Wilamowitz-Möllendorf on Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy

Author(s): J. H. Groth
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Apr., 1950), pp. 179-190
Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2707245 .
Accessed: 21/08/2012 17:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Pennsylvania Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of the History of Ideas.

http://www.jstor.org
WILAMOWITZ-M6LLENDORF ON NIETZSCHE'S BIRTH
OF TRAGEDY
BY J. H. GROTH

Shortly after the appearance of The Birth of Tragedy in 1872,

Wilamowitz wrote a spirited critique of the work of his erstwhile
fellow studentat the famous Schulpforta Gymnasium. It has the
imprint of the "Gebrueder Borntraeger, Ed. Eggers," is dated
"Berlin 1872," and is 32 pages in length. The title is Zukunftis-
philologie! Eine Erwiderung auf Friederich Nietzsches, Ord. Pro-
fessors der class. Philologie Zu Basel, Geburt der Tragodie.
Nietzsche. himself did not write a reply to Wilamowitz; two of his
friendsperformedthis task for him,namely,Richard Wagner and
Erwin Rohde. Wagner published A Circular Letter' and Erwin
Rohde wrote his Afterphilologie,Sendschreiben eines Philologen
an R. Wagner.2 Wilamowitz's rebuttal is dated 1873 on the title
page, but at the end, on page 24, the place and date of composition
are given as "Rome, 22. Dez. 1872." The title is as follows: Zu-
kunftsphilologie!Zweites Stueck. Eine Erwiderung auf die Ret-
tungsversuchefuirNietzsches Geburtder Trag8die. These are the
documentsimmediatelyinvolved in the controversy.
While it was Wilamowitz' chiefpurpose to expose Nietzsche as
a charlatan in the fieldof classical philology,he also viewed Nietz-
sche's philosophy with a critical, scornfuleye. Indeed he begins
by giving a sample of what he calls the Ton und Tendenz of Nietz-
sche's book, and he calls this Ton und Tend enz the most objection-
able thing about it (Hauptanstoss).3 He makes much of Nietz-
sche's claim that to him, Nietzsche, had been granted the gift of
having " so strange and peculiar an insightinto Hellenic matters,"
a phrase which should be read in German in order to appreciate
Nietzsche's intellectual climate. It reads: "Ein so befremdlich
eigentiimlicherBlick ins Hellenische verg6nnt." Let it be noted
that it is the kind of "Blick" whichdoes not come by the hard way
of scholarship. Indeed, Nietzsche had expressly stated that for
1 Nietzsche-WagnerCo"respondence, 125-133. Edited by E. Foerster-Nietzsche.
Translatedby CarolineV. Kerr. Introductionby H. L. Mencken (New York, 1921).
2 See Article"Erwin Rohde" in AllgemeineDeutsche Biographie,vol. 53, Nach-
triige,430, by Fritz Schbll.
3 Pp. 5, 6. Erstes Stueck. The firstpaper will for sake of conveniencebe so
designated.
179
180 J. H. GROTE

themostpart classical scholarshiphad "in its overweening pride

nourished itselfonlyon shadows and external things." Through-
out bothof Wilamowitz 's papers,as well as hereat the outset,he
stressesthefactthatthe Nietzscheanapproachto the problemis
that of a seer,prophet,soothsayer,a sort of crystal-gazing like
thatof thepriestsand priestessesof theGreekgods,and thatany
gainsayingfrom the scientific,scholarly,normal standpointis
heresy. Wilamowitzsays: "That I shall fall preyto theDionys-
ian curse,I know;gladlywouldI be worthyof the Schimpfwort,
a Socratichumanbeing; I shouldbe happy to deservethe sobri-
quet,a healthyman: VyuaLvr.v uEV apLcTTov0vaLTW.
If Nietzscheis rightin chargingclassical scholarsbeforehis
time with failure to understandthe Greeks,then,accordingto
Wilamowitz,these scholarswere in excellentcompany:Shakes-
peare, Goethe,Schiller,Aristotleand Lessing must come under
the same condemnation, fornone of themhad had Nietzsche'sin-
sights. Nietzscheis a professorof classical philologywhoboasts
of havingmade certaindiscoveries. These Wilamowitzwishesto
examine.5
He chargesthat Nietzschebegan witha 7rp&rTOV qiDSos: Richard
Wagnerhad "assured"' Nietzscheof thetruthof his fundamental
conceptions;indeedNietzscheadmitsthatit was throughWagner
that he had arrived at these conceptions.6The rest was easy:
Nietzschelooks at Greeklife and thought,and he findshis con-
firmation there. Since no otherstudentsand lovers of antiquity
had everfoundanythinglikeit, theystandcondemned. "Among
thosewho'have strivenmostdiligently to learnfromthe Greeks',
in contrastto thosewho 'do not understandantiquity',Nietzsche
counts,'besides Goetheand Schiller,onlyWinckelmann.' " Wil-
amowitzseeksto nullifythisstatement bygivingthreereasonsfor
his belief that Nietzschehad never really read Winckelmann.
Theyare as follows:a) Winckelmann's entireconceptionwas dia-
metricallyopposedto thatof Nietzsche;b) Winckelmann insisted
upon understanding even sculpturein its historicalsetting;c) no
one who had ever really studiedWinckelmanncould have com-
mittedso manyhistoricalblundersas Nietzsche.7
4All referencesare to Erstes Stueck, 6. Wilamowitz of course has in mintd
Nietzsche'sstrictureson Socrates.
51bid., 7.
6 Referenceis of courseto theApollonian Dream and theDionysian Intoxication.
7 Erstes Stueck,8, 9.
 WILAMOWITZ-MOLLENDORF ON NIETZSCHE 181

Wilamowitz then presents Nietzsche's theoryof the Dionysian

Intoxication and the Apollonian Dream. The two, according to
Nietzsche, are opposites, which nevertheless "entice one another
to ever stronger creations" until they finally end in Tragedy.
Then Socrates and Euripides appeared who destroyed Tragedy,
and Dionysus was obliged to fleeand seek refugein the secret cults.
From this cruel exile Nietzsche's "strangely peculiar insight"
rescued him.8
Nietzsche had spoken of Apollo as the "dream-god." The
word "Apollo" Nietzsche had interpreted as meaning "appear-
ance," " seeming" (Schein). And "Apollo," according to Nietz-
sche, had "created the Greek gods." Hence the Homeric gods
were nothingmore than the "deification of all that is" (alles Vor-
handenen Verg6ttlichung),creatures of a dream, "mirror-reflec-
tions of things beautiful, and illusions" (Sch8nheitsspiegelungen
und Illusionen). Nietzsche sets the thinkingof ordinary men on
its head and declares that the dreams of the Greeks were more real
and logical than the waking thoughtsof other people and reveal
a higher truththan the feeble clarity of day-timereality. Of all
this Wilamowitz says: "Aus des Schopenhauerschen Begriffes
grauer Theorie soll der hellenischen G6tterwelt goldner Baum
erwachsen sein." Wilamowitz then quotes Aristotle, accord-
ing to whom the Gods had grown out of the ,urETcpa and the
7rCpL T7V i vX v ovp43ai'vovTaat a time when "the Hellenic peoples had

not yet separated from their sisters. . .", when Apollo "didn't
even possess the germs of the power he possessed fromthe eighth
centuryon."9
If Nietzsche knew Homer at all, Wilamowitz asks, "How could
he ascribe to the Homeric world with its bright young spirit, its
joyful, exuberant enjoymentof life, which by its very youth and
naturalness quickens every unspoiled heart-how could Nietzsche
ascribe to this youthfullife which indeed dreamed the dream of
life most beautifully-how could he ascribe to it pessimistic senti-
mentality,senescentyearning for nothingness,and conscious self-
deception?""
Next, Wilamowitz lists the "proofs" Nietzsche had adduced
8 Ibid.) 10, 11.
9 Ibid., 12. Nietzsche'srelationswithTieck, Novalis, etc. need not be gone into
here.
10Ibid., 12.
182 J. H. GROTH

for his theorythat the Greeks not merely suffered"sorrows and

pains," but voluptuously enjoyed suffering. The famous answer
of Silenus to Midas, to which Nietzsche had given a pre-Homeric
dating and whichwas one of Nietzsche's strongest"proofs," Wil-
amowitz ascribes to post-Homeric times. Moreover, he suggests
that Nietzsche knew of Homer only from The Contest of Homer
and Hesiod, in which Homer is portrayed as the "blind beggar."
From Nietzsche's account one would gather that the Homeric
Greeks were tragic sentimentalists. The moira and the cult of
Prometheus, as indications of the same malady, are likewise dis-
posed of. At one point,Wilamowitz' temper runs away with him
altogether and he cries out: "What a disgrace, Herr Nietzsche,
you are to our Mother!" and he remindshim that he might have
knownbetterin the upper formsof that school.11
Like all Romantic worshippers of "genius," Nietzsche would
of course be a unitarian in the Homeric question, the pluralistic
theorybeing a threat and an affrontto every " man of genius" on
earth. Such a one was Schopenhauer, and Schopenhauer had by
intuition,as Goethe and Schiller before him, determinedand es-
tablished unitarianism. The corollary of that propositionwas the
assumptionthat anythingmere scholars mightaver to the contrary
was eo ipso, a priori wrong.'2
However, Wilamowitz waives the point and insists only on the
fact which even the most case-hardened unitarian would not deny,
that back of both the Iliad and the Odyssey stood an "extraordi-
narily fruitfulrhapsodic tradition, as an analogy of which the
Nibelungen songs in relation to the Nibelungenlied might serve.
Nietzsche reveals his ignorance of early Greek literature by his
statement that Archilochus "had introduced the folksong into
Greek literature," the music of which was the primary factor,the
text coming into being after the music, and the lyric being but an
11 Ibid., 12, 13. Nietzschewas one year ahead of Wilamowitzat Schulpforta. On
Nietzscheat Schulpforta,see Deussen,Mein Leben. His accountmakes it quite clear
thatNietzscheas a youthand a youngman already showedunmistakablesigns of his
laterafflietion.It mightbe said at thispointthatat Bonn Nietzschejoined theRitschl
factionand thenfollowedRitschlto Leipzig. The Jahn-Ritschl feudhas its reverbera-
tionsalso in thetoneof Wilamowitz'attackon Nietzsche. On thisquarrel in its rela-
tion to Wilamowitz,see Alfred K6rte, "Hermann Usener-Ulrichvon Wilamowitz-
M6llendorf,Ein Briefwechsel,"in Die Antike,XI (1935), 212 :if.
121bid., 14.
 WILAMOWITZ-MOLLENDORF ON NIETZSCHE 183
imitativeeffulgurationof the music in pictures and concepts.13
This Wilamowitz categoricallydenies. While he alludes among
otherthingsto Plato's remarkin the Republic (III, 398 d) that "it
is necessary that harmony and rhythmfollow the words," his
main argumentis the elegy "which was not sung." The mere fact
that Nietzsche hasn't mentionedthe elegy, Wilamowitz contends,
explodes the whole theory. And the elegy, both in its origin and
in its manner of presentation, "leans heavily on the folk-epic."
Hence the verdictof History is against Nietzsche.'4
With his assertion that lyric is dependent upon music, Nietz-
sche had already passed fromthe Apollonian Dream to the Dionys-
ian Intoxication. Since Wilamowitz, as he says, is not pursuing
"a positive purpose" in his critique, he agrees to "join Herr
Nietzsche and, with a graceful leap, hop over the walls separating
several centurieswith all their other poets and music (Nietzsche,
Wagner, and all the rest of the Zukunftsphilologencan't be both-
ered about such triflesas dates) and contemplate only the birth
and grave of Tragedy."15
Wilamowitz takes a sardonic delight in carrying Nietzsche's
statementsto absurd conclusions. Earlier he had turned Nietz-
sche's phrase: "Homer was a dreaming Greek and every Greek a
dreaming Homer," into "Nietzsche is a dreaming German uni-
versityprofessorand every German universityprofessor a dream-
ing Nietzsche."'6 Now we find him "abstracting further along
Nietzschean lines: . . . (Dionysus) is the patron-saint of the Zu-
kunftsmusik,the Zukunftsevangelium;then the 'contrast of style'
could at the same timebe the opposite of everythingtrulyHellenic,
yes, I hope, of everythingtrulyGerman." This must have been a
cruel blow to Wagner and the adoring group of satellites about
him, for "the master" presumed to know Was ist Deutsch.'7
Concerning Nietzsche's assertions about Dionysus-how he
had destroyedindividuation,etc., as any one may read for himself
in Nietzsche,Wilamowitz remarks that to state them is to answer
und Bildern," Ibid., 15. Nietzschehere is as usual parroting
13 "In Begriffen

the Romanticnotionsabout wordlessmusic,the classic expressionof whichperhaps

is in E. T. A. Hoffmann'sessay on Mozart's Don Juan.
4 Ibid., 17.
15 Ibid., 17.
18 Ibid., 13.

'17 bid., 17.

184 J. H. GROTH

them. Nietzsche is reading Wagner back into an age he is not

familiar with. Nietzsche's admission that at firstApollo offered
some resistance to Dionysus, before they formedtheir alleged al-
liance in Tragedy, Wilamowitz turns to account by saying that
good people resent the introductionof orgiastic practices, and so
did the Greeks. They preferredtemperance and clarity of mind
to eccentric,orgiastic mysticismand transcendental Muckertum.
He then goes on to say that for ought he cared, "one mighttrace
all these tendencies to one source, especially if one called all that
was specificallyHellenic 'Apollonian.' " He didn't even mind if
one called the source Dionysian, provided one did not identify
therewithall the other things which also deserve the name Di-
onysian,particularly the genuinelyHellenic features of the figure
of Dionysus himself-the giver of wine, etc. From the original
nature-cultand its feasts and customs,the gatheringof the grape,
the press, etc., the Dionysian festival arose, both tragedy and
comedy.'8
Above all, Wilamowitz contends that it is improper to read
back into these times phenomena and notions which come much
later. "Anyone," he says, "who takes our Wissenschaft seri-
ously, will findit disgraceful and ludicrous that even at this late
date it is possible for people to speak in the mannerof Saint-Croix-
Creuzer'9 of "wonderful myths in the mysteries,of the rushing,
jubilant song of-epopts, of a Dionysian world-view,which,driven
by the critical barbarians, Euripides and Socrates, was obliged to
take refuge in the mystical floodsof secret cults, and which in the
most wonderful metamorphoses and corruptions (Entartungen)
did not cease to attract the more serious people. I" At this point,
Wilamowitz again becomes concerned about his own day. This
seems to be the implication of the following, sardonic remark:
"Hence, the philosophy of Schopenhauer, Wagner's music, and
probably Nietzsche's philosophy are now the mystical wisdom of
the hierophant!II
Again, Wilamowitz denies that the differencebetween Apol-
18 Ibid.,
19. I have takenthelibertyof writingtragedywitha capital whenused
in Nietzsche'ssense; here whereit is not a mysticalentity,but only the productof
normaldevelopmentI have let it stand in lowercase.
19On Creuzer (1771-1858), Heidelberg professor,romantichistorian. Wrote
on Mythologyin fancifulvein; see L. Urlichsin AllgemeineDeutsche Biographie.
20 Wilamowitzis here both paraphrasing and criticizingby his own reference

The Birth of Tragedy,First edition,53, 69, 104 (Erstes Stueck,20).

 WILAMOWITZ-MOLLENDORF ON NIETZSCHE 185

lonian and Dionysian music is as great as Nietzsche said it was.

Near-Asiatic Tonarten had been adopted in Greece much earlier.
The dithyramb,the Dionysian song, "in the designated hey-dayof
the Hellenic lyric,by no mean stands in sharp contrastto the other
forms of choric music." When new forms do appear, the expla-
nation is not too difficultbecause the middle stages have largely
been lost. Herr Nietzsche is but being "frivolous" when he not
only presumes to judge of this missing form,but expresses his
disdain for it, calling it "Aufregungs- oder Erinnerungsmusik,
that is, eithera stimulantfor dull or worn-outnerves or tone-paint-
ing." On such evidence Nietzsche arrives at his conclusion that
"Tragedy brought music to its highest fruit and flower," when
",,musicwas the speciality of no writerof tragedies."2"
In the next section Wilamowitz proceeds to charge Nietzsche
with gross errors with regard to Aeschylus, the chorus, etc. He
finally asserts that one could easily expose Nietzsche's folly by
showing that all Nietzsche had said about Tragedy, could be said
about comedyas well; it would make as much and as little sense.22
The concludingpages of this Streitschriftdeal with Nietzsche's
contentionthat Euripides and Socrates, the formerbecoming"the
mask" of the latter, destroyed Tragedy and with it the genuine
Greek life and culture. Two paragraphs try to show how Nietz-
sche had misunderstoodboth Sophocles and Aeschylus. The al-
leged intimate friendship between Euripides and Socrates, Wil-
amowitz asserts, was based on a few lines taken from comedies.
The Socratics, Plato and Socrates, know nothing of it. Nietz-
sche's contentionthat Euripides held that "virtue is knowledge"
and that "in order to be beautiful, a thing must be consciously
beautiful," Wilamowitz shows from the text of Euripides to be
simplyuntrue.
Wilamowitz concludes by saying that he had proved the grave
charge that Nietzsche was ignorant of the Greeks. If, however,
Nietzsche were to reply that he was not interested in history or
criticismand thatit had been his sole purpose to writea Dionysian-
Apollonian work of art, "a metaphysical medicament,or that his
assertions had nothingto do with everydayreality but belonged to
the 'higher realism' of the dream world'"-then he would take it
all back, for in that case his weapons could not touch it. Indeed
21Ibid., 21. "Hauptfeld" (My italics).
22 Ibid, 24.
186 J. H. GROTH

he had no use for that kind of thing; but that was a matter of no
consequence. "However," he continues," one demand I do make.
Let Herr Nietzsche stick to his word; let him grasp hold of the
thyrsus,let him journey from India to Greece, but let him come
down from his chair (as professor of classical philology) from
which he is supposed to teach Wissenschaft in scholarly manner;
let him gather tigers and panthers around his knees, but not the
youth of Germany.'"
As has been stated above, Wagner himselfwrote the firstreply
to Wilamowitz in the Circular Letter. From the standpoint of
both Nietzsche and "The Master," this reply contained all that
could legitimately be said against Wilamowitz. The Birth of
Tragedy was a 'stroke of genius' and had nothingto do with so
lowly a matter as scholarship. But somehow all believers in In-
tuition and mystical Wesensschau do wish to make their bow to
learning and Wissenschaft and generally they finda scholar or a
universityprofessor who will demean himselfto the task of show-
ing that 'genius' is always right. In Nietzsche's case this man
was Erwin Rohde, an authenticclassical scholar and afterwardthe
author of the famous book Psyche. He was of the Wagner circle,
the membersof which dealt with one another in a way which com-
mon sense can only characterize as silly. Wilamowitz phrased it
like this: "Gegenseitige Beraiucherungbis zur narkotischenBetaiu-
bung." Rohde gave his pamphlet the subtitle,Letter of a Philo-
logist to Richard Wagner, thus making his personal obeisance to
the great man.24
In his reply to Rohde,25Wilamowitz states that he detects "the
feeling in Rohde that it was rather hard to defend Nietzsche."
Rohde, Wilamowitzasserts, oftenattributespositions to him which
he does not hold and then proceeds to knock over these positions.
He assumes thatRohde would regard as absurd as he, Wilamowitz,
the Nietzschean assertion that the Greeks had dreams unlike those
of ordinary people, namely dreams "with logical causality and
relief-like scene-sequence" (mit logischer Causalitat und relief-
dhnlicherScenenfolge). Of this Rohde says nothing,but attacks
23 Ibid., 33, 34.
24
Above, f.n. 1. Scholl's accountmakesit abundantlyclear thatRohde's friend-
ship withNietzschehad "put himon the spot" and thatWilamowitz'ssurmise,to be
citedin the nextparagraph,was eminentlycorrect.
25 Above 1 2. Hereafterreferredto as Zweites Stueck.
 WILAMOWITZ-MOLLENDORF ON NIETZSCHE 187

Wilamowitz "for denyingthe kinship of the dream with the activ-

ity of the epic and plastic artist." Against the latter statement
Rohde marshals some very telling instances, to which Wilamowitz
graciously adds a fewwhichRohde had overlooked. On the whole,
Rohde must have done a very excellent job of demonstratingthat
the dream had somethingto do with art, for Wilamowitz ends this
section by saying: " Such polemic can make one really regret that
one did not say what it is directedagainst.'"
The conclusion indicates the vitriolic spirit in which Wilamo-
witz dealt with the Wagnerians; but it also reveals again that
Wilamowitz was keenly aware of the fact that Nietzschean and
Wagnerian thoughtwas a menace and a threat to our intellectual
tradition. He says he is sick of "these bickerings" and that he is
after all not interested in correcting the individual philological
errors of his opponents.27 "No," he says, "An abyss yawns here
whichcan neverbe bridged. For me the highestidea is the orderly
(gesetzmiissige), living, and reasonable developmentof the world.
Full of gratitude I look up to the great minds who have step by
step wrested from it its secrets. Here I saw the developmentof
the ages denied. Here the revelations of philosophy and religion
were extinguishedin order that a washed-up (verwaschener) pessi-
mismmightshow its bitter-sweetface in the desolation. Here the
divine images (Gotterbilder) with which poetry and art had
peopled our heaven were smashed into fragmentsin order that the
idol (Gotzenbild) Richard Wagner mightbe worshipped amid the
ruins. Here the edificeerected by untold industry and brilliant
genius was thrownto the ground in order that a drunkendreamer
might have his strangly deep look into the Dionysian abysses:
This was more than I could bear.""
Much has been made of the violent tone of Wilamowitz' attack
upon Nietzsche, and it is all too true that "excessive vivacity of
phrase" ever remained one of his serious faults. He apologizes
for it on the last page of the second piece29and in later years he
26 ZweitesStueck,p. 8.
27 If Walter Linden had read Wilamowitzhimselfhe mighthave refrainedfrom
sayingthatW. was interestedonly in Einzelnachweisenund Quellenbelegen,and yet
again to a good Nazi thatmighthave made no difference.NietzschesWerke (Bong,
Berlin,n.d.),I, XXVIII-XXIX.
28 Zweites Stueck,23, 24. It need not be pointedout that Wilamowitz'sconcep-

tion of genius differsradicallyfromthat of Nietzsche.

29 Ibid., 24. Linadenspeaks of thematterin his editionof Nietzsche'sworkscited
above,p. XXIV.
188 J. H. GROTH

was wont to call his passage against Nietzsche in part as "boy-

ish. "3 Of his major contentions,however,he never retractedany-
thing. In the Reminiscences he states that one good thing came
of the controversyand that was the fact that Nietzsche had had
the good sense to quit the fieldof classical philology. And in his
very last (unfinished) work, Der Glaube der Hellenen, he says:
"Die beiden G6tter Apollon und Dionysus stehen fuirihn Platon
in keinerlei Gegensatz." Both are for Plato the originators of
pvOjUOi Kact aipMovoas 6-Ogats (the perception of rhythmand harmony).

"Und so wenig wie der Rausch die Tragodie erzeugt hat, geht den
Apollon, den Uberwinder der Inkubation, der Traum etwas an,
vielmehrist diese Geburt der Tragodie ertriumt.'
Looking at the matter dispassionately after this long passage
of time,it seems to me that Wilamowitz made his point in a two-
fold sense: He showed that Nietzsche's offeringsin the Birth of
Tragedy were not Greek historyand that the philosophy behind it
was but a wild Wagnerian romanticism. That the leading classi-
cal scholars were in agreement with Wilamowitz is pretty well
conceded; even Ritschl shook his head over Nietzsche's perform-
ance. In the semesterfollowingthe publicationof the book, Nietz-
sche had only two students in his lecture hall at Basel. Scholar-
ship had given Nietzsche not a mild, but a vigorous, emphatic
rebuke.32
It is not necessary to do more than point to the fact that in the
interveningyears Nietzsche has gained the ascendancy over his
philological critics. I am not now concernedwithpublicists,litera-
teurs, artists,or such public men as Hitler and his followers; their
espousal of Nietzsche as against the dry-as-dustscholars is under-
standable enough. I am thinkingof the academic world. And
my contentionis that it did in the case in hand what it had done to
its own hurt many times before. It did so in the neglect of J. J.
Scaliger, whose saying: "Non aliunde dissidia in religione pendent
quam ab ignoratione grammaticae" is applicable to fields other
than religion, and whose contentionthat the distinctionbetween
30 M. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, 1848-1914,2nd edition (Leipzig, n.d.), 130;
My Recollection,s, translatedby A. C. Richards (London, 1930), 152.
31
II, (Berlin, 1931-32), 66, n. 4. In English the last sentencereads: "And as
littleas IntoxicationbegotTragedy,so littlehas Apollo, the conquerorof Incubation,
to do withtheDream; on thecontrary,thisBirthof Tragedywas dreamed."
32 Walter Linden, op. cit.,XXVIII-XXIX.
 WILAMOWITZ-MOLLENDORF ON NIETZSCHE 189

secular and spiritual historyis meaningless deserved much earlier

considerationthan it received. Pope put the dunce-cap on Richard
Bentley,whom Jebb has exonerated for all to see and of whom A.
E. Housman said that he "serves for a touchstone of merit, and
has always been admired by all admirable scholars and despised
by all despicable scholars." Goethe and Schiller damned Wolf
with a Xenion, and Schopenhauer, looking into his crystal ball,
determined for many that the plural authorship of Homer was
wrong.33
In the manner of Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy we have since
had works like those of Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Spengler,
Egon Friedell, Alfred Rosenberg. From them it is but a step to
Hitler's Mein Kampf. All of themhave several points in common.
In the firstplace, theyexemplify,consciouslyor unconsciously,the
principle ascribed to Cardinal Manning that "the dogma must cor-
recthistory." The historyat best thenbecomes what Wellhausen
used to call Nostrifizierung,taking for one's own or claiming from
the past experienceof the race what is grist to one's mill and pass-
ing by whateverconflictswith " the dogma."
Second, as historians, these writers have been quite largely
repudiated by theFachleute, " the learned guild," as theirEnglish-
speaking admirers phrase it. Third, they have in common the
romanticconceptionof " genius," ' divination," ' intuition,I ' the
demonic," as opposed to mere talent and laborious study; or again,
one might say the notion of "the prophet," "the seer," "the
master-mind," as against numbers of human beings working to-
gether in a commonenterprisewhose goal is the discovery of the
truth. It is importantto note that the very words prophet or seer,
as well as genius, etc.,implypossession of truthby means of some
mysteriousextraordinaryendowment.
There comes to mind an essay by Karl Holl which takes our
problem back to its sources in antiquity. It is entitled "UGber
Begriff und Bedeutung der diimonischen Personlichkeit,"34in
whichgenius,Satptovia, is set in opposition to apETr'. To the "anarchy
of genius," apcrT7, the "highest moral standards" must be applied.
33 On Scaliger, Hermann Usener, Vortrage und Aufsdtze (Berlin, 1907), 65;

Jacob Bernays, J. J. Scaliger (Berlin, 1855), 37, 99 and passim. On Bentley,

Jebb,in E. M. L. series,and Housman, IntroductoryLecture (London, 1937), 5.
34 Reden und Aufsaitzezur Kirchengeschichte (Tiibingen,1928), Bd. III, Der
Westen,490-504.
190 J. H. GROTH

No matterhow one may essay the translationof the word dper , " the
common," "the communal," "the social," must somehow be in-
volved in it. Scholarship is a communityaffair,and the academic
world mightwell be less prone to under-value the findingsof the
least of its membersand less eager to over-ratethe generalities and
generalizations of the "demonic personality." And when scholar-
ship has rebukedthe vagaries of a "man of genius," as it always
does, and as it did in the case of Nietzsche,it would seem to behoove
the academic world to accept the findingsof the specialist rather
than those of poets and literateurs.
It is the fashion again today to blame the ills of our times on
"the specialist."35 There is one point whichthe exponentsof this
notionnever mention: the very limitednumberof readers and fol-
lowers of men like Ranke, Mommsen,Wilamowitz, E. Meyer, as
compared with the tremendousvogue, both popular and, alas, aca-
demic, of our Nietzsches and Spenglers. Might not the blame be
on the otherside?
Universityof Florida.
35The most recentexample is Frederick Lilge, The Abuse of Learning: The
Failure of the GermanUniversity(New York, 1948). See especiallythe passages on
Wilamowitz,106-108.