[368] G. Ferrero, ‘L’Atavisme de la Prostitution,’ Revue scientifique, 50e volume, p. 136.
[369] R. von Krafft-Ebing, Psychopathia sexualis, etc., 7te Auflage, p. 89 (the third edition of this book, from which I have made my previous citations, contains nothing on masochism), and Neue Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der Psychopathia sexualis eine medicinisch-psychologische Studie, Zweite umgearbeitete und vermehrte Auflage, Stuttgart, 1891, p. 1 ff. Krafft-Ebing gives this explanation of his word (p. 1 et seq.): ‘By masochism I understand a peculiar perversion of the psychic vita sexualis, consisting in this, that the individual seized with it is dominated in his sexual feeling and thought by the idea that he is wholly and unconditionally subjected to the will of a person of the opposite sex, who treats him imperiously, humiliates and maltreats him.’ The word is formed from the name Sacher-Masoch, because ‘his writings delineate exactly typical pictures of the perverted psychic life of men of this kind’ (Neue Forschungen, etc., p. 37). I do not look upon this designation as a happy one. Krafft-Ebing himself shows that Zola and, long before him, Rousseau (he might have added Balzac in Baron Hulot in Parents pauvres, part i.: La cousine Bette) have embodied this condition quite as clearly as Sacher-Masoch. Hence I prefer the designation ‘passivism,’ proposed by Dimitry Stefanowsky. See Archives de l’Anthropologie criminelle, 1892, p. 294.
[370] Ehrhard, op. cit., p. 88.
[371] Persian for Zoroaster.
[372] Dr. Hugo Kaatz, Die Weltanschauung Friedrich Nietzsche: Erster Theil, ‘Cultur und Moral’; Zweiter Theil, ‘Kunst und Leben.’ Dresden und Leipzig, 1892, 1 Th., p. vi.: ‘We are accustomed, especially in matters concerning the deepest problems of thought, to a finished, systematic exposition.... There is none of all this in Nietzsche. No single work of his forms a finished whole, or is wholly intelligible without the others. Each book, moreover, is totally wanting in organic structure. Nietzsche writes almost exclusively in aphorisms, which, filling sometimes two lines, sometimes several pages, are complete in themselves, and seldom manifest any direct connection with each other.... With proud indifference to the reader, the author has avoided cutting even one gap in the hedge with which he has closely surrounded his intellectual creations. Access to him must be gained by fighting,’ etc. In spite of its seeming obscurity, Nietzsche has himself given such pointed information concerning his method of work as amounts to an avowal. ‘All writing makes me angry or ashamed; for me, writing is a necessity.’ ‘But why, then, do you write?’ ‘Yes, my dear friend, let me say it in confidence: I have hitherto found no other means of ridding myself of my thoughts.’ (The italics are Nietzsche’s.) ‘And why do you wish to rid yourself of them?’ ‘Why I wish? Do I so wish? I must.’ Die fröhliche Wissenschaft. Neue Ausgabe, p. 114.
[373] Dr. Max Zerbst, Nein und Ja! Leipzig, 1892.
[374] Robert Schellwien, Max Stirner und Friedrich Nietzsche, Erscheinungen des modernen Geister und das Wesen des Menschen. Leipzig, 1892.
[375] I refuted this silly sophism before Nietzsche propounded it in the passages above quoted from Zur Genealogie der Moral, p. 66, and Jenseits von Gut und Böse, p. 228. See Die conventionellen Lügen der Kulturmenschheit, 14 Aufl., pp. 211, 212: ‘This expression [of Proudhon’s, that property is theft] can be regarded as true only from the sophistical standpoint that everything existing exists for itself, and from the fact of its existence derives its right to belong to itself. According to this view, forsooth, a man steals the blade of grass he plucks, the air he breathes, the fish he catches; but, then, the martin, too, is stealing when it swallows a fly, and the grub when it eats its way into the root of a tree; then Nature is altogether peopled by arch-thieves, and, in general, everything steals that lives, i.e., absorbs from without materials not belonging to it, and organically elaborates them, and a block of platinum, which does not even pilfer from the air a little oxygen with which to oxidize itself, would be the sole example of honesty on our globe. No; property resulting from earning, that is, from the exchange of a determined amount of labour for a corresponding amount of goods, is not theft.’ If, throughout this passage, ‘theft’ be substituted for the word ‘exploitation,’ used by Nietzsche, his sophism is answered.
[376] The Sacred Books of the East. Translated by various Oriental scholars, and edited by F. Max Müller. The Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1st series, vol. x.: Dhammapada, by F. Max Müller; and Sutta-Nipâta, by V. Fausböll.
[377] The Sacred Books of the East, etc., vol. xix.: Fo-sho-hing-tsan-king, by Rev. S. Beal.