The Maccabaean

The present war has evoked a great deal of discussion of the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche, of his well-known phrase, "The will to the power," but slight attention has been paid to the tendency of his philosophy. Much of the war- talk aims to prove that martial Germany has been vitally affected by the philosopher who formulated the theory of "the will to power" as the moving force in human life, and that the war she is now waging is a convincing manifestation of her deep faith in the Nietzschean philosophy.

The aim here is not to discuss the grounds for or against this extraordinary contention. It is only fair, however, to indicate the great wrong done to the German philosopher by thus associating his teachings with the theory of life espoused by the German junker and the motives that animate Germany in the conflict.

The philosophy of Nietzsche, discernible in the midst of the unfortunate maze of obscure and incongruous expression with which his works abound, contains instruction for those free Jews in particular who seek to understand the Jewish emancipation movement.

Neitzsche was at first a disciple of Schopenhauer. Soon, however, he broke with his great master and preached a philosophy radically opposed to the Schopenhauer instruction. Schopenhauer had a great deal to say on the subject of the will. He divided the world into two elements, will and idea. This paved the way for the expression of the Neitzschean philosophy; but the fundamental difference‘ between the two philosophies, however, lies in their various conceptions of the function of the will. Schopenhauer employed the term “will” as a blind force enthroned in the human mind, compelling the service of the individual. Neitzsche’s will was just as strong, but intelligent and subservient to the individual. Nietzsche was repelled by Schopenhauer’s theory of life and eondemned it as mean and cowardly. He could not conceive of will, whieh did not allow for the “will to power.”

Schopenhauer was necessarily a pessimist. He contend-

have, and of which no Parliament or Law has decided to deprive us.

"If we have asked and we now ask the modification of Article 7 we merely want to specify that it does not concern us, who are not aliens but a category of Rumanians to whom the common law of all Rumanians ought to be applied.

“Two possibilities now present themselves, —either Parliament completing the series of articles to be modified, introduces among them Article 7 also, leaving to the Constituent Assembly the duty to specify the category mentioned above; or Parliament limiting itself to the series alrdady announced, the speeification indicated can be made through another article among those subjeeted to revision. It must not be forgotten that our legal situation is chaotie, not being fixed by any Constitution, and that to solve our problem it is not necessary to build an entire legislative work, heavy and complicated, but a simple specification to avoid arbitrary and false interpretations.

"It is sufficient to explain the notion of Rumanian citizenship in its broad and accurate meaning, which undoubtedly would include us also, in one of the articles referring to the electoral system which specifies that the right of suffrage is granted only to Rumanian citizens.

ed that some unreasoning power had placed us in this world of struggle to no purpose. Mortals move about in a vortex of blind life-currents, and ask why and for whom? They petulantly beat themselves against the chains in despair. There is one outlet to the perplexing problems of life—self-abnegation.

Schopenhauer was thus an enemy of Judaism, which teaches that life is struggle and necessarily in the struggle there must be faith, which gives it the color of optimism. To Schopenhauer, Judaism was a philosophy of slavery and the Jews were to him a people of slaves.

But Nietzsche recognized the great power of conscious will. Man was not the slave of the life-force, but its master. The great man, the man of power, could conquer himself, subdue the eireumstances of life and triumphantly reach a set goal in spite of the opposing forces within and without. So Nietzsche formulated “the will to power”—that the aim was not merely to live and drag out a semblance of life, but its object: was to attain power, to compel the life force into hitherto.unknown channels. Neitzsche sang of the triumph of man over matter, and rezarded man as god on earth.

Thus Nietzsche was an optimist. He opposed the teachings of Christianity, which regards this world as unimportant and earthly life as sinful and unworthy.

He praised Judaism and the Jewish people. He regarded the Jews as the eloquent witnesses of the fact that man can rise above his circumstances, conquer the unconquerable and become master of the world.

Between these two philosophers, who held the truer conception of Judaism and of the Jewish people? Both admit that Jewish life is based on optimism, but had Schopenhauer condemned our optimism alone, there would have been no quarrel with him. Our law is the law of life, with the emphasis on life. But when he sees in our history nothing more than a mere will to live, exception must be taken to his view.

"This is the correct solution of the Jewish problem, that is of the problem of the native born Jews, without touching the regime of the aliens, which does not concern us."

The protest of the Union of the Native Born Jews is a voice in the desert. We have quoted their reasons only to show the sensible way of interpreting their situation with regard to Article 7, about the claims of the modification of the famous article, that it is time to make clear the real value of that pseudo-obstacle to the way of the emancipation of the Jews in Rumania.

No! Rumania will never modify that blessed article. If we will insist upon its change we will only divert the discussion and perpetuate the useless diplomatie correspondence begun immediately after the Congress of Berlin. The bull must be taken by the horns. Rumania can emancipate her Jewish slaves only by a special article or paragraph inserted in her Constitution immediately after the article or paragraph in which she will grant freedom to her slaves, the peasants. Her poliey concerning her Jews has shown her determination to fight to her last resources any solution favorable to them. We feat that the future will give us more reasons for confirming our pessimistie eonvietions. At least in our fight we ought to know what form of strategy holds more ahances for a probable vietory. -