The contradictions (I assume you mean btw the notes and text) are a good sign as it means he at least wants to be honest to the original in his translation. The worst kind of translator is someone who would interpolate their own inversions without any notice, completely undetectable to the unlearned.
So it seems from this that Nietzsche's version of purity is closer to something like the completion of Plato's caste system in the Republic rather than a universal racial purity of blood, i.e. a greater emphasis on trait selection in individuals than things like eye/hair color in population at large, even if the latter follows the former in the long run.
If the above is roughly correct, it seems that N's point about bringing in Chinese would be more to increase the load bearing capacity of the European producer class.
Yes I believe the influence of Plato's caste system is quite strong on Nietzsche — Nietzsche's reading of Plato is quite complicated and is its own subject.
However, I don't believe Nietzsche's suggestion to import Chinese in the Dawn, s. 206 is meant to be taken seriously. See my footnote 2 above: everywhere in Nietzsche's writing he complains that Europe is becoming "too Chinese," i.e. too herdlike and homogenized. He's more likely using sarcasm in s.206 to point out the absurdity of economic utilitarianism.
Even if Nietzsche were seriously suggesting that Europe import Chinese, in that case he's arguing for the importation of Chinese to form a slave caste. No matter how we interpret this section, it always goes directly against Kaufmann's claim.
On the point about Chinese, I figured even if Kaufman is right, that N wants to bring in Chinese, it isn't for the reasons Kaufmann seems to think.
It does make more sense to interpret it as a bit of mockery. Like telling a drunk that instead of quitting drinking he ought to apply for a job at budweiser.
Hello, yes I prefer Hollingdale to Kaufmann mainly for this reason. In my view, Hollingdale also has some political misconceptions about Nietzsche (as expressed in his biography of Nietzsche) and some people (e.g. the translator Scarpitti) think Hollingdale's translations are mechanistic and lifeless compared to Kaufmann's, but I think Hollingdale captures Nietzsche's style well without making his language pacifistic or attaching endless footnotes "providing context." Also, unlike most translators, Hollingdale didn't go to university, learned German on his own, and earned the respect of the establishment through sheer merit. Hollingdale's biography of Nietzsche is also worth a read, and the difference between Hollingdale's and Kaufmann's Nietzsche biographies is extremely telling: Kaufmann focuses heavily on politics and political impact, while Hollingdale for the most part focuses on Nietzsche's place in the rich German literary and philosophical tradition to which Hollingdale devoted his life.
tldr: Hollingdale has the advantage of being modern, relatively accurate, and apolitical, and he reads reasonably well.
Older English translations such as those by Horace Samuels / Oscar Levy / Ludovici / Thomas Common certainly don't try to make Nietzsche sound like a liberal, but they generally aren't as high quality as Hollingdale or Kaufmann in their accuracy or prose quality. The appendix to Kaufmann's Nietzsche biography has a good summary of the non-political shortcomings of these older English translations.
That said, it's best to just start reading Nietzsche in whatever edition, and despite translators' best efforts, the real meaning of his teaching inexorably seeps through… My goal in this series (final article in progress) is just to point out the most glaring issues one might encounter.
The older translations from the Oscar Levy edition are not as bad as is generally believed. Some are better than others; Ludovici's are in my opinion the best of the lot.
When he says "sons of mother europe who can't stand it with the old woman", isn't "old woman" referred to is mother europe, not literal "old women"? Maybe its more obvious in a gendered language where Europe is feminine
You're right, my wording was too literal there - I will edit that sentence to reflect this
The German phrase Nietzsche uses is "dem verdumpften alten Weibe" -- the dull old woman. I read that sentence as, just like the rest of the passage, somewhat derisive and indicative of what Nietzsche sees as Europe's exhaustion and pointlessness. But you are correct it's a bit too much of an extrapolation to say that in this section he's referring to rule by women
In effect, to translate man back again into nature; to master the many vain and fanciful interpretations and subordinate meanings which have been scrawled over the eternal original text, homo natura; to ensure that man shall henceforth stand before man as he now, hardened by the discipline of science, stands before the other forms of nature, with fearless Oedipus-eyes, and closed Ulysses-ears, deaf to the siren calls of the old metaphysical bird-catchers, who have piped to him far too long: ‘You are more! You are of noble blood!’
To your second question: Yes, a good shorthand to use is always to take Nietzsche at face value — many of his doctrines are meant both materially and spiritually, and he is quite explicit about this. Furthermore, Nietzsche emphasized the primacy of the body, in Twilight of the Idols and elsewhere. For instance in Zarathustra, "On the Despisers of the Body," he writes:
"But the awakened one, the knowing one, saith: 'Body am I entirely, and nothing more; and soul is only the name of something in the body.'"
(I use Thomas Common inferior translation here because dont have access to better translation right now. I am on the move)
A good deal of what I hold to be Kaufmann's distortion relies on the interpretation of Nietzsche's philosophy as purely spiritual which goes directly against the spirit of Nietzsche's teaching. I plan to elaborate more on this in the third essay, on master and slave moralities.
P.S. You are very correct to say Nietzsche does not hold 'biology' the way it is normally perceived as the ultimate origin of culture and that is why he rejects Darwinism (and therefore, it should be added, social Darwinists). I will talk more about the politics of this in the second essay. Nietzsche sees Darwinian struggle for life as basically dysgenic as it produces stunted organisms — it is in this crucial regard he differs from social Darwinists. That doesn't mean however, as Kaufmann likes to imply, that Nietzsche repudiated the pursuit of eugenics.
Nietzsche rejects the mechanistic determinism of Darwinism in favor of Heraclitus' dynamic conception of nature as always in eternal strife and flux. Perhaps I should have elaborated on this in the body of the article but it is already quite long. Here is the aphorism "Anti Darwin" from Twilight of the Idols:
"Anti-Darwin.—As to the famous "struggle for existence," it seems to me, for the present, to be more of an assumption than a fact. It does occur, but as an exception. The general condition of life! is not one of want or famine, but rather of riches, of lavish luxuriance, and even of absurd prodigality,—where there is a struggle, it is a struggle for power. We should not confound Malthus with nature.—Supposing, however, that this struggle exists,—and it does indeed occur,—its result is unfortunately the very reverse of that which the Darwinian school seems to desire, and of that which in agreement with them we also might desire: that is to say, it is always to the disadvantage of the strong, the privileged, and the happy exceptions. Species do not evolve towards perfection: the weak always prevail over the strong—simply because they are the majority, and because they are also the more crafty. Darwin forgot the intellect (—that is English!), the weak have more intellect. In order to acquire intellect, one must be in need of it. One loses it when one no longer needs it. He who possesses strength[Pg 72] flings intellect to the deuce (—"let it go hence!"[2] say the Germans of the present day, "the Empire will remain"). As you perceive, intellect to me means caution, patience, craft, dissimulation, great self-control, and everything related to mimicry (what is praised nowadays as virtue is very closely related the latter)."
To your first question: Yes it is still a call for race mixture in the sense that Nietzsche sees the different classes of 19th-century Europe as different races, corresponding roughly to the remnants of the feudal order and ultimately to the Aryan / Indo-European conquests. Also, it is 'race mixture' because Nietzsche wants to integrate the Jews into a pan-European ruling caste and in Germany at the time the Jews were seen as a distinct race. But Kaufmann I believe is disingenuous about this type of race mixture, because Kaufmann, writing in the late 20th century, strongly implies that Nietzsche would support non-European immigration, that he abhorred "racism," and so forth. This is trivially untrue and it relies on a redefinition of the concept of race, from 19th-century Germany to 20th-century USA.
By the way, Nietzsche's ideas about the Indo-European conquests as the violent establishment of a new caste system have been reinforced by modern advances in population genetics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustaf_Kossinna
Here are some relevant excerpts that will show what I mean:
Beyond Good and Evil, section 208:
"In the new generation, which has inherited as it were different standards and valuations in its blood, everything is disquiet, derangement, doubt, and tentativeness; the best powers operate restrictively, the very virtues prevent each other growing and becoming strong, equilibrium, ballast, and perpendicular stability are lacking in body and soul. That, however, which is most diseased and degenerated in such nondescripts is the WILL; they are no longer familiar with independence of decision, or the courageous feeling of pleasure in willing—they are doubtful of the "freedom of the will" even in their dreams Our present-day Europe, the scene of a senseless, precipitate attempt at a radical blending of classes, and CONSEQUENTLY of races, is therefore skeptical in all its heights and depths, sometimes exhibiting the mobile skepticism which springs impatiently and wantonly from branch to branch, sometimes with gloomy aspect, like a cloud over-charged with interrogative signs—and often sick unto death of its will! Paralysis of will, where do we not find this cripple sitting nowadays! And yet how bedecked oftentimes' How seductively ornamented!"
You should also read the entirety of the Genealogy of Morals, essay one, section five. In particular:
"The same is true substantially of the whole of Europe: in point of fact, the subject race has finally again obtained the upper hand, in complexion and the shortness of the skull, and perhaps in the intellectual and social qualities. Who can guarantee that modern democracy, still more[Pg 26] modern anarchy, and indeed that tendency to the "Commune," the most primitive form of society, which is now common to all the Socialists in Europe, does not in its real essence signify a monstrous reversion—and that the conquering and master race—the Aryan race, is not also becoming inferior physiologically?"
Thank you for this, I read Kaufmann's translations first and have always been troubled by the contradictions.
The contradictions (I assume you mean btw the notes and text) are a good sign as it means he at least wants to be honest to the original in his translation. The worst kind of translator is someone who would interpolate their own inversions without any notice, completely undetectable to the unlearned.
So it seems from this that Nietzsche's version of purity is closer to something like the completion of Plato's caste system in the Republic rather than a universal racial purity of blood, i.e. a greater emphasis on trait selection in individuals than things like eye/hair color in population at large, even if the latter follows the former in the long run.
If the above is roughly correct, it seems that N's point about bringing in Chinese would be more to increase the load bearing capacity of the European producer class.
Yes I believe the influence of Plato's caste system is quite strong on Nietzsche — Nietzsche's reading of Plato is quite complicated and is its own subject.
However, I don't believe Nietzsche's suggestion to import Chinese in the Dawn, s. 206 is meant to be taken seriously. See my footnote 2 above: everywhere in Nietzsche's writing he complains that Europe is becoming "too Chinese," i.e. too herdlike and homogenized. He's more likely using sarcasm in s.206 to point out the absurdity of economic utilitarianism.
Even if Nietzsche were seriously suggesting that Europe import Chinese, in that case he's arguing for the importation of Chinese to form a slave caste. No matter how we interpret this section, it always goes directly against Kaufmann's claim.
On the point about Chinese, I figured even if Kaufman is right, that N wants to bring in Chinese, it isn't for the reasons Kaufmann seems to think.
It does make more sense to interpret it as a bit of mockery. Like telling a drunk that instead of quitting drinking he ought to apply for a job at budweiser.
Yes, exactly.
Brilliantly argued!
Araltes, can you recommend any translators that don't pervert Nietzsche's works in the way you've shown here? Is Hollingdale any good in this sense?
Hello, yes I prefer Hollingdale to Kaufmann mainly for this reason. In my view, Hollingdale also has some political misconceptions about Nietzsche (as expressed in his biography of Nietzsche) and some people (e.g. the translator Scarpitti) think Hollingdale's translations are mechanistic and lifeless compared to Kaufmann's, but I think Hollingdale captures Nietzsche's style well without making his language pacifistic or attaching endless footnotes "providing context." Also, unlike most translators, Hollingdale didn't go to university, learned German on his own, and earned the respect of the establishment through sheer merit. Hollingdale's biography of Nietzsche is also worth a read, and the difference between Hollingdale's and Kaufmann's Nietzsche biographies is extremely telling: Kaufmann focuses heavily on politics and political impact, while Hollingdale for the most part focuses on Nietzsche's place in the rich German literary and philosophical tradition to which Hollingdale devoted his life.
tldr: Hollingdale has the advantage of being modern, relatively accurate, and apolitical, and he reads reasonably well.
Older English translations such as those by Horace Samuels / Oscar Levy / Ludovici / Thomas Common certainly don't try to make Nietzsche sound like a liberal, but they generally aren't as high quality as Hollingdale or Kaufmann in their accuracy or prose quality. The appendix to Kaufmann's Nietzsche biography has a good summary of the non-political shortcomings of these older English translations.
That said, it's best to just start reading Nietzsche in whatever edition, and despite translators' best efforts, the real meaning of his teaching inexorably seeps through… My goal in this series (final article in progress) is just to point out the most glaring issues one might encounter.
The older translations from the Oscar Levy edition are not as bad as is generally believed. Some are better than others; Ludovici's are in my opinion the best of the lot.
Hollingdale's translations are mediocre at best.
Thanks, fren. Much appreciated
When he says "sons of mother europe who can't stand it with the old woman", isn't "old woman" referred to is mother europe, not literal "old women"? Maybe its more obvious in a gendered language where Europe is feminine
You're right, my wording was too literal there - I will edit that sentence to reflect this
The German phrase Nietzsche uses is "dem verdumpften alten Weibe" -- the dull old woman. I read that sentence as, just like the rest of the passage, somewhat derisive and indicative of what Nietzsche sees as Europe's exhaustion and pointlessness. But you are correct it's a bit too much of an extrapolation to say that in this section he's referring to rule by women
Better:
In effect, to translate man back again into nature; to master the many vain and fanciful interpretations and subordinate meanings which have been scrawled over the eternal original text, homo natura; to ensure that man shall henceforth stand before man as he now, hardened by the discipline of science, stands before the other forms of nature, with fearless Oedipus-eyes, and closed Ulysses-ears, deaf to the siren calls of the old metaphysical bird-catchers, who have piped to him far too long: ‘You are more! You are of noble blood!’
Yes, 'Overman' is a monstrosity. The term 'superman' is best.
Hollingdale, however, is a poor translator.
To your second question: Yes, a good shorthand to use is always to take Nietzsche at face value — many of his doctrines are meant both materially and spiritually, and he is quite explicit about this. Furthermore, Nietzsche emphasized the primacy of the body, in Twilight of the Idols and elsewhere. For instance in Zarathustra, "On the Despisers of the Body," he writes:
"But the awakened one, the knowing one, saith: 'Body am I entirely, and nothing more; and soul is only the name of something in the body.'"
(I use Thomas Common inferior translation here because dont have access to better translation right now. I am on the move)
A good deal of what I hold to be Kaufmann's distortion relies on the interpretation of Nietzsche's philosophy as purely spiritual which goes directly against the spirit of Nietzsche's teaching. I plan to elaborate more on this in the third essay, on master and slave moralities.
Excellent questions by the way!
P.S. You are very correct to say Nietzsche does not hold 'biology' the way it is normally perceived as the ultimate origin of culture and that is why he rejects Darwinism (and therefore, it should be added, social Darwinists). I will talk more about the politics of this in the second essay. Nietzsche sees Darwinian struggle for life as basically dysgenic as it produces stunted organisms — it is in this crucial regard he differs from social Darwinists. That doesn't mean however, as Kaufmann likes to imply, that Nietzsche repudiated the pursuit of eugenics.
Nietzsche rejects the mechanistic determinism of Darwinism in favor of Heraclitus' dynamic conception of nature as always in eternal strife and flux. Perhaps I should have elaborated on this in the body of the article but it is already quite long. Here is the aphorism "Anti Darwin" from Twilight of the Idols:
"Anti-Darwin.—As to the famous "struggle for existence," it seems to me, for the present, to be more of an assumption than a fact. It does occur, but as an exception. The general condition of life! is not one of want or famine, but rather of riches, of lavish luxuriance, and even of absurd prodigality,—where there is a struggle, it is a struggle for power. We should not confound Malthus with nature.—Supposing, however, that this struggle exists,—and it does indeed occur,—its result is unfortunately the very reverse of that which the Darwinian school seems to desire, and of that which in agreement with them we also might desire: that is to say, it is always to the disadvantage of the strong, the privileged, and the happy exceptions. Species do not evolve towards perfection: the weak always prevail over the strong—simply because they are the majority, and because they are also the more crafty. Darwin forgot the intellect (—that is English!), the weak have more intellect. In order to acquire intellect, one must be in need of it. One loses it when one no longer needs it. He who possesses strength[Pg 72] flings intellect to the deuce (—"let it go hence!"[2] say the Germans of the present day, "the Empire will remain"). As you perceive, intellect to me means caution, patience, craft, dissimulation, great self-control, and everything related to mimicry (what is praised nowadays as virtue is very closely related the latter)."
To your first question: Yes it is still a call for race mixture in the sense that Nietzsche sees the different classes of 19th-century Europe as different races, corresponding roughly to the remnants of the feudal order and ultimately to the Aryan / Indo-European conquests. Also, it is 'race mixture' because Nietzsche wants to integrate the Jews into a pan-European ruling caste and in Germany at the time the Jews were seen as a distinct race. But Kaufmann I believe is disingenuous about this type of race mixture, because Kaufmann, writing in the late 20th century, strongly implies that Nietzsche would support non-European immigration, that he abhorred "racism," and so forth. This is trivially untrue and it relies on a redefinition of the concept of race, from 19th-century Germany to 20th-century USA.
By the way, Nietzsche's ideas about the Indo-European conquests as the violent establishment of a new caste system have been reinforced by modern advances in population genetics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustaf_Kossinna
Here are some relevant excerpts that will show what I mean:
Beyond Good and Evil, section 208:
"In the new generation, which has inherited as it were different standards and valuations in its blood, everything is disquiet, derangement, doubt, and tentativeness; the best powers operate restrictively, the very virtues prevent each other growing and becoming strong, equilibrium, ballast, and perpendicular stability are lacking in body and soul. That, however, which is most diseased and degenerated in such nondescripts is the WILL; they are no longer familiar with independence of decision, or the courageous feeling of pleasure in willing—they are doubtful of the "freedom of the will" even in their dreams Our present-day Europe, the scene of a senseless, precipitate attempt at a radical blending of classes, and CONSEQUENTLY of races, is therefore skeptical in all its heights and depths, sometimes exhibiting the mobile skepticism which springs impatiently and wantonly from branch to branch, sometimes with gloomy aspect, like a cloud over-charged with interrogative signs—and often sick unto death of its will! Paralysis of will, where do we not find this cripple sitting nowadays! And yet how bedecked oftentimes' How seductively ornamented!"
You should also read the entirety of the Genealogy of Morals, essay one, section five. In particular:
"The same is true substantially of the whole of Europe: in point of fact, the subject race has finally again obtained the upper hand, in complexion and the shortness of the skull, and perhaps in the intellectual and social qualities. Who can guarantee that modern democracy, still more[Pg 26] modern anarchy, and indeed that tendency to the "Commune," the most primitive form of society, which is now common to all the Socialists in Europe, does not in its real essence signify a monstrous reversion—and that the conquering and master race—the Aryan race, is not also becoming inferior physiologically?"