Page:Nietzsche the thinker.djvu/271

Rh we happy ones," with which old-time Greek aristocrats sometimes described themselves —having in mind, perhaps, language used by Theognis, who speaks of the "nobles" constantly as "the good," and of the common maw as the "bad" or "base." One thinks too of with which the aristocratic ideal was summed up, though Nietzsche does not refer to it. Leopold Schmidt, it may be added, thinks that xxx referred to personal bravery and other characteristics, such as may be supposed to have belonged pre-eminently to early aristocracies: and of one thing we may, I suppose, be sure, namely, that it did not stand for the qualities, kindly, benevolent, sympathetic, with which we pre-eminently identify "good" today. Turning to the Latin word, bonus, Nietzsche conjectures that it goes back to an older duonus (like bellum from duellum), signifying a man in dissension, a warrior: accordingly "we see what in old Rome a man's 'goodness' amounted to." The old-time superior classes also designated themselves by other terms—perhaps oftenest, after their superiority in power, as "the mighty," "the lords," "the commanders," or, after the most visible sign of their superiority, as "the rich," "the possessors" (this the meaning of arya, with equivalents in Eranian and Slavic), or, after a typical trait of character, as "the truthful." The last term was particularly in use among the Greek nobility: in contrast with the weaker man given to lying and dissimulation, they called themselves —at least Theognis liked to describe them in this way; and it is interesting to note that in Hindu "good" is equivalent to "true," "bad" to "untrue."

Taking up now the words contrasted with and bonus, Nietzsche points out that in both  and  fear or cowardice is emphasized. Dewey and Tufts note that "base"