The Level of Language Teachers is the Greatest Obstacle to Potential Philological Geniuses

(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.

The reading of "We Philologists" continues. In Section 10, through pointing out the contrast between Leopardi and Forster, Nietzsche points out that incompetent linguists, due to their "poor presentation of philology," greatly hinder the development and creativity of potential individual geniuses. Those who aspire to make philology their lifelong career must take Leopardi as their life model and take Forster as a warning.

Besides the large number of unqualified philologists there is, on the other hand, a number of what may be called born philologists, who from some reason or other are prevented from becoming such. The greatest obstacle, however, which stands in the way of these born philologists is the bad representation of philology by the unqualified philologists.

Leopardi is the modern ideal of a philologist: The German philologists can do nothing. (As a proof of this Voss should be studied!)

"We Philologists" 10, Friedrich Nietzsche, translated by J. M. Kennedy 

The content of this section is relatively simple and straightforward. The key phrase is "the bad representation of philology."

Suppose a student shows an extraordinary interest in ancient literature at an early age. The ancient content he can get during his school years almost entirely comes from his language teacher's teaching. We can divide factors that influence the pursue of a life's calling into internal and external factors, where the internal factors are the student's innate talent and personality, and the external factors include his family background, parents' education level, social and cultural environment, spirit of the times, etc. Nietzsche believes that the most important external factor is the level of the teacher. (Why does Nietzsche think that the influence of the teacher is greater than that of parents? One possible explanation is that the attraction between genius individuals is enough to break through the repression of the mass, but it must come from the field where the potential genius is located. A poor field leader can ruin the genius's future.) It is those "bad representation of philology" that constitute the greatest obstacle to a potential genius philologist. But what exactly does Nietzsche mean by "bad representation "?

Nietzsche provides one good and one bad example: Leopardi and Voss. Leopardi refers to the Italian philologist Giacomo Leopardi (1798-1837). Voss refers to the German philologist Johann Heinrich Voss (1751-1826). The differences between the two can be seen in several aspects: firstly, Leopardi's most famous works are his poetry and prose, while Voss's most famous works are his translations of classical works (Goethe praised him as an example of the "equal" translation concept); secondly, Leopardi was plagued by illness throughout his life (some say it was due to excessive studying, which can also be seen from his erudition), his career was not smooth, he was in financial difficulties, his interpersonal relationships were unstable, and he died at the age of 39, but Voss was relatively healthy, became rector at the age of 27, and then gradually rose and became a professor at Heidelberg University around the age of 50, allowing him to engage in research peacefully in his later years until his death at the age of 75 (which suggests that Nietzsche's idea of "choosing the right life's calling" does not equate to worldly success, and is likely in conflict with it); finally, Leopardi's temperament was intense and gloomy, embodying the romanticism of the 19th century, while Voss was a typical German Protestant enlightenment figure, with a strong anti-romantic stance, consistently dedicated to defending the enlightenment values of reason, equality, freedom, and science.

There is one issue that clearly reveals the difference between the two: religion. Voss wrote a famous article in which he publicly condemned his friend after the latter converted to Catholicism following the Romantic movement, and argued that one should decide on one's own beliefs based on one's own rational judgment, a very typical German Protestant stance. Leopardi's view of religion was entirely different. He believed that religion, as a myth or illusion that humans create for themselves, is very necessary for human psychology. Once Protestant rationalism strips religion of its mystique and turns it into a result of rational inference (like Kant's view of religion), then the psychological value of religion (which Leopardi believed was the only value of religion) disappears. In other words, the disenchantment of religion by Enlightenment rationalism will lead to the death of religion rather than its rebirth, and human spirit will wither as well. (This also shows that Nietzsche preferred the religious tendency of re-enchantment over disenchantment.)

Nietzsche's choice of these two individuals may have a deeper meaning. Leopardi's age and active period just happened to be one generation later than Voss's, so Nietzsche might be implying that Voss, as a teacher or predecessor, provided a poor example of philology for the younger Leopardi. Ironically, it was later established a German translation award in Voss's name and a text study award for students in Leopardi's name. The former is like rewarding people for faithfully translating and preserving "the result of earlier generations," while the latter encourages students to recognize the values represented by Leopardi through studying his life and works. The former rewards people for becoming experts in someone else's work, while the latter encourages people to become "someone."

Back to the beginning of the example: in Nietzsche's eyes, what kind of language teacher would not hinder a student who loves ancient texts (a born philologist) from becoming a philologist? He should emphasize intuition over reason; should encourage open answers rather than fixating on a single standard answer; should not be satisfied with merely revealing the original meaning of ancient texts, but should rise to the level of the lives of the ancients, that is, from the semantic level to the level of values; should be loyal to the ancients rather than to the texts; and finally, should encourage students to propose values different from those of modern people and to construct new myths, new "illusions" around these values. From these descriptions, it is not difficult to imagine how impossible it is for nowadays teachers trapped in the system to encourage students to pursue their potential life's callings.

The bad representation provided by Voss-like philologists lies in their setting of the values of enlightenment rationalism as eternal values, and the values of philologists as the restoration of classical texts as faithfully as possible, and their satisfaction with surviving as "the result of earlier generations." The slogans and goals of philology thus become "let the dead bury the living," because the creative desire of the living is stifled.

But Nietzsche would certainly not hope for improvements in the education system, that is a social problem, Nietzsche only cares about individual problems. After all, we are all not social engineers, we are just individuals thrown into society. But the vast majority of us do not want to exist as individuals, because being out of sync with those around us is always painful. Nietzsche's target audience is limited to the minority of individuals who are determined not to be assimilated by society and determined to achieve their individuality. If these people ultimately decide to completely transform society, they must also consider their current disadvantaged position in society first. So in the end, it is still a matter of individual choice.

By pointing out the contrast between Leopardi and Voss, Nietzsche issued a warning to these potential genius individuals: it is better to be Leopardi, who died young in the fervent pursuit of creation, than to be Voss, who lived out his life in incapacity.