Nietzsche And Castiglione

Byron HarmonNietzsche Prompt 1May 6th

“As I have already said it pleases me well that we should avoid the crowd, and

especially the ignoble crowd.” (Castiglione, p 89) In order to understand what Nietzsche means

by the “principle that one has duties only to one’s peers” one can find a strong likeness in

Castiglione’s Book of the courtier. Contrary to Nietzsche and Castiglione’s conceptions of

nobility, Kant would object to their moral frameworks.

In section 260 of Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche makes a distinction between a

master or nobleman’s obligations to his peers and his obligations to “beings of a lower rank.”

In order to understand this differentiation a clear grasp of the two groups must be had. He

describes the masters as “actually proud of the fact that he is not made for pity” (p204) and as

“the ruling group.” Nietzsche claims “The noble human being honors himself as one who is

powerful, also as one who has power over himself, who knows how to speak and be silent…”

In other words the noble human being is Castiglione’s courtier, one who prides themselves and

gains the respect of others through his personal arête.

From this group, according to Nietzsche, comes the binary of good and bad. That is, we

might call the contrast between “’noble’ and ‘contemptible.’” This contrast between good and

bad is inherent to Castiglione’s courtier as exemplified by “…the things that we call good there

are some which simply and in themselves are always good like temperance, fortitude, health,

and all the virtues that bestow tranquility upon the mind; others, which are good in various

respects and for the object to which they tend, like law, liberality, riches, and other like things.”

(p 246) The framework of good being used by Castiglione praises attributes that act in

“conferring distinction and determining the order of rank” (Nietzsche p 204)


From the nobles’ positive valuation of themselves comes the contrasting negative

valuation of the lower classes. This is revealed by Nietzsche when he notes “Everything it

knows as part of itself it honors: such a morality is self-glorification.” (p205) Similarly

Castiglione characterizes the rabble as greedy, insolent, cowardly, untrustworthy and vicious.

In other words, lacking the virtues of the ruling group. From this distinction comes what the

nobleman might refer to as his peers, people who embody the same virtues as himself.

From this recognition of a peer group of people with similar virtues, Nietzsche

postulates that such a group would hold to the “principle that one has duties only to one’s

peers; that against beings of a lower rank… one may behave as one pleases or ‘as the heart

desires’ and in any case ‘beyond good and evil’” (p 206) This sentiment is vividly reflected by

Castiglione when he claims (p86):

But in my opinion whoever cares to wrestle or run or leap with peasants, ought to do so

as a matter of practice and out of courtesy as we say, not in rivalry with them. And a

man ought to be almost sure of winning; else let him not engage, because it is too

unseemly and shameful a thing, and beneath his dignity, to see a gentleman vanquished

by a peasant, and especially at wrestling.

What is reflected in Castiglione’s words is a disdain for the peasantry. Peasants are not to be

rivals because they are on a fundamentally different level, below the dignity of the nobility.

Furthermore, activities with the peasantry are seen as “practice.” In other words, as means to a

nobleman improving himself. To Castiglione, the defeat of a noble by a peasant is out of the

question as it would bring to him a great deal of shame. In addition to expressing what


Nietzsche deemed attitudes “beyond good and evil” toward the lower classes, Castiglione

mirrors Nietzsche’s distinction between the treatment of one’s peers and those of lower rank

when he claims (p107):

…that he(the courtier) might love, honour and respect all others according to their

worth and merits, and always contrive to consort more with such as are in high esteem

and noble and of known virtue, than with the ignoble and those of little worth: in such

wise that he may be loved and honoured by them also.

What this suggests is that a courtier has duties to others who are also of virtue, his peers.

Castiglione goes on to outline what that duty entails, roughly along the same lines as Nietzsche

though in a thoroughly comprehensive way.

In response to the master morality Kant would have two central arguments. When

discussing categorical imperatives, Kant asserts the necessity of universality. Rules or

imperatives upon which we act must be universal, applicable to everyone. That is, one ought to

ask oneself if a certain action would be good if everyone else were to act in the same manner.

It is clear that this principle of universality would not apply to the master morality as the

master morality does not demand that we fulfill certain duties to everyone but only to one’s

peers. Though it should be noted that a person with a master morality would then say that it

was universal in that everyone was receiving their due; virtuous people were being treated

virtuously and with respect and those who were vicious were not. While this is an oft

maintained retort to Kant’s universalism, it is clear it is not in the spirit of the principle as

requires greater specificity in order to become universal. Additionally, Kant would assert that


the master morality only sees fellow nobles as ends in themselves and not the lower classes.

Kant maintains that a moral act must consider other people’s ends not just viewing them as a

means to one’s own ends. Castiglione’s claim that a courtier ought not participate in rivalries

with peasants but only practice with them, views the peasants as merely a means to the noble’s

end.

Despite Kant’s objections, the master morality of Nietzsche certainly rang true for some

individuals. For Castiglione and the renaissance nobility, this was the crux of their world view,

encompassing what it meant to live virtuously. As the evidence has shown we can glean an

insight into what Nietzsche might have meant by nobles owing a duty to their peers through

Castiglione’s work The book of the courtier .

Bibliography

Castiglione, Baldesar. Trans. Leonard Ekstein. New York: Charles Scribber's Sons, 1903.

Print.

Documents

Nietzsche And Castiglione