Homer and Classical Philology

Homer and Classical Philology

Project Gutenberg's Homer and Classical Philology, by Friedrich Nietzsche This eBook
is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever.
You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg
License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
Title: Homer and Classical Philology
Author: Friedrich Nietzsche
Editor: Oscar Levy
Translator: J. M. Kennedy
Release Date: April 17, 2006 [EBook #18188]
Language: English
Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HOMER AND CLASSICAL
PHILOLOGY ***

Produced by Thierry Alberto, Robert Ledger and the Online Distributed Proofreading
Team at http://www.pgdp.net

[Transcriber's Note:
This lecture was taken from Volume III of _The Complete Works of Friedrich
Nietzsche_, Dr. Oscar Levy, Ed., J. M. Kennedy, Translator, 1910]

HOMER AND CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY.
(Inaugural Address delivered at Bâle University, 28th of May 1869.)
At the present day no clear and consistent opinion seems to be held regarding Classical
Philology. We are conscious of this in the circles of the learned just as much as among

the followers of that science itself. The cause of this lies in its many-sided character, in
the lack of an abstract unity, and in the inorganic aggregation of heterogeneous scientific
activities which are connected with one another only by the name "Philology." It must be
freely admitted that philology is to some extent borrowed from several other sciences,
and is mixed together like a magic potion from the most outlandish liquors, ores, and
bones. It may even be added that it likewise conceals within itself an artistic element, one
which, on æsthetic and ethical grounds, may be called imperatival--an element that acts
in opposition to its purely scientific behaviour. Philology is composed of history just as
much as of natural science or æsthetics: history, in so far as it endeavours to comprehend
the manifestations of the individualities of peoples in ever new images, and the prevailing
law in the disappearance of phenomena; natural science, in so far as it strives to fathom
the deepest instinct of man, that of speech; æsthetics, finally, because from various
antiquities at our disposal it endeavours to pick out the so-called "classical" antiquity,
with the view and pretension of excavating the ideal world buried under it, and to hold up
to the present the mirror of the classical and everlasting standards. That these wholly
different scientific and æsthetico-ethical impulses have been associated under a common
name, a kind of sham monarchy, is shown especially by the fact that philology at every
period from its origin onwards was at the same time pedagogical. From the standpoint of
the pedagogue, a choice was offered of those elements which were of the greatest
educational value; and thus that science, or at least that scientific aim, which we call
philology, gradually developed out of the practical calling originated by the exigencies of
that science itself.
These philological aims were pursued sometimes with greater ardour and sometimes with
less, in accordance with the degree of culture and the development of the taste of a
particular period; but, on the other hand, the followers of this science are in the habit of
regarding the aims which correspond to their several abilities as the aims of philology;
whence it comes about that the estimation of philology in public opinion depends upon
the weight of the personalities of the philologists!
At the present time--that is to say, in a period which has seen men distinguished in almost
every department of philology--a general uncertainty of judgment has increased more and
more, and likewise a general relaxation of interest and participation in philological
problems. Such an undecided and imperfect state of public opinion is damaging to a
science in that its hidden and open enemies can work with much better prospects of
success. And philology has a great many such enemies. Where do we not meet with them,
these mockers, always ready to aim a blow at the philological "moles," the animals that
practise dust-eating ex professo, and that grub up and eat for the eleventh time what they
have already eaten ten times before. For opponents of this sort, however, philology is
merely a useless, harmless, and inoffensive pastime, an object of laughter and not of hate.
But, on the other hand, there is a boundless and infuriated hatred of philology wherever
an ideal, as such, is feared, where the modern man falls down to worship himself, and
where Hellenism is looked upon as a superseded and hence very insignificant point of
view. Against these enemies, we philologists must always count upon the assistance of
artists and men of artistic minds; for they alone can judge how the sword of barbarism
sweeps over the head of every one who