Translation:Writings of Novalis/Paralipomena of Faith and Love

by Georg Philipp Friedrich Freiherr von Hardenberg

Paralipomena to Faith and Love

38. The ground of all error in attitudes and opinions is—Confusing the ends with the means.

39. Most revolutionaries don't know exactly what they want for sure—structure or destruction.

40. Revolutions evidence themselves in opposition to the true energy of a nation. It has an energy coming from disease and weakness—which seems more violent than the true one—but unfortunately ends in an even deeper weakness.

41. When one judges a nation, one usually judges based only on what is distinctly visible, the most striking part of the nation.

42. No argument is so disadvantageous to the old regime than the one that can draw from the disproportionate strength of the organs of state, from which a revolution comes to be produced. It's administration must have been greatly defective, that the many parts could be defective and such a persistent weakness could take root everywhere.

43. The weaker a part is, all the more it tends toward disorganization and inflammation.

44. What are slaves? Completely weakened, compromised people. What are sultans? Slaves excited by violent irritation. How does it end with the sultan and slaves?—Violently—as easily for those who are slaves, so easily for those who are sultans, i.e., phrenetic delirium. How can the slave be cured? Through very scrupulous emancipation and enlightenment. One must treat them like a person nearly frozen to death. Sultans? In the way that Dionysus and Croesus were cured. Starting with terror, fasts, and forced cloistering and gradually with increases in restorative tonics. Sultans and slaves are the extreme. There are yet many other middle classes between the king and the true cynic—the class of complete health. Terrorists and toadies belong in the class nearest to sultans and slaves—and like them, merge into one another. Both are representatives of a form of disease from a very weak constitution.

45. The healthiest constitution for a maximum of stimuli is represented by the king—in the same way, for a minimum of stimuli—the true cynic. The more alike the two are, the more their roles can be exchanged easily and with no modifications, even more so as their constitution approaches the ideal of a perfect constitution. The more independent a king is from his throne, the more so is he king.

46. All stimuli are relative—are great—except the one that is absolute—and more than great.

47. The most perfect constitution develops through incitation and absolute coupling with this stimulus. Through it, the constitution can do away with anything else—for initially, it functions more strongly in proportion to the decrease in the relative stimuli, and vice versa. But once it has penetrated the constitution completely, the constitution becomes completely indifferent to the relative stimulus. This stimulus is—absolute love.

A cynic and a king without it are only so in title.

Every improvement in imperfect constitutions comes down to making them more capable of love.

48. The best state consists of indifferentists of this kind.

49. In an imperfect state, they are also the best citizens. They participate in all the good parts, quietly laugh over the deceptions of their contemporaries, and abstain from all evil. They don't change, while they know that every kind of change under these circumstance is only a new error, and that the best cannot come from outside. They leave everything with its dignity, and as they are not embarrassed—so no one embarrasses them, and they are everywhere welcome.

50. The current debate over forms of government is a debate over the preferences of mature elders or flourishing youth.

The Republic is the fluidum deferens of youth. Where there are young people, there is a republic.

With marriage, comes changes to the system. The married person demands order, security and peace—to live as a family in a family—in a regulated household—he seeks a true monarchy.

51. A prince without family spirit is not a monarch.

52. But what about a single, absolute father of the household? What kind of arbitrariness is one not subject to?

In all relative relationships, the individual once and for always subject to arbitrariness—and when I go to a desert—isn't it my primary interest to be subject to the arbitrariness of my own individuality? The individual, as such, is subject to chance according to his nature. In a complete democracy, I am subject to a great many, in a representative democracy to to fewer, in a monarchy to a single arbitrary fate.

53. But doesn't reason require that everyone should be his own lawmaker? People should only obey their own laws. Because Solon and Lycurgus have given truly general laws, laws for humanity—where did they get them from? Hopefully from their humanity and its observation. If I am a person, like them, where do I get my laws? Most probably from the same source—and am I , if I then live according to Solon's and Lycurgus's laws, untrue to reason? Every true law is my law—Let everyone who want to, proclaim and establish it. But this proclamation and establishment is, or the observation of the original feeling and its representation, must accordingly not be so easy- otherwise would we stand in need of any specially written word at all? Must it also be an art? So applying the law in this way appears in fact to be preceded by a lengthy practice and sharpening of judgement. What gave rise to professions and guilds?—a lack of time and strength of the individual. Every person cannot yet learn all arts and knowledge and at the same bustle about—one cannot be all things in everything. Work and art were distributed. Why not also the art of government? The general demand of reason requires that all people should be doctors, poets, and so forth. For the rest of the arts, by the way, it has already been established for the most part that people make no demands regarding these—only the art of government and philosophy—everyone believes that these belong only to presumptuousness, and everyone misperceives themselves as an authority to speak thereof, —and to make pretensions regarding their praxis and virtuosity.

54. But the excellence of representative democracy is undeniable. A more natural, more excellent person is a poet's dream. So, what remains of the rest—an artificial composition. The most excellent people of the nation complement each other—in this society, a pure spirit of society is ignited. The society's decrees are the spirit's emanations—and the ideal ruler is realized.

First, I am doubtful about the most excellent people in the nation and the ignition of the pure spirit. Regarding the contradictory experience, I don't want to tempt fate at all. It is clear as day that a living body cannot be formed from dead matter—a just, selfless, liberal people cannot be composed from from unjust, selfish and one-sided people. Of course, this is just the error of a one-sided majority, and it will yet go on for a long time before one is generally convinced of this simple truth. Such a majority of this type will not become virtuous, but on average choose the most narrow-minded and the most worldly-wise. Regarding the most narrow-minded, I see them as those for whom mediocrity has become second nature. The classic model of the great masses. Regarding the most worldly-wise—the most cunning toady of the great masses. Here, no spirit will ignite—and least of all a pure one—A great mechanism will be created—an inefficient routinization—from which only intrigue breaks through now and then. The reins of the government will vacillate to and fro between the letter and various party games. The despotism of an individual still has the advantage over this despotism, that from it one at leasts saves time and shoes—when one had to deal with the government—and the former still plays with open cards—the latter doesn't know throughout the day who in the government—and which paths are most advantageous to take.

If the representative through the heights by which he has been raised—should become more mature and more refined—how much more an individual ruler? If people were what they should and can become—so would all forms of government be the same—humanity would be ruled the same everywhere, everywhere according to the original laws of humanity. But then one would first chose the most beautiful, poetic, and natural form—the form of the family—monarchy,—several lords—several families—one lord—one family!

55. Now it appears that the perfect democracy and the monarchy are understood to be in a single indissoluble antinomy—the benefit of one to be balanced by the benefit of the other. The young people stay on their side of the first, the more settled housefather on the side of the second. Absolute differences in excitability appears to cause this separation. One loves changes—the other not. Perhaps during certain years we all love revolution, free competition, tournaments, and other such democratic events. But for most, these years pass—and we feel ourselves attracted to a more peaceful world, where a central sun leads the round dance and one will love the planet, than a destructive war fighting for the first dance. At the very least one should also be politically, as well as religiously, tolerant—one accepts only the possibility—that a rational being could be disposed differently than us. This tolerance leads, it seems to me, to the sublime conviction of the relativity of every positive form—and the true independence of a mature spirit from every individual form, which nothing for him but a necessary tool. The time must come, where political entheism and pantheism will be as intimately connected as necessarily complementary organs.