Philosophy 209 Samuel Carey 4491871

Nietzsche’s Theory of Tragedy

In The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche looks from a philological lens at the

importance of tragedy within Greek society, its emergence as an art form

and how it represented the philosophical and psychological state of the

Greek mind. Furthermore, he explores tragic drama’s true essence as a

transfer the “ordinary psychological state” of the observer into a

primordial, life itself state1. It is this transmigration of the psychology that

Nietzsche believes gives Tragedy a rejuvenate quality that he believes

can be transplanted into contemporary society and can heal the human

unbalance that has eventuated because of over rationalization.

Nietzsche breaks away from traditional philology of Winckelmann who

inferred that the Greek arts and the Greeks themselves were a

personification of “noble simplicity and quiet grandeur”2 and focuses on

the more violent and wild characteristics of the Greek psyche displayed

particularly within Tragedy.

Tragedy first surfaced from the Dionysia, annual festivals held in

celebration of the god Dionysus, the god of fertility and intoxication.

Tragedies where first simple Dithyrambs, preformed by only a chorus of

singers, in worship to the god Dionysus, but soon developed more

complex production, plot and characters. Dionysus played an important

1
Sweet, The Birth of The Birth of Tragedy, p 355
2
Sweet, The Birth of The Birth of Tragedy, referencing J.J. Winckelmann, Gedanken uber die
Nachahmung der griechischen Werke in der Malerei und Bildhauerkunst p 26

1
Philosophy 209 Samuel Carey 4491871

role in the hierarchy of ancient Greek deities, as he was the only full god

that was born from a human mother Semele, along with the god Zeus.

Furthermore, Dionysus was the only Greek deity that was not raised on

mount Olympus, instead raised in the far east of the world in India.

Therefore Dionysus, to the Greeks is considered a foreigner god, and

represents all the conceptions of the non Greeks or barbarians, such as

chaos, disorder, uncontrollable sexuality and intoxication. This

foreignness and unconventional society that Dionysus represents is

important to Nietzsche’s theory of tragedy.

The first major idea that emerges from The Birth of Tragedy is

Nietzsche’s distinction between the Apollonian and Dionysian forces.

Apollo god of the sun represented the concepts of reason, logic,

perfection, order and the principium individuationis. On the other hand,

Dionysus represents chaos, intoxication, instinct, pleasure and pain, and

the dissolving of individuality. These two forces represent different

approaches to art and aesthetics, which Nietzsche describes in;

“Apollo and Dionysus, and recognize in them the living and

conspicuous representatives of two worlds of art differing in their

intrinsic essence and in their highest aims.”3

For Nietzsche, these two godly forces represent the perfect dichotomy

which enabled Greek tragedy to create a perfect balance between

3
Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy p 99

2
Philosophy 209 Samuel Carey 4491871

rationality and instinct, order and chaos. Nietzsche believes that the

dichotomy of Apollo and Dionysus are at its pinnacle in the Tragedies of

Aeschylus, and was able to carry out its essential function of eliminating

the observer’s individuality and making them connect with life itself.

Aeschylus’ “subject matter was so near to the core of human feeling, to

the central experiences of lie from which all human feelings take their

origin”4, which reaffirms Nietzsche theory of the tragedy is an attempt to

de-individualize the observer, and bring humanity back to a state of

primordial simplicity, that is to say, so that all can understand the human

condition not just their own individual problems. Furthermore,

Aeschylus’ tragedies, though written in a medium that is constructed with

Apollonian rationality, it still maintains a freedom and instinctual basis

that elevates it above other art forms. This is reaffirmed in;

“Euripides would have conceded only that Aeschylus created

improperly because he created without any conscious

awareness”5

The distinction between Dionysian and Apollonian energies displays the

first instance of Schopenhauer’s influence over Nietzsche’s writings.

These forces are similar to Schopenhauer’s distinction of “appearance

vs. reality”, the apollonian forces being appearance based, because of

its relation to the plastic, sculptural arts, and the Dionysian forces relate

to reality because of its influence on music.

4
Vellacott, The Oresteian Trilogy, Introduction p 9
5
Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy § 12

3
Philosophy 209 Samuel Carey 4491871

But in terms of philology, Nietzsche depicts an idealised and

romanticised view of the ancient Greek people as simple, happy and

almost naïve people. By showing the Greeks as simplistic, not only

does it make there achievements seem impossible (how could comedy,

epic, mathematics and especially tragedy without a complex mind) but

make the Greek society alien and unrealistic in terms of most classical

scholarship. As we have developed further and further over time,

perhaps Nietzsche’s society and our own are unable to maintain such

simplicity, too engrained by apollonian reason and our historical context

and therefore unable to over come the unbalanced Apollonian and

Dionysian forces. Nietzsche himself retorts such a simplistic view in his

An Attempt at Self Criticism in the re-published Birth of Tragedy in 1886,

not attempting to show the Greeks as simplistic, but focus on their

simple ” relationship of the Greeks to pain, the degree of their sensitivity”

and their juxtaposed “desire for the beauty” “the desire for the ugly”6.

Furthermore, in reply to any accusation of romanticism Nietzsche seems

to imply that if one does not write as a romantic then one is writing

pessimistically. This seems to avoid the issue off his simplification all

together and side steps the books problems with proper philological

scholarship. But this being said, Nietzsche himself admitted that the

book was “poorly written, ponderous, embarrassing, with fantastic and

confused imagery, sentimental, here and there so saccharine it is

effeminate”7
6
Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy, An Attempt at Self Criticism § 7
7
Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy, An Attempt at Self Criticism § 3

4
Philosophy 209 Samuel Carey 4491871

The most important point in Nietzsche’s theory of tragedy is the concept

of the Metaphysical Comfort. Nietzsche agrees with his predecessor

Schopenhauer that “all life is suffering”8 and furthermore that this

suffering is based on the individualisation of humanity. Schopenhauer

believes that through aesthetic experience we can lessen the pain of life,

because when we view art we become detached from the will and

become totally immersed with the object and forget our individuality;

“The person who is involved in this perception is no longer an

individual, for in such perception the individual has lost himself;

he is pure will-less, painless, timeless subject of knowledge”9

At this point Nietzsche departs from his predecessor, as Schopenhauer

seems to denote first that life and human life has a negative value, and

second that human existence is unable to be affirmed. Nietzsche

believes that within tragedy contains an ability to transport the reader’s

consciousness from a narrow perspective of individualisation to a wider

perspective of universal life energies, what he calls a metaphysical

comfort. This created a substantial separation from Schopenhauer, as he

described tragedy as;

8
Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation § 56 p 310
9
Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation § 34 p 179

5
Philosophy 209 Samuel Carey 4491871

“What gives all tragedies their characteristic drive for elevation is the

working out of the recognition that the world, that life, can provide no

proper satisfaction, and thus our devotion to it is not worthwhile; the

tragic spirit consists of that insight — it leads therefore to resignation”10

This continues Schopenhauer’s pessimistic world view, which Nietzsche

rejects, asserting “how differently Dionysus spoke to me!”11 By

ascertaining this universal perspective we can view tragedy in all its

juxtapositions of terrible and joyous and at the same time emancipate

ourselves from our individualistic tendencies rather then just resigning

ourselves to the terribleness of life. Such emancipation proposes that by

viewing the suffering of the world and life itself in a universal perspective

instead of view the suffering of life from our own individual perspectives,

we can see that all humanity becomes unified with all living beings and

understand that our suffering is not individualistic.

It could be stated that Nietzsche’s attempt at affirming life through the

tragic arts only achieves the same level of pain relief as Schopenhauer’s

aesthetic awareness, as in principle only manage to diminish

individualisation rather then destroy it. Schopenhauer admittedly only

managed to limit the pain of individualisation through aesthetic

awareness, and along with Nietzsche’s unrealistic view of Ancient Greek

10
Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy, An Attempt at Self Criticism § 7, referencing World as Will
and Representation II § 3 p 36
11
Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy, An Attempt at Self Criticism § 6

6
Philosophy 209 Samuel Carey 4491871

society, it seems unlikely that the use of tragedy as a metaphysical

comfort does not get to the bottom of life’s horrific nature.

Though the Dionysian and Apollonian forces within the tragedies of

Aeschylus according to Nietzsche were in perfect harmony, he believes

that with the influence of Socraticism and the general scientific approach

to philosophy tragedy became increasingly rationalistic. Socrates

believed that existence needed to be corrected and according to

Nietzsche says he did this from a point of self proclaimed superiority.12

Through the tragedies of Sophocles and Euripides, tragedy became less

about Dionysian “extravagant sexual licentiousness”13 and more about

complex plot twists and dramatic effect, necessitating the viewer to be

aware of everything on stage and to intellectually digest it.14

“But Euripides was, in a certain sense, only a mask: the divinity

which spoke out of him was not Dionysus, and not Apollo, but an

entirely new-born daemon called Socrates”15

Essentially, unlike in the Greek period where the two forces where in

balance, the Apollonian forces that were propagated by Socrates have

overshadowed the animalistic tendencies of the Dionysian energies and

have created a weaker humanity due to over rationalisation. Nietzsche

12
Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy § 13
13
Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy §2 p 39
14
Sweet, The Birth of The Birth of Tragedy, p 355
15
Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy § 12

7
Philosophy 209 Samuel Carey 4491871

continues this point, stating that even during the time of Euripides many

Greeks could see the degeneration of classical tragedy, particularly

Aristophanes who singled out Socrates as the first and most significant

sophist16. This ‘optimism’ and over rationalized world that has been

created through the dominance of apollonian forces could be thought of

as nihilistic, as the dogmatist of rationality have made it impossible to

find any form of truth. Furthermore, even as a proponent of the tragic

art, Socrates only viewed it in a cosmetic sense, and believed it was

unable to find any “truth”.17

Nietzsche believes that this overshadowing of Dionysian forces can be

over come through the rejuvenation of the Deutsche Geist or the

German spirit. Nietzsche infers that with the rise in Germany philosophy

particularly that of Kant and Schopenhauer, a new form the Greek tragic

age can be implemented within Europe. Socrates, according to

Nietzsche, attempted to put boundaries on human existence. With the

philosophies of Kant and Schopenhauer who break such boundaries by

limiting the views of the Enlightenment, Nietzsche states that “we seem

to be moving now out of an Alexandrian period backwards into a period

of tragedy”18. Nietzsche believes that the emergence of German

philosophy along with the musical works of Bach, Beethoven and his

friend Wagner will give way to a “rebirth of tragedy”19. The rebirth of the

16
Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy § 13
17
Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy § 13
18
Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy § 19 p 120
19
ibid

8
Philosophy 209 Samuel Carey 4491871

German spirit could revive the Western culture in general and take out

the Socratic nihilism that degenerates it.

This is the weakest proposal made by Nietzsche in The Birth of Tragedy.

The conception that German music and philosophy and particularly

music can bring the European back to a more balanced state between

apollonian and Dionysian forces seems almost unlikely. Not only do

questions of implementation and whether such music truly contains the

same balance as Greek tragedy plague us, but also whether or not this

feverous support for Germany and the romantic classical music cannot

escape the inference that such proposals were affected by Nietzsche’s

close friendship with Richard Wagner. Perhaps Nietzsche believed that

Wagner’s compositions were similar to the Greek tragedy on a

superficial level, as many of them were constructed similarly to tragedy

around myth and legend, such as his interpretation of the German myth

of Nibelungenlied in Der Ring des Nibelungenlied. Therefore

Nietzsche’s formulas are not based on any kind of rationality or

evidence.

Nietzsche revisits this problem of overcoming the bad in later years with

Thus Spoke Zarathustra and Beyond Good and Evil, where he blames

the nihilistic tendencies of modern society on the morality of Christianity,

creating a spiritual sickness within humans. From this Nietzsche

proposes the use of the Ubermensch to overcome such nihilism.

Furthermore, in reply to any objection that Nietzsche is not basing his

9
Philosophy 209 Samuel Carey 4491871

theory on rationality, it could be said that Nietzsche has already rejected

truth and therefore any rational bases of finding the truth. Because all

venture towards truth since Socrates has seemingly failed, that is the

scientific dogmatists, Nietzsche believes that an indirect approach to

truth is need, a literalary method based on poetic and metaphorical

ideas or phsyiologicial and psychological concepts20. Therefore

Nietzsche is taking a more life perspective orientated view of truth rather

then the straightforward direct method of Socraticism, and searches then

for wisdom rather then truth.

Nietzsche’s The Birth of Tragedy is an interesting insight into the first

academic works of the well known philosopher, and even though its

significant insights into a possible mythological force that runs through

art and music, it leaves the reader with a puzzled patchwork of

philosophical and philological theories. It is let down primarily by its over

simplification of ancient Greek society and its intricacies, along with is

overbearing support for German classical music under the guise of

Wagner which in turn does not solve the problem of evil within modern

society nor its over rationalization. Even with these short comings, The

Birth of Tragedy is important in Nietzsche’s cannon of writing as it

proposes his first attempt at displaying a pessimistic view of life whilst

still maintaining life-affirmation, a theory that would be continued in Thus

Spoke Zarathustra and Beyond Good and Evil.

20
Wicks, p 88

10
Philosophy 209 Samuel Carey 4491871

Bibliography:

 Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music,

published 1871, republished 1886. Translated by Ian Johnson, 2008

.(http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/Nietzsche/tragedy_all.htm)

 Schopenhauer, Arthur. The World as Will and Representation I,

translated from German by E.F.J Payne, 1966, republished 2008.

 Sweet, D. The Birth of “The Birth of Tragedy”, Journal of the History

of Ideas, Vol. 60, No. 2 (Apr. 1999) pp. 345-359.

 Aeschylus. The Oresteian Trilogy, translated by Philip Vellacott, first

published 1956, this edition published 1981.

 Wicks, R. Philosophy 209 Coursebook.

11