Questioning the ancient, imitating the ancient, or retreating into the ancient

(translated from my Chinese blog)

This is my new project, “Nietzschean Philology”. In each installment, I’ll read a passage from Nietzsche’s original writings. By practicing text analysis, we can enhance our ability to understand the world.

"We Philologists" Section 4. Here, Nietzsche suggests three attitudes toward history. These complement the analysis of three historical perspectives presented in “The Function and Abuse of History”. They also reveal how modern people manipulate the relationship between these three perspectives in order to sustain their historically unfounded sense of pride.

All this affects the sources of our present philology: a sceptical and melancholy attitude. But how otherwise are philologists to be produced?

The imitation of antiquity: is not this a principle which has been refuted by this time?

The flight from actuality to the ancients: does not this tend to falsify our conception of antiquity?

"We Philologists" 4, Friedrich Nietzsche, translated by J. M. Kennedy 

“All this” refers to the end of the third section:

(a) The disparity between philologists and the ancients.

(b) The inability of the philologist to train his pupils, even with the help of the ancients.

(c) The falsifying of the science by the (incapacity of the) majority, the wrong requirements held in view; the renunciation of the real aim of this science.

The disparity means that philologists generally lack the humility and depth of understanding necessary to truly comprehend ancient life. Their poor career choices lead to their failure to educate students properly, “even with the help of the ancients.” In other words, poor career choices cannot be remedied by adopting an ancient lifestyle or aesthetics. The social pressures imposed by the rise of the masses, along with the incentives in professional societies, mean that only those aspects of ancient culture that are popular with the masses are rewarded. Those aspects that are rejected by the masses are ignored or denied. Over time, philology has become a discipline that uses the ancient world to please the masses, rather than to accurately represent how ancient people really were.

Nietzsche said that all this leads to a “skeptical and melancholic attitude” of philology. By “skeptical,” he meant that, under the perspective of progress, it’s assumed that modern people are more civilized and advanced than those of ancient times. As a result, there’s a fundamental skepticism toward the nobility and vitality exhibited by ancient peoples. By “melancholic,” he meant that, under this perspective, all history becomes “dark history” (just like the story of the meeting at Qilu Jiagu*). Looking back at history thus becomes a way of examining one’s own nation’s dark past, a process of reflecting on hardships and joys. Naturally, this leads to a melancholic state of mind.

But then Nietzsche asked the opposite question: If philologists aren’t trained in this way, then how else can they be trained? The modern world is more civilized and advanced than the ancient world; there’s no doubt about that. In other words, if we reject the idea of progress in history, what other perspective on history can we adopt? Nietzsche then proposed two alternatives to the idea of progress in history: ① imitation of antiquity; ② flight to the ancients. Readers might find Nietzsche’s distinction confusing. Why are the two different? Why can’t one imitate the ancient world while also retreating to it?

In the same year, in his essay “The Use and Abuse of History,” Nietzsche distinguished between three attitudes toward history: the “monumental” attitude, the “antiquarian” attitude, and the “critical” attitude. 

Nietzsche’s “monumental” view of history, which accords with the idea of “imitating the ancients” here, involves using the great figures of history as a standard for evaluating values. The goal is to recreate the lives of those ancient people as accurately as possible. But this is nothing more than “to pretend that  their hate for the powerful and the great of their time is a fulfilling admiration for the strong and the great of past times.” In other words, Nietzsche believed that those who advocate for imitating the ancients actually hate the power of the modern era, not truly loving the ancients. Nor do they truly criticize the modern world. Instead, they simply reject the challenges and opportunities offered by the modern world, denying it outright without any consideration. Therefore, Nietzsche concluded that the modern world has already refuted this view of history. All one needs to do is look at the prosperity, stability, and convenience of the modern world, as well as the average lifespan and quality of life of modern people, to realize how absurd it is to try to imitate the ancients.

The antiquarian view of history corresponds to what might be called “retreating into the ancient world” here (though it’s not certain whether this correspondence is accurate). It involves using the ancient past to justify modern practices. Stability is seen as the most important thing, and efforts are made to maintain the status quo. At the same time, the current order is used to justify the ancient world, with people advocating for “the wisdom of our ancestors” and continuing traditional practices. In “The Use and Abuse of History,” Nietzsche calls this view of history one that “only knows how to preserve life, but not how to create it.” In “We Philologists,” Nietzsche rejects this approach because it “falsify our conception of antiquity.” One possible explanation is that, unlike those who “imitate the ancient world,” those who “retreat into the ancient world” don’t really aim to recreate ancient life. Instead, they simply preserve it, much like an antiquarian who is satisfied with merely viewing and collecting ancient artifacts. Those who “imitate the ancient world,” on the other hand, truly try to live as ancient people did. This makes it easier for us to understand the ancient world more thoroughly. But those who “retreat into ancient times” are more like fans of historical dramas. They really don’t care about the living conditions of people in ancient times; they simply want to experience the feeling of living in those times. In reality, those who “retreat into ancient times” are imposing the basic presumptions of modern life on ancient people. As a result, all the dangers and tensions that existed in ancient life are eliminated.

In this way, it seems that Nietzsche left the task of criticizing historical views to those linguists whom he had been criticizing throughout his writings. In his essay “The Use and Abuse of History,” Nietzsche actually held the most positive views of historical criticism. Isn’t this somewhat contradictory? On the contrary, I believe that “We Philologists” and “The Use and Abuse of History” complement each other. Each of these three approaches to history has its own advantages and disadvantages. It’s necessary to adopt different perspectives depending on the “goals, forces, and needs” of every people, “uses a certain knowledge of the past, sometimes as monumental history, sometimes as antiquarian history, and sometimes as critical history.”

I’m tired of all these “comprehensive, profound, and correct” bullshits. Unless it’s made clear what perspective is being adopted, Nietzsche’s words are nothing but lazy and boring crap. Remembering the themes of “We Philologists”: the issues of life’s goals and luck, the mismatch between societal needs and the skills of individuals, and, most importantly, the relationship between philologists and the ancients. Even if we define “philologists” in the broadest sense, including anyone who studies or learns from ancient people, philologists will always be a minority in society, playing only a minor role in society’s functioning. What Nietzsche means here is that, rather than focusing on critical historical approaches, philologists should prioritize what he calls the “monumental history” (imitating the ancients), with the “antiquarian history” serving as a supplement. The critical history should be considered only as a last resort for philologists. But today, due to societal choices that lead to these mistakes, and because societal mechanisms perpetuate these flaws, the field of linguistics has been completely reversed: critical analysis of the ancients has become the main focus, while the ability to draw wisdom and strength from ancient lives has been largely forgotten.

The role of philologists is to understand the ancients. To do this, they must often forget the basic fact that they live in the modern world. Therefore, even though the practice of “imitating the ancients” is rejected by the more rigid and harsh attitudes of the modern world, philologists should still be wary of “flight to the ancients.” Doing so can easily distort our understanding of ancient times. From this perspective, there’s a kind of complicity between the antiquarian and the critical: the latter “uproots modern people,” causing them to lose their sense of history, while the former provides a superficial remedy for this state of rootlessness by “flight to the ancients” (without actually adopting their way of life). Of course, a distorted version of the ancient world is much easier to understand and attack than the real ancient world.

(If you find it difficult to understand this text, you might want to replace all occurrences of “philologists” with “language teachers”.)

* See my previous post for the story quoted from Ge Zhaoguang's book.