Nietzsche's central duality manifests itself again with the countering of the art of Homer with that of Archilochus. Homer is the great Apollonian naive artist, whereas Archilochus (writing in the sixth century) is a passionate and furious lyric poet. Modern esthetics calls this time period the meeting of the first "objective" poet with the first "subjective" poet. But, as Nietzsche believes subjective art to be totally without merit, and the Greeks thought of Archilochus as a great poet, then by definition he cannot be a subjective poet.
The idea that Archilochus is a subjective poet stems from the incorrect believe that lyric poetry is egocentric, when in fact it represents the Dionysian consciousness. Greek lyric was the first Greek poetry to speak as if from personal experience, using the first person voice and seemingly overrun with personal emotions. However, this 'I' is not the 'I' of the individual ego, but rather the 'I' of the unified consciousness. The explanation follows: Greek lyric always incorporated music, which is by definition a Dionysian medium. And, because the lyricist is under the influence of the Apollonian dream-state, he is able to create an image out of the music. "The inchoate, intangible reflection of the primordial pain in music, with its redemption in appearance, now produces a second mirroring as a specific symbol or example." It is this 'example,' not the real life experiences of the poet, that forms the reality of the poem. Thus, when the lyricist says 'I', he speaks not for himself, but for the universal suffering that he experiences through Dionysus.
The naive artist knows only the art of appearance, and so "he is protected against being united and blended with his figures." The lyricist, on the other hand, blends so perfectly with his art that when he speaks of his 'self,' it is not the waking, real self, but "the only truly existent and eternal self resting at the base of things." It is only when creating art as this universal self that the artist is an artist; for, "the subjectively willing and desiring man can never at any time be a poet." Personal wills and desires are the enemy of art. The true artist is one who acts as a medium "through which the one truly existent Subject celebrates his appearance." We are merely players in a much larger game.
What makes Archilochus so different from Homer is the fact that lyric is essentially the poetry of folk-song, wherein "language is strained to its utmost that it may imitate music." Here it stands in contrast to Homer, whose language strives to imitate image and phenomenon, i.e. 'appearance.' Lyric attains its passionate heights through its union with music, and thus appears to be in opposition to the purely contemplative frame of mind. This logical progression would indicate that it has a will, which would render it subjective, for 'will' equals desire and individual emotions. However, while lyric poetry may appear as will, essentially it is not will. It is forced to appear as will only because it attempts to speak of 'music' in Apollonian symbols, which confer individualistic passions upon music that is, in truth, simply a conduit of the Primal Unity.
Lyric seems to be driven by will and desire only because language is unable to grasp the essence of music. "Language can never adequately render the cosmic symbolism of music, because music stands in symbolic relation to the primordial contradiction and primordial pain in the heart of the Primal Unity, and therefore symbolizes a sphere which is beyond and before all phenomena."
Nietzsche's condemnation of subjective art is a bit shocking for the modern reader, who is used to thinking of art as being individualistic and self- expressive. Nietzsche writes, " throughout the entire range of art we demand specially and first of all the conquest of the Subjective, the release from the ego and the silencing of the individual will and desire; indeed, we find it impossible to believe in any truly artistic production, however insignificant, if it is without objectivity, without pure, detached contemplation." We must note that Nietzsche's unforgiving conviction that subjective art is without merit is crucial for the success of his argument, as a subjective art could be created without the influence of the Dionysian. Nietzsche is striving to create a system wherein it is necessary that the Apollonian and the Dionysian elements converge in order to create art. Art that is subjective and created independently of the well of human consciousness, i.e. the Primal Unity, does not fit into Nietzsche's equations, and is thus discounted.
This is a powerful and influential book. Dealing with philsophy, geneology and anthropology. Nietzsche does a good job at combing the macro philosophies of his time, with the micro interpretations of the detail of these stories and songs. None of which this reviewer picks up upon. So then this review gets a fail from me!