which has
never been on earth,—there grew a phenomenon
which was equally incomparable, a new love, the most profound and sublime of all kinds of love
;
—and from what other trunk could it have grown ? But beware of supposing that this love has soared on its upward growth, as in any way
a real negation of that thirst for revenge, as an
antithesis to the Jewish hate ! No, the contraryis the truth ! This love grew out of that hate, as its crown, as its triumphant crown, circling wider and
wider amid the clarity and fulness of the sun, and
pursuing in the very kingdom of light and height
its goal of hatred, its victory, its spoil, its strategy,32 THE GENEALOGY OF MORALS.
with the same intensity with which the roots of that tree of hate sank into everything which was deep and evil with increasing stability and in- creasing desire. This Jesus of Nazareth, the incarnate gospel of love, this ” Redeemer ” bringing
salvation and victory to the poor, the sick, the
sinful—was he not really temptation in its most
sinister and irresistible form, temptation to take the tortuous path to those very Jewish values and
those very Jewish ideals ? Has not Israel really obtained the final goal of its sublime revenge, by
the tortuous paths of this ” Redeemer,” for all that he might pose as Israel’s adversary and
Israel’s destroyer? Is it not due to the black magic of a really great policy of revenge, of a
far-seeing, burrowing revenge, both acting and
calculating with slowness, that Israel himself must repudiate before all the world the actual instrument of his own revenge and nail it to the
cross, so that all the world—that is, all the enemies
of Israel—could nibble without suspicion at this very bait ? Could, moreover, any human mind with
all its elaborate ingenuity invent a bait that was more truly dangerous} Anything that was even equivalent in the power of its seductive, intoxicating, defiling, and corrupting influence to that symbol of the holy cross, to that awful paradox
of a ” god on the cross,” to that mystery of the unthinkable, supreme, and utter horror of the self-crucifixion of a god for the salvation of man ? It is at least certain that sub hoc signo Israel, with
its revenge and transvaluation of all values, has up to the present always triumphed again over”GOOD AND EVIL,” “GOOD AND BAD.” 33
all other ideals, over all more aristocratic
ideals.
9-
” But why do you talk of nobler ideals ? Let
us submit to the facts ; that the people have
triumphed—or the slaves, or the populace, or the
herd, or whatever name you care to give them

if this has happened through the Jews, so be it
!
In that case no nation ever had a greater mission
in the world’s history. The ‘ masters ‘ have bee^
done away with ; the morality of the vulgar man
has triumphed. This triumph may also be called a blood – poisoning (it has mutually fused the
races)—I do not dispute it; but there is no
doubt but that this intoxication has succeededj The ‘ redemption ‘ of the human race (that is, from the masters) is progressing swimmingly
;
everything is obviously becoming Judaised, or
Christianised, or vulgarised (what is there in the
words?). It seems impossible to stop the
course of this poisoning through the whole body
politic of mankind—but its tempo and pace may
from the present time be slower, more delicate,
quieter, more discreet—there is time enough. In view of this context has the Church nowadays any
necessary purpose ? has it, in fact, a right to live ? Or could man get on without it? Qucsritur.
It seems that it fetters and retards this tendency,
instead of accelerating it. Well, even that might
be its utility. The Church certainly is a crude and boorish institution, that is repugnant to an
intelligence with any pretence at delicacy, to a34 THE GENEALOGY OF MORALS.
really modern taste. Should it not at any rate learn to be somewhat more subtle? It alienates nowadays, more than it allures. Which of us would, forsooth, be a freethinker if there were no Church ? It is the Church which repels us, not
its poison—apart from the Church we like the poison.” This is the epilogue of a freethinker to my discourse, of an honourable animal (as he has given abundant proof), and a democrat to boot; he had up to that time listened to me, and could not endure my silence, but for me, indeed, with regard to this topic there is much on which to be silent.
lO.
I The revolt of the slaves in morals begins in the very principle of resentment becoming creatiye^nS” givinglDirth to values—-a,, resentment __exg,erijgDced^ bj^ creatures who, deprived as they are of the proper outlet of action, are forced to find their_
_ compensation in an imaginary revenge, j Whi]e
_ every aristocratic morality springs from a tri- umphant affirmation^ of . its own demands, tBe^
slave morality says ” no ” from the very outsetT5~’ what is ” outside itself,” ” different from itself, and “not itself”: and this “^”rio ” is its creative^ deed. ‘ This volte-face of thS valuing stan3- point—this___^wiii2;^Zg.. ..gravitation to the ob- jective instead of back to the subjecHVe

is Typical of ” resentment ” : the “slave- Iflorellit3^^ requires as the ^condition of its existence “arT external, and objective world, to employ physiological terminology, it requires objective stimuli”GOOD AND EVIL,” “GOOD AND BAD.” 35
tn he. capable of actioa—aL-all—[^its action is fundamentally a reaction. The contrary is the

case when we come to the aristocrat’s system of
values : it acts and grows spontaneously, it jmerely
seeks its antithesis in order to pronounce a niore
grateful and exulHSE3y^’ jolts own self;—its negative conception, “low,” ” vulgarT* ” ” bad,” is merely a pale late-born foil in comparison with its positive and fundamental conception (saturated as
it is with life and passion), of ” we aristocrats, we
good ones, we beautiful ones, we happy ones.^ When the aristocratic morality goes astray and
commits sacrilege on reality, this is limited to that
particular sphere with which it is not sufficiently acquainted—a sphere, in fact, from the real knowledge of which it disdainfully defends itself. It misjudges, in some cases, the sphere which it despises, the sphere of the common vulgar man
and the low people : on the other hand, due weight
should be given to the consideration that in any
case the mood of contempt, of disdain, of superciliousness, even on the supposition that it falsely portrays the object of its contempt, will always
be far removed from that degree of falsity which
will always characterise the attacks—in effigy, of
course—of the vindictive hatred and revengefulness of the weak in onslaughts on their enemies.
In point of fact, there is in contempt too strong an admixture of nonchalance, of casualness, of boredom, of impatience, even of personal exultation,
for it to be capable of distorting its victim into a
real caricature or a real monstrosity. Attention
again should be paid to the almost benevolent36 THE GENEALOGY OF MORALS.
nuances which, for instance, the Greek nobility imports into all the words by which it distinguishes the common people from itself; note how con- tinuously a kind of pity, care, and consideration imparts its honeyed flavour, until at last almost all the words which are applied to the vulgar man
survive finally as expressions for “unhappy,”
” worthy of pity ” (compare ieCKd<s, SeiKaio’;, irovijpo^, IwxOrjpo^ ; the latter two names really denoting the vulgar man as labour-slave and beast of burden) —and how, conversely, ” bad,” ” low,” ” unhappy

have never ceased to ring in the Greek ear with a tone in which ” unhappy ” is the predominant
note: this is a heritage of the old noble aristocratic morality, which remains true to itself even in contempt (let philologists remember
the sense in which oi^vpo^, dvoX^oi;, rKriimv, Bvcrrvxelv, ^v/Mpopd used to be employed). The
” well-born ” simply /eU themselves the ” happy “
;
they did not have to manufacture their happiness
artificially through looking at their enemies, or in cases to talk and lie themselves into happiness (as
is the custom with all resentful men); and
similarly, complete men as they were, exuberant with strength, and consequently necessarily ener- getic, they were too wise to dissociate happi- ness from action —activity becomes in their minds necessarily counted as happiness (that is the etymology of ev irp&TTeiv)—all in sharp con- trast to the ” happiness ” of the weak and the oppressed, with their festering venom and malignity, among whom happiness appears essentially as a narcotic, a deadening, a quietude, a peace, a

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s