# 97. Nietzsche In Pious Illumination

"They also want to improve mankind in their own way, in their own image; they would make an irreconcilable war against what I am, what I *want*, provided *that they understood*." Such words were directed by *Friedrich Nietzsche* against the army of staid philistines who, like the backward intellectual theologian David Strauss, wanted to preach a new gospel to the flat-headed free spirits. Now, however, they have also come up against him, the "philistines of education", and are measuring him by their own standards. No sooner have we choked down one of the writings that bring us a philistine opinion about Nietzsche than a new one appears - and we can't get out of our stomach upset. And if we can't get into the habit of simply skimming over all the stuff that is printed in our newspapers and magazines about Nietzsche: then - woe betide our stomachs.

We, who are brave enough to say "yes" to Nietzsche's desire to purify psychology, history and nature, social institutions and sanctions from the thousand-year-old prejudices and old wives' feelings of theology - we suffer from the current Nietzsche literature.

To all the Nietzsche interpreters who have told us their wisdom about the great anti-mystic, anti-idealist and immoralist in short or long arguments, to the brave woman Lou Salome, to the critical muddlehead Franz Servaes, to Zerbst, who would like to make Nietzsche a seeker of God, and to all the others who talk about Nietzsche without ever having felt a whiff of his spirit, has now been joined by Mr. *Hans Gallwitz*. " *Friedrich Nietzsche*, a portrait of his life" is the title of a book that appears in a "series" with other books. Heinrich von Stephan, Alfred Krupp and Fridtjof Nansen have also been described in biographical writings belonging to this series.

Mr. Hans Gallwitz talks about Nietzsche in many ways. He prefers to move in those areas of the immoralist's teachings in which he can find a *echoing* of Nietzsche's sentences with those of the Apostle Paul; and then he says something like this: what a pity that Nietzsche did not understand the Apostle Paul; he could then have expressed so many things better with the words of this teacher of faith than with his own. Mr. Hans Gallwitz would prefer to make Nietzsche a follower of the Apostle Paul altogether... But what is it to me that Mr. Hans Gallwitz has such an attachment to the Apostle Paul!

I don't want to fight the Apostle Paul; I just want to point out some of Mr. Hans Gallwitz's heartfelt convictions to show how far removed this Nietzsche interpreter is from the teachings of the one he wants to describe.

In essence, Mr. Hans Gallwitz is most annoyed by the godlessness of Friedrich Nietzsche. He cannot help but admit this quite openly: "Nietzsche opposes his doctrine of the creative to any world view based on belief in God. Belief in God and free creation are mutually exclusive. "What would there be to create if there were gods?" " We, those who agree with Nietzsche's teachings, know quite well that God can only be a noble being, and that a *noble* being does not place unfree children, but *free* people into the world, who are called to create as masters in the world into which they are born. But Mr. Hans Gallwitz has a different opinion. He does not believe that God has placed the earth at the free disposal of men so that they *create* on it in his image. He believes that God has created a race of bunglers whom he has to help back on their feet again and again if they are to achieve anything decent. "The limited son of earth, whose thinking and willing only come to fruition in the orders of this earth, can only take the impulses and purposes presented to him a little further and clarify them; he cannot create anything new out of himself, cannot make a new beginning. His activity is only ever like that of the gardener who, through selfless, faithful care, extracts some new forces and values from the plants; this is not done by forcibly forcing his way in, but the creator must make himself dependent on the material that is given to him, he must also know how to reckon with its shortcomings if he wants to finish something differently." Mr. Hans Gallwitz wants to be a gardener, but Friedrich Nietzsche wants to be a creator. How could I be a gardener if the good Lord had not given me a garden to tend: says Hans Gallwitz humbly. -- "What would there be to create if there were gods?" says Friedrich Nietzsche. The gods have created a world; but they also wanted to create a being like themselves; and there they created man, who now continues to create. But they have withdrawn, and only when man wants to create a supreme ideal for himself does he call it God, because he finds the only God in himself, says Nietzsche. The gods have created henchmen for themselves, who go astray every moment, and who cannot create, but can only extract some new powers and values from the plants "through selfless, faithful care", says Mr. Hans Gallwitz.

All that is divine in man, Friedrich Nietzsche wanted to awaken in man, so that he might become a creator, just as God himself is a creator; Mr. Hans Gallwitz wants to squeeze all that is divine out of man, so that he might become a gardener, "who through selfless, faithful care extracts some new powers and values from the plants".

Mr. Hans Gallwitz opposes his view of "man as gardener" to Nietzsche, who proclaimed the doctrine of "man as creator". With his book, Mr. Hans Gallwitz has only shown that he would have done better to read the letters of the Apostle Paul than the writings of Nietzsche. Yet - he knows the former! He could well have occupied himself with some work more useful to him in the time he was reading Nietzsche's works; and if, instead of giving us a book on Nietzsche, he had planted fruit or turnips - then he would have been a better gardener.

I bid farewell to the gardener Hans Gallwitz. He may take comfort from my mockery. He has been praised in the "Preußische Jahrbücher". And the "Preußische Jahrbücher" are a respected organ. The same gentleman praised him there who, in a previous issue, could not refrain from mocking Nietzsche himself. In the same Jahrbücher whose editor accompanied the insipid drivel of Hertn "Brand" with the words that he was only interested in Nietzsche as a literary phenomenon.

Today there will only be a few people who are in Friedrich Nietzsche's camp: People who stand by him because they can understand him. It will be up to them to keep a faithful watch against the advances of all those who want to exploit him in the service of some traditional views. For Friedrich Nietzsche is the *most modern spirit* we have. But we guardians of Nietzsche will perhaps need sharp weapons. We will have them and know how to wield them. For we have learned to fence from Nietzsche; and he is a good fencing master.