notices concerning him appeared in some of the periodicals, and occasionally even now his name is mentioned, but he is not looked upon as of much importance. An attempt at publishing an English translation of his works met with financial failure. While in Europe every educated man knows Nietzsche's theories, at least in outline, in this country and in England there is often the greatest ignorance concerning his views, even among those whose chief interest is in philosophical questions. It was to be expected that Anglo-Saxons would regard Nietzsche as dangerous both to practical morals and to conservative speculation. Hegel is not yet entirely freed from similar imputations. The puzzle in the condition of affairs lies in the fact that Nietzsche is so continually and so consistently ignored.
In the countries where Nietzsche is read, numberless books and pamphlets have been published concerning him, and among the most recent is Professor Vaihinger's Nietzsche als Philosoph. This monograph, as its writer says, presents, in orderly form, the views which one finds unsystematized in Neitzsche's writings, and, with no attempt at criticism, shapes Nietzsche's scattered theories into a strictly logical system. The reader, put into possession of the important elements and unencumbered with minor details, is to be left to make his own criticisms. Nietzsche's philosophy is described as at basis Schopenhauer's theory of the will, to which the Darwinian doctrine of struggle for existence has given a positive form. As the logical result of this fundamental principle, seven characteristic tendencies displayed by Nietzsche are described and the relation of each to the basal theory pointed out. These tendencies are all negative, all protests against prevalent views, and to be explained as due to the peculiar value given by Nietzsche to the individual will. They are called the anti-moral, the anti-socialistic, the anti-democratic, the anti-feminine, the anti-intellectualistic, the anti-pessimistic, and the anti-Christian. Current morality, socialism, democracy, the emancipation of woman, intellectualism, optimism, and Christianity are condemned by Nietzsche because inconsistent with the will for power (Wille zur Macht). The ideal for all existence is not the negation of the will, but its completest affirmation, which is made possible only in the Darwinian struggle for existence. The will affirms itself by means of constant warfare, and whatever interferes with the necessary combat is worthy of opposition.
With regard to the book as a whole, if one is to make a logical system from Nietzsche's theories, Professor Vaihinger's attempt may be highly commended, although probably no two people would choose exactly the same tendencies as of chief importance. However, there is a serious question in the writer's mind whether such an attempt is altogether just to Nietzsche. He was not a system-maker, and to force his opinions into related and consistent form does violence to them. A system is doubtless worth the making, but this is no reason why all philosophical writings should be compelled to take on a systematic aspect, Nietzsche's least of all. The author of Also sprach Zarathustra not only did not write a system, but such a pro
