This quote is from aphorism 270 of Beyond Good and Evil (which places it in chapter 9, titled “What is Noble?”), a slightly different version of which is used as the last section before the Epilogue of his last-written work, Nietzsche Contra Wagner. That aphorism, and the slightly different version as well, starts as follows:
[size=95]“The spiritual haughtiness [or: “pride”] and disgust of every man [or: “human being”] who has suffered deeply [or: “profoundly”]–how deeply men can suffer almost determines the order of rank–”… (Note: in NCW, “haughtiness” and “disgust” have changed places, and “men” has changed to “one”.)[/size]
And the second sentence reads:
[size=95]“Deep suffering makes noble; it separates.”[/size]
So this is not about suffering simply, but about deep suffering. What makes suffering deep? Is it just the quantity (including the vehemence) of suffering? At this point I wish to cite another passage where Nietzsche uses the word “deep”:
[size=95]“Every sign of exhaustion, of heaviness, of old age, of weariness, every kind of unfreedom, as cramp, as lameness, above all the odour, the colour, the form of dissolution, of decomposition, and albeit in the final attenuation into a symbol–all of this evokes the same reaction, the value judgment ‘ugly’ [hässlich, literally “hately”]. A hate pops up there: whom does man hate there? But there can be no doubt: the decline of his type. He there hates out of the deepest instinct of the genus; in this hate there is shudder, prudence, depth, farsightedness–it is the deepest hate there is. It is because of this hate that art is deep…” (Twilight of the Idols, “Skirmishes of an Untimely Man”, aphorism 20.)[/size]
Between Germany and England, there is the Netherlands; and the Dutch word for “ugly” is lelijk, a contraction of ledelijk, literally “sufferingly” (the adverbial form of “suffering” the gerund, not the participle). Compare http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=loath. (I also associate “ugly” with the German Ekel (translated above as “disgust”), but can find neither corroboration nor the converse thereof.)
The notion of the decline of one’s type evokes hate because it causes suffering. This suffering, then, is the deepest suffering there is. And saying that the destruction of thirteen direct relatives represents a decline of one’s type is putting it very mildly…
In a crucial passage with regard to Thus Spake Zarathustra’s fundamental conception, the thought of the eternal recurrence, Zarathustra says:
[size=95]“Compassion [or: “pity”] however is the deepest abyss: as deeply as man sees into life, so deeply sees he also into suffering.” (TSZ “Of the Vision and the Enigma”.)[/size]
Compare:
[size=95]“My kind of ‘pity.’— This is a feeling for which I find no name adequate: I sense it when I see precious capabilities squandered, e.g., at the sight of Luther: what force and what insipid backwoodsman problems! (at a time when in France the bold and light-hearted skepticism of a Montaigne was already possible!) Or when I see anyone halted, as a result of some stupid accident, at something less than he might have become. Or especially at the idea of the lot of mankind, as when I observe with anguish and contempt the politics of present-day Europe, which is, under all circumstances, also working at the web of the future of all men. Yes, what could not become of ‘man,’ if——! This is a kind of ‘compassion’ although there is really no ‘passion’ [suffering] I share.” (The Will to Power, section 367 (1885) whole, Kaufmann translation.)[/size]
And:
[size=95]“One may be as right as can be if one cannot get rid of one’s fear, and is cautious, of the blond beast at the bottom of all noble races: but who would not a hundred times rather fear, if he can at the same time admire, than not fear, but not be able to get rid of the disgusting [ekelhaften] sight of the failed, bedwarfed, shriveled, poisoned? And is that not our fatality? Of what does our ill will against ‘man’ consist today?–for we suffer from man, there can be no doubt.–Not fear; rather, that we have nothing to fear from man anymore; that the vermicle ‘man’ is in the foreground and swarms; that the ‘tame man’, the hopelessly mediocre and unedifying one has already learned to feel himself as the goal and peak, as the meaning of history, as ‘higher man’;–indeed, that he has a certain right to feel that way, insofar as he feels himself at a distance from the abundance of the failed, sickly, weary, spent of which Europe is beginning to stink today, consequently as something at least relatively successful, at least still capable of life, at least life-affirming…” (Towards the Genealogy of Morality 1.11)[/size]