Friedrich_Nietzsche - Untimely_Meditations_(Cambridge_Texts_in_the_History_of_Philosophy__1997)

David Strauss the confessor and the writerstands. outside our German culture and awakens the antipathy of thevarious theological parties, indeed of every individual Germaninsofar as he is a theological sectarian by nature and invents his ownstrange private theology so as to be able to dissent fro every other.But just hear all these theological sectarians as soon as Strauss isspoken of as a writer; at once the theological dissonances die awayand we hear in the purest unison as though from the mouth of onecommunity: nonetheless he is a classic writer! Now everyone, even themost sullenly orthodox, flatters Strauss to his face as a writer, thoughit may be no more than a word in commendation of his almostLessing-like dialectics or the freedom, beauty and validity of hisaesthetic views. As a book, it seems, the Straussian production correspondsexacdy to the ideal of a book. His theological opponents,though they spoke loudest, are in this case only a small fragment ofthe great public: and even in relation to them Strauss is right when hesays: 'Compared with my thousands of readers, my couple of dozendetractors are a vanishing minority, and it will be hard for them toprove that they are faithful interpreters of the former. If, in such amatter as this is, those who disagree have spoken up, while thosewho agree have contented themselves with silent approval, that liesin the nature of the cas.' Apart from the scandal which Strauss mayhere and there have provoked among the theological confessions, asto Strauss the writer there thus reigns unanimity even among hisfanatical opponents to whom his voice is like the voice of the beastfrom the abyss. And the treatment Strauss has received at the handsof the literary day-labourers of the theological parties therefore provesnothing against our proposition that in this book philistine culture.has celebrated a triumph.It must be admitted that the educated philistine is on average adegree less candid than Strauss, or at least is more reserved when hespeaks publicly: but candour in another is therefore all the moreedifying for him; at home and among his own kind he loudlyapplauds it, and it is only in writing that he declines to confess howmuch all that Strauss says is after his own heart. For, as we alreadyknow, our culture philistine is somewhat cowardly, even when he isstrongly moved: and it is precisely the fact that Strauss is a degree lesscowardly that makes him a leader, while on the other hand there arevery definite limits to his courage. If he were to overstep these limits,as Schopenhauer for instance does with almost every sentence, hewould no longer lead on the philistines as their chieftain but wouldbe deserted as precipitately as he is now followed. If anyone thought39