1916 Mind  
NEW BOOKS. performance of 1870 to its melancholy close. It need hardly be said now full of interest this intimate record of Nietzsche's life most be to every student of his works. In particular much light appears to the writer of the present notice to be thrown on some of the obscurer pages of Zarathuttra Uy what we are told in this volume of the personal experiences and sufferings of Zarathustra's creator. If a personal impression may be offered in lieu of an elaborate review, such as would
more » ... w, such as would hardly be in keeping with the traditional limitations of reviews in MIND, I would Hay that the reading of Fran Forster-Nietxsche's narative leaves on my mind a sense of the close analogy between the character and life of Nietzsche and those of Shelley. There is the same moral beauty about both characters and the same tragic aloofness from the society of their respective countries and ages. What the Reich sdeutsehe, as he called them, were to Nietzsche, the English of the generation after Waterloo were to Shelley. Both men were by nature lovers of the same solitudes and the same eternities. If the two could have met, in spite of all superficial differences in their phraseology, each would probably have understood the other better than the world has understood either. Both were manifestly life-long victims of tyrannical "nerves". And, I may add, much that was most painful in the life of both seems to have been duo to one cause, each thought himself a much better judge of character than he really was. The story of Nietzsche's suffering as he gradually discovered his illusions about Dr. Rfce and Frilulein Salome 1 reads strangely like one of the many similar episodes in Shelley's career. I am afraid, also, that, judging from the bitterness of tone which the authoress displays in all that she has to say of other associates of Nietzsche, the parallel may extend to a further point Shelley's memory suffered for years from the fact that the friends who should have united in winning respect for it were divided into coteries, each violently hostile to the other. 1 hope it may not be so with Nietzsche ; there is so muoh in him that demands admiration, whatever one may think of his theories about life, that it is pitiful to see those who should be united by a common regard for his memory making their accounts of their relations with him into envenomed personal attacks on each other. Fran FOrster-Nietzsche is not doing her brother any true service by adopting the hierophantic procul, o proatl, estt pro/ani tone towards all who have written of him in independence of the official inspiration of her Kittxsche-Archir or rated him at a little less than the divine honours he claimed for himself in Ecce Hovu>. If the world is to do justice to his genius, the Nietzsche coterie must give up calling on it to recognise him as a god. No man's reputation can stand this kind of thing, lenst of all that of a man who was so all-zu-vuiuichlich in his weaknesses as the author of the letters which give the present volume its chief interest. The translator's work has been excellently done, the get-up of the volume is attractive, and one or two of the illustrations call for special praise. A. E. T. Moth in Philosophy mul the Incarnation. By the Rev. O. C. QUICK. London : S.P.C.K., 1915. Pp. 96. 8d. net. This little book (or super-tract) in extremely g^ood vnlue for the price set upon it, though ite main appeal ia necessarily to the small section of philosophers who are interested in theology and the still smaller section of theologians who are interested in philosophy. As the reader* of Mr. Quick's contributions to MIND will be prepared to find, he is willing to
doi:10.1093/mind/xxv.1.124 fatcat:cnfdjcn5xvdz5fhpohnfcufobi