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=mhra8/10/2019 Tolstoy and Nietzsche comparison.pdf
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Tolstoy and Nietzsche comparison.pdf
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Tolstoy and Nietzsche comparison.pdf
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Tolstoy and Nietzsche comparison.pdf
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 .
.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Tolstoy and Nietzsche comparison.pdf
6/17
8/10/2019 Tolstoy and Nietzsche comparison.pdf
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Tolstoy and Nietzsche comparison.pdf
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Tolstoy and Nietzsche comparison.pdf
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Tolstoy and Nietzsche comparison.pdf
10/17
8/10/2019 Tolstoy and Nietzsche comparison.pdf
11/17
8/10/2019 Tolstoy and Nietzsche comparison.pdf
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Tolstoy and Nietzsche comparison.pdf
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).
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Tolstoy and Nietzsche comparison.pdf
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Tolstoy and Nietzsche comparison.pdf
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Tolstoy and Nietzsche comparison.pdf
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Tolstoy and Nietzsche comparison.pdf
17/17