Thus Spake Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche, trans. Thomas Common is a publication of the. Pennsylvania State University. This Portable Document file is. Title Page. THUS SPOKE ZARATHUSTRA by Friedrich Nietzsche. Based on the Thomas Common Translation. Extensively modified by Bill Chapko. CONTENTS. Thus spoke Zarathustra is the classic full-text work by Friedrich Nietzsche. The book is considered among his most well-known and important.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Dutch|
|Genre:||Health & Fitness|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Register to download]|
This HTML page is an adaptation of Thomas Common's original Zarathustra translation. morning with the dawn, he went before the sun, and spoke thus to it . Download Thus Spoke Zarathustra free in PDF & EPUB format. Download FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE's Thus Spoke Zarathustra for your kindle. Thus Spoke Zarathustra is Nietzsche's philosophical-literary masterpiece. As the drama of Thus Spoke Zarathustra unfolds three important, much discussed.
For ten years hast thou climbed hither unto my cave: But we awaited thee every morning, took from thee thine overflow and blessed thee for it. I am weary of my wisdom, like the bee that hath gathered too much honey; I need hands outstretched to take it.
I would fain bestow and distribute, until the wise have once more become joyous in their folly, and the poor happy in their riches. Therefore must I descend into the deep: Bless me, then, thou tranquil eye, that canst behold even the greatest happiness without envy!
Bless the cup that is about to overflow, that the water may flow golden out of it, and carry everywhere the reflection of thy bliss! This cup is again going to empty itself, and Zarathustra is again going to be a man. Thus began Zarathustra's down-going. Zarathustra went down the mountain alone, no one meeting him. When he entered the forest, however, there suddenly stood before him an old man, who had left his holy cot to seek roots.
And thus spake the old man to Zarathustra: Zarathustra he was called; but he hath altered. Then thou carriedst thine ashes into the mountains: Fearest thou not the incendiary's doom? Yea, I recognise Zarathustra. Pure is his eye, and no loathing lurketh about his mouth. Goeth he not along like a dancer? Altered is Zarathustra; a child hath Zarathustra become; an awakened one is Zarathustra: As in the sea hast thou lived in solitude, and it hath borne thee up. Alas, wilt thou now go ashore?
Alas, wilt thou again drag thy body thyself? Was it not because I loved men far too well? Now I love God: Man is a thing too imperfect for me. Love to man would be fatal to me. I am bringing gifts unto men. If, however, thou wilt give unto them, give them no more than an alms, and let them also beg for it!
I am not poor enough for that. They are distrustful of anchorites, and do not believe that we come with gifts. The fall of our footsteps ringeth too hollow through their streets.
And just as at night, when they are in bed and hear a man abroad long before sunrise, so they ask themselves concerning us: Where goeth the thief? Go not to men, but stay in the forest! Go rather to the animals!
Why not be like me—a bear amongst bears, a bird amongst birds? The saint answered: With singing, weeping, laughing, and mumbling do I praise the God who is my God.
But what dost thou bring us as a gift? Let me rather hurry hence lest I take aught away from thee! When Zarathustra was alone, however, he said to his heart: When Zarathustra arrived at the nearest town which adjoineth the forest, he found many people assembled in the market-place; for it had been announced that a rope-dancer would give a performance.
And Zarathustra spake thus unto the people: Man is something that is to be surpassed.
What have ye done to surpass man? All beings hitherto have created something beyond themselves: What is the ape to man? A laughing-stock, a thing of shame.
And just the same shall man be to the Superman: Ye have made your way from the worm to man, and much within you is still worm. Once were ye apes, and even yet man is more of an ape than any of the apes. Even the wisest among you is only a disharmony and hybrid of plant and phantom.
But do I bid you become phantoms or plants? Lo, I teach you the Superman! The Superman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: Poisoners are they, whether they know it or not. Despisers of life are they, decaying ones and poisoned ones themselves, of whom the earth is weary: Once blasphemy against God was the greatest blasphemy; but God died, and therewith also those blasphemers.
To blaspheme the earth is now the dreadfulest sin, and to rate the heart of the unknowable higher than the meaning of the earth! Once the soul looked contemptuously on the body, and then that contempt was the supreme thing: Thus it thought to escape from the body and the earth.
Oh, that soul was itself meagre, ghastly, and famished; and cruelty was the delight of that soul! But ye, also, my brethren, tell me: What doth your body say about your soul? Is your soul not poverty and pollution and wretched self-complacency? Verily, a polluted stream is man. One must be a sea, to receive a polluted stream without becoming impure. Lo, I teach you the Superman: What is the greatest thing ye can experience? It is the hour of great contempt.
The hour in which even your happiness becometh loathsome unto you, and so also your reason and virtue. The hour when ye say: It is poverty and pollution and wretched self-complacency. But my happiness should justify existence itself! Doth it long for knowledge as the lion for his food?
It is poverty and pollution and wretched self-complacency! As yet it hath not made me passionate. How weary I am of my good and my bad! It is all poverty and pollution and wretched self-complacency! I do not see that I am fervour and fuel. The just, however, are fervour and fuel! Is not pity the cross on which he is nailed who loveth man? But my pity is not a crucifixion. Have ye ever cried thus? It is not your sin—it is your self-satisfaction that crieth unto heaven; your very sparingness in sin crieth unto heaven!
Where is the lightning to lick you with its tongue? Where is the frenzy with which ye should be inoculated? But the rope-dancer, who thought the words applied to him, began his performance. Zarathustra, however, looked at the people and wondered. Then he spake thus: All the sources mentioned above only offer second-hand accounts of what happened in Sils in We still need decisive evidence. Durisch] beim Abschied nur noch beauftragt, die am Boden liegenden wertlosen Korrekturen zu verbrennen.
All the property and books in my custody have been returned to his relatives. Regarding the manuscripts left behind, I declare that when departing Professor Nietzsche left a series of written sheets in the wastebasket with the instruction to burn them. I have given some papers to a gentleman from Bremen, whose name I have forgotten, at his request.
Since I received reclamations from your husband, I also sent back these materials that I could have burned, so that nothing has been lost and there is nothing left here that belonged to Mr Professor Nietzsche. I testify to this truthfully.
Respectfully, J. Dieser Herr hat, scheints, davon Gebrauch gemacht. Hochachtend J. Even worse, she claims, Durisch commingled the manuscripts Nietzsche wanted preserved in Sils with those he instructed to burn. Reprinted in Gilman, , here As noted, according to scholars like Leiter and Young, it implies that Nietzsche gave up the will to power project.
In what follows I will present reasons to reject both theses. Despite the distinction, it is worth noting, the whole Nachlass is understood as rejected by Nietzsche.
In his blog post, Leiter clearly adheres to this interpretation. For the counterarguments, see Brobjer, , and , which I find more convincing. Although Hollingdale claims we ought to read the Nachlass with caution, he actually advises us to set it aside.
In the contemporary debate on the Nachlass, Leiter defends a moderate version of this view. What can we do with these two claims mentioned above?
Can we, in this case, assume that Nietzsche retracted his earlier commitment to this theory? I think the answer is clearly no, for the rejection of an idea should be distinguished from the rejection of the vehicle in which the idea is conveyed. He decided to destroy certain notes, perhaps because he no longer accepted the ideas set out there. But it is equally possible that he was merely unsatisfied with the unpolished style. It is also possible that he took the notes he discarded to be repeating what he had already said elsewhere.
Perhaps he simply changed his work plan or his interest had gone elsewhere and he felt there was no need to work on those drafts anymore. We see, then, that there is a variety of possible reasons for Nietzsche to have asked Durisch to burn some of his manuscripts. This gesture alone tells us nothing about what he thought about the ideas expressed there.
As noted above, Leiter is the most recent representative of this view. To be sure, an author may choose not to publish certain writings because she comes to recognize them as of dubious merit. But she may also put them aside to be returned to later just think of the drafts on your computer.
In fact, Nietzsche did not discard his notebook writings once he had used them to construct books published shortly afterwards, but continually returned to those writings, reread and revised them, and extracted materials from them which could be used for new publications.
Just one example: The majority of the texts in the notebook M III 4a, which are dated to , were used to make up The Gay Science, the first edition of which appeared in So how could we know that he would not publish those notes of the late s which he did not include in the works he published or prepared for publication until January , the time he collapsed into madness, if this misfortune had not occurred?
We should not forget that 51 Even if Nietzsche did not want to work on a draft anymore, we cannot infer that he rejected it as unacceptable. Brobjer and Bernard Reginster point out that at the very end of his active life, Nietzsche seemed to adhere to his original plan of developing his Revaluation project into four books and described The Anti-Christ, the latest book he prepared for publication, merely as the first installment of this project.
In contrast to the claim of Leiter and others that it has crucial consequences for understanding Nietzsche, the outcome seems quite meager.
And, if Elisabeth is to be believed, he had the same attitude toward many other unpublished writings. But even if Nietzsche has placed little value on these texts, it nevertheless reveals little about how he thinks about the ideas communicated in the texts, and neither does it play a decisive role in how we should approach them. In Anglophone Nietzsche scholarship, where the problem of the interpretative priority of the published works versus the Nachlass has received special attention, the prevailing tendency is to question the legitimacy of the Nachlass as a source for making sense of Nietzsche.
In his private writings, on the contrary, he is believed to dispense with masks and speak more directly Reginster, People often forget the simple fact that the Nachlass and WP are two different things. With regard to the majority of the notes reproduced in the Colli-Montinari edition, it is possible to work out their context, sometimes just by reading them alongside the notes before and after: just as there are internal connections between successive aphorisms in the published works, a series of notes as presented in their original sequence in the critical edition can throw light on each other, for Nietzsche is usually concerned with several main themes at a certain time.
If there is no need to dispense with the Nachlass, how can we use it properly? To be clear, an absolute version does not have to go so far as to insist that the Nachlass is something to be dismissed as harmful. It seems obvious, for instance, that to collect biographical information or to reconstruct the genesis of a text requires us to appeal to the Nachlass.
Alan D. While published writings often only contain the result of his thinking, the Nachlass shows its process: how Nietzsche raises questions, entertains different ideas, abandons some and comes to others. And if our concern is to assess Nietzsche critically, it would be appropriate to examine different ideas or arguments with which he had once experimented in both published and unpublished writings and see if he made a good choice and if he convincingly established his point.
That the Nachlass can be helpful in the cases mentioned above seems relatively uncontroversial. Schrift this is where the great value of the Nachlass resides, although in cases of clear conflict with the published works, they would advise to rely on the published works.
My position, as I have noted, is similar to that of Nehamas, who recommends not to suppose the absolute primacy of the published writings in advance even when the published views contradict the unpublished and not to generalize the priority of the published works to an interpretative principle that should be applied to every study Nehamas, And we should not forget that Nietzsche is, as Nehamas points out, famous for making inconsistent statements about various questions, even within his published works Nehamas, We would be throwing the baby out with the bath water if we disregarded the Nachlass simply because it does not necessarily express what Nietzsche actually or ultimately advocates.
Acknowledgements I would like to thank the two anonymous referees and the editors at the British Journal for the History of Philosophy as well as Paul Katsafanas, Paul Loeb and Matthew Meyer for their corrections and suggestions, which helped me improve my paper significantly. My deepest debt is to Wei Cheng for many illuminating conversations, from which the present essay has benefited greatly. Leipzig: Verlag von C. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Kritische Studienausgabe.
Franz Overbeck und Friedrich Nietzsche. Eine Freundschaft. Jena: Eugen Diederichs. Breazeale, D. Philosophy and Truth. New Jersey, London: Humanities Press. Brobjer, T. Clark, M. Nietzsche on Truth and Philosophy.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dudrick Nietzsche on Ethics and Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Amherst, New York: Humanity Books. Cox, C. Nietzsche: Naturalism and Interpretation. Berkeley: University of California Press. Derrida, J. Translated by Barbara Harlow. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Diederichs, E. August 8, Das Nietzsche-Archiv, seine Freunde und Feinde. The Young Nietzsche. Translated by Anthony M.