The Hero and the Cost of Wisdom
Essential Reading Path · Reading 4 of 8
Read: §9 of The Birth of Tragedy
Allow: About 50–70 minutes, including the passages, this guide, and a short written response.
Before you read
A judge follows the evidence carefully. Each answer brings the investigation closer to success—and the judge closer to discovering that he himself is implicated. Nietzsche finds this terrible reversal in Oedipus. The same intelligence that makes the hero admirable carries him toward ruin.
Prometheus presents another difficulty. He brings humanity the fire on which its culture depends, yet obtaining that gift violates divine authority. His achievement and his punishment belong to the same action.
In §8 the chorus gives Dionysian suffering a visible figure; §9 turns to Oedipus and Prometheus to ask what such a clear, individual figure lets us confront. Nietzsche reads their clarity and dignity against the terror within their myths. We will follow his interpretations of Sophocles and Aeschylus, then test the general claims he draws from them.
The main question: What happens to our idea of a good life when wisdom and creative power can themselves bring catastrophe?
You do not need to know both plays beforehand. On your first pass, mark the change from Oedipus to Prometheus. Then notice where Nietzsche moves from discussing their stories to making claims about whole peoples, sexes, and the nature of existence.
What to notice
- The bright figure against the dark background. What does Nietzsche’s opening comparison with afterimages suggest about the clear language and visible beauty of a tragic hero?
- Wisdom and suffering. How does knowing more change Oedipus’s situation? How does the value of Prometheus’s gift complicate the meaning of his punishment?
- Conflicting claims to justice. Near the end, what happens when divine and human worlds each assert their own right? Can their conflict be settled by declaring one side simply evil?
Assigned text
Friedrich Nietzsche · translated by William A. Haussmann (1910). Source and full text · Editions.
Œdipus and Æschylus are Oedipus and Aeschylus. The notes translate the German verse. Moira names the necessity or fate Nietzsche places above gods and human beings.
§9 — complete section
Whatever rises to the surface in the dialogue of the Apollonian part of Greek tragedy, appears simple, transparent, beautiful. In this sense the dialogue is a copy of the Hellene, whose nature reveals itself in the dance, because in the dance the greatest energy is merely potential, but betrays itself nevertheless in flexible and vivacious movements. The language of the Sophoclean heroes, for instance, surprises us by its Apollonian precision and clearness, so that we at once imagine we see into the innermost recesses of their being, and marvel not a little that the way to these recesses is so short. But if for the moment we disregard the character of the hero which rises to the surface and grows visible—and which at bottom is nothing but the light-picture cast on a dark wall, that is, appearance through and through,—if rather we enter into the myth which projects itself in these bright mirrorings, we shall of a sudden experience a phenomenon which bears a reverse relation to one familiar in optics. When, after a vigorous effort to gaze into the sun, we turn away blinded, we have dark-coloured spots before our eyes as restoratives, so to speak; while, on the contrary, those light-picture phenomena of the Sophoclean hero,—in short, the Apollonian of the mask,—are the necessary productions of a glance into the secret and terrible things of nature, as it were shining spots to heal the eye which dire night has seared. Only in this sense can we hope to be able to grasp the true meaning of the serious and significant notion of "Greek cheerfulness"; while of course we encounter the misunderstood notion of this cheerfulness, as resulting from a state of unendangered comfort, on all the ways and paths of the present time.
Return to commentary: §9, the bright image and Oedipus
The most sorrowful figure of the Greek stage, the hapless Œdipus, was understood by Sophocles as the noble man, who in spite of his wisdom was destined to error and misery, but nevertheless through his extraordinary sufferings ultimately exerted a magical, wholesome influence on all around him, which continues effective even after his death. The noble man does not sin; this is what the thoughtful poet wishes to tell us: all laws, all natural order, yea, the moral world itself, may be destroyed through his action, but through this very action a higher magic circle of influences is brought into play, which establish a new world on the ruins of the old that has been overthrown. This is what the poet, in so far as he is at the same time a religious thinker, wishes to tell us: as poet, he shows us first of all a wonderfully complicated legal mystery, which the judge slowly unravels, link by link, to his own destruction. The truly Hellenic delight at this dialectical loosening is so great, that a touch of surpassing cheerfulness is thereby communicated to the entire play, which everywhere blunts the edge of the horrible presuppositions of the procedure. In the "Œdipus at Colonus" we find the same cheerfulness, elevated, however, to an infinite transfiguration: in contrast to the aged king, subjected to an excess of misery, and exposed solely as a sufferer to all that befalls him, we have here a supermundane cheerfulness, which descends from a divine sphere and intimates to us that in his purely passive attitude the hero attains his highest activity, the influence of which extends far beyond his life, while his earlier conscious musing and striving led him only to passivity. Thus, then, the legal knot of the fable of Œdipus, which to mortal eyes appears indissolubly entangled, is slowly unravelled—and the profoundest human joy comes upon us in the presence of this divine counterpart of dialectics. If this explanation does justice to the poet, it may still be asked whether the substance of the myth is thereby exhausted; and here it turns out that the entire conception of the poet is nothing but the light-picture which healing nature holds up to us after a glance into the abyss. Œdipus, the murderer of his father, the husband of his mother, Œdipus, the interpreter of the riddle of the Sphinx! What does the mysterious triad of these deeds of destiny tell us? There is a primitive popular belief, especially in Persia, that a wise Magian can be born only of incest: which we have forthwith to interpret to ourselves with reference to the riddle-solving and mother-marrying Œdipus, to the effect that when the boundary of the present and future, the rigid law of individuation and, in general, the intrinsic spell of nature, are broken by prophetic and magical powers, an extraordinary counter-naturalness—as, in this case, incest—must have preceded as a cause; for how else could one force nature to surrender her secrets but by victoriously opposing her, i.e., by means of the Unnatural? It is this intuition which I see imprinted in the awful triad of the destiny of Œdipus: the very man who solves the riddle of nature—that double-constituted Sphinx—must also, as the murderer of his father and husband of his mother, break the holiest laws of nature. Indeed, it seems as if the myth sought to whisper into our ears that wisdom, especially Dionysian wisdom, is an unnatural abomination, and that whoever, through his knowledge, plunges nature into an abyss of annihilation, must also experience the dissolution of nature in himself. "The sharpness of wisdom turns round upon the sage: wisdom is a crime against nature": such terrible expressions does the myth call out to us: but the Hellenic poet touches like a sunbeam the sublime and formidable Memnonian statue of the myth, so that it suddenly begins to sound—in Sophoclean melodies.
Return to commentary: §9, Oedipus at Colonus and the underlying myth
With the glory of passivity I now contrast the glory of activity which illuminates the Prometheus of Æschylus. That which Æschylus the thinker had to tell us here, but which as a poet he only allows us to surmise by his symbolic picture, the youthful Goethe succeeded in disclosing to us in the daring words of his Prometheus:—
"Hier sitz' ich, forme Menschen
Nach meinem Bilde,
Ein Geschlecht, das mir gleich sei,
Zu leiden, zu weinen,
Zu geniessen und zu freuen sich,
Und dein nicht zu achten,
Wie ich!"[10]
Man, elevating himself to the rank of the Titans, acquires his culture by his own efforts, and compels the gods to unite with him, because in his self-sufficient wisdom he has their existence and their limits in his hand. What is most wonderful, however, in this Promethean form, which according to its fundamental conception is the specific hymn of impiety, is the profound Æschylean yearning for justice: the untold sorrow of the bold "single-handed being" on the one hand, and the divine need, ay, the foreboding of a twilight of the gods, on the other, the power of these two worlds of suffering constraining to reconciliation, to metaphysical oneness—all this suggests most forcibly the central and main position of the Æschylean view of things, which sees Moira as eternal justice enthroned above gods and men. In view of the astonishing boldness with which Æschylus places the Olympian world on his scales of justice, it must be remembered that the deep-minded Greek had an immovably firm substratum of metaphysical thought in his mysteries, and that all his sceptical paroxysms could be discharged upon the Olympians. With reference to these deities, the Greek artist, in particular, had an obscure feeling as to mutual dependency: and it is just in the Prometheus of Æschylus that this feeling is symbolised. The Titanic artist found in himself the daring belief that he could create men and at least destroy Olympian deities: namely, by his superior wisdom, for which, to be sure, he had to atone by eternal suffering. The splendid "can-ing" of the great genius, bought too cheaply even at the price of eternal suffering, the stern pride of the artist: this is the essence and soul of Æschylean poetry, while Sophocles in his Œdipus preludingly strikes up the victory-song of the saint. But even this interpretation which Æschylus has given to the myth does not fathom its astounding depth of terror; the fact is rather that the artist's delight in unfolding, the cheerfulness of artistic creating bidding defiance to all calamity, is but a shining stellar and nebular image reflected in a black sea of sadness. The tale of Prometheus is an original possession of the entire Aryan family of races, and documentary evidence of their capacity for the profoundly tragic; indeed, it is not improbable that this myth has the same characteristic significance for the Aryan race that the myth of the fall of man has for the Semitic, and that there is a relationship between the two myths like that of brother and sister. The presupposition of the Promethean myth is the transcendent value which a naïve humanity attach to fire as the true palladium of every ascending culture: that man, however, should dispose at will of this fire, and should not receive it only as a gift from heaven, as the igniting lightning or the warming solar flame, appeared to the contemplative primordial men as crime and robbery of the divine nature. And thus the first philosophical problem at once causes a painful, irreconcilable antagonism between man and God, and puts as it were a mass of rock at the gate of every culture. The best and highest that men can acquire they obtain by a crime, and must now in their turn take upon themselves its consequences, namely the whole flood of sufferings and sorrows with which the offended celestials must visit the nobly aspiring race of man: a bitter reflection, which, by the dignity it confers on crime, contrasts strangely with the Semitic myth of the fall of man, in which curiosity, beguilement, seducibility, wantonness,—in short, a whole series of pre-eminently feminine passions,—were regarded as the origin of evil. What distinguishes the Aryan representation is the sublime view of active sin as the properly Promethean virtue, which suggests at the same time the ethical basis of pessimistic tragedy as the justification of human evil—of human guilt as well as of the suffering incurred thereby. The misery in the essence of things—which the contemplative Aryan is not disposed to explain away—the antagonism in the heart of the world, manifests itself to him as a medley of different worlds, for instance, a Divine and a human world, each of which is in the right individually, but as a separate existence alongside of another has to suffer for its individuation. With the heroic effort made by the individual for universality, in his attempt to pass beyond the bounds of individuation and become the one universal being, he experiences in himself the primordial contradiction concealed in the essence of things, i.e., he trespasses and suffers. Accordingly crime[11] is understood by the Aryans to be a man, sin[12] by the Semites a woman; as also, the original crime is committed by man, the original sin by woman. Besides, the witches' chorus says:
Return to commentary: §9, creative power and the Promethean myth · §9, the comparison of myths
"Wir nehmen das nicht so genau:
Mit tausend Schritten macht's die Frau;
Doch wie sie auch sich eilen kann
Mit einem Sprunge macht's der Mann."[13]
He who understands this innermost core of the tale of Prometheus—namely the necessity of crime imposed on the titanically striving individual—will at once be conscious of the un-Apollonian nature of this pessimistic representation: for Apollo seeks to pacify individual beings precisely by drawing boundary lines between them, and by again and again calling attention thereto, with his requirements of self-knowledge and due proportion, as the holiest laws of the universe. In order, however, to prevent the form from congealing to Egyptian rigidity and coldness in consequence of this Apollonian tendency, in order to prevent the extinction of the motion of the entire lake in the effort to prescribe to the individual wave its path and compass, the high tide of the Dionysian tendency destroyed from time to time all the little circles in which the one-sided Apollonian "will" sought to confine the Hellenic world. The suddenly swelling tide of the Dionysian then takes the separate little wave-mountains of individuals on its back, just as the brother of Prometheus, the Titan Atlas, does with the earth. This Titanic impulse, to become as it were the Atlas of all individuals, and to carry them on broad shoulders higher and higher, farther and farther, is what the Promethean and the Dionysian have in common. In this respect the Æschylean Prometheus is a Dionysian mask, while, in the afore-mentioned profound yearning for justice, Æschylus betrays to the intelligent observer his paternal descent from Apollo, the god of individuation and of the boundaries of justice. And so the double-being of the Æschylean Prometheus, his conjoint Dionysian and Apollonian nature, might be thus expressed in an abstract formula: "Whatever exists is alike just and unjust, and equally justified in both."
Return to commentary: §9, competing worlds and the concluding formula · §9, conclusion
Das ist deine Welt! Das heisst eine Welt![14]
Translator’s notes
"Here sit I, forming mankind
In my image,
A race resembling me,—
To sorrow and to weep,
To taste, to hold, to enjoy,
And not have need of thee,
As I!"
(Translation in Hæckel's History of the Evolution of Man.)
[11] Der Frevel.
[12] Die Sünde.
We do not measure with such care:
Woman in thousand steps is there,
But howsoe'er she hasten may.
Man in one leap has cleared the way.
Faust, trans. of Bayard Taylor.—TR.
[14] This is thy world, and what a world!—Faust.
Close reading
The hero as a healing image
Nietzsche opens with the precision of Sophoclean dialogue. We seem able to enter the hero’s inner life immediately. He then reverses an optical comparison: after confronting terrible darkness, the imagination produces bright figures that help it recover. These are the Apollonian appearances of the hero. §9, the bright image and Oedipus
The image does more than soften a story’s subject. Clear speech, recognizable character, and an intelligible dramatic sequence let an audience attend to what would otherwise overwhelm it. Greek cheerfulness, in this interpretation, belongs to the artistic treatment of terror. It gives us no reason to suppose that the lives represented are comfortable or secure.
Oedipus: solving the case destroys the solver
Nietzsche describes the Oedipus drama as an investigation that the judge unravels to his own destruction. The audience can take pleasure in its skillful unfolding while discovering something appalling.
He then turns to Oedipus at Colonus. The suffering, aged Oedipus gains a beneficent significance extending beyond his death. Nietzsche contrasts that final power with his earlier deliberate striving. This is what his opposition between activity and passivity concerns: successful agency may take a form that conscious mastery could not achieve. §9, Oedipus at Colonus and the underlying myth
Behind both poetic treatments Nietzsche hears a harsher mythic thought. The solver of nature’s riddle also violates its most sacred relationships. He reads wisdom as a transgression whose force turns against the knower. His appeal to a supposed Persian belief helps him construct this connection; it is not a demonstration that knowledge actually requires such violations.
Prometheus: creation comes with a claim against it
Prometheus gives Nietzsche an active counterpart to Oedipus. The hero helps humanity acquire what it needs to make a culture. Fire matters because it concentrates the value of that achievement: something indispensable is obtained through a trespass against the gods.
If we call the trespass merely wicked, we miss the value of the human achievement. If we call the achievement merely progress, we miss the conflict and suffering bound up with it. Nietzsche gives the deed dignity while keeping the punishment in view. He hears the artist’s pride in creative power, too: the capacity to make a world can challenge authorities that once seemed untouchable. §9, creative power and the Promethean myth
Notice the change of scale. Aeschylus’s hero becomes an image of the creator, and then of culture’s origin. Nietzsche proposes that humanity’s highest gains carry a cost rooted in the structure of existence. The passage’s force depends on whether that larger interpretation clarifies the story or burdens it with a conclusion the story cannot establish.
A contrast built from unequal standards
Nietzsche compares Prometheus with the biblical Fall using the labels Aryan and Semitic. He assigns dignity to an active transgression and associates the other story with supposedly feminine weaknesses. His racial and gender hierarchy is part of the reasoning on the page: one kind of wrongdoing receives admiration while another is reduced to seduction and weakness. §9, the comparison of myths
We should ask what the comparison has earned. Has he shown that these myths express fixed traits of peoples or sexes? He has supplied a sharply unequal interpretation, then generalized it. His reading offers no adequate basis for those sweeping judgments. Recognizing that weakness lets us test the more specific claim about Prometheus without accepting the hierarchy used to elevate him.
Justice without a simple acquittal
Near the end, Nietzsche imagines separate divine and human worlds, each asserting a right. The individual who tries to cross their boundaries encounters the contradiction between them. Prometheus becomes Dionysian in that expansive striving, while the concern for distinct rights and limits retains an Apollonian dimension. §9, competing worlds and the concluding formula
His closing formula is: “Whatever exists is alike just and unjust, and equally justified in both.” §9, conclusion This is more radical than saying disputes have two sides. In his account, contradiction belongs to existence itself: individuation creates rival claims, while Dionysian striving pushes beyond it. Tragedy gives that conflict an artistic form.
That formulation leaves a difficult question: what can it say to the individual who bears the cost? A perspective that makes the whole intelligible may still fail to justify what happens to a particular person. Keep that gap open as the book turns toward attempts to make suffering rationally comprehensible.
A difficulty
Does giving transgression dignity also excuse the suffering it causes?
Nietzsche asks us to admire wisdom and creation even where their consequences are terrible. That can challenge the comforting expectation that virtue guarantees happiness. Yet admiration may also concentrate our attention on the exceptional hero while leaving other people’s suffering at the edge of the picture.
Return to his presentation of Oedipus: how much attention do the father and mother receive apart from their place in the hero’s destiny? Then consider Prometheus: does the cultural value of fire settle whether every cost attached to acquiring it is justified?
The task is to separate three judgments: understanding why a deed occurs, recognizing something valuable in it, and approving its consequences. Find where Nietzsche brings those judgments close together. Decide whether his tragic account can retain their differences without losing its force.
Check your understanding
Try an answer before opening each suggested response.
Why is Oedipus more than an example of someone punished for being bad?
Nietzsche presents a noble and intelligent figure whose inquiry exposes his own catastrophic situation. His suffering exceeds an ordinary lesson about avoiding wicked choices. The problem concerns the relation between wisdom, fate, and the limits of agency. Nietzsche also finds a later beneficent significance in Oedipus’s suffering at Colonus.
What makes Prometheus’s deed tragic rather than simply heroic?
The gift advances human culture through a violation of divine authority, with suffering attached to it. Its value does not remove the conflict; the conflict does not erase its value. Nietzsche uses this double significance to connect the expansive Dionysian impulse with Apollonian boundaries and justice.
Must we accept the racial and gender comparison to understand Nietzsche’s Prometheus?
No. We can examine the relation between cultural creation, violated authority, and suffering through his discussion of the deed itself. His generalizations about peoples and sexes require their own justification, which this passage does not provide. Separating the claims also lets us ask how the unequal comparison influences his admiration.
Writing prompt
Write 150–200 words answering: Does Nietzsche’s reading of either Oedipus or Prometheus explain suffering, justify it, or do both?
Choose one hero. Explain the achievement Nietzsche values and the suffering connected to it. Use two details from §9, then distinguish making a catastrophe intelligible from showing that it is right.
A successful response treats the hero as more than a moral example, identifies the grounds of Nietzsche’s interpretation, and states a reasoned limit or defense of it. End with the strongest question someone who bears the cost could ask.
Continue
The next reading examines Nietzsche’s account of tragedy’s decline. Can the demand that everything be intelligible preserve the tragic experience we have followed?
A reading guide from Reading Nietzsche · Revised .