tolstoy and nietzsche comparison.pdf

8/10/2019 Tolstoy and Nietzsche comparison.pdf

1/17

Tolstoy and Nietzsche

Author(s): Janko LavrinSource: The Slavonic Review, Vol. 4, No. 10 (Jun., 1925), pp. 67-82Published by: the Modern Humanities Research Associationand University College London, School ofSlavonic and East European StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4201926.

Accessed: 31/10/2014 20:07

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 ofcontent 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 [email protected].

.

Modern Humanities Research Associationand University College London, School of Slavonic and East

European Studiesare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The SlavonicReview.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 146.95.253.17 on Fri, 31 Oct 2014 20:07:55 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mhrahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uclhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uclhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4201926?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4201926?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uclhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uclhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mhra


2/17

TOLSTOY

AND

NIETZSCHE.

(An address eliveredt King's College, eforeheAnglo-Russian.

Society,

n March

4,

I924.

IL

A

COMPARISON

of Tolstoyand Nietzsche s both temptingnd

ungrateful.

t is

tempting

n

account

of

the

very

contrast

between

he

two,

and

ungrateful

ecause

this themehas

been

already

treated

too

often

and

by

too

many people.

Yet in

spite

even

of

such elucidating ssays

as

those of

Merezhkovsky

and Shestov,

he

subject

tself

s

still

far

from

eing

exhausted.

One can still find

some

new

standpoint

r

other from

which

to

approach

both

Nietzsche

nd

Tolstoy,

ven if

it

is

taken

for

granted hat theirdoctrines ave lost muchof the importance

which used to

be attributed

to them

(whetherrightly

or

wrongly)

fewdecades

ago.

Some

aspects

of

their

eaching

re

in fact

covered

with

a

fairly

hick

layer

of

dust which we

always

risk

stirring p-at

least as

long

as

we

attempt dry

and academic

exposition

of their

views.

However,

a

bald

summing p

of their

debits

and

credits, ccording

o all

the

recipes

of

philosophic bookkeeping,

would be

now-a-days

not only utterlyuninteresting,ut perhapseven misleading.

For both Tolstoy

and Nietzsche

philosophised

ot in

orderto

reveal theirultimate ecrets,

ut

perhaps

n

order

to

conceal

them.

Consequently,

e can

fully

understand

heir deas

only

after

having

sifted hem

through

heir

own

personalities;

and

the methods or

uch

a

proceeding

e

can

take from

Nietzsche

himself.

As

is

known,

Nietzsche

was

a

past

master

t

looking

hrough

the key-holesnto the workshopn whichvariousideas and

ideals

are

being

fabricated.

And

indiscreet

s he

always was,

he showed

us-largely through

his

own

example-that

the

external appearances

and

the

hidden

inner

motives

of a

philosophymay

be

two

widely

different

hings.

That is

to

1

This address

is

printed exactly

as it

was

delivered. A

further

development f certain

deas

which

are

only suggested

n

it

can be

found

in some

of

my books, particularly

in

Tolstoy,

Nietzsche and

Modvern

Consciousness.

E 2

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/17

68 THE SLAVONIC

REVIEW.

say,

the

conscious

and

the

"

unconscious attitudes

owards

life-problemsn

the part

of

the philosopher

re

often poles

apart. But, if this be so, then a doctrine-evena doctrine

which has already passed

its

first

youth-may acquire

a

new

depth and a new

nterest

s soon

as

we

begin

o

investigate

ot

the

ideas,

but

those

hidden

roots

of ideas

of

which

he

thinker

himselfs perhaps nly

half-aware,

r

even

entirely

naware.

It goes without saying that

such

an

approach

is

worth

while only with

regard

o those

philosophers

ho

are

not

mere

"registering

pparatuses,"

ut real

human

beings-with

human

painsand passions, umanfleshndblood. In other

words,

he

true

fascination

f

philosophy

egins

where

one's

inquiring

n-

tellectcomes nto active touch with

real

throbbingife,

where

profound

hinking

s the result

f

profound

iving and

not

a

cowardlyubstitute

or

t.

This does not

mply

hat

philosophy

ought to be replacedby mere

personal

confessions";

at

the

same

time t cannot

be

denied

hat t is above all

the

profoundly

personal

touch which makes-let us say-Nietzsche's un-

systematic

philosophy

more

alive,

more

stimulating

han

hundreds

of

well-ordered nd

canonised

academic

systems.

For

whatever ur

personal pinion fNietzsche's

iewsmay

be,

we

feel

n them ll the

pathos,

ll

the

passion,

ll the

contradic-

tions

of

intense

life. And his

attitude

towards

respectable

official

hilosophiess the same as that

of

his

Catholic

double,

Pascal,

who

once

said,

"

Se

moquer

de

la

philosophie

'est

vraiment hilosopher."Nietzsche aid more or less the same

thing

when

he

wrote

about

the philosophers

f his

own

kind,

"

We

philosophers

re

not at

liberty

o

separate

oul

and

body,

as

the

people separate

hem, nd

we are

still

ess

at

liberty o

separate

soul

and

spirit.

We are

not thinking rogs,

we

are

not

objectifyingnd registering

pparatuseswith old

entrails-

our

thoughts

must be continually orn to us

out of our

pain,

and

we

must,motherlike,

hare

with them

ll that

we

have

in

us of blood, heart, rdour, oy, passion,pang,conscience, ate

and fatality.

Life-that

means for us to transform

onstantly

into

ight nd

flame

ll that we are, and all

that we meet

with;

we

cannotpossibly

o

otherwise."

II.

So

the

very

startingpoint

of

our

investigation s

the

question: what

type

of

mentality an produce

views

suchas those of Nietzscheand of Tolstoy? And on discovering

that both of them

belong

n

essence o a

similar

ype

we

must



4/17

TOLSTOY AND NIETZSCHE.

69

needs

ask:

why

s it

that,

n spite

of

this,they have arrived

at

such

entirely

pposite

doctrines? For

let us

state

at

once

that, although he ChristianTolstoy and the Antichristian

Nietzsche

exclude

each other

as

thinkers and

moralists,

physchologically

hey

complete

ne

another.

They

are

but

the

two

antipodesof one

and

the same

mentality.

Their work s

an

attempt

o solve

one

and the same

inner

dilemma-from

its

opposite

nds.

In the case

of both

of them

we

see also that their

hilosophy

was

born

not

out of their

brains,but out

of their

suffering.

Their hinkingasnothingo dowith ny" theory fknowledge,"

but only

with

theirown

inner

truggle, hichwas

their

hief,

and

sometimes ven

their

only,

way to

knowledge.

In

this

struggle

hey needed

their

own

philosophy

ow as a

weapon,

now

as

a

refuge, nd

practically

lways

as

a

mask-a

mask

before

others

and before

themselves.

Their

principles

were

importanto

themnot

in so

far as

theywere

"

true,"but

in

so

far

as they proved an efficientmeans against their own

self-division.

I

have

in view

not

only the old

and

rather rude

division

between

"

flesh and

"

spirit,"

but first f

all

a

highly

modern

phenomenon:

the

disintegration f

the

spirit

tself nto its

antagonistic

lements

nd

values. The

conflict etween

the

impulse f

man-god

nd

that of

God-man to

use

Dostoyevsky's

terminology)akes

place

only

oni

the

spiritual

plane, and

its

tensionmay be infinitelyreaterand more tragicthan the

old

tension

between

"

flesh and

"

spirit."

Or take

the

conflict

between

the

conscious and

the subconscious

ruths

as

depicted

in

Dostoyevsky's

Raskolnikov nd Ivan

Karamazov:

on

their wn

planes

hey re

equally

true, ut

no

sooner ave

they

met

than

they

exclude

each

other.

Moreover,

ne

and

the

same

"

truth

"

may

radically

change all its inner

contents if

transferredpon

a

different

lane-a fact

which

makes

he

value

of self-complacentlogical" truths ll the moreproblematic.

The

curious

point,

however,

s

that the

stronger

ne's

inner

vitality, he

more

painful

becomes this

danger

of

self-division

and

disintegration. n

former

times

strong

religious

ideas

alone

were

sufficiento save

the

ndividual rom

uch a

danger,

simply

y

giving

him a firm

piritual ocuswhichnot

onlyheld

his

personality

ogether, ut

also linked

him to

the rest

of

mankind.

But in

our

age of universal

cepticism,he

religious

ideas have lost all theirformer ital power. And so a man

who

wantsto be

"

saved

"

fromhimself s

compelled

o

seek



5/17

70

THE

SLAVONIC

REVIEW.

various

substitutes,

r even

deliberate

llusions,

n which

he

tries

to

believe. For

let

us be

sincere: instead

of a

strong

belief,we have only a strongwill to believe. A modemseeker

imposes

upon himself

oth

the

truthshe needs

and

his

belief

in

them. And

the

morehe

suspects

hat

his ownbelief

s

shaky,

the

more

passionatelyhe

will

insiston

its

validity-until he

becomes a

fanatic of

ideas not

because he

believes

n

them,

but

because he

is

continuously

fraid

of

not

believing

n

them

sufficiently,

f

not believing

n

them t

all.

This

is,

by

the

way, a

typical

feature

f

modern

dealists.

Our modern dealismhas in fact little in commonwiththat

of

our

grandfathers,

ho were

idealistic

ut of

naiYete',

ut

of

"

noble

"

sentimentality

mixed with

dreamy

romanticism.

They

believed n

life

because

theysaw

and

knew

too

little

of

its

negative

side.

Our

problem,

n

the

contrary,

s:

how

to

make

ourselves

elieve n

life,

lthoughwe feel

nd see

too

much

of

its

negativeness-muchmore

han

we

are able to

bear.

This

feeling, oined

by all the contradictions ithoutand withinourselves,may

become so

oppressive

s

to

threatenus

with

catastrophe.

And

since

we possess

no

longerany

universal

values upon

which o lean,

the

only

outlet hat

remains

n

most

cases

is-sauve

qui

pbeut.

It is

at

this

pointthat

ife

tself

egins o

philosophise:

our

very

instinctof

inner

self-preservation

ill

often

suggest

to

us

those

"

truths"

and

values

which

provideat

least a

pro-

visional escape fromour

impasse.

And if we insist on the

universal

validity of

these

truths,we

do

so-unconsciously,

at

any rate-not

for

the sake of

the

universe, ut

only for

our

own

sake.

The

doctrines f

Tolstoyand

Nietzschemay

serve,

on

the

whole,

s a

good

illustrationf

this

view.

III.

We

are

all

acquainted

with

Tolstoy's

so-called

Christianity.

We

know

how

smooth nd

"

logical

that

doctrine

ppears at

firstight.

And

yet

the same

Tolstoy

who

passionately

reached

his

own

version

f

Christ's

eaching rote o

his

aunt, he

Countess

A.

Tolstoy,

t

the

period

f

his seeking

I877)

that

religion

as for

him

simply

the

question f a

man

who is

drowning

nd

seeks

something

o clutch n

order

oavoid

the

nevitable uin

which e

foreseeswith all his soul. Duringthe last two years," he

continues,

religioneemed

o

me a

possibility

f

salvation .

.



6/17


7/17

72

THE SLAVONIC REVIEW.

bird-catcherhat I am-I am talking mmorally, ltra-morally,

beyond ood and evil

"

These passages show that the Antichristian hilosophy f

Nietzsche nd the Christian eaching f Tolstoyhave

a similar

inner mpulse. Both Tolstoy and Nietzschehoped to

find

n

their doctrines life-buoywhich would prevent

them from

drowning. Only,Nietzsche ad courage nough o acknowledge

this

openly,while Tolstoy always tried to hide

his own

secret

behindpious, sometimes oo pious labels. The

transvaluations

of

both thinkerswere argely he expression f theirpersonal

needs. Their nstinct f self-preservationrgedthemto adopt

those views and ideas whichwould most probablyhelp

them

to

endure he pain of their nner onflicts,he pain of their

wn

existence. As the philosopher f the superman s a particularly

salient ase, willfirst ive a brief nalysis f Nietzsche.

IV.

I have just mentioned, hat Nietzsche often betrayshis

philosophic ecret without any reticence. His doctrinewas,

however, ot onlyhis medicine, ut also his complement;t was

that antithesis

f

hisown self n which e disciplined is decaying

strength,

is

will

to health nd

life.

"

Apart

from

he

factthat

I

am a decadent, am also the reverse f such a creature,"he

says in Ecce Homo. "That energywith which I serttenced

myself o absolutesolitude, nd to severancefrom ll those

conditions

n life

to which I

had grown accustomed; my

discipline of myself, nd my refusalto allow myself o be

pampered,

o be

tended

hand

and foot, o be doctored-all

this

betrays he absolute certainty f my instincts especting hat

at that timewas most needful o me. I placed myself n my

ownhands, restoredmyself o my

hlealth.

This doublethread

of

xperience,hismeans o twoworlds hatseem so far sunder,

findsn everydetail its counterpartn my own nature; I am

my

own

complement."

As

I

have

put

t

elsewhere,'heduality f conscious ecadent

and of

his equally conscious pponent s the threadwhichruns

unbroken

hrough he wholeof Nietzsche'swork nd life. Each

of his booksrepresents certain tage of the duel between hese

two

antagonists

nd also

a kind of self-conquest.No sooner

had

Nietzschediscovered decadent quality in himself han

his philosophynvented radical antidotewith whichto fight

1

In

my

book,Nietzsche

nd

Modern

Consciousness.



8/17

TOLSTOY AND

NIETZSCHE.

73

and

paralyse it.

So it

happened

that

the more

he was aware

of

his

own disease

the

more he

praised

health,

even

health

in

its

savage form. The more he realised his own weakness and his

own ingrained

Christian

nstincts

the more

he extolled

strength,

even

aggressive

and

cynical

strength. Nietzsche

knew

also

that

he

had

inherited

great

amount

of

German

sentimentality;

and this made him all

the more

determined to

fight

t

with

a

desperate

and

entirelyself-imposed

manliness.

It

was

partly

due to his

innate gentleness hat

he

sang

hymns

to

hardness and

cruelty,

while

the

helplessness

of

an

invalid

and

his absolute

]ack of real " power" made him clamour all the more for the

"

will

to

power." He also

struggledwith

the

various diseases

of

the age

in

the same ratio as

he himself

wanted

to

get

rid

of

them.

In

this

connection, Nietzsche's

attitude towards

Wagner

on

the

one

side,

and

towards

Christianity

n the

other,

is

par-

ticularly

nteresting

and

typical. It

is

generally

known

that,

at the

beginning

of his

career,

Nietzsche

found

in

Wagner

his

best and most helpfulfriend. And yet, after his second visit

to

Bayreuth

(I876),

Nietzsche

quarrelled

with

Wagner

without

any external reason

whatever.

He

just turned

away

fromhim;

and

although he

himself

had

been a great

admirer

of

Wagner's

music,

he soon

began

to attack

that

very

music with

an hysterical

vehemence which

gradually increased

so

much as to

become

(in

his

pamphlets Nietzsche

ontraWagner

and

The

Wagner Case)

almost

pathological.

However, the very

passion

of

Nietzsche's

attacks against WVagners suspicious. For it shows that in

attacking Wagner

he

attacked in

essence

himself.

Or, better,

Nietzsche the

doctor

attacked Nietzsche

the patient.

He

knew

that

he

needed the

music

of

Wagner

as

a kind of

narcotic.

But

the

very moment

he

came

to realise that

Wagner's music

was

only

a

powerful

narcotic and therefore

ll the

more dangerous

to

him

because

of

his

personal

attachmentto the great

musician,

Nietzsche broke

all

his friendly ies with

Wagner-he

broke

them

in order not to be broken by them. When, six years later,

Wagner

died,

Nietzsche

wrote

these

significant

ines

to his

friend

Peter

Gast:

"

I

am

better

now and even believe

that Wagner's

death was

the

most

substantial relief

hat could have

been given

me

just

now. It was

hard for

ixyears to

have to be

the opponent

of

the man one

had

most

reverenced n

earth, and myconstitution

is

not

sufficientlyoarse

for

such

a

position."

I

have

emphasised

Nietzsche's attitude

towards

Wagner

because it is somewhat analogous to his attitude towards

Christianity.

Being

an

invalid, Nietzsche probably

knew

that



9/17

74 THE SLAVONIC

REVIEW.

Christianity

ith ts

profound esignation

as the

only

religion

which

could give him nner olace

in

his

distress.

But

for

this

veryreasonhe rejected t all themore s a religion fweakness

and

decadence. Even

had he been

a

believer,

his

pride

would not have allowed

him to humiliate himself

when

humility nd

resignation

were

personally

advantageous-as

a

cosy shelter,

s

a haven

of

peace.

He would never

"

wag

his

tail" beforeGod,

precisely

ecause

he

needed'him

as

the

last and the

onlyrefuge

rom is

own

suffering.

n

his

affliction

he

considered

ny

whining, ny philandering

ith

philosophies

or religions fcomfort s unmanly nd indecent. He preferred

to

increasehis

pain

rather han shelterhimself

n

a

doctrine

whose hidden inner motives

he

conceived

as

veiled

fear of

sufferingnd

a

craving

or

spiritual

ase.

On

the

other

hand,

Nietzsche

erived

rom his

very

defiance

greater

cstasy

han

any passive

religious

resignation

ould

ever

give

him. He

revelled

n

his own

recklessness

nd

endurance

imply

because

this was

the best

way

of

converting

is

suffering

nto an

illusion fprometheanower, r even ntoa fountain fdefiant

joy.

Feeding

thus

on his

own

wounds,

Nietzsche

lways

found

enough

pretexts o increase

he llusion

f

his

"

strength,"

f

his

daring

nd inner

ndependence,

hrough

kind

of

self-inquisition.

So he revelled

n

war

against

himself.

And

this

war

was the

most

frequentource

f his

inspiration.

Nietzsche's

assionate

ight gainst

Christianity

hus

became

in essenceonly a fight gainsthimself. As is known,he was

the

son

of a

pious

pastor,

nd in his

childhood and

youth

he

himself

was

unusually ious.

Entering

he

University

n

Bonn,

he

matriculated irst

n

theology

which,

owever,

e

soon

re-

linquished

orclassical

philosophy).

It

is

also

remarkable

hat

in

his

private

ife Nietzschewas

extremely

eek nd

considerate

towards

other

people;

he was in

fact the

very

embodiment f

Christianmeekness

nd

altruism.

In

this

respect

he

forms

strikingontrast o Tolstoy,whoretained great deal ofhalf-

suppressedgoism

ven

n

his Christian

ove.

Another

hristian

feature

of

Nietzschewas his

scrupulous

morality

ven in

his

younger

years,

which also

compares

veryfavourably

with the

stormyyouth

of

Tolstoy.

Nietzsche

s

in

fact an

inverted

Christian.

He

is

much nearer to

Pascal or

to St. Paul

than

to

an ancient Greek.

All

his

temperament, ore-his

entire

subliminalself-was

profoundly

eligious,

while his

intellect

strove ll thetimeagainstreligionnd insisted nlyuponthose

biological

values

which could be

accepted

by

his

scrupulous



10/17


11/17


12/17

TOLSTOY

AND

NIETZSCHE.

77

political

ife

of modem

mankind.

"

Death,

death,

death awaits

you

every

second,"

he

exclaims in

What I

Believe. " Your

lifepasses in the presence f death. If you labourpersonally

for

your

own

future,

you

yourself

now

that the

one

thing

awaiting you

is-death.

And

that

death

ruins

all

you

work

for.

Consequently,

ife for

oneself an have

no

meaning.

If

there s

a

reasonable

ife,

t

must

be

sought

lsewhere;

t

must

be a

life,

he aim of which

does not lie in

preparing

urther

ife

for

oneself."

Tolstoy's

rationalistic hristian

eaching

s

nothing

but

a

shelter fromhis own terriblebogey-death. His selflessness

became a

kind of selfish

light

rom

is inner

earand

torment.

And as his

own

tremendous

itality

ould

not find n

adequate

justification

n

the face of

death,

so it

naturally

urned

gainst

itself.

Tolstoy's "reasonable

"

meaning

of life

eventually

wanted o

destroy

ife

tself.

And

so,

fthe

essence f

Nietzsche's

Paganism

s

utter

defiance,

he

essence

of

Tolstoy's

Christianity

is utterresignation.To quote his own words," Christianity

doesnot

give

happiness,

ut

afety; t ets

you

down

o the

bottom

fromwhich here

s no

place to fall."

(Tolstoy's

iary

of

896)

And

again

"

To

him

who

lives

a

spiritual

ife

entirely,ife

here

becomes

so

uninteresting

nd

burdensome

hat

he

can

part

with

t

easily."

The

diseased

Nietzsche

asonly

oo

well

ware f he

debilities

of his

body; therefore e

did

his

best

to assert

(through is

willand hisphilosophy)he" biological managainsthisover-

developedpirit.

He

summoned

ll

the

resourcesf

his

undaunted

mind

chiefly

n

order

to

supply

through

hem a

continuous

stream

f

fresh

itality

o

his

decaying

hysique.

Tolstoy

gain,

whose

dilemma

was

largely

due

to an

exuberant

vitality

of

bodily

nstincts, urned

gainst

that very

biologicalman

whom

Nietzsche

xalted

so

highly.

Nietzsche

rucified

is spirit

on

his

flesh;

Tolstoy

crucified

hisflesh nhis spirit. Yet neither fthemwas " saved." And

the

more

they

knew

this,

the

more

passionately

hey

nsisted

on the

fact

that they

were

what

they

professed,r

better,

what

they

wished o

be. The

potential

agan,

Tolstoy, id

everything

to

prove

that

he

was

a

Christian,

nly

a

Christian;

and

the

latent

Christian,

ietzsche,

houted

ll the

time

against

Christ-

ianity,

hiefly

n order o

convince

imself

nd

others

hat

hewas

the

fiercest

nti-Christian

ver

born.

It was mainly n these mpulses hatTolstoy nd Nietzsche

formulated

heir

octrines.



13/17

78

THE

SLAVONIC

REVIEW.

VI.

It

is

now

generally

ccepted

that

Tolstoy

s not

so

much

a

religious s a moralteacher. And as a moralisthe represents

a fine

xample

of

what

Nietzsche

abelled

rather

isparagingly)

as the

Socratic

mentality. He

combines

ndeed weakreligious

feelingwith

a

very trongmoral ense.' Nietzsche

gain

shows

his latent

religious

erve in

every

ine,

and most of all

in those

passages

which are

directed

gainst

religion.

If the

deism

of

Tolstoy ften

eems o be

irreligious,hevery

theism

fNietzsche

is of a religious ind. But quite apartfromhis, heres another

fundamental ifference

etween

both

of them-the difference

in

the planes

of

consciousness.

The evolution f

human

consciousness

as to pass through

three consecutive

tages: (i) the

pre-individual

orpatriarchal)

stage

in

which the individual

elf s such

has

not

yet

emerged

from

nature,"or the

collective

roup-self.

This kind

of

con-

sciousness,

hich knows no

disharmony,

o inner

struggles,

s

symbolised,n the egends fthe ostparadise nd of thegolden

age. (2)

The

individualised

tage,

which omes

next,

represents

a

complete isruption

f

the harmonious

roup-soul,

n so far

as

every

single person tries to

assert

his

own self

against other

selves and

against

the

whole.

(3)

When the

ultimate imit

of

this

disruption

as

been

reached,

ingle

ndividuals ither

must

perish

n

the

war of

all

against all,

or

pass

on to that

plane

of

"

supra-individual

consciousness here

very

ingle goenlarges

to such an extent s to include he wholeofhumanitywithout

dissolving

n

it).

The second

phase is the most

terrible f

all, for

this s the

phase

of

civilisation,

f

uprootedness,

f

division nd

self-division.

It is here hat

many pirits

et tired

f

thishuman

Golgotha nd

begin

to

call us

"

back to

nature

-that

is,

back to the

happy

childhood

f

humanity

which

s

possibleonly

on the first

lane

of

consciousness. Rousseau

was one of those who,

instead of

overcoming ivilisation,wanted to suppress t by means of

a

return o a

primitive

natural

humanity.

Another

owerful

voice

calling

s

back

to

it

was

the voice

of

his

disciple-Tolstoy.

Tolstoy's

onsciousness oves, n

fact,

ll the

time

along the

line where

the first

nd the

second

planesmeet. And all

his

instincts nd

his intuitive

enius re

so much

rooted n the

first

plane (the plane

of

undifferentiated

umanity) hat he

rejects

1

A strongmoralconsciousnesswithout n adequate religious onscious-

nesswas

also at

the

bottomof

Ibsen's

inner

ragedy. Further

laboratiorn

of

this

theme can

be

found n

my

book,

Ibsen and his Creation

Collins).



14/17

TOLSTOY AND NIETZSCHE.

79

a

priori

everything

hatgoes

against

t,

denying

he

very oss-

ibility

f

division

r

disruption.

Nietzsche,

n

the

other

hand,

representshevery imit fthe second tage. He isthatultimate

point

of

individualisation here

ne's

ego

must

"

die

"

in

order

to

rise

again on

a

higher lane

(Goethe's

Stirbund

Werde),

r

it

is

bound

to

destroytself

hrough

ts own

monomania

nd

madness.

And so

we

can betterunderstand

why

it is

that

Tolstoy

values

human

personality

nly

n

so

far as it

sacrifices

tself

o

the

compactness f the

whole,

nd

why

he

proclaims

ny

act of

individual elf-affirmations the original in and as the

very

spring

f all

evil on

earth.

Nietzsche iscards

God

with

almost

hysterical

ehemence-simply

n

order

to

procure

o

man

that

illimitable

reedom f self-will

hichwould make

him

the

only-

divinity

n

the universe: the freedom

f

the

individual

man-

God.

Tolstoy,

gain, alks

ll thetime

f

God;

only

he

conceives.

him

in

such

a

way as to find

n

him,

above

all,

the

primeval

antithesis o all individualisationhatsoever, kind ofNirvana.

Tolstoy's

"

voice of

God

"

is

in

essence

only

the

voice

of

the-

pre-individual

roup-soul

hichhe

deifies;

this

he

tries

o

raise

to

therankofthe

eternal

ategorical

mperative-the

mperative-

of

self-effacementnd absolute

evelling

f men

on,

or

near,

the

line

of

zero.

Tolstoy s

against ll social differentiation

ecause

he

sees

in

it

only

individual self-assertion

nd

violence.

He

hates

the

Stateand thewhole fculture reciselyecause hey rebasedon

social

differentiation.

e

preaches

ven

complete

niformity

f-

work, o

that

everybody

hould till

the

ground

with

his

own

hands.

Making

further

onclusions,

Tolstoy

denounces

also.

education

nd habits of cleanliness s

dangerous,

ince

they

oo

are

elements f

division

mong

men.

So he

writes

n

What

o

Do:

"

To-day

cleanliness onsists

n

changing

our

hirt

nce

a

day,

to-morrow

n

changing

t twice

a

day.

To-day

the

footman's.

lhandsmustbe clean; to-morrow e mustweargloves, nd in

his clean

gloves

he

must

present

letter n

a

clean

salver.

And

there re

no

limits o

this

leanliness,

hich

s

useless,

nd

object--

less,

except

for

the

purpose

of

separating

neself

rom

thers,

and

of

rendering

mpossible

ll

intercourse

ith

them,

when

this

cleanliness s

attained

by

the

labour of

others.

Moreover,

when

studied

he

subject,

became

convinced

hat

even

what

is

commonly

alled education s the

very

ame

thing...

Education

consists f those forms nd acquirements hichare calculated

to

separate

a man from

his

fellows,

nd its

object

is

identicaL



15/17

8o

THE

SLAVONIC

REVIEW.

with

that

of

cleanliness-to seclude

us

from

he

herd

of

the

poor."

Owingto the same subconscious rge,Tolstoygoes against

all external

uthorities,

ll

laws,

all

manifestations

f

civilisation

whatever,

nd likewise

gainst

all

manifestations

f the

human

self s such. It is on

this

premise

hat

he constructs is

theory

of

non-resistance,

hich

s

the

inevitable

ogical

outcome

f his

fear of

division.

Every

resistance

n

our

part,

even if

this be

the

resistance f

evil,

is in

essence

an

act

of

individual

elf-

assertion. As

this

ct is

necessarily

irected

gainst

ther

ellow-

beings,t intensifiesheir wnaggressiveness,ncreasinghereby

violence

nd division

mong

men.

According

o

Tolstoy,

one

must love

one's enemies o

such an

extentas to let

them

do

whatever

hey

like. Even if

they

wish

to kill

us,

we

must

passively acrifice urselves o

this

conception

f

love

without

raising

finger

n self-defence. or

if our

self as such

has no

right

o

exist,

we

have

no

right

o

defend his

self.

Tolstoy

goes, n fact, o faras to forbid venresistancegainstraving

drunkards

r

madmen.

Thus,

entirely

orgetting

hat

Christ

Himself

used

violencewhen

chasing

the

traders out

of

the

temple,

he

writes,

n a

letter

bout Adin

Ballou's rival

theory

of

non-resistance:

"

I

cannot

agree

with the

concessionhe

makes

for

employing

iolence

against

drunkards

nd

insane

people.

The

Master made

no

concessions,

nd

we

can

make

none.

We

must

try

to

make

impossible

he existence

f

such

people,but iftheydo existwe mustuse all possiblemeansand

sacrifice

urselves,

ut

not

employ iolence. A

true

Christian

will

alwaysprefer

o

be

killed

by

a

madman

rather han

deprive

him

of

his

liberty."

(I889.)

In his

important

ork,The

Kingdom f

God s

WithinYou,

Tolstoy

conceives

the

whole

historical

volution

of

humanity

simply

s a

process

of

depersonalisation,

hosefinal

goal

ought

to be

the

compact

pre-individual

roup-consciousness

f the

wholeofmankind. Thisfinal tageofhumanevolution olstoy

calls the

Kingdom

of

God.

But

in

general

he

confuses

wo

entirely

different

tages-the

pre-individual

nd

the

supra-

individual

tage

of

human

development-in uch

a

way

that

even

when

his

reasoning

eems

o

point

o

the

atter,

is

nstincts

and

tendencies

emain

xclusively

n the

plane of

thefirst,

.e.,

the

amorphic

stage.

In

other

words, even

when

Tolstoy's

formulae

bout

the

Christian

niversal ove

and

peace

and

good-

willare absolutely ight, heplane on which e uses themsnot

right.

Hence

the

great difference

etween

the

Christianity

f



16/17

TOLSTOY AND

NIETZSCHE.

8r

Tolstoy

and

that of

Solovyev,

for

instance. In

many

cases,

both of them use identical

formulke,

nd

yet

no one

ironised

Tolstoy'sChristian eachingmore than Solovyev especiallyn

his

Three

Conversations).

He even

proclaimed

Tolstoy

to

be

Anti-Christ

nd

Tolstoy's

God

simply

clever

mpostor.

Like-

wise,

he

says

that

Tolstoy's

Kingdom

of

God

is

"

only

an

arbitrary

nd

vain

euphemism

or

the

Kingdom

f

Death."

VII.

Beingconvincedhateven n thegreatest ltruismhere s a

fair

amountof

veiled

selfishness, ietzsche

was

cynically

rank

about it. He

maintained hat the

open

or

masked

"

will to

power"

is

the

only

inner

agent

of our

actions,and

therefore

denied

those

transcendental

ategories f

good

and

evil

which

Tolstoy

considered

ternal-as

given

once for

all

time

and

obligatory

or all

men.

While

Tolstoy's

gospel

has

in view a

state-less

ommunity

f meek

and

good

men

united n

that

pre-

individual ovewhich lonecan givetranquillitynd happiness

on

earth

as

he

says), the

weakling

Nietzsche

xpresses

he need

of

powerful

men

who

are

strong nough

o

laugh

at all

"

easy-

yokes,"

men

who can

boldly

ook

at

life n

its

most horrible

aspects

and

yet make

it

worth

iving.

Instead of

an

escape

from

reality,

Nietzsche

requires a

tragic

courageto

face

it.

Therefore

e

insistson

the

creativevalue

of

hardness

owards

oneself nd

towards

thers.

A

hard

and

dangerous

ife

s

one

ofhis first emands. For our strengthnd endurance row n

proportion

ith

those

dangers

whichwe are

able to

overcome.

In

Nietzsche's

opinion,

he

evil

side of

existence

s

necessary

for

the

verygrowth f

life.

It

is also

necessary or

he

sake

of

that

higher

oodness

which

omes

not

from

weakness,

ut from

one's

overflowing

ower and

abundance-that

goodness and

that

bestowing

irtue

t

which

only those

arrivewho

have

first

conquered

he

right o

it.

If Tolstoy's thics re based on obligatorymoralcategories,

the

moral

valuationsof

Nietzsche re above

all

those

of

taste.

He is

beyondgood

and evil

onlywith

regard o

so-called

ternal

categories. But

apart from

his,

he

measures

verything

rom

the

standpoint

f

what he

calls

noble

and

ignoble. And

gnoble

is

forhim ll

that

comesfrom

weaknessnd

cowardice, s

well s

from

the

absence

of a

strivingwill

to

overcome he

present

man. To

put it somewhatbaldly,Nietzschestands for theultimate

aristocratic-aesthetic,

nd

Tolstoy

for

the

ultimate

F



17/17

tolstoy and nietzsche comparison.pdf

Documents