(Doctrine of Eternal Recurrence — Preface, aph. 10)

Naturally, every author, while writing a book, eventually asks himself: why him? Why is it he — or, as we shall show, his ‘peculiarity within the Whole’, which compels him to write in the third person — who is driven to write a book such as this, and not someone else, that is, another ‘peculiarity within the Whole’…? Might this not, once again, be the usual, concealed longing for the glory of that same stubborn separated self which we must — and wish to — renounce on these very pages…? The truth is likely the opposite. For let us be honest: who today is willing to publish a book such as this under their own name? Which of today’s living philosophers is prepared to sacrifice their good reputation, standing, fame, etc., by aligning themselves with a doctrine that is, in principle, rationally incomprehensible and emotionally disquieting…? And when they do write about Eternal Return, these philosophers — and, more broadly, the so-called “people of spirit” — write about it with reserve, sometimes even with irony or condescension, approaching it only as a distant and improbable possibility to which this world might be subject — if it is subject to it at all.

After all, are we not witnesses that before us no one has stood behind this doctrine without reservation — except Nietzsche himself, to whom it was often attributed as a kind of “excess in thinking,” one that seemed explainable by nothing else? From this it follows that no one has yet written a book on Eternal Return that would advocate this doctrine without hesitation — with sincere, almost fanatical devotion; and that not even our Teacher, that “philosopher above philosophers,” truly accomplished this, even though at one moment he clearly tried. Thus Spoke Zarathustra was meant to become the manifesto and the first book of the Doctrine of Eternal Return, but the sequence of circumstances during its creation — circumstances that brought forth another thought, equally powerful (if not more so), the thought of the “will to power” — caused its fourth part to turn into a parody, a kind of theatre of masks that seems to ironize and deconstruct Zarathustra’s mission as the Teacher of Eternal Return. Already then Nietzsche hinted at his conviction that the Doctrine of Eternal Return cannot be directly communicated to others, and that his alter ego — Zarathustra, the Teacher of Eternal Return — can become such a teacher only to himself. Because of all this, it seems that Nietzsche, at the end of his path, all but abandoned that role. If all this is taken into account, then it means that until now no one has stood so clearly and consistently on the side of this “thought above all thoughts” as the author of this book, who — like the greatest prophets of their god — was irrevocably compelled to do so.

And yet, his name remains concealed. Why? Only so that the reader’s attention may remain upon the doctrine itself, and not upon its intermediary. The Doctrine of Eternal Return — although it does not transmit a Revelation in the manner of the Bible — ought to be read as the writing of one of its “evangelists.” And the evangelist, in the end, is unimportant. Though his name will sooner or later reveal itself, depending on whether the Doctrine of Eternal Return sinks into insignificance or gains in importance, here are a few words about the author of this text. He is neither theologian, nor philosopher, nor scientist. In writing he may be only slightly above average. It is entirely possible that his intelligence is not equal to the task that has presented itself before him. His reasons for believing in Eternal Return may appear insufficient in the eyes of others. In the end, this book may not even be a “good” book. But none of this alters what he has experienced, nor his need to transmit that experience to others.

Ultimately, the question will always remain whether someone else could have written this better. He himself is often seized by the feeling of being unequal to the task that has arisen before him. All he experienced was a moment of enlightenment: the insight that Eternal Return is “at work,” that it is the manner in which this world functions, and that — as such — it is the only knowable truth of this world that was granted to him. Perhaps in the future someone who undergoes a similar enlightenment will write a better book. Perhaps they will be more called, more intelligent, more prepared for this Great Task than the writer of these lines. In truth, he is more than convinced of this — but only because he has understood that what matters is not the one who is called to reveal the truth and essence of the world, but that very essence itself. Just as what matters is not the “meaning of life,” but only the moments through which we live it — guided by faith, and not yet by knowledge, but only by that earlier mentioned “insight-feeling” (see §3), that it will return eternally.

“Having considered everything, dear friend, from now on there is no point in talking or writing about me; I have shelved the question ‘who am I’ with the manuscript on which we are printing Ecce homo for the next eternity (Ecce homo für die nächste Ewigkeit ad acta gelegt). Henceforth one should never worry about me, but about the things for the sake of which I am here.” (Letter to Carl Fuchs, 27 December 1888)