way its "crado" alongside with its "absurdum"? And if this book is pessimist even in respect of morals, above the faith in morals—should it not, for this very reason, be a German book? For, in fact, it implies a contradiction, and is not afraid of it: in it we break with the faith in morals—why ? In obedience to morality ? Or what name shall we give to that which passes therein? We should prefer more modest names. But it is past all doubt that even to us a "thou shalt" is still speaking, even we still obey a stern law above us—and this is the last moral precept which impresses itself even upon us, which even we obey: in this respect, if in any, we are still conscientious people: viz., we do not wish to return to that which we consider outlived and decayed, to something "not worth believing," be it called God, virtue, truth, justice, charity, we do not approve of any deceptive bridges to old ideals; we are radically hostile to all that wants to mediate and to amalgamate with us; hostile to any actual religion and Christianity; hostile to all the vague, romantic, and patriotic feelings, hostile also to the love of pleasure and want of principle of the artists who would fain persuade us to worship when we no longer believe—for we are artists; hostile, in short, to this whole European Pessimism (or Idealism, if you prefer this name), which is ever "elevating" and, consequently, "degrading." Yet, as such conscientious people we immortalists and atheists of this day still
