Nietzsche On Time and History

Nietzsche on Time and
History
Edited by
Manuel Dries
Walter de Gruyter
Nietzsche on Time and History
≥
Edited by
Manuel Dries
Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

앪
앝 Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines
of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
ISBN 978-3-11-019009-0
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.
쑔 Copyright 2008 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, 10785 Berlin, Germany.
All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book
may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopy, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without permis-
sion in writing from the publisher.
Printed in Germany
Cover design: Martin Zech, Bremen.
Printing and binding: Hubert & Co GmbH & Co KG, Göttingen.
If there is no goal in the whole of history of man’s lot, then
we must put one in: assuming, on the one hand, that we have
need of a goal, and on the other that we’ve come to see
through the illusion of an immanent goal and purpose. And
the reason we have need of goals is that we have need of a
will—which is the spine of us. ‘Will’ as the compensation of
lost ‘belief’, i.e., for the idea that there is a divine will, one
which has plans for us.
Friedrich Nietzsche, Nachlaß Summer 1886–Spring 1887, KSA 12, 6[9]
We are still growing continually, our sense of time and place,

etc., is still developing.
Friedrich Nietzsche, Nachlaß April–June 1885, KSA 11, 34[124]
‘Timeless’ to be rejected. At a particular moment of a force,

an absolute conditionality of the redistribution of all forces is
given: it cannot stand still. ‘Change’ is part of the essence,
and therefore so is temporality—which, however, just
amounts to one more conceptual positing of the necessity of
change.
Friedrich Nietzsche, Nachlaß May–July 1885, KSA 11, 35[55]
Acknowledgements
The essays in this volume were first presented at the 15th International
Conference of the Friedrich Nietzsche Society of Great Britain and Ireland,
held at Peterhouse, Cambridge, in September 2005. I wish to take this op-
portunity to thank delegates and all those who participated in this event for
the debates and critical discussions that shaped the research presented here.
I would further like to thank the Faculty of Philosophy and the De-
partment of German at Cambridge for providing generous financial sup-
port. I am much indebted to Raymond Geuss, Simon Blackburn, Margaret
Clare Ryan, and the Executive Committee of the Friedrich Nietzsche Soci-
ety for their advice during the various stages of the editing of this volume.
Two of the contributions in this book are either drawn from or have
appeared in full elsewhere, and this material appears with permission and
my thanks. Raymond Geuss’ article was previously published in his collec-
tion of essays Outside Ethics (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
2005). It is reprinted here with permission of Princeton University Press.
Lawrence J. Hatab’s article is drawn in parts from the text of his book
Nietzsche’s Life Sentence: Coming to Terms with Eternal Recurrence
(New York: Routledge University Press, 2005). I thank Routledge for per-
mission to publish the essay.
The four excerpts of printed music of Wagner, Bizet, and Stravinsky in
Jonathan R. Cohen’s essay appear here with permission of Dover Publi-
shing, Chester Music Limited (Music Sales) and Schott Music GmbH &
Co. KG. Every effort has been made to trace and contact copyright holders.
If there are any inadvertent omissions I apologize to those concerned and
undertake to include suitable acknowledgements in future editions.
Finally, I would like to thank Walter de Gruyter Publishers for taking
on this volume, Gertrud Grünkorn, Christoph Schirmer, and Jana Pokorny
for their patient support, and Angela Blackburn for copyediting the final
manuscript.
Contents
Notes on Contributors XI
Abbreviations and Translations XIII
Nietzsche’s Critique of Staticism

Introduction to Nietzsche on Time and History 1
Manuel Dries
Part I: Time, History, Method
Nietzsche’s Cultural Criticism and his Historical Methodology 23

Andrea Orsucci
Thucydides, Nietzsche, and Williams 35
Raymond Geuss
The Late Nietzsche’s Fundamental Critique
of Historical Scholarship 51
Thomas H. Brobjer
Part II: Genealogy, Time, Becoming
Nietzsche’s Timely Genealogy: An Exercise in Anti-Reductionist

Naturalism 63
Tinneke Beeckman
From Kantian Temporality to Nietzschean Naturalism 75
R. Kevin Hill
Nietzsche’s Problem of the Past 87
John Richardson
Towards Adualism: Becoming and Nihilism in Nietzsche’s
Philosophy 113
Manuel Dries
Part III: Eternal Recurrence, Meaning, Agency
Shocking Time: Reading Eternal Recurrence Literally 149

Lawrence J. Hatab
Suicide, Meaning, and Redemption 163
Paul S. Loeb
Nietzsche and the Temporality of (Self-)Legislation 191
Herman W. Siemens
X
Part IV: Nietzsche’s Contemporaries
Geschichte or Historie? Nietzsche’s Second Untimely Meditation

in the Context of Nineteenth-Century Philological Studies 213
Anthony K. Jensen
‘An Uncanny Re-Awakening’: Nietzsche’s Renascence of the
Renaissance out of the Spirit of Jacob Burckhardt 231
Martin A. Ruehl
Part V: Tragic and Musical Time
Metaphysical and Historical Claims in The Birth of Tragedy 275

Katherine Harloe
Nietzsche’s Musical Conception of Time 291
Jonathan R. Cohen
Index rerum et nominum 309

Notes on Contributors
TINNEKE BEECKMAN is postdoctoral researcher for the Fund of Scientific
Research, Flanders. She works for the Department of Philosophy, Uni-
versity of Brussels, Belgium.
THOMAS H. BROBJER is Associate Professor in the Department of the His-
tory of Science and Ideas at Uppsala University, Sweden.
JONATHAN R. COHEN is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Maine
in Farmington, USA.
MANUEL DRIES is Research Fellow at Wolfson College and the Faculty of
Philosophy, University of Oxford, UK.
RAYMOND GEUSS is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Cam-
bridge, UK.
KATHERINE C. HARLOE is a Career Development Fellow in Classics at St.
Anne’s College, University of Oxford, UK.
LAWRENCE J. HATAB is Louis I. Jaffe Professor of Philosophy at Old Do-
minion University, Virginia, USA.
R. KEVIN HILL is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Portland State Uni-
versity, USA.
ANTHONY K. JENSEN is a Visiting Assistant Professor in the De-
partment of Philosophy at Xavier University in Cincinnati,
Ohio, USA.
PAUL S. LOEB is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Puget Sound,
USA.
ANDREA ORSUCCI is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Cagliari,
Italy.
JOHN RICHARDSON is Professor of Philosophy at New York University,
USA.
MARTIN A. RUEHL is University Lecturer of German at Sidney Sussex
College, University of Cambridge, UK.
HERMAN SIEMENS is University Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of
Leiden, The Netherlands.
Abbreviations and Translations
Friedrich Nietzsche’s published and unpublished writings (Nachlaß) are
quoted according to the following abbreviations:
A The Anti-Christ, cited by section number.

AOM ‘Assorted Opinions and Maxims’ (vol. 2, pt 1, of Human, All Too
Human), cited by section number.
BAW Historisch-kritische Gesamtausgabe. Werke, ed. Hans Joachim
Mette, 5 vols. (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1933–1940), cited by volume
and page number.
BAB Historisch-kritische Gesamtausgabe. Briefe, ed. Hans Joachim
Mette, 4 vols. (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1933–1940), cited by volume
and page number.
BGE Beyond Good and Evil, cited by section number.
BT The Birth of Tragedy, cited by section number and KSA page
number.
CV ‘Five Prologues to Five Unwritten Books’, cited by number and
KSA page number.
CW The Case of Wagner, cited by section number.
D Daybreak, cited by section number.
EH Ecce Homo, cited by section heading and (when applicable) num-
ber.
EI ‘On the Future of Our Educational Institutions’, cited by section
number.
GM On the Genealogy of Morality, cited by essay and section number.
GS The Gay Science, cited by section number.
HA Human, All Too Human, cited by volume and section number.
CV ‘Five Prefaces to Five Unwritten Books’, cited by preface number
and KSA page number.
KGB Briefwechsel. Kritische Gesamtausgabe, ed. Giorgio Colli and
Mazzino Montinari (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1975–), cited by
volume and page number.
KGW Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe, established by Giorgio Colli and
Mazzino Montinari, ed. Wolfgang Müller-Lauter and Karl
Pestalozzi (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1967–), cited by volume,
part, and page number.
XIV
KSA Sämtliche Werke. Kritische Studienausgabe, ed. Giorgio Colli and

Mazzino Montinari (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1967–), cited by
volume and page number. The Nachlaß is cited by date, KSA vol-
ume, notebook section, and fragment number.
KSB Sämtliche Briefe. Kritische Studienausgabe Briefe, ed. Giorgio
Colli and Mazzino Montinari (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1986–),
cited by volume and page number.
NCW Nietzsche contra Wagner, cited by section heading.
OTL ‘On Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense’, cited by KSA page
number.
PTAG ‘Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks’, cited by section
number.
TI Twilight of the Idols, cited by section heading and number.
UM Untimely Meditations, cited by part and section number, and
(when applicable) KSA page number.
Z Thus Spoke Zarathustra, cited by part, section heading, and (when
applicable) number.
Note on Translations of Nietzsche’s Works
The contributors to this volume have used different translations of Nietz-

sche’s texts, often modified by the individual contributor. At the end of
each essay the reader will find a list of the translations used. Where no
such list has been provided the contributor has relied exclusively on his or
her own translations. All translations from Nietzsche’s Nachlaß are usually
by the individual contributors, although other translations have been con-
sulted whenever possible, notably The Will to Power, trans. Walter Kauf-
mann and R. J. Hollingdale (New York: Random House, 1967), and Writ-
ings from the Late Notebooks, ed. Rüdiger Bittner, trans. Kate Sturge
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
Nietzsche’s Critique of Staticism
Introduction to Nietzsche on Time and History
Manuel Dries
Motion must first disappear, i.e. lead to a static effect before it appears to our feel-
ing. Feeling is the sign of a motion that has been made statically perceptible, i.e. a
contained and annihilated motion. (Nachlaß Summer 1875, KSA 8, 9[1])
Every thing is a sum of judgements (fears, hopes, some inspire confidence, others
do not). Now, the better we know physics the less phantasmal this sum of judge-
ments becomes ... Finally we understand: a thing is a sum of excitations within us:
however, since we are nothing fixed [Festes] a thing is also not a fixed sum. And
the more stability we attribute to things, – – – (Nachlaß Spring 1880–Spring 1881,
KSA 9, 10[F100])
If there is no goal in the whole of history of man’s lot, then we must put one in: as-
suming, on the one hand, that we have need of a goal, and on the other that we’ve
come to see through the illusion of an immanent goal and purpose. (Nachlaß
Summer 1886–Spring 1887, KSA 12, 6[9])
Why are we still intrigued by Nietzsche? One might think of a number of

answers to this question: the variety of his interests, his entertaining and
accessible style, perhaps his aphoristic ambiguity that leaves so much more
work to the interpreter. I am not convinced that this suffices to explain the
sustained interest in Nietzsche’s philosophy. What I will argue in this
introduction is that this sustained interest stems from Nietzsche’s challenge
to what I will call the ‘staticism’ inherent in our ordinary experience. By
‘staticism’ I mean, roughly speaking and in general, the view that the
world is a collection of enduring, re-identifiable objects that change only
very gradually and according to determinate laws. The claim I wish to
make is simple: as long as human beings subscribe to the ‘staticist picture’
Nietzsche will remain of interest. Why is this so? In short: because ordi-
nary experience is ‘what is the case’ (for most of us) and it is also quite
clearly not the case. Should it turn out that staticism is a kind of anthropo-
logical constant that each generation of philosophers eventually has to face
critically then Nietzsche will remain of interest at least until someone else
provides a more comprehensive examination and critique of it.
What do I mean more precisely by the term ‘staticism’? The staticism
Nietzsche is already suspicious of very early on in writings such as On
2 Nietzsche’s Critique of Staticism
Becoming in History, and then questions almost obsessively in his later

works and notebooks, is usually a variant of the complex view comprised
of the conjunction of the following three propositions:
(i) The world is best conceived as a world of relatively easily distin-

guishable, property-instantiating objects that remain sufficiently
identical over time to be named, referred to and remembered.
(ii) The collection of objects called ‘the world’ is governed by laws
that are sufficiently determinate to prevent chaos from ensuing,
and to allow humans, objects with special properties, to make
some predictions about what will happen in the future.
(iii) The existence of this deterministic world of objects is somehow
compatible with the possibility of actual choice and voluntary ac-
tion.
I will call this the staticist worldview. Nietzsche’s emphasis on time and
history is usually both a critique of the staticist worldview and, less often
so, his attempt to develop an alternative worldview, an alternative that is,
however, not simply a negation of the staticist worldview. It is for this
reason that I wish to preface Nietzsche on Time and History with a few
remarks on Nietzsche’s critique of staticism.
I will first discuss Nietzsche’s rejection of the remnants of staticism in
Hegel and Schopenhauer (both of whom, he holds, remain fundamentally
opposed to the very existence of time and history proper). I will then
briefly outline why Nietzsche deems the belief in any variant of the stati-
cist picture as problematic. Finally, I will examine what I believe is Nietz-
sche’s adualistic-dialetheic stance towards the staticist worldview. In the
final section, I will comment on the different ways these issues are ad-
dressed in Nietzsche on Time and History.
Nietzsche’s Predecessors: Schopenhauer and Hegel
Nietzsche believed most if not all homines mensurae to be in thrall to the

staticist, ordinary standpoint. It is the way the world first seems or appears
to them. After a relatively short period of discipleship, Nietzsche realized
that Schopenhauer’s philosophy remained, despite its subversive meta-
physical and critical aspects, firmly embedded within a philosophical tradi-
tion that hypostatizes the atemporal, thereby tacitly supporting the staticist
picture. Schopenhauer distinguishes between a reality as it is in and for
itself, a metaphysical will that is not (still a common misconception) the
thing in itself but nevertheless ‘the nearest and clearest phenomenon of the
Manuel Dries 3
thing-in-itself’ (WWR II 18), and an illusory actuality of becoming that has

the ontological status of a problematic, mere appearance (Schein). Com-
mitment to a number of Kantian dualisms leads Schopenhauer to attack in
The World as Will and Representation any philosophy focussed on time
and history. Philosophy, he writes in ‘On history’
should not consider ... that which is always becoming and never is … On the
contrary, it should keep in view that which always is, and never becomes and
passes away ... The true philosophy of history consists in the insight that, in
spite of all these endless changes and their chaos and confusion, we yet always
have before us the same, identical, unchangeable essence, acting in the same
way today as it did yesterday and always. (Schopenhauer 1969, vol. 2, p. 444)
For Schopenhauer, then, accepting temporality, and its appearance for
human beings as history, as essential is fundamentally misguided. Nietz-
sche realized that such privileging of ideas devoid of change ultimately
leads to a non-Christian but equally world-negating pessimism: if philoso-
phy is supposed to contemplate that which is permanent and unchanging,
then the confrontation with impermanence poses a real problem. If that
which is permanent has added value, and binary thinking demands a neces-
sary choice or exclusive disjunction, it follows that the value of becoming
approaches zero. As Schopenhauer puts it in his ‘Additional Remarks on
the Doctrine of the Vanity of Existence’:
This vanity [of existence] finds its expression ... in constant becoming without
being; in constant desire without satisfaction ... Time is that by virtue whereof
at every moment all things in our hands come to naught and thereby lose all
true value. (Schopenhauer 1974, vol. 2, p. 283)
Nietzsche would ultimately reject Schopenhauer’s ‘chronophobic’ evalu-
ation of existence but primarily because it thereby tacitly supports the stati-
cist worldview.
The same holds, in Nietzsche’s evaluation, for Hegel. Hegel had drawn
attention to the concept of becoming (cf. GS 357) but did so within a
macro-teleological, systematic philosophy. ‘Becoming’ denotes not only
the original, restless-creative oscillation between determination and inde-
terminacy—being and nothing—that gets the micro-teleological dialectical
becoming under way, but more importantly the macro-teleological, neces-
sary autopoesis of a mind-like absolute substance. Nietzsche’s Hegel is the
optimistic (cf. DS 6, KSA 1, p. 191; also KSA 8, p. 56) panlogicist (UM II
8, KSA 1, p. 309) who imbues ‘the whole’ with meaning only by attribut-
ing to it an organic, macro-teleological, rational and thereby stable compo-
sition. In Untimely Meditation II Nietzsche cautions against such an un-
critical view of becoming since it still contains all the attributes of
necessary Sein, ‘being’—the staticist concept par excellence for Nietzsche:
If every success is in itself a rational necessity, if every event is the victory of

the logical or the ‘idea’ — then quickly down on your knees and hold in rever-
ence the entire stepladder of ‘successes’. (UM II 8, KSA 1, p. 309)
The Hegelian system both presupposes and culminates in the unsinnige
absolute Idea that ‘alone has Being, imperishable life, truth known to itself,
and is all truth ... since its essence is, the highest, the concept’ (Hegel
1969, vol 2., p. 549). Nietzsche therefore sees in Hegel’s philosophy the
‘bridge of lies back to old ideals’ and rejects Hegel’s problematic practice
of ‘mediating’ and ‘fusing’ (D Preface 4, KSA 3, p. 16). Hegel like Par-
menides desired to know the absolute by means of reflection, ‘“to grasp the
absolute within consciousness”’(PTAG 11, KSA 1, p. 847), and such at-
tempts, Nietzsche is convinced, expose the tacit continuation of the staticist
worldview (cf. KSA 15, p. 77).
Nietzsche is convinced that his philosophical predecessors, and also
the natural sciences, had merely changed the appearance of the dominant
staticist paradigm of being. Yet behind the macro-teleological idea of be-
coming, the idea of will as quasi thing-in-itself, and the positivism and
objectivity of science, the belief in permanence as highest value remained
unquestioned.
From whence this chronophobia and hysterical overvaluation of being?
Nietzsche’s writings are littered with attempts to provide ever new explan-
ations of this phenomenon. Unfortunately, this part of Nietzsche’s work is
not often discussed in the exisiting literature. I believe, however, that it is
of great importance because it allows us to see that Nietzsche holds a kind
of error theory about staticism.
Against the Rejection of Time: Nietzsche’s Error Theory
In note 9[60] of autumn 1887 Nietzsche presents a mini-genealogy of the

idea of being that can be seen as paradigmatic for his belief in the primacy
of becoming; at the same time this genealogy explains why humans cling
so desperately to the idea of unchanging being. He wishes to subject to a
genealogical critique both the concept of reality and the positive valuation
of being. This genealogy in nuce starts with an instruction important for his
overall idea of the genealogical method, that of Selbstbesinnung:
‘Uncanny self-reflection/auto-sensitization [Selbstbesinnung]: not as indi-
vidual but becoming conscious of oneself as human species. L e t u s c o m e
t o o u r s e n s e s [besinnen], l e t u s t h i n k b a c k w a r d : l e t u s w a l k t h e
s h o r t a n d t h e l o n g p a t h s ’ (Nachlaß Autumn 1887, KSA 12, 9[60])
Genealogy as a method or tool is not only a (sich) besinnen in the sense of
‘contemplating’ or ‘reflecting upon’, for example, the historicity of a value,
Manuel Dries 5
but also always a (sich) besinnen in the literal sense, i.e., a ‘returning to the
senses’, and thereby a returning and coming ‘to one’s senses’. It is worth
quoting this genealogy of being in full:
Man is searching for ‘the truth’: a world that does not contradict itself, does
not deceive, does not change, a t r u e world — a world, in which one does not
suffer: contradiction, illusion, transistoriness — causes of suffering! He does
not doubt, that such a world, as it ought to be, exists; he wants to find his way
to it. …
Whence does man take the concept of r e a l i t y ? —
Why is it that man deduces s u f f e r i n g precisely from change, illusion,
contradiction? And why not more so his happiness? ... —
The contempt, the hatred of all that passes away, changes, transforms: —
whence this valuation of the permanent?
What is obvious here is the will to truth, just the desire for a w o r l d o f p e r -
manence.
The senses deceive, rationality corrects the errors: c o n s e q u e n t l y , one in-
ferred, that reason is the path to the permanent; the most n o n - s e n s o r y
[unsinnlichsten] ideas must be closest to the ‘true world’. — Most misfortunes
come from the senses — they are fraudsters, beguilers, annihilators:
H a p p i n e s s is only warranted in what has being [im Seienden]: change and
happiness are mutually exclusive. The greatest desire aims at a becoming one
with being. This is the s t r a n g e path to the highest form of happiness.
In sum: the world, as it o u g h t to be, exists; this world, the one we live in, is
only error, — this our world ought n o t to exist.
T h e b e l i e f i n b e i n g turns out to be just <as> a consequence: the real
primum mobile is the unbelief in becoming, the mistrust against becoming, the
contempt for all becoming… (Nachlaß Autumn 1887, KSA 12, 9[60])
Nietzsche questions how human beings arrived at their belief in being and
came to understand suffering as the consequence of ‘change’, ‘illusion’ and
‘contradiction’. Why not equate change with happiness? At the core of this
equation lies what I wish to call Nietzsche’s error theory regarding stati-
cism. It can be summarized as follows:
(i) ordinary human discourse is ineliminably committed to the

staticist worldview (semantic thesis);
(ii) there are no relatively easily distinguishable, property-
instantiating entities and objects (ontological thesis);
(iii) it follows that our ordinary natural attitude is false.
In addition to what can be called the semantic thesis (i) and the ontological
thesis (ii) Nietzsche also offers an explanatory thesis:
(iv) human beings hold the staticist worldview because it allows

them to reduce uncertainty, thereby alleviating suffering.
The explanatory step can be unpacked as follows: perceiving something as

something involves a transformation that is error-prone. Since humans use
their rational capacities to correct some of these initial errors, rationality
seems the one and only remedy against the ills and contradictions of the
senses. In our attempts to overcome the impractical unreliability of sense-
impressions once and for all, ‘non-sensory’ ideas—for Nietzsche, entirely
non-sensory (unsinnlich) amounts to nonsense (Unsinn)—are gradually
regarded as closest to what is simple, true, and predictable, thereby creat-
ing a less painful environment. It is here that becoming and happiness can
no longer coexist, so that they have become einverleibt or ‘incorporated’
(GS 1, KSA 3, p. 370) as mutually exclusive spheres, and static being
comes to be the highest value (and Nietzsche really means incorporated:
our species has adapted most successfully by organizing its world, thereby
keeping uncertainty and pain at a minimum).
Note 9[60] shows that for Nietzsche this turn against the senses has
two consequences that amount to two ‘incorporated’ commitments—one
ontological, one ethical: the tacit ontological commitment entails that the
world as it ought to exist, the staticist world, really exists (‘die Welt, wie
sie sein sollte, existiert’); and tacit ethical commitment, in turn, entails that
the world of becoming therefore ought not to exist (‘diese unsere Welt
sollte nicht existieren’).
This positive valuation of being leads to the strong belief in the exist-
ence of being and to the search for truth in a rational, abstract, measuring
manner. Nietzsche concludes note 9[60] by restating this argument: the
valuation of being arises as a consequence of the initial ‘disdain for becom-
ing’ (ibid.).
Read as a genealogy in nuce this line of argument is therefore at the
same time a reflection on the valuation of being, a rehabilitation of the
senses, and thereby a sobering experience of ‘coming to one’s senses’. It is
this argument that underpins Nietzsche’s basic assumptions and accounts
for both his own biased ontological commitment (that which really exists
is better understood as Werden) and his concomitant ethical commitment:
the world of any permanent Sein should therefore not exist—at least not
within the same logical exclusive-disjunctive relation to becoming. But
why is staticism so vicious?
Manuel Dries 7
Staticism and Nihilism
First, Nietzsche acknowledges that staticism and the Judeo-Christian mo-

rality it underpins has had real benefits as a successful defence against the
earliest form of nihilism induced by fear and uncertainty. Nevertheless, he
is adamant that ‘the f e a r became less’ (Nachlaß Spring–Autumn 1881,
KSA 9, 11[26]) and that ‘life is no longer so uncertain, accidental, chaotic
in our Europe’ (Nachlaß Summer 1886–Autumn 1887, KSA 12, 5[71]) and
the level of strength which human beings have attained ‘allows for a lower-
ing of the means of taming’ contingency. ‘“God”’ or stable being as the
ultimate guarantor of staticism ‘is now a hypothesis much too extreme’
(Nachlaß Summer 1886–Autumn 1887, KSA 12, 5[71]). And staticism, if
not also ‘lowered’ and adapted to the current, lower level of uncertainty
will now lead to a new type of nihilism. Why? It supports not just one pe-
culiar valuation and meta-belief but rather an entire system of related valu-
ations, lower-level beliefs—a two-world metaphysics (both a false ontol-
ogy of what-there-is and a questionable epistemology of what we can
know) within which permanence is valued highest. With such a web of
beliefs in place, any value of the non-permanent is merely due to a kind of
‘retension’ of or ‘protension’ to some permanent state or realm, be that
ontological or theoretic-epistemological, or ethical. The staticist viewpoint
demands a revision (Nietzsche’s early idea of a time-atom theory can be
seen as an early attempt. Eternal recurrence is his late conception).
More correctly: the value of the non-static needs to be changed and for
the first time taken seriously. Since logic and ontology in Nietzsche’s view
sprang from and subsequently confirmed and upheld the staticist error,
traditional logic—and Nietzsche’s attack on logic is always only an attack
on traditional Aristotelian logic—can no longer be the tool to deliver reli-
able guidance. New frameworks and methodologies are needed within
which philosophy can continue its interpretive-descriptive enterprise and
avoid the trappings of the previous, nihilistic framework. If logic had been
the science that derives certain and reliable truths from timeless laws, then
a philosophy that wishes to undercut the staticist picture can no longer rely
on it in the same way. It is here that history as genealogy becomes one of
the new ‘chronophile’ investigative methods:
Philosophy in the only way I still allow it to stand, as the most general form of
history, as an attempt somehow to describe Heraclitean becoming and to
abbreviate it into signs (so to speak, to translate and mummify it into a kind of
illusory being) (Nachlaß June–July 1885, KSA 11, 36[27])
But history, too, can be practised as—and is in danger of being—an ancilla
metaphysica, in thrall to staticism, describing the same hyperstable world
as that projected in traditional metaphysics. Philosophy as history proper
that takes the temporal disposition of the whole with its several simulta-
neous temporal-perspectival dimensions seriously must then create a very
different, revised historical-philosophical approach, self-reflexively aware
of the staticist fallacy. It, too, must incorporate an awareness of the latter.
The contributions in Nietzsche on Time and History deal with the impact
and importance of history for philosophy and the need gradually to unlearn
the natural staticist standpoint.
However, and this is crucial and complicates matters considerably,
Nietzsche’s advice is not simply to do away with the staticist pictures.
The Staticist Picture: Nietzsche’s Staticist Fictionalism?
In addition to Nietzsche’s ‘argument from anxiety’ he repeatedly argues

that the staticist picture stems from our Cartesian failure to conceive of
ourselves as some kind of distinct, metaphysical, underlying substances or
‘soul atoms’ (Nachlaß June–July 1885, KSA 11, 37[4]) and that everything
else, our world of subjects, objects, and causal relations, then simply fol-
low:
What separates me most deeply from metaphysicians is: I don’t concede that
the ‘I’ is what thinks. Instead, I take the I i t s e l f t o b e a c o n s t r u c t i o n o f
t h i n k i n g , of the same rank as ‘matter’, ‘thing’, ‘substance’, ‘individual’,
‘purpose’, ‘number’: in other words to be only a r e g u l a t i v e f i c t i o n with
the help of which a kind of constancy and ‘knowability’ is inserted into, i n -
v e n t e d i n t o , a world of becoming. (Nachlaß May–June 1885, KSA 11,
35[35])
Most of the so-called Continental interpretations of Nietzsche have fo-
cused—too much, in my view—on this critique of the self. Why too much?
The well-known fragment contains an important qualification, a second
premise if you will (provided we interpret Nietzsche’s texts as arguments
consisting of a number of explicit and implicit premises and assumptions).
Nietzsche clearly insists at the end of 35[35] that the staticist picture and
the self, though false, cannot be abandoned:
However habituated and indispensable this fiction may now be, that in no way
disproves its having been invented: something can be a condition of life and
n e v e r t h e l e s s b e f a l s e . (Nachlaß Autumn 1884–Autumn 1885, KSA 11,
35[35])
It is here that we encounter a seemingly contradictory inconsistency that
has been vexing commentators. Nietzsche’s texts are littered with polemic
reversals, on the one hand, and reversals of those reversals, on the other:
the static picture is false (assuming that it contains belief in x, y, z,); and
the static picture is an anthropological constant, a necessary condition of
Manuel Dries 9
life. Any interpretation that is not in hermeneutic denial needs to account

for both. If we, then, allow for the further assumption—and there is plenty
of textual evidence that we should—that ‘life’ (in the above passage) is for
Nietzsche a phenomenon of very high value, and if the static picture is a
necessary condition of ‘life’; and ‘life’ is of high, if not the highest, value,
it follows that the staticist picture cannot simply be false per se.
One might argue then that Nietzsche is really a fictionalist about stati-
cism: according to which staticism is false and yet human beings are com-
mitted to it for adaptive-pragmatic purposes. I do not believe that Nietz-
sche’s analysis ends here; he demands something more than a quasi-
staticism. Nietzsche is always aware of the dangers of such pragmatic-
adaptive acceptance. The danger is that too much remains in place, too
much remains acceptable, and that new variants of nihilism come in
through the back door. Therefore, Nietzsche’s critique of staticism as well
as its rehabilitation (as necessary for life) needs to be re-situated rather
than replaced. In European philosophy, there has been a tendency to negate
logic too quickly without realizing that it is the very same logic of mutu-
ally exclusive alternatives which is still tacitly at work in its own abolition.
There are good grounds for a different logical framework. For want of
better terms I will call this Nietzsche’s adualistic-dialetheic framework.
Dialetheism, from Greek ‘diplo-aletheia’ or two-way truth, allows for true
contradictions and can therefore cope better with ‘transition states’, border-
line cases, and vague predicates.
The Dialetheic Status of Staticism
We are left in a state of tension: staticism is the case and is not the case.
Immediately, most will argue that this is only superficially so: staticism
might be, for example, false from a third-person, scientific point of view,
and yet psychologically true from a first-person perspective. Think of Hu-
man, All Too Human where Nietzsche argues that although water has cer-
tain chemical properties, this is hardly what concerns the sailor in distress
(HA I 9). Again others might say that staticism is indeed false tout court,
that there are only fields composed of whatever ‘ultimates’ are assumed by
our best scientific theories, and that the world as it is to us is merely epi-
phenomenal and in theory reducible to the best description our physics has
to offer. But Nietzsche is clear that both worlds are (1) the same world, and
(2) of equal importance; they are to be taken seriously both together and in
opposition to each other. Neither ought to assume exclusively priority. A
mutually exclusive opposition ‘is after all only the contradiction [Gegen-
satz] typical for human beings’ (Nachlaß Spring–Autumn 1881, KSA 9,

11[281]).
It is exactly this Heraclitean, deconstructive (if properly understood,
see, e.g., Wheeler III 2000; Nancy 2000; Gemes 2001; Waldenfels 2002),
adualistic-dialetheic tension that requires a rationality that can do more
than simply either abandon staticism or subscribe to it fully in a quasi-
staticist way. As is well-known, Graham Priest has, for example, argued
for a logic opposed to the law of non-contradiction (see Priest 1995). In
order to get into a different (logical) ‘frame of mind’, in order to arrange
one’s beliefs in a different, appropriate logical field (something which is
not always appropriate), Nietzsche sometimes uses a certain dialetheic
technique which allows him to express, I wish to argue, perspectival
asymmetries as well as perspectival simultaneity of the above kind, be-
tween a first person ‘experiential’ perspective and third person ‘descrip-
tive’ perspective. Both valid and necessary: any attempt to reduce the mat-
ter at hand to either the one or the other or to a mediating third term is
conceived as unacceptably reductive. Brian Leiter’s enlightening work on
Nietzsche’s critique of free will (Knobe/Leiter 2007; Leiter 2007) credits
Nietzsche with the polemic reversal of the Cartesian error of granting abso-
lute priority to the first-person perspective. Like most work that has been
done on (not only Nietzsche’s) philosophy of mind, Leiter shies away from
trying to provide the more complex theoretical framework needed for an
interpretation of consciousness and agency (not only in Nietzsche). Such a
framework is already emerging within contemporary philosophy of mind
though perhaps not yet in cognitive science and empirical psychology (see,
e.g., McGinn 2004, Gray 2004, Abel 2004, Rockwell 2005, Free-
man/Strawson 2006, Thompson 2007, and Cosmelli et al. 2007). Nietz-
sche’s tensional asymmetries are by no means trivial. They cannot be done
away with, Nietzsche held, precisely because reality is not simple but is
perspectival, constituted by these oppositions (see, e.g., Hatab 2008, p.
149; Reginster 2007).
Let us return to the explanatory step (4) one more time: it is certainly
true that at times Nietzsche argues from an evolutionary point of view. The
application of the law of non-contradiction, for example as an incorporated
regulative rule, had a certain adaptive value. Existence demanded a com-
plex matrix of choices within an environment that is itself not simply
‘given’ (as we know today also from Sellars and Quine) but also in part
constituted and altered by practical and theoretical choices. Had the evolv-
ing organism failed to make a great number of either-or choices, it might
simply have vanished. Whereas every regulative, seemingly constant ‘fic-
tion’ or, better, ‘practical belief’ has its history (to be studied genealogi-
cally) and its time (when it is first selected), subject to changing condi-
Manuel Dries 11
tions, some regulative fictions and ‘habituated practices’ might no longer

stand the test of time. This ‘test of time’ will have to be properly examined
and will amount to a test based on criteria such as practice or belief x is or
is no longer necessary if it is either ‘for’ or ‘against’ life. And we might
indeed be able to abandon some beliefs and replace them with ones better
suited to our current form of life and its requirements.
I don’t see any textual evidence that Nietzsche ever envisaged human
beings as fit to abandon the staticist worldview. Again, as an analogy one
might think again of the concept ‘mental state’ as it figures (i) within neu-
roscience and (ii) as a first-person, qualitative experience, i.e. the descrip-
tion of the C-fibres firing in the brain and the pain I am experiencing. We
do not believe that all that is going on is the quale; rather we believe that
there is a wealth of neurobiological, unconscious processes that we can
even make visible. Despite all this, it will remain necessary to retain the
qualitative, first-person state. We need, for example, a ‘nondualist’ (Rock-
well 2005) or ‘equal-status fundamental-duality monistic’ framework
(Strawson 2006, p. 241) that allows us to acknowledge that both descrip-
tions somehow refer to, aim to describe the same ‘mind-brain-world state’
from a different perspective. Nietzsche believes, and I think he is right, that
bringing such perspectives or interpretations or language games together
within an adualistic-dialetheic framework does not leave things simply as
they are (not in matters of the mind, knowledge, (meta)physics or politics).
These perspectives enter into a relationship that will from now on change
reality. We have good grounds to assume that consciousness as a qualita-
tive, experiential state is also a neurobiological event, and yet the neuro-
biological event must account for much more than C-fibres in a state of
electric excitation, namely their phenomenological ‘experiential’ features.
The adualistic-dialetheic framework allows one to describe the necessary
tension opened up in a field structured around combining the unity-
asserting both-and and the difference-preserving neither-nor. Staticism
might both ‘be the case’ (from and for a first person perspective) and ‘not
be the case’ (from and for a third person perspective) and, yet, is reducible
to neither one or the other. This has all been said before, in both anglo-
analytic and continental traditions, but whenever something goes against
beliefs held deeply or practices carried out mainly unconsciously, it is ne-
cessary to repeat it, rephrasing it continually until it finally sinks in.
This may perhaps be seen as a step too far. Staticism is false, as we
saw following Nietzsche’s argument, as it leads to nihilism. Nietzsche was
much better at criticizing false views than at constructing theories. His
focus on history and his rehabilitation of time is first and foremost con-
cerned—and so are the fourteen essays of Nietzsche on Time and His-
tory—with the proof that staticism about persons, objects, entities such as
nations, the law, truth, or the linear future of time and history itself is false.
And yet, most contributions reach a point when a different conception is
called for. Rather than summarizing the essays of Nietzsche on Time and
History I will simply point towards these points of transition.
Nietzsche on Time and History falls in five parts: ‘Time, History, Method’;
‘Genealogy, Time, Becoming’; ‘Eternal Recurrence, Meaning, Agency’;
‘Nietzsche’s Contemporaries’; and ‘Tragic and Musical Time’.
Part one opens with an essay by Andrea Orsucci on ‘Nietzsche’s Cul-
tural Criticism and his Historical Methodology’. Orsucci examines Nietz-
sche’s treatments of ancient Greek civilization and primitive Christianity
and traces Nietzsche’s claims to his readings of, and critical engagements
with, contemporary texts. It is the historical phenomena themselves that,
according to Orsucci, Nietzsche’s methods reveal as consisting of a com-
plex simultaneity of temporal and historical layers, ‘consistently concerned
to identify and theorize the coexistence and mixing of very different tradi-
tions, cultures, and ways of thinking in any particular historical phenom-
enon’ (Orsucci 2008, p. 12).
In ‘Thucydides, Nietzsche, and Williams’, Raymond Geuss analyses
Nietzsche’s preference for Thucydides over Plato. The reasons for Nietz-
sche’s non-traditional preference are, first, that Thucydides portrayed hu-
man beings and their motivations in a non-moralizing way, and second,
that he was opposed to the rationalistic, Platonic optimism symptomatic of
two millennia of systematic philosophy. Between poetry on the one hand,
and philosophy on the other, the bi-partite structure Nietzssche follows in
the Birth of Tragedy, Thucydidean Wissenschaftlichkeit [scientific-
mindedness]—‘radically non-mythic, non-theological, and non-literary’—
appears as a third possibility that informs Nietzsche’s own interests not in
the past per se but in dissecting ‘those forms of collective human behaviour
that are recurrent and thus comprehensible’ (Geuss 2008, p. 43). In the late
1870s and early 1880s Nietzsche’s notebooks indicate the importance he
attributed to the ‘strand of realist and empiricist thinking that Thucydides
represents, and of seeing the demise of tragedy and of Thucydidean “en-
quiry” synoptically’ (ibid., p. 46). It is the rejection of both optimism and
pessimism, against the mutually exclusive alternatives ‘to think either that
these items [rationality, individual happiness, natural human development,
socially desirable action] are set up so as to cohere, or that they are ‘by
nature’ ineluctably fated to conflict in an unresolvable way—the refusal to
be either an old-style philosophical optimist or a dogmatic pessimist’—that
Manuel Dries 13
Geuss finds at the heart of Nietzsche’s fascination with Thucydides and

Nietzsche’s idea of the music-making Socrates: ‘when Nietzsche wrote that
“the Hellene was neither an optimist nor a pessimist” (Nachlaß Winter
1869/70–Spring 1870, KSA 7, 3[62]), this is what I assume he meant, and
no Hellene could illustrate this more exactly than Thucydides’ (ibid., p.
48).
Thomas Brobjer’s ‘The Late Nietzsche’s Fundamental Critique of His-
torical Scholarship’ focuses on the third essay of the Genealogy in which
Nietzsche explicitly attacks the value of purely historical scholarship.
Brobjer argues that the late Nietzsche’s main objection to history as a sci-
ence was not methodological but rather ‘that history was placed above
philosophy—that history and historical scholarship were seen as a goal or
an end in itself rather than as a means’ (Brobjer 2008, p. 52). Only once
historical scholarship lives up to the demand for the philosophical creation
of values does it find its proper justification.
Part twp of Nietzsche on Time and History opens with Tinneke
Beeckman’s essay on ‘Nietzsche’s Timely Genealogy: An Exercise in
Anti-Reductionist Naturalism’. Beeckman revisits the link between Nietz-
sche’s genealogical method and his Lamarck and Darwin inspired natu-
ralism. The reactive, associated by Beeckman with Nietzsche’s Darwin,
and the active, associated with Lamarck, need to be considered side by side
in order to appreciate Nietzsche’s non-reductive naturalism: ‘Adaptation is
not active, but reactive. Nietzsche emphasizes Spencer’s fatal mistake: to
see life itself as an inner adaptation to external circumstances’ (Beeckman
2008, p. 72).
According to Kevin Hill’s ‘From Kantian Temporality to Nietzschen
Naturalism’ it is central to any understanding of Nietzsche’s view of time
that Nietzsche struggled precisely with the idea that ‘space and time … are
mind-dependent in the sense that Kant and Schopenhauer intended, while
also maintaining that the mind is itself something that occurs within nature,
as Schopenhauer had maintained’ (Hill 2008, p. 75). While the early Nietz-
sche had tried to resolve this matter by attributing time and space to a pri-
mordial intellect that ‘produces space and time and by that produces the
brain’ (ibid., p. 76), the later Nietzsche arrives at a notion of naturalism
that ‘reinterprets things as complexes of power relations in which observ-
ers are always involved; he does not reduce things to sums of episodes
within subjects’ (ibid., p. 84).
John Richardson’s examination of ‘Nietzsche’s Problem of the Past’
sets itself the task of resolving the tension that lies in the fact that for
Nietzsche the past is far too important to be ignored, but attention to it
turns out to be harmful. The past is important for the simple reason that
‘what one is’ is what one has been selected (in an evolutionary sense) to
be. The past ‘has a kind of “presence” in us, constituting us now as who we
are, determining the meaning of what we now do’ (Richardson 2008, p.
91). Central to our understanding of the presence of the past in the present
is Richardson’s understanding of power wills that have been selected and
structure us who ‘express the aims of these wills, which carry their inten-
tions ahead into us’ (ibid., p. 91). Nietzsche’s genealogical method is there-
fore a technique to become aware of the proto-intentional ‘wills’, to expose
the social formation of values, and in a retrospective stance to bring into
view ‘the forces that really aimed the rules and values to which I commit
myself’ (ibid., p. 107). By ‘cutting-into’ our lives of desiring, willing, valu-
ing etc. we are always in danger of falling into an alienating form of nihil-
ism, and yet, Richardson argues that genealogy enables us to ‘judge those
designed-in purposes of our ways of thinking and acting—and decide
whether we favour those purposes’ (ibid., p. 108).
In the final paper of part two, ‘Towards Adualism: Becoming and
Nihilism in Nietzsche’s Philosophy’, I examine the relationship that holds
between the concepts of ‘being’ and ‘becoming’ in Nietzsche’s philosophy.
I argue that Nietzsche’s emphasis on ‘becoming’ is motivated by the ano-
maly of nihilism that is best explained as ‘a function of the belief in being’
(Dries 2008, p. 114). Nietzsche’s philosophical agenda, his attempt to pro-
vide a ‘counter-force’ to nihilism, should be regarded as the reason for the
initial, seemingly radical nature of his affirmation of becoming, which at
first sight reintroduces a dualism between becoming and language, reca-
pitulating the nihilism it had aimed to circumvent (ibid., p. 120). I argue
that Nietzsche’s ontology of becoming as will-to-power relations should be
seen instead as a less radical presentation of becoming. Aiming at a non-
reductive, adualistic practice of thought, he accounts for both the relative
permanence of ‘relations’, ‘entities’ and ‘objects’ and their constantly
changing, temporal complexity.
Part three of Nietzsche on Time and History is concerned with Nietz-
sche’s attempt to describe the temporal disposition of the world as eternal
recurrence and what this demands of the human being.
In ‘Shocking Time: Reading Eternal Recurrence Literally’ Lawrence
Hatab argues that although Nietzsche did not present eternal recurrence as
a cosmological theory or a scientific fact, it nevertheless must be taken
literally, that ‘a certain extra-psychological literality would better fit the
world-disclosive and “revelatory” spirit of Nietzsche’s accounts of eternal
recurrence’ (Hatab 2008, p. 148). In order to deal with the question of
meaning that has hitherto blocked, in Nietzsche’s view, the possibility of
affirming life in its finite, temporal disposition as will to power, eternal
recurrence emerges as ‘Nietzsche’s formula for “redemption” of time and
becoming’ (ibid., p. 150). Against nihilistic alternative models of time—
Manuel Dries 15
Hatab identifies six: positivistic, salvational, teleological, cyclical, pessi-

mistic, and novelistic— ‘eternal recurrence comes forth as the only con-
ceivable temporal model that does not fall prey to a fugitive gaze away
from life as lived’ (ibid., p. 154).
Paul S. Loeb approaches Nietzsche’s eternal recurrence through an
examination of Camus’s Sisyphus and suicide. According to Loeb, stan-
dard readings of eternal recurrence, Nietzsche’s counter-ideal to the ascetic
ideal, tend to emphasize the doctrine’s supposed ability to bring about a
reversal from the ascetic to the affirmative. Loeb argues that standard in-
terpretations (such as Nehamas) overlook that on Nietzsche’s own prem-
ises, affirmation, for example by reinterpreting one’s past in view of one’s
present state, turns out to be impossible as it, in Loeb’s view, leads to a
falsification of the past. ‘But the thought of eternal recurrence closes off all
such escape and condemns the human animal to eternal meaninglessness’
(Loeb 2008, p. 179). Nietzsche offers therefore a disconcerting counter
ideal that will force ‘the decadents give in to their dominant suicidal in-
stincts’ (ibid., p. 176), and only by ‘overcoming’ themselves come closest
to affirming life. Eternal recurrence ‘must oppose the ascetic ideal’s ability
to block the suicidal nihilism of degenerating life’ (ibid.). It might be asked
if Loeb relies on a notion of selfhood more static than is warranted. Based
on an exclusive disjunction between affirmation and asceticism that de-
mands, in Loeb’s view, the voluntary suicide of the decadent, he argues
that true life affirmation requires a cosmological understanding of eternal
recurrence, a truly superhuman ‘backward willing’. The latter ideas rely on
Loeb’s previous writings (see ibid., p. 182) to which I cannot do justice in
this introduction.
The last contribution of part three, Herman W. Siemens’ ‘Nietzsche
and the Temporality of (Self-)Legislation’ deals with a fundamental prob-
lem: how does one reconcile the need for a stable legislation that stands ‘in
radical contradiction with the pluralism and dynamism of life-as-
becoming’ (Siemens 2008, p. 189). Siemens interprets first Nietzsche’s
conception of self-legislation in ‘Schopenhauer as Educator’ as a specific
form of moral particularism coupled with an Emersonian notion of moral
perfectionism. Schopenhauer’s metaphysical solution is perceived as inad-
equate by Nietzsche as is Wagner’s attempted artistic unification. Both
Schopenhauer and Wagner, Siemens argues, fail ‘the test of pluralism re-
quired for a life-affirming form of legislation’ (ibid., p. 201). Siemens sets
out to show that a different, agonistic and pluralistic and yet communal
conception of self-legislation is to be found in the unpublished notes of the
Zarathustra period. Here, the law should not only be understood as always
only provisional and yet ‘responsive to diversity, a law for many, not a law
that subjects the many to One’ (ibid., p. 202), it also requires us to combine
an individual morality that ‘cannot … be achieved in isolation’ with a mo-

rality which is ‘inseparable from the task of founding the kind of ethical
community that makes it possible’ (ibid., p. 207).
The essays of Anthony K. Jensen and Martin A. Ruehl provide a de-
tailed account of Nietzsche’s relationship with contemporary philology, on
the one hand, and with Walter Burkhardt and the Renaissance on the other.
Jensen’s ‘Geschichte or Historie? Nietzsche’s Second Untimely Medi-
tation in the Context of Nineteenth-Century Philological Studies’ examines
the polarization in classical studies or Altertumswissenschaft into ‘Wort-
Philologie’, ‘approaching antiquity with the tools of textual emendation,
codices, and literary criticism’, and ‘Sach-Philologie’, often labelled as
‘“hermeneutical”, “antiquarian”, or “humanistic”’ philology (Jensen 2008,
p. 213). At first a follower of Ritchl who had tried to bridge both camps,
Nietzsche would ‘reject both traditions on the way to positing a third way
of his own’ (ibid., p. 216). Jensen’s analysis enables him to throw new
light on Wilamowitz’s rejection of The Birth of Tragedy. Nietzsche aims to
reveal the opposition between both ‘scholastic factions’ and life, depicts
them ‘as psychological types’ rather than as scholars with different meth-
odological preferences (ibid., p. 219). Nietzsche’s own, monumental his-
torical approach is modelled not on contemporary classicists but instead,
among others, on Goethe whose character combines ‘the healthiest aspects
of antiquity for the sake of reinvigorating culture’ (ibid., p. 224).
In ‘An Uncanny Re-Awakening’: Nietzsche’s Renascence of the Re-
naissance out of the Spirit of Jacob Burckhardt’ Martin A. Ruehl argues
that with the exception of Greek antiquity no historical epoch fascinated
Nietzsche more than the Italian Renaissance. In the 1870s, his study of the
Renaissance, ‘as a historical reference point and cultural ideal … allowed
him to question a set of values and notions that had determined his early
thought’ and ‘became a crystallization point, especially in the 1880s, for
Nietzsche’s most radically anti-humanist, anti-liberal ideas about tyranny
and individuality, war and culture, violence and health’ (Ruehl 2008, p.
229). Ruehl first discusses Burckhardt’s portrayal of the Civilization of the
Renaissance before tracing the various other sources of Nietzsche’s ‘Re-
naissancebild’ and his selective appropriation of these sources against
Wagner and Luther. It was the culture of the quattrocento, Ruehl argues,
that furnished Nietzsche with an answer to Schopenhauer’s pessimistic
‘philosophical deconstruction of the principium individuationis and led
him to rethink the significance of individual agency in history’ (ibid., pp.
243–244) and ultimately led to Nietzsche’s belief that only a few select
superior human beings could bring about a cultural renewal. According to
Ruehl’s reading, in contrast to Burckhardt, Nietzsche focuses exclusively
on the aristocratic elements of the Renaissance. Burckhardt had ‘allowed
Manuel Dries 17
for the growth of “individuality” and cultural productivity’ (ibid., pp. 250–
251), a republican alternative Nietzsche chose to ignore. Nietzsche’s Re-
naissance-inspired individualism stands of course side by side with his
ideal of an agonistic community.
The final two essays take a close look at Nietzsche’s Birth of Tragedy
and the importance of music for Nietzsche’s views on time. Against influ-
ential interpretations of the Birth of Tragedy by among others Nehamas, de
Man and Porter, Katherine Harloe argues for ‘the positive character of its
appropriation of Schopenhauer and Wagner’, challenging the idea that it
should be read primarily as a contribution to the major debate of post-
Kantian German philosophy, namely ‘that of the possibility of metaphys-
ics’ (Harloe 2008, p. 271). Harloe revisits the, in her view, simplified read-
ing that Nietzsche’s Dionysus–Apollo distinction mirrored Schopenhauer’s
own metaphysical distinctions and argues that it ‘rests upon an oversimpli-
fication of what “Schopenhauer” could have represented for Nietzsche at
the time’ (ibid., p. 272). In fact, Nietzsche uses and relies heavily on
Schopenhauer in his attack on Socratic optimism. Key passages often cited
as a radical critique of Schopenhauer stem in fact from Schopenhauer him-
self. This, Harloe remarks, ‘raises the possibility that The Birth of Tragedy
deploys Schopenhauer not in parodic fashion … to shatter all such illu-
sions, but rather as a means of developing them in a new and superior
form’ (ibid., p. 281). Nietzsche can be shown to construct a historical nar-
rative of the crisis of science and ‘casts Schopenhauer in a leading role’
(ibid., p. 282)
Finally, Jonathan R. Cohen analyses the importance of music for
‘Nietzsche’s Musical Conception of Time’. In a close reading of Nietz-
sche’s critique of Wagnerian endless melody Cohen shows that Nietzsche
promotes both loss of an essential notion of the self and yet maintains that
‘structure is necessary for a flourishing and creative life’ (Cohen 2008, p.
291). Hollingdale’s translation obfuscates that Nietzsche’s critique of
Wagner is not based on Wagner’s choice of irregular time measures but
that Nietzsche asks about its effect and ‘makes endless melody be about
rhythm, and thus by the same token about time’ (ibid., p. 292). He
criticizes that Wagner’s melodies ‘“overflow” their measures’ (ibid., p.
296) and that this leads to the loss of structure on the part of the listener
and ‘overrides the listener’s own internal sense of structure’ (ibid., p. 297).
A larger issue emerges with regard to Nietzsche’s conception of time: in
the same way that Nietzsche rejects the idea of a thing-in-itself in favour of
the world as it is experienced, he takes not the external metronome but
rather ‘takes the perspective of the listener’ (ibid.) as the final measure of
musical time. Cohen concludes that Nietzsche’s emphasis on time as it is
experienced corresponds to Nietzsche’s insistence that each subject has its
own internal rhythm and temporality, derived from, among other things,
‘our internal physiological rhythms’ (ibid., p. 299). The criterion for evalu-
ating music then becomes its effect on us: ‘it can help structure our internal
rate of time—either directly or by providing a contrasting rhythm to serve
as a beneficial tonic—or it can harm it … And with no time-in-itself to fall
back on, such undermining can be utterly destructive. It requires great
strength to resist it and maintain one’s own tempo’ (ibid., p. 300).
References
Abel, Günter, 2004, Zeichen der Wirklichkeit, Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

Beeckman, Tinneke, 2008, ‘Nietzsche’s Timely Genealogy: An Exercise in Anti-
Reductionist Naturalism’, in: Manuel Dries (ed.), Nietzsche on Time and History,
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 63–744.
Brobjer, Thomas, H., ‘The Late Nietzsche’s Fundamental Critique of Historical Schol-
arship’, in: Manuel Dries (ed.), Nietzsche on Time and History, Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter, pp. 51–60.
Cohen, Jonathan R., 2008, ‘Nietzsche’s Musical Conception of Time’, in: Manuel Dries
(ed.), Nietzsche on Time and History, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 287–303.
Cosmelli, Diego / Jean-Philippe Lachaux / Evan Thompson, 2007, ‘Neurodynamical
Approaches to Consciousness’, in: The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness,
ed. P.D. Zelazo, M. Moscovitch, E. Thompson, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 731–772.
Dries, Manuel, 2008, ‘Towards Adualism: Becoming and Nihilism in Nietzsche’s
Philosophy’, in: Manuel Dries (ed.), Nietzsche on Time and History, Berlin: Wal-
ter de Gruyter, pp. 113–144.
Freeman, Anthony / Galen Strawson, et al., 2006, Consciousness and its Place in Na-
ture. Does Physicalism Entail Panpsychism? Charlotteville, VA: Imprint Aca-
demic.
Gemes, Ken, 2001, ‘Postmodernism’s Use and Abuse of Nietzsche’, in: Philosophy and
Phenomenological Research, LXII/2, pp. 337–360.
Geuss, Raymond, 2008, ‘Thucydides, Nietzsche, and Williams’, in: Manuel Dries (ed.),
Nietzsche on Time and History, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 35–50.
Grey, Jeffrey, 2004, Consciousness. Creeping Up On the Hard Problem, Oxford: Ox-
ford University Press.
Harloe, Katherine, 2008, ‘Metaphysical and Historical Claims in The Birth of Tragedy’,
in: Manuel Dries (ed.), Nietzsche on Time and History, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,
pp. 271–286.
Hatab, Lawrence J., 2008, ‘Shocking Time: Reading Eternal Recurrence Literally’, in:
Manuel Dries (ed.), Nietzsche on Time and History, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp.
147–160.
Hegel, G. W. F., 1969, Wissenschaft der Logik, 2 vols., Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Hill, R. Kevin, 2008, ‘From Kantian Temporality to Nietzschean Naturalism’, in:
75–86.
Jensen, Anthony K., 2008, ‘Geschichte or Historie? Nietzsche’s Second Untimely
Meditation in the Context of Nineteenth-Century Philological Studies’, in: Manuel
Dries (ed.), Nietzsche on Time and History, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 211–
226.
Manuel Dries 19
Knobe, Joshua / Leiter, Brian, 2007, ‘The Case for Nietzschean Moral Psychology’, in:
Leiter, Brian / Sinhababu, Neil (eds.), Nietzsche and Morality, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, pp. 83–109.
Leiter, Brian, 2007a, ‘Nietzsche’s Theory of the Will’, Philosopher’s Imprint 7/7, pp.
1–15.
Loeb, Paul S., ‘Suicide, Meaning, and Redemption’, in: Manuel Dries (ed.), Nietzsche
on Time and History, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 161–188.
McGinn, Colin, 2004, Consciousnesss and Its Objects, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Nancy, Jean-Luc, 2000, Being Singular Plural, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Orsucci, Andrea, 2008, ‘Nietzsche’s Cultural Criticism and his Historical Methodol-
ogy’, in: Manuel Dries (ed.), Nietzsche on Time and History, Berlin: Walter de
Priest, Graham, 1995, Beyond the Limits of Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Reginster, Bernard, 2007, ‘The Will to Power and the Ethics of Creativity’, in: Leiter,
Brian / Sinhababu, Neil (eds.), Nietzsche and Morality, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, pp. 32–56.
Richardson, John, 2008, ‘Nietzsche’s Problem of the Past’, in: Manuel Dries (ed.),
Rockwell, W. Teed, 2005, Neither Brain Nor Ghost. A Nondualist Alternative to the
Mind–Brain Identity Theory, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ruehl, Martin A., 2008, ‘“An Uncanny Re-Awakening”: Nietzsche’s Renascence of the
Renaissance out of the Spirit of Jacob Burckhardt’, in: Manuel Dries (ed.), Nietz-
sche on Time and History, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 227–267.
Schopenhauer, Arthur, 1969, The World as Will and Representation, trans. E. F. J.
Payne, 2 vols., New York: Dover.
Schopenhauer, Arthur, 1974, Parerga and Paralipomena: Short Philosophical Essays,
trans. E. F. J. Payne, 2 vols., Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Siemens, Herman W., 2008, ‘Nietzsche and the Temporality of (Self-)Legislation’, in:
189–208.
Strawson, Galen, 2006, ‘Panpsychism. Reply to Commentators with a Celebration of
Descartes’, in: Freeman, Anthony / Galen Strawson, et al., 2006, Consciousness
and its Place in Nature. Does Physicalism Entail Panpsychism? Charlotteville, VA:
Imprint Academic, pp. 184–280.
Thompson, Evan, 2007, Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of
Mind, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wheeler III, Samuel C., 2000, Deconstruction as Analytic Philosophy, Stanford: Stan-
Waldenfels, Bernhard, 2002, Bruchlinien der Erfahrung, Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.
Part I
Time, History, Method

Nietzsche’s Cultural Criticism and his Historical
Methodology
Andrea Orsucci
Friedrich Nietzsche adopts a notably ‘untimely’ approach to historical

questions. That is, by considering history to reveal the heterogeneous and
layered nature of any given historical phenomenon, its origins in ex-
changes, interweavings, and graftings between different cultural heritages,
Nietzsche differs fundamentally from his contemporaries, and anticipates
important trends in later historical thought.
The philologist Hermann Usener writes in his Götternamen of 1896
that apparently distinct civilizations are in fact separated by a ‘boundary as
thin as a knife-blade’ (Usener 1929, p. 317). By thus insisting on the com-
plex interweavings between different traditions and cultures, Usener re-
flects a trend in historical thinking which prevailed from the 1890s on-
wards among philologists, classicists, and theologians. My thesis, then, is
that Nietzsche had already adopted a similar approach in the 1870s and
1880s.
Furthermore, Nietzsche’s ‘untimely’ insistence on the heterogeneity of
historical phenomena reflects his acquaintance and critical engagement
with an enormously rich range of scholarly works in history, anthropology,
and biology. Indeed, the complex origins and development of Nietzsche’s
own accounts of Western history and his general philosophical commit-
ments regarding historical phenomena offer important insights into his
philosophical practice in general. For they reveal that, rather than occupy-
ing himself merely with the timeless questions of traditional philosophy,
Nietzsche is concerned both with concrete historical questions and with
drawing substantial philosophical conclusions from his studies of them.
Attending to the origins and development of these studies therefore serves
to illuminate not only how Nietzsche arrived at such an ‘untimely’ ap-
proach to historical questions, but also its place in his broader philosophi-
cal practice, commitments, and conclusions.
_____________
This essay has been translated from Italian by Tom Bailey.
24 Nietzsche’s Cultural Criticism and his Historical Methodology
In this essay, I will attempt to substantiate these claims with particular

reference to certain revealing passages of Nietzsche’s texts and to certain
important examples of his readings. I will begin with his treatments of two
particular historical phenomena, ancient Greek civilization and primitive
Christianity, before proceeding to consider his broader pronouncements
regarding the understanding of historical phenomena. In both cases, I will
also attempt to trace Nietzsche’s claims to his readings of, and critical
engagements with, contemporary texts. Finally, I will consider Nietzsche’s
place in the historical thought of the second half of the nineteenth century
and the first half of the twentieth century, in order to demonstrate his an-
ticipation of important trends in later historical thought.
In many notes made between 1875 and 1878 and in various sections of
Human, All Too Human, Assorted Opinions and Maxims, and The Wan-
derer and his Shadow, Nietzsche insists on the superiority of ancient Greek
civilization on the grounds of its exceptional capacity to gather together
heterogeneous elements appropriated from previous cultures. Indeed, in
one section of Assorted Opinions and Maxims he even writes that, ‘[n]ot to
create forms, but to borrow them from abroad and transform them into the
fairest appearance of beauty — that is Greek’ (AOM 221). In a typical
note, he elaborates as follows.
N a t i v e s of the Greek land: of Mongolian origin with [a] tree- and snake-cult.
On the coast a marginalized Semitic strip. Here and there Thracians. The
Greeks took into their blood all these elements, including all the Gods and
myths ([there is] many a Mongolian in the fable of Odysseus). The Doric mi-
gration is a l a t e r e v e n t , after everything had already earlier been gradually
submerged. (Nachlaß Spring–Summer 1875, KSA 8, 5[198])1
For Nietzsche, then, the ancient Greeks were ‘joyous dilettantes’
(Nachlaß Spring–Summer 1875, KSA 8, 5[65]), distinguished by their
capacity to live with contradictions and dissonances inherited from previ-
ous cultures, rather than the examples of ‘clarity, transparency, simplicity,
and orderliness’, or ‘crystalline naturalness’ (AOM 219), which were so
often celebrated by the ‘humanists’.2
In Human, All Too Human and his 1875 lecture course, ‘Der Gottesdi-
enst der Griechen’, Nietzsche accounts for this exceptional combinatory
capacity of the Greeks in terms of their intimacy with ancient beliefs,
magic, and other forms of ‘impure thinking’, and their consequent ability
_____________
1 Regarding this note, see also Orsucci 1996, pp. 109–116. The claim regarding the
Greeks’ Mongolian origins derives from Nietzsche’s reading of J. W. Draper,
Geschichte der geistigen Entwicklung Europas (1871, p. 24).
2 See also Orsucci 1996, pp. 8ff.
Andrea Orsucci 25
to make concessions ‘to the evil and suspicious, to the animal and back-
ward, likewise to the barbarian, the pre-Greek and Asiatic, which still lived
on in the foundations of the Hellenic nature’ (AOM 220). In particular, in a
lengthy section of Human, All Too Human, Nietzsche accounts for primi-
tive religious rituals as superstitious attempts to ‘impose a law on nature’,
to control a hostile and unpredictable natural environment. For, Nietzsche
maintains, primitive man considered natural events to be the voluntary
actions of embodied ‘spirits’, and therefore to be subject to influence by
rituals directed towards these ‘spirits’ (HA I 111).3 Nietzsche thus exploits
his readings in the then-emerging field of ethnology, and, in particular, his
close readings from 1875 onwards of works by contemporaries such as
Edward B. Tylor, John Lubbock, and Wilhelm Mannhardt. For instance,
Nietzsche found in Mannhardt’s Der Baumkultus der Germanen und ihrer
Nachbarstämme extensive accounts of the primitive belief that plants em-
body spirits, and of the rituals with which these spirits were encouraged to
protect a community’s crops—such as processions or burials of twigs or
shrubs, and the conservation of the last sheaf of the harvest.4
Just as Nietzsche insists on the heterogeneous and combinatory nature
of ancient Greek civilization in his earlier texts, in his later texts he makes
corresponding claims about primitive Christianity and its relationship to
the then-waning Greco-Roman civilization. In Daybreak, for instance, he
writes that ‘[t]he Christian Church is an encyclopaedia of prehistoric cults
and conceptions of the most diverse origin’, with an exceptional ‘p o w e r
of causing the most various elements to coalesce’ (D 70; see also AOM).
As examples, he refers to primitive Christianity’s appropriation of the pa-
gan notion of punishment in the afterlife, and of the pagan proscription on
suicide (D 72 and GS 131). Once again, these claims derive from Nietz-
sche’s extensive readings—in this case, they can be traced to certain pas-
sages of the historian and moral philosopher W. H. Lecky’s History of
European Morals from Augustus to Charlemagne, which Nietzsche read in
German translation (1879, vol.1, pp. 183–186, 336ff.).
Nietzsche returns to primitive Christianity’s heterogeneous pagan ori-
gins in his late texts and notes, this time often reflecting his careful reading
of the Ernest Renan’s Histoire des origines du christianisme, and particu-
_____________
3 HA I 111 states particularly clearly the ideas elaborated by Nietzsche in his 1875
lecture course, ‘Der Gottesdienst der Griechen’ (KGW II.4, pp. 355–520).
4 Mannhardt writes, for instance, of the obscure idea of ‘a spiritual being, a demon,
whose life is bound to the life of the plant. The demon is born with the plant, and
dies with it; in the plant he has his habitat, … his body’ (Mannhardt 1875, p. 4; see
also p. 609).
larly its seventh volume, Marc-Aurèle et la fin du monde antique.5 In The

Antichrist, for instance, Nietzsche describes how Christianity ‘absorbed the
doctrines and rites of every subterranean cult of the Imperium Romanum’
(A 37). In a note written at the turn of 1888, Nietzsche similarly claims that
‘Christian doctrine changed its e m p h a s i s continually’, such that ‘the
“Christian” type gradually re-accepted everything which he had originally
denied’ and ‘there ruled over Christianity: Judaism (Paul)[,] Platonism
(Augustine)[,] the mystery cults (theory of redemption, symbol of the
“cross”)[,] asceticism (—hostility to ‘nature’, ‘reason’, ‘the senses’, —
[the] Orient …)’ (Nachlaß November 1887–March 1888, KSA 13,
11[364]). In a passage of On the Genealogy of Morality, he even insists
that primitive Christianity inherited a ‘bucolic cloyingness’ from the
Greeks (GM III 22). It is unsurprising, then, that in The Antichrist Nietz-
sche insists that the complexity of pagan inheritances on primitive Christi-
anity is such that it should not be considered a unitary phenomenon: ‘the
word “Christianity” is already a misunderstanding’ (A 39), he writes.
There and in contemporaneous notes he also attributes to Paul a crucial
role in these appropriations from pagan culture by primitive Christianity—
he writes, for instance, of ‘Christianity as the formula for outbidding all the
subterranean cults, those of Osiris, of the Great Mother, of Mithras for
example— a n d for summing them up: it is in this insight that the genius of
Paul consists’ (A 58).6
As Nietzsche emphasizes in the third essay of the Genealogy, he also
considers another particularly important root of primitive Christianity to lie
in a certain sense of ‘community’ which then prevailed among excluded
social groups. Thus he writes of the ‘associations for mutual support,
pauper-, invalid-, burial-associations, which sprung up on the undermost
soil of the society of that time, and in which that principal medicine against
depression, the small joy, that of mutual good deeds was consciously culti-
vated’. This particular ‘“will to mutuality”, to herd-formation, to “com-
munity”, to “cenacle”’, Nietzsche insists, is the means to ‘an arousal of the
_____________
5 Compare, e.g., Renan 1866, pp. 328, 338–339; 1869, pp. 202–206; 1877, p. 385;
1882, pp. 574–579.
6 See also GS 358, BGE 52, and Nachlaß Autumn 1887, KSA 12, 10[92 and 96],
and, for a more extensive treatment, Orsucci 1996, pp. 281–317. Regarding Paul in
particular, Nietzsche similarly claims in his notebooks that Paul translated Christ’s
teaching into ‘the language of all the already existing s u b t e r r a n e a n r e l i -
g i o n s ’, and thus made it able to express the new religious needs that emerged
with the decline of Greco-Roman civilization, such as ‘asceticism, world-denial,
superstitious “purification”’ (Nachlaß November 1887–March 1888, KSA 13,
11[294, 295]); see also Nachlaß November 1887–March 1888, KSA 13, 11[282]).
Andrea Orsucci 27
strongest, most life-affirming drive, even if in the most cautious of doses—

the w i l l t o p o w e r ’ (GM III 18).7 Thus, for Nietzsche, the rise of primi-
tive Christianity owed much to this particular sense of ‘community’ and its
arousing of a certain ‘joy’, or feeling of ‘power’, among excluded social
groups. Furthermore, in this Nietzsche again appropriates from his read-
ings: in particular, from Lecky on the suicidal tendencies common at the
time of primitive Christianity’s development, and from Renan on the an-
xieties which underpinned the pagan mysteries and on mutual support in
small, excluded Jewish communities of the same period. Renan, for in-
stance, writes in surprisingly ‘Nietzschean’ terms of the spread of new
ideals of community in the Greco-Roman world, as ideals which give ‘that
impression of damp moulds, that murmur of prayers, … a hot, limp atmos-
phere, which must have been so sweet for the [community] member’
(1866, p. 361).8
_____________
7 See also GS 131 and 353, and GM I 10 and III 19 and 22. Nietzsche also elabo-
rates on these claims in notes of Autumn 1887. He writes, for instance, of the Jews
of the diaspora as a ‘small people’ who, excluded from society, cultivated a com-
mon identity by dedicating themselves to ‘everything soothing, relieving, restoring,
prayer, music, meals taken together and effusions of feeling, patience, indulgence,
mutual support and service, above all the k e e p i n g q u i e t of the soul, so that the
affects [of] anger, suspicion, hate, envy, revenge do not emerge … Asceticism is
n o t the essence of this life’ (Nachlaß Autumn 1887, KSA 12, 10[92]; see also
Nachlaß Autumn 1887, KSA 12, 10[92, 135, 157, 179, 181, 183, 188, and 191]).
8 Compare Nietzsche’s terms in GM III 22 or A 21, for instance. Renan’s thesis is
that these notions of community were introduced into the Western, pagan world by
groups of Syrians and Jews excluded from the prevailing Greco-Roman society.
He writes, for instance, that ‘The most characteristic aspect of the devoted Jewish
life was always that of arousing much gaiety and cordiality. There was love in his
small world: one loved a past, a common past; the religious ceremonies embraced
life most sweetly’ (Renan 1866, pp. 286ff.). For his accounts of these notions, and
his use even of the term ‘small people’ and the metaphor of warmth adopted by
Nietzsche, see Renan 1866, pp. 284ff. and 357; 1879, p. 319; 1882, pp. 547, 561–
562, 570, and 590. With respect to attitudes towards suicide, on the other hand,
Lecky writes, for example, of Ambrose’s and Jerome’s hesitation in condemning
voluntary martyrdom, reflecting pagan attitudes that contrast radically with Augus-
tine’s later unqualified condemnation, and of the idea of a ‘knowing suicide’ to
which many fifth-century ascetics and in particular the Circumcelliones aspired
(see Lecky 1879, vol. 2, pp. 35–38; and also vol. 1, pp. 183–186, 336ff.). For a
more extensive discussion of this, see Orsucci 1996, pp. 281–317. Franz Overbeck
considered Nietzsche’s identification of a ‘will to mutuality’ to be a substantial
contribution to the understanding of the rise of Christianity, and, notably, to re-
quire that less importance be attributed to asceticism in this rise. In this, Overbeck
emphasized, Nietzsche anticipated the claims of the theologian Adolph von Har-
nack, in his Das Wesen des Christentums (See Overbeck 1995a, vol. 4, pp. 165–
These treatments of ancient Greek civilization and primitive Christian-

ity, two crucial elements of Western history for Nietzsche, reveal that from
the mid-1870s onwards he practised the philosophical commitments re-
garding the treatment of historical phenomena which he made explicit only
much later, in well-known passages of the second essay of the Genealogy.
There Nietzsche insists on the distinction between the ‘origin’ and the
‘goal’ of any particular historical phenomenon, and, indeed, that ‘the “de-
velopment” of a thing, a practice, an organ is … least of all its p r o g r e s -
s u s toward a goal, still less a logical and shortest p r o g r e s s u s , reached
with the smallest expenditure of energy and cost, —but rather the succes-
sion of more or less profound, more or less independent processes of over-
powering which play themselves out in it’ (GM II 12). Thus, he concludes,
any developed historical phenomenon ‘no longer represents a single mean-
ing at all but rather an entire synthesis of “meanings” … [which] crystal-
lizes into a kind of unity that is difficult to dissolve, difficult to analyse and
… completely and utterly u n d e f i n a b l e ’ (GM II 13). Or, as he puts it
more pithily, ‘only that which has no history is definable’ (ibid.).9 These
well-known passages are therefore intended not simply to underline the
differences between Nietzsche and the ‘English’ historians and philoso-
phers to which he dismissively refers throughout the Genealogy. Rather,
these passages make explicit the particular manner of treating historical
phenomena which Nietzsche had practised since the 1870s, and especially
in his studies of the nature and development of ancient Greek civilization
and primitive Christianity.10
Furthermore, in thus making explicit his particular approach to histori-
cal phenomena, Nietzsche appropriates from certain conceptual develop-
ments in biological theory which gained ground in Germany after 1870. In
particular, in 1886 Nietzsche read with great interest the botanist Karl Wil-
helm Nägeli’s 1884 text, Mechanisch-physiologische Theorie der Abstam-
mungslehre. There Nägeli argues that evolution proceeds not by adapta-
_____________
167; 1995b vol. 5, p. 415; 1995c vol. 7.2, pp. 50–55, 198; also von Harnack 1985,
pp. 74 and 104–106).
9 Notably, in a draft for this passage at GM II 12, Nietzsche refers to these philo-
sophical commitments as ‘the greatest triumph over the vis inertiae of the human
intellect’.
10 I would suggest that these philosophical commitments are also demonstrated by
Nietzsche’s treatments of other historical phenomena. One example is his treat-
ment of Buddhism as an appropriation of pre-existing, Brahmanistic notions of re-
demption in GM III 17, a treatment which reflects his readings of Paul Deussen’s
Das System des Vedânta (1883), and particularly Hermann Oldenberg’s Buddha.
Sein Leben, seine Lehre, seine Gemeinde (1881) (compare Oldenberg 1881, pp. 31,
33, 43, 47, 53–55, and 311).
Andrea Orsucci 29
tion, as Charles Darwin and Ernst Haeckel maintain, but by the cross-
generational growth of ‘idioplasmatic systems’ of hereditary characterist-
ics. Conflicts between the ‘filaments’ which constitute such complex sys-
tems, Nägeli claims, determine the continual evolution of organic forms of
life, such that stronger ‘filaments’ eventually ‘overwhelm’ weaker ones.
Moreover, although Nägeli considers this ‘overwhelming’ to occur very
frequently, he nonetheless also maintains that, as he puts it, ‘it takes some
time before the tension generated by the formation of a device in the idio-
plasma becomes strong enough to overcome the resistances to it’ (Nägeli
1884, pp. 184–185). When, in the Genealogy, Nietzsche chooses to make
explicit his particular approach to historical phenomena, then, he exploits
Nägeli’s conception of biological evolution, so as to claim that, beneath the
apparent homogeneity of any particular historical phenomenon, there exist
different, inherited elements whose internal power conflicts explain the
phenomenon’s character and changes, and continue even beneath any sur-
face stability which the phenomenon might display.
It is rarely noted that, by thus insisting on the heterogeneous nature of
historical phenomena, Nietzsche anticipates important trends in later his-
torical thought. For instance, in his Der Historismus und seine Probleme of
1922, Ernst Troeltsch maintains that Western civilization is distinguished
from other civilizations by its ‘complexity’—that is, by the heterogeneous
and layered nature of its constitutive features. Troeltsch writes, for in-
stance, that, even in the modern era, only European history is marked by
the re-emergence of an extraordinary ‘wealth … of entirely different
civilizations … [which are] contained together as nowhere else’ and which
have ‘branched into each other and … grown together’ over an extremely
long period of time. European civilization is thus a conglomeration ‘consti-
tuted by elements belonging to the most varied … historical worlds’, by
heterogeneous contributions which ‘continuously oppose each other and
merge together again in different ways … colliding with each other and
mixing again with new forces and new ideas’. Troeltsch concludes that, in
order to do justice to this mosaic, ‘general historical-universal schemes’
must be set aside. ‘In this field,’ he writes, ‘preconceived formulas are of
no use’ (1922, pp. 716–719).11
_____________
11 Indeed, Troeltsch himself describes Nietzsche’s historical claims as ‘rather free …
indifferent to details’, but nonetheless ‘extraordinarily acute and penetrating’ in
their interpretations of ‘historical movements through the antagonisms between
impotence and herd spirit, on the one hand, and force and nobility, on the other’.
Troeltsch further claims that, despite the efforts of ‘third-rate editors’, Nietzsche’s
works exercised ‘a quite extraordinary influence on the general atmosphere of his-
torical thought and feeling’ in the early twentieth century, by effecting ‘a devasta-
Also in the 1920s, Oswald Spengler similarly concerned himself with

exchanges and interweavings between different cultural heritages. In par-
ticular, in his Der Untergang des Abendlandes, Spengler presents his re-
search as a kind of ‘comparative morphology’ which pays attention to what
he calls the ‘chance and irregular reciprocal relations between civiliza-
tions’. Thus he treats such themes as the influence of Parsism on Judaism,
the interactions between the pagan mysteries and Christianity, and the
diffusion of Asian religions in the West (in a period in which, he writes
characteristically, ‘Rome had become a part of the East, a religious prov-
ince of Syria’). Thus Spengler’s philosophy of history is primarily con-
cerned with what he terms ‘pseudomorphoses’, the ways in which the most
characteristic features of a declining civilization have, to varying degrees,
underground effects on succeeding cultures (Spengler 1995, pp. 524, 598,
784–785).12
Moreover, in interpreting Western history as a long series of ‘pseudo-
morphoses’ or graftings between different cultures, both Troeltsch and
Spengler follow a trend which prevailed in the decades immediately fol-
lowing Nietzsche’s collapse among classical philologists—examples in-
clude Hermann Usener and Richard Reitzenstein—and orientalists—such
as Hermann Gunkel and Wilhelm Bousset. Crucially, however, in this they
differ from Nietzsche’s contemporaries, that is, from historians and phi-
losophers of history active earlier in the second half of the nineteenth cen-
tury, who generally paid little attention to interactions between civiliza-
tions. For instance, Nietzsche’s colleague at the University of Basel, Jacob
Burckhardt, interpreted the Renaissance as an extremely homogenous age,
and, indeed, once wrote that ‘[t]he greatest difficulty in the history of
civilization is the necessity of splitting up [zerlegen] a great spiritual con-
tinuum into single categories, which often appear arbitrary, in order to
somehow produce a description of it’ (Burckhardt 1922, p. 5). As Max
Weber later noted, Burckhardt’s ‘ingenious formulations’ soon appeared
‘out of date’ (1947, p. 95).
In the light of this crucial difference between philosophies and studies
of history in the second half of the nineteenth century, on the one hand, and
those at the turn of the century and early in the twentieth century, on the
other, Nietzsche’s own studies of historical phenomena and his broader
_____________
tion of value criteria and historical conventions … a growing distrust of the erudite
specialisms of history, criticism and philology’ (Troeltsch 1922, pp. 503, 506–507;
see also pp. 4–5).
12 Spengler’s notion of ‘pseudomorphoses’ was also adopted by Eduard Meyer in
Spenglers Untergang des Abendlandes (see Meyer 1925, p. 15).
Andrea Orsucci 31
claims regarding historical studies are revealed to be decidedly ‘untimely’:

they bear more similarity to those of Nietzsche’s successors than to those
of his contemporaries. That is, like Troeltsch and Spengler but unlike con-
temporaries such as Burckhardt, Nietzsche is consistently concerned to
identify and theorize the coexistence and mixing of very different tradi-
tions, cultures, and ways of thinking in any particular historical phenom-
enon. In short, as his appreciative friend, the theologian Franz Overbeck,
once put it, Nietzsche displays a ‘sensitivity’ to the historical ‘mingling’ of
different civilizations which his contemporaries notably lacked (1995a,
vol. 4, pp. 160–161; see also pp. 165–167, 536–537; 1995b, vol. 5, p. 415;
1995c, vol. 7.2, pp. 50–55).13
Unfortunately, however, the ‘untimeliness’ of Nietzsche’s treatments
of historical questions have been rarely appreciated by those who later
engaged with or commentated on his philosophy. Consider, for instance,
the highly influential interpretations of Nietzsche offered by Martin
Heidegger and Michel Foucault. Heidegger simply ignores the wealth of
detailed historical studies which Nietzsche’s texts provide, and expressly
excludes both the ‘philosophy of culture’ and the ‘philosophy of history’
from his study of Nietzsche, on the grounds that the former is irredeemably
compromised by the Renaissance and by modernity and the latter is fatally
undermined by its dependence on certain ‘misleading constructions’
(Heidegger 1989, p. 154; see also 1999a, pp. 113–116; 1999b, p. 118).
Foucault arrives at much the same conclusions in a different way. By re-
ducing Nietzsche’s philosophy of history to a criticism of the ‘superhistori-
cal’ history of the metaphysicians, on the grounds of an insistence on the
‘singular randomness of events’, Foucault fails to appreciate Nietzsche’s
own positive, and general, commitments regarding historical method (Fou-
cault 1994, pp. 136–156). Thus, by marginalizing the substantial historical
components of Nietzsche’s philosophy, both Heidegger and Foucault not
only profoundly misrepresent Nietzsche’s concerns for concrete historical
phenomena and questions of historical method, but also misunderstand his
broader philosophical concerns and conclusions.14
_____________
13 Indeed, Overbeck himself practised this ‘sensitivity’ in his own studies of the
origins of Christianity, and came to conclusions similar to Nietzsche’s regarding
the significance of excluded Jewish communities, conclusions which he found to
correspond with those of von Harnack’s 1900 work, Das Wesen des Christentums.
See, for instance, Overbeck 1995a, pp. 157–161, 579, and von Harnack 1985, pp.
55–56, 74, and 104–106.
14 The influence of these readings perhaps explains why recent contributions to the
study of Nietzsche and ‘history’ also marginalize these historical components. See,
In conclusion, I would suggest that such understandings of Nietzsche’s

philosophy also divest it of an insight which may be of contemporary im-
portance. Indeed, Nietzsche’s commitments regarding history were, at least
in part, motivated by his own diagnosis of modern European culture. In a
passage of Beyond Good and Evil, for instance, Nietzsche calls his time ‘an
age of disintegration’ in which ‘a person will have the legacy of multiple
lineages in his body, which means conflicting (and often not merely con-
flicting) drives and value standards which fight with each other and rarely
leave each other alone’ (BGE 200; see also 242). In such an ‘age of disin-
tegration’, a task of philosophers and historians is to reveal the multiplicity
of Western history, the coexistence and mixing of different, pre-existing
elements in our historical tradition. This is a perspective which might still
merit our attention today.
References
Burckhardt, Jacob, 1922, Die Kultur der Renaissance in Italien, Leipzig: Kröner.
Deussen, Paul, 1883, Das System des Vedânta, Leipzig: Brockhaus.
Draper, J. W., 1871, Geschichte der geistigen Entwicklung Europas, Leipzig: Wigand.
Foucault, Michel, 1994, Nietzsche, la généalogie, l’histoire, in: Dits et écrits 1954–
1988, vol. 2, Paris: Gallimard.
Harnack, Adolph von, 1985, Das Wesen des Christentums (1900), Gütersloh: Mohn.
Heidegger, Martin, 1989, Beiträge zur Philosophie (Vom Ereignis) (1936–37), in:
Gesamtausgabe, vol. 65, Frankfurt a. M.: Klostermann.
Heidegger, Martin, 1999a, Die Grundbegriffe der Metaphysik. Welt-Endlichkeit-
Einsamkeit (1929–30), in: Gesamtausgabe, vols. 29–30, Frankfurt a. M.: Kloster-
mann.
Heidegger, Martin, 1999b, Die Überwindung der Metaphysik (1938–39), in: Gesam-
tausgabe, vol. 67, Metaphysik und Nihilismus, Frankfurt a. M.: Klostermann.
Lecky, William Hartpole, 1879, Sittengeschichte Europas von Augustus bis auf Karl
den Großen, 2nd ed., Leipzig: Winter.
Mannhardt, Wilhelm, 1875, Der Baumkultus der Germanen und ihrer Nachbarstämme,
Berlin: Bornträger.
Meyer, Eduard, 1925, Spenglers Untergang des Abendlandes, Berlin: Curtius.
Nägeli, Karl Wilhelm, 1884, Mechanisch-physiologische Theorie der Abstam-
mungslehre, Leipzig: Oldenbourg.
Oldenberg, Hermann, 1881, Buddha. Sein Leben, seine Lehre, seine Gemeinde, Berlin:
Hertz.
Orsucci, Andrea, 1996, Orient-Okzident: Nietzsches Versuch einer Loslösung vom
europäischen Weltbild, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Ottmann, Henning (ed.), 2000, Nietzsche-Handbuch, Stuttgart: Metzler.
Overbeck, Franz, 1995a, Werke und Nachlaß, v.4, Kirchenlexikon. Texte, Stuttgart:
Metzler.
_____________
for example, the special issue of Etudes germaniques 55/2 on ‘Nietzsche et
l’histoire’ (2000); and also the relevant entries in Ottmann 2000.
Andrea Orsucci 33
Overbeck, Franz, 1995b, Werke und Nachlaß, v.5, Kirchenlexikon. Texte, Stuttgart:
Metzler.
Overbeck, Franz, 1995c, Werke und Nachlaß, v.7, pt. 2, Autobiographisches. ‘Meine
Freunde Treitschke, Nietzsche und Rohde’, Stuttgart: Metzler.
Renan, Ernest, 1879, L’église chrétienne, Paris: Lévy.
Renan, Ernest, 1866, Histoire des origines du christianisme, v.2, Les apôtres, Paris:
Lévy.
Renan, Ernest, 1869, Histoire des origines du christianisme, v.3, Saint Paul, Paris:
Lévy.
Renan, Ernest, 1877, Histoire des origines du christianisme, v.5, Les Évangiles, Paris:
Lévy.
Renan, Ernest, 1882, Histoire des origines du christianisme, v.7, Marc-Aurèle et la fin
du monde antique, Paris: Lévy.
Spengler, Oswald, 1995, Der Untergang des Abendlandes (1919), Munich: Deutscher
Taschenbuch Verlag.
Troeltsch, Ernst, 1922, Der Historismus und seine Probleme, Tübingen: Mohr.
Usener, Hermann, 1929, Götternamen. Versuch einer Lehre von der religiösen Be-
griffsbildung (1896), 2nd ed., Bonn: Cohen.
Weber, Max, 1947, Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus, in:
Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Religionssoziologie, Tübingen: Mohr.
Translations
Beyond Good and Evil, ed. Rolf-Peter Horstmann, trans. Judith Norman, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Daybreak, trans. R. J. Hollingdale, ed. Maudemarie Clark and Brian Leiter, Cambridge:
The Gay Science, ed. Bernard Williams, trans. Josefine Nauckhoff, Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 2001.
Human, All Too Human, trans. R. J. Hollingdale, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1986.
On the Genealogy of Morality, trans. Maudemarie Clark and Alan J. Swensen, Indi-
anapolis: Hackett, 1998.
Twilight of the Idols and The Antichrist, trans. R. J. Hollingdale, Harmondsworth:
Penguin, 1968.
Thucydides, Nietzsche, and Williams
Raymond Geuss
Who is a better guide to human life, Plato or Thucydides? Given this

choice, virtually all European philosophers for the past two thousand years
would have chosen Plato. Indeed one might almost say that to exhibit this
preference defines what it is to be a philosophically minded person in the
traditional mould. Plato has fascinating things to say about the human soul
as an entity composed of parts that can conflict, about the nature of know-
ledge and the authority it should have in human life, and about how human
excellence is related to the demands imposed on us by the necessity of
living together. Even more significantly, Plato has presented all philoso-
phers since his time with the model of what it is to ‘have a philosophy’ at
all: it means having a systematically interconnected, abstract overview of
and position on all the important features of human life which is argued for
and justified in (purportedly) absolutely general terms. How could anyone
think that the narration of a highly specific sequence of events that took
place very long ago involving small groups of technologically rather primi-
tive people squabbling in an obscure corner of the Balkans could conceiv-
ably compete with Plato’s glorious project?
In the late nineteenth century Nietzsche broke radically with this
founding assumption of Western philosophy. He did this not by developing
one line or another of argument against Plato, but merely by raising the
question about Plato’s presumed self-evident superiority over Thucydides
in a way that revealed that there was an issue of real philosophical sub-
stance and significance in the relation between the two on which it was
possible to disagree. One way in which a philosopher can be original—
_____________
Sir Bernard Williams, FBA (1929–2003) was Professor of Philosophy successively
at University College/London, Cambridge, Oxford, and the University of Califor-
nia, Berkeley. From 1967 to 2003 he was a Fellow—and from 1979 to 1987 Pro-
vost—of King’s College, Cambridge. In spring 1989 he gave the Sather Lectures at
the University of California, Berkeley which were subsequently published as
Shame and Necessity (Williams 1993). This essay is a slightly expanded version of
a contribution to a memorial booklet printed privately by the Fellows of King’s
College. I am very grateful to Hilary Gaskin, Peter Garnsey, Jeremy Mynott, and
Quentin Skinner for helpful comments on the original draft.
36 Thucydides, Nietzsche, and Williams
many would say, the most profound way in which a philosopher can be
original—is not by giving an ingenious or particularly well-grounded or
especially convincing answer to a pre-existing question, but rather by ask-
ing a novel question or finding an issue where no one before has seen one.
Thus Nietzsche thought it was one of his strongest claims to originality that
he for the first time explicitly and persistently asked questions like ‘What
is the value of our morality?’ or ‘Why do we assume that truth will always
be of greater value than error?’ and did not simply presuppose that the
value of truth and morality was self-evident.
Nietzsche found Thucydides more illuminating about human life than
Plato for two reasons. First, he held that Thucydides had an unprejudiced
theoretical sympathy for, and hence understanding of, a much wider spec-
trum of possible human motivations than Plato had (D 168). All the charac-
ters in his history are allowed to exhibit the highest possible intelligence,
clarity, and rationality in pursuing their respective enterprises, regardless of
the judgements representatives of conventional morality would make on
them (Nachlaß Spring 1884, KSA 11, 25[167]). Socrates, however,
‘dragged moralizing into science’, and Plato followed in his wake (Nachlaß
June–July 1885, KSA 11, 36[11]). Such moralizing, Nietzsche thought,
was a result of weakness, of a deep-seated inability to bear looking the
facts of the world in the face,1 it crippled Plato intellectually and prevented
him from ever developing that most highly prized of Nietzschean traits:
Tatsachen-Sinn,2 a ‘sense for the facts’, that steely realism that is so abun-
dantly evident on every page of Thucydides. Characters of whom Plato
ethically disapproves, such as Thrasymachus or Callicles, are always
shown in his dialogues to be confuted by Socrates. Vicious people, how-
ever, as we all know, do not always lose the argument. What Plato takes to
be morally reprehensible behaviour must, he thinks, finally be a form of
irrationality that is self-defeating, and this puts such narrow limits to his
ability to understand humans that it renders him unfit to be a serious guide
to the world in which we live.
_____________
1 See TI ‘What I Owe to the Ancients’ 2. I note that in this passage Nietzsche does a
little rhetorical counter-moralizing himself, calling Plato not merely ‘weak’ and
‘unable to face the facts’, but ‘a coward in the face of reality’. Needless to say, for
reasons some of which emerge later in this essay, I do not think there is anything
incoherent about this. At least one very important strand in Nietzsche is by no
means opposed to any form of morality, but rather seems devoted to constructing a
more realistic morality than that of Plato and the philosophical tradition (see A 59).
2 See A 59; also Nachlaß Summer 1883, KSA 10, 8[15] and GM Preface 7. See
finally Williams 2002, pp. 12–19.
Raymond Geuss 37
Another way of putting this might seem to be to claim that Plato could
not have written such a characteristically clear-sighted, analytically rigor-
ous, and uncompromising Thucydidean text as the Melian dialogue. Ber-
nard Williams quite rightly corrects the implication this might naturally be
taken to have when he points out that what is really at issue is not the em-
pathetic, literary, hermeneutic, expository, or other human capacities of the
individual Plato but what the explanatory motivational apparatus he recog-
nizes and develops in his work would structurally require or admit:
‘Thucydides’ conception of an intelligible and typically human motivation
is broader and less committed to a distinctive ethical outlook than Plato’s;
or rather—the distinction is important—it is broader than the conception
acknowledged in Plato’s psychological theories’ (Williams 1993, pp. 161–
162). Nietzsche is, of course, keen to connect these two—the man Plato
and the Platonic philosophy—as closely as possible. Williams proposes a
more subtle account of a kind with which we are familiar in other contexts.
Many have thought that Freud the clinical practitioner exhibited a higher,
deeper, or fuller ‘understanding’ of the human psyche than he was able to
articulate in his theoretical constructs, so that the ‘real’ Freud is the Freud
of the case histories, not the Freud of the meta-psychological writings.
Hegel very clearly taught that any form of spirit (except his own) appealed
to, used, and exhibited more complex structures than it could explicitly
give an account of. So similarly, one might try to claim, Plato was, after
all, an extraordinary literary and philosophical genius, who was capable
even of the apparently deeply un-Platonic performance of depicting Al-
cibiades (in Symposium) as attractive; it might then well be the case that he
exhibited in his dialogues—although he could not articulate—a much more
subtle, flexible, and insightful practice of philosophy and understanding of
human nature than his theories would have allowed. It was, of course,
Plato’s theories that were historically more influential than the practice, so
in one sense it makes perfect sense to focus on them.
The situation here is further complicated by Nietzsche’s claim that he
had a low opinion of Plato’s literary and stylistic gifts (TI ‘What I Owe to
the Ancients’ 2). This, however, is such an extraordinarily obtuse or wil-
fully perverse judgement that one suspects that it must be a pose adopted
for some strategic purpose or simply for effect, as when Nietzsche claims
to prefer the music of Bizet to that of Wagner (CW Preface and 1–2). If
Nietzsche really did find Plato ‘boring’, then perhaps there is simply noth-
ing more to say about this particular lapse on his part, but there are clear
ways, or at any rate the germs of ways, in which one could come to a very
different judgement of Plato within a basically Nietzschean way of looking
at the world. After all, in Birth of Tragedy Nietzsche emphasizes that trag-
edy in some sense killed itself (‘sie starb durch Selbstmord’, BT 11, KSA
1, p. 75); Euripides was the main executioner, with some help from
Socrates. Tragedy, however, one could argue, was only really ‘dead’ when
it was replaced by something else. In one sense what replaced it was Soc-
ratic rationalism and its extension, what came to be ‘Western philosophy’,
but the process by which the replacement was effected requires a deeper
account of how it took place than is often given. Excitable Hellenic youth
did perhaps turns its back on the theatre because it had become boring,3 but
this does not yet explain why it chose to embrace the chaste and austere
delights of linguistic analysis, logical argumentation, and (potentially) the
Life of Reason instead. As Plato clearly realized (see the Symposium), the
erotic fascination Socrates exercised during his life had something to do
with this, but Nietzsche adds to this an observation about the important
role the ‘image’ or ‘picture’ (Bild) of the dying Socrates played (BT 13,
KSA 1, p. 91). Plato was ‘enchanted’ (HA I 261) by Socrates and ‘threw
himself down before this image’ (BT 13, KSA 1, p. 91), and this quasi-
erotic, quasi-religious bondage had significant historical consequences. As
Nietzsche puts it in Human, All Too Human: ‘It is by no means an idle
question whether Plato, if he had remained free of enchantment by
Socrates, might not have found an even higher type of philosophical man,
which is lost to us forever. When one looks at the period before Plato one
seems to be gazing into a workshop for forming such types [Bildner-
Werkstätte solcher Typen]’ (HA I 261). While the emphasis here is on
Plato finding a type of philosopher, as if that were like a block of stone
already roughed out for a statue in a mason’s yard and needing simply to
be discovered, this almost certainly underestimates the active shaping that
would be required if the rough-hewn original were to be finished off, taken
out of the shop, and set up so as to attract the appropriate continuing atten-
tion. There is a sense in which the image of Socrates is a fetish which Plato
himself at least partly created. Socrates’ impact, Nietzsche tells us, was in
fact so overwhelming, that in order to tolerate him, Plato had to transform
him (umbilden) (Nachlaß Summer 1883, KSA 10, 8[15], p. 337), to pro-
duce a very free portrait, a picture of Socrates that suited Plato (‘Plato’s
freie Art … sich Sokrates zurecht zu machen’, ibid., p. 338). To present
Socrates, whose life was essentially devoted to conducting private conver-
sations with individuals,4 as a figure who dies in some sense ‘heroically’
because of his commitment to the Life of Reason requires at least minimal
artistic structuration and stylization of the material a real human life pro-
vides. Only when this image of the death of Socrates supplants those of the
_____________
3 As indicated by Dionysus’ reaction at the start of Aristophanes’ The Frogs.
4 See Apology 23b, 31c, Gorgias 484c–486d (admittedly by a hostile witness).
Raymond Geuss 39
deaths of Patroclus, Ajax, and Hector can Reason really take over from
myth, and Western philosophy succeed tragedy. Philosophy as we know it
established itself as a continuing presence in Western culture partly be-
cause in his dialogues Plato was able to embody the erotic charge of
Socrates in a striking image that transmitted it down the ages and hooked
successive generations on the dialectic. This can be seen as a kind of ar-
tistic creation, a skilled production of highly and long-lastingly effective
Schein, and it would, then, seem to be perfectly possible to find this
achievement neither boring nor lacking in artistic merit.
This antecedent moralization of the basic categories in Plato’s theory
of human psychology vitiates his own positive ethical proposals. If he
really has merely smuggled a set of tacit moral assumptions into his basic
psychology, then it is not surprising that he can victoriously draw them out
again as conclusions. To the extent to which Plato, and most philosophers
after him, have done this while pretending to be engaged in some kind of
disinterested enquiry, they are violating their own ostensible standards of
good faith, truthfulness, and non-circularity of argumentation.
Nietzsche’s second reason for preferring Thucydides concerns the is-
sue of optimism or pessimism as the appropriate human attitude towards
the world. Nietzsche correctly diagnosed the philosophical tradition as
deeply optimistic.5 This optimism had several related aspects. First of all,
traditional philosophers assumed that the world could be made cognitively
accessible to us without remainder: it was in principle possible to come to
know any part of the world as it really was. Second, they assumed that
when the world was correctly understood, it would make moral sense to us.
Third, the kind of ‘moral sense’ which the world made to us would be one
that would show it to have some orientation towards the satisfaction of
some basic, rational human desires or interests, that is, the world was not
sheerly indifferent to or perversely frustrating of human happiness.6
Fourth, the world is set up so that for us to accumulate knowledge and use
our reason as vigorously as possible will be good for us, and will contri-
bute to making us happy. Finally, it was assumed that there was a natural
fit between the exercise of reason, the conditions of healthy individual
human development, the demands of individuals for satisfaction of their
_____________
5 Again Nietzsche thinks this is part of the legacy of Socrates, see BT 15, KSA 1,
pp. 97–102.
6 Note that there are three distinct ideas here: (a) the world makes some kind of
sense, (b) the world makes ‘moral’ sense, (c) the world makes a kind of moral
sense in which human needs and at least some human aspirations have some stand-
ing.
needs, interests, and basic desires, and human sociability. Nature, reason,
and all human goods, including human virtues, formed a potentially har-
monious whole.7 There was one human state and one course of human
development which was ‘correct’ (or, as Aristotle would put it, ‘natural’)
for us. ‘Natural’ human development would lead to a full development of
human rational capacities. This is turn would make humans disposed to-
wards socially desirable forms of conduct, and also individually and collec-
tively happy. Over the two thousand years of history, there have been dif-
ferent accounts given of what ‘correct’ or ‘natural’ means, and there have
been any number of minor reinterpretations of and deviations from the
above scheme, but the basic structure of a philosophy centred around the
claim of a harmonious fit between what is rational, what is good for us, and
what is good for our society has been very widely retained. If one excludes
a few Gnostics, the odd sceptic, and marginal figures like Schopenhauer,
few philosophers or religious thinkers in the West have not been guided by
it, at least as a tacit ideal.
In one respect the ‘rationalism’ of Socrates is, however, peculiar.
Plato’s Socrates may be wiser than others in that he does not think he
knows what he does not know (Apology 21d), and he may strive constantly
for greater knowledge and greater self-clarity, but his life is also funda-
mentally structured not around a form of well-grounded propositional
knowledge, but rather around what he himself calls a ‘great hope’ (
Apology 40c4; also Phaedo 67b7–c3), the almost ludicrously optimis-
tic belief that nothing bad can befall a good man. If Plato’s account in
Apology, Crito, and Phaedo is to be believed, in his last days Socrates
refused to save himself by availing himself of existing possibilities of
avoiding conviction and the death penalty, and then of escaping from
prison, and succumbed to bouts of preachiness during which he exhorted
his companions to be of ‘good hope’ (μ
... Apology
41c8; compare also Phaedo 63b4–c7) with regard to death: it cannot be an
inherently bad thing because it befalls both good and bad people alike. It is
striking how heavy a weight this is made to bear.
The contrast with Thucydides could hardly be starker. The power of
is a recurrent theme in his history, but for him is almost invari-
ably deluding and its power is overwhelmingly destructive.8 ‘Hope ( )
_____________
7 One of Williams’ principal teachers, Isaiah Berlin, was a subtle analyst and highly
outspoken critic of precisely this strand of traditional moral thinking in all its
forms (Berlin 1969, LI, esp. pp. 8, 167–172).
8 For the best treatment of this aspect of Thucydides known to me, see Stahl 1966.
See also discussion of in Hesiod, Works and Days (West 1978, pp. 169–170)
and further passages and modern works cited there.
Raymond Geuss 41
and desire (), the latter leading the way, cleverly hatching the enter-
prise, the former following, suggesting that chance will make the circum-
stances propitious for success (
), between
them cause the greatest destruction’ (III.45.5; see also V.103). This view of
is also not simply an ‘opinion’ expressed by various speakers in the
history, but Thucydides himself seems to delight in demonstrating its va-
lidity through the juxtaposition of speech and narrative. Thus, when Nicias
in Sicily appeals to ‘hope’ (VII.77) in addressing his troops, the reader can
hardly avoid feeling sure that he and they are about to suffer complete
destruction, as in fact they do, and it is hard to believe Thucydides did not
intend this sinister effect.
Thucydides seems largely immune to any of the forms of wishful
thinking associated with Platonic optimism. He knows that good men suf-
fer undeserved, irremediable, definitive catastrophic failure (Nicias); un-
worthy men reap the benefit of others’ achievements (Cleon in Pylos); men
exhibit pre-eminent virtue in some contexts and fall into decadence in oth-
ers (Pausanias); there is no pre-existing ‘meaning’ in the world, only what
we humans can construct by our weak powers and flawed efforts. Human
rationality is real, but its motivational power is extremely weak, particu-
larly in the face of human hopes, loves, desires, and fears, and the success
of even the most well-founded and rational plan is at the mercy of external
chance. Donald Rumsfeld, regardless of what one might think of the rest of
his politics, is making a good Thucydidean point when he emphasizes the
importance not just of ‘known unknowns’ in war and politics—factors for
which some rational provision can be made, even if only on the basis of
educated estimates—but also of ‘unknown unknowns’ which cannot be
subjected even to crude rational approximation because they cannot be
envisaged at all, and which thus lie strictly beyond the possibility of human
ratiocination.
In what is in many ways his most impressive book, Shame and Neces-
sity, Bernard Williams cites and endorses the above Nietzschean account:
Thucydides should be seen to stand with Sophocles as the major represen-
tative of an attitude towards the world which is realistic, values truthful-
ness, and is lacking in the shallow ‘optimism’ of later philosophy (1993,
pp. 163–164). This coupling of Thucydides and Sophocles might seem
rather odd, and thus warrants some further attention.
We are used to believing that there was an ‘old quarrel’ between poetry
and philosophy in pre-Socratic Greece (Plato, Republic 607b), although, as
Andrew Ford in a recent work (Ford 2002) has persuasively shown, there
is no evidence that this was the case and the claim is perhaps best under-
stood as a bit of Platonic invention or disinformation. In the original pub-
lished version of The Birth of Tragedy Nietzsche accepts this bipartite
structure of the argument, although, of course, he wishes to reverse Plato’s

valuation and argue for the superiority of poetry over Socratic philosophy.
Thucydides, who might have been thought to represent a third option, is
not even mentioned in Nietzsche’s text. After the publication of The Birth
of Tragedy, however, Nietzsche does seem to have gradually become
aware that reading the history of Greece simply through the lens of the
struggle between Homer/Sophocles, on the one hand, and Socrates/Plato,
on the other, leaves out something important. Thus in a note from 1885, he
calls the attitude exhibited by the philosopher Democritus, the physician
Hippocrates, and Thucydides the high point of scientific-mindedness (Wis-
senschaftlichkeit) that was attained in Greece, and speaks of the opposition
between the ethical philosophy of someone like Socrates and ‘science’
(Nachlaß June–July 1885, KSA 11, 36[11]). Wissenschaftlichkeit means
careful, methodical attention to the real facts of the situation being investi-
gated. As Williams (2002, pp. 12, 152–153) points out, however, it does
not necessarily imply commitment to the ideals of positivism to the extent
to which these represent a code of restrictive practice. This negative canon
would have it that a ‘scientific’ account must restrict itself to a purportedly
value-free registering of observable facts, to the formulation of generaliza-
tions that have their full meaning by virtue of being connected to sets of
observable facts, and to the use of conjunctions of fact and generalization
for the purposes of causal explanation.
Thucydides’ way of approaching his subject is like that advocated by
the positivists in that his treatment is radically non-mythic (I.20–22), non-
theological, and non-literary. Although he uses the Homeric poems as ma-
terial to be studied in the interest of forming plausible hypotheses about
certain aspects of earlier societies (I.3), he shows distain for the exagger-
ations, inventions, and factual insouciance of poets (I.10), and specifically
disclaims any intention of trying to increase the appeal of his work by giv-
ing it a literary polish (I.22). His project is to exhibit what really moves
people to act, and what then happens to them and to others as a conse-
quence of how they act, not to write an edifying treatise or a partisan tract.
Thucydides’ account differs, however, from anything that positivists of the
stricter observance would countenance in taking human beliefs, attitudes,
emotions, valuations, even superstitions (II.54 plague and oracles; VII.50
about Nicias) very seriously indeed as things that need to be taken into
account if one wishes to have a genuine understanding of what happens in
the human world. His impartiality between the two warring sides in the
conflict between the Athenians and Peloponnesians should also not be
confused with a positivist commitment to an ideal of ‘value-freedom’. He
is in no way reluctant to express value judgements of his own when it suits
him. These include not only low-level technical judgements such as praise
Raymond Geuss 43
of Pericles for his ‘foresight’—in that the Athenians would have won the
war if they had consistently followed his initial strategy (II.65)—but also
overall moral evaluations such as that Nicias was a man who did not de-
serve the end he suffered (VII.86).
The work Thucydides wrote is not ‘history’ at all in the most usual
sense in which we use the term, that is, a work that is centrally or specifi-
cally concerned with a study of the past.9 Thucydides is specifically inter-
ested not in the past, but in understanding those forms of collective human
behaviour that are recurrent and thus comprehensible (I.22). He pursues
this aim by giving a narrative account of what was for him the present:
current affairs, in some of which he was himself an actor. Part of this nar-
rative account is an analysis of the motives and reasons of various individ-
ual and social agents. One could then say that he is trying to do something
like what we might call ‘social and political theory’ or even ‘behavioural
science’ (if the later term could be cleansed of all the associations it has
acquired during the past century or so), but only provided one keeps clearly
in mind that he does not think there are ‘laws’ of history or society which
we can formulate abstractly and the mastery of which will allow us to con-
trol our fate.10 One of the most important things one can learn from the
study of ‘human nature’ is that this kind of control is an illusion.
Understanding human nature as exhibited in large-scale human action
requires the correct sequencing of complex, spatially distant events, plac-
ing them in their proper order through time, and as Williams emphasizes in
chapter 7 of Truth and Truthfulness, this requires having a general notion
of a single, measurable historical time within which events in different
places can be located. This is not a triviality because ‘human beings can
live without the idea of historical time’ (2000, p. 169), and in fact they did
so in Europe until the fifth century BC. Thucydides is extremely self-
conscious and careful in introducing a single chronological scheme which
will allow clear and unambiguous coordination of the diverse local calen-
_____________
9 Although we still use the term ‘history’ in a wider sense in expressions like ‘natu-
ral history’, the Greek word (
) from which ours is derived has a very broad
extension, meaning any kind of ‘investigation’, ‘enquiry’, or ‘research’. Further-
more, we have no idea what, if anything, Thucydides himself would have called
his work, had he finished it. In the text we have he never refers to it by using the
word
, and in any case the whole issue of the titles of works from antiquity
is highly complex and obscure. In the late fifth century BC the giving of titles to
works seems to have been a significantly more casual matter than it later became,
and certainly not the object of sustained authorial concern.
10 On the non-instrumentalist nature of Thucydides’ conception of understanding and
explanation, see Stahl 1966.
dars used in the different Greek cities (see Gomme 1945, pp. 1–8). Wil-
liams seems to go so far as to attribute to Thucydides the ‘invention’ of the
‘objective’ conception of time (2000, pp. 154, 169–171). Again, this inven-
tion might be an essential precondition for doing history (rather than nar-
rating stories of indeterminate historical location), but to invent a very
conception of objective time is not, by itself, to do history, as we under-
stand it.
It is a commonplace in the secondary literature on Thucydides that, in
contrast, for instance, to Plato, he stands alone. There were plenty of fol-
lowers of Plato, Platonists of one kind or another, in antiquity, but no
Thucydideans.11 In the strict sense Thucydides had no successors in doing
his specific kind of ‘investigation’. There were those who ‘continued’ his
narrative, telling the story of the war between the Athenians and Pelopon-
nesians from the point at which his (unfinished) account breaks off to the
final destruction of Athens, but each of these ‘continuators’ had his own
very different agenda, different aims, different literary styles and modes of
proceeding from Thucydides. It is often claimed that the reason for this
lack of direct influence was the extreme success of the discipline that came
in some sense to be a competitor to Thucydidean ‘enquiry’: rhetoric. Rhet-
oric was in some ways the most immediately advantageous, practical skill
a young man in a could learn, and thus came to be an increasingly
powerful influence on the education of the young. For various reasons
Thucydides’ work was not especially useful for those wishing to learn to
speak well in public. For one thing his style did not lend itself at all to
emulation: it was too difficult and too obscure. Even Cicero, who was a
fluent speaker of Greek and encountered it as a fully living language, calls
the speeches in his work almost unintelligible. This was no model for clear,
persuasive, public discourse (Ipsae illae contiones ita multas habent ob-
scuras abditasque sententias vix ut intellegantur; quod est in oratione civili
vitium vel maxime: Orator 30).
There is perhaps also a second reason that is connected with a more
deep-seated incompatibility between the spirit of Thucydides’ work and the
demands of rhetorical training. In book III (82–84) Thucydides describes
the long-lasting civil disorder in Corcyra. One result of this is that the ac-
customed meaning of words shifts. What used to be called ‘senseless rash-
ness’ ( μ ) now comes to be called ‘a manly spirit that looks
out for its friends’ (
), and ‘circumspection in every re-
_____________
11 Philistius is mentioned as ‘Thucydidi imitator’ (Quintilian X, 74; see also Cicero,
Brutus 66), but so little of his work has survived we cannot know on what basis
this judgement was made or whether it was well founded.
Raymond Geuss 45
gard’ ( ) comes to be considered to be, and is called,
‘complete laziness’ ( ). This shift in the application of custom-
ary evaluative terms was considered by Thucydides to be a clear sign of a
seriously pathological state of society.12 For the rhetorician, on the other
hand, the fact that the same situation or character traits admit of a variety
of different designations, each with a completely different moral and affec-
tive coloration—I am prudent; you are cautious; he is a coward—is a pre-
condition of the exercise of his art, not a sign of degeneracy. Thucydides’
final value judgements may be unconventional and hidden so deeply in his
harsh and obscure prose as to require sustained attention and effort to com-
prehend them, but they are not, finally, slippery and ambiguous. He clearly
did not think that by judicious redescription one could make the same
course of action either good or bad, and surely one of the lessons one can
hardly fail to learn from his work, if one studies it carefully and under-
stands it correctly, is that it is, therefore, highly inadvisable in the long run
to try to make actions seem good or bad ad libitum, even if one can suc-
ceed in producing an effective appearance. As long as rhetoric dominated
political life and education there was no room for Thucydides’ unique
combination of superficial, analytic detachment from the demands of im-
mediate political partisanship, compressed and convoluted literary style,
and deep-seated, if idiosyncratic, moral realism (see Williams 2002, chs. 7
and 10). In the final analysis Nietzsche is closer to the mark when he con-
nects Thucydides with incipient forms of Wissenschaftlichkeit such as one
finds in Hippocrates (Nachlaß June–July 1885, KSA 11, 36[11]) than when
he calls him a representative of the ‘culture of the sophists’ (TI ‘What I
Owe to the Ancients’ 2).
Nietzsche’s Birth of Tragedy is equally about the death of tragedy. One
might think that a more complete account of that crucial period between
the middle of the fifth and the middle of the fourth century BC when so
many of the most characteristic European modes of thinking become visi-
ble would require, as a supplement and pendant to The Birth of Tragedy, a
treatise on the murder by starvation of early Greek Wissenschaftlichkeit.
One might call it ‘Ugolino graecus, oder der Hungertod der früh-
griechischen Wissenschaft’. Instead of Nietzsche’s stark Aeschylean drama
of two actors, tragedy and Socratic philosophy, there would have to be a
_____________
12 One might claim that modern political thought begins when Hobbes, who trans-
lated Thucydides, decides that the ‘pathological’ state Thucydides describes in
Corcyra is the natural state from which the study of politics must begin. On these
issues, see the seminal paper by Quentin Skinner, ‘Hobbes on Rhetoric and the
Construction of Morality’, in Skinner 2002, pp. 87–141.
more Wagnerian drama with a fuller cast including two sets of infant-
victims, the potential unborn children of Sophocles and those of Thucy-
dides, and two murderers, Socratic philosophy and rhetoric. That Socratics
and rhetoricians were also enemies is true, but irrelevant to the larger story;
Plato’s unrelenting guerrilla war against rhetoric (and the sophists) must
not divert attention completely from the role he played in doing in and
supplanting both tragedy and Thucydidean ‘enquiry’. Thucydides’ work
instantiated and was clearly aimed at the cultivation of a kind of practical
reasoning and political—and ‘moral’, if one wishes—judgement, which
was supposed to have general scope; it was not positivist science. How-
ever, the nourishment his form of ‘enquiry’ absolutely needed was a keen
interest in understanding clearly and exactly ( and
) the
real, causal details of human motivation, the contingencies of particular
political situations, the historically and geographically specific structure of
existing human institutions, topography (Sphakteria, Syracuse), dialectol-
ogy (VII.44), and so on. In a society in which a very large number of the
most active political agents devote themselves to trying to learn how to put
together words pleasingly and convincingly so as to persuade their hearers,
with little regard for truth, and the most reflective members are committed
to the search for abstract definitions, general principles, dialectically sus-
tainable hypotheses, and perhaps, in some cases, a ‘vision of the idea of the
good’, Thucydidean political thinking informed by a study of the reality of
what actually happens will be likely to wither away.
During the 1870s and early 1880s Nietzsche kept a series of notebooks
in which one can find a large number sketches, drafts, and plans for a more
comprehensive treatment of ‘the Greeks’ than that given in The Birth of
Tragedy. None of it eventually materialized, but if one reads the note-
books, it seems clear that he became increasingly aware of the importance
of the strand of realist and empiricist13 thinking that Thucydides represents,
and of seeing the demise of tragedy and of Thucydidean ‘enquiry’ synopti-
cally.14 Williams’ later work can be seen as in some sense trying to do this.
Williams agrees with Nietzsche that there can be no simple return to
ancient ‘pre-Socratic’ conceptions (Williams 1993, pp. 6–7, 9–11); he
_____________
13 These terms, like many of the others I am compelled to use, are philosophically
loaded because of their later history. I must ask the reader to try to suspend as
many of those later associations as possible.
14 The parallel between the fate of tragedy and that of Thucydidean investigation is
not exact. For instance, tragedy was a long established institution with religious
roots and an important civic aspect which was supported by public funds; ‘en-
quiry’, on the other hand, was a socially and politically much more fragile con-
struct of uncertain standing.
Raymond Geuss 47
knows as well as Nietzsche did that his own form of consciousness is pos-
sible only because of developments about which he has serious reserva-
tions (ibid., p. 9), and that this by itself would make simple return impos-
sible, even if it were desirable on other grounds (which for many other
reasons it is not). We have no alternative but to use the techniques of re-
flective analysis, formal argumentation, and modern, mathematically struc-
tured, empirical science that have been developed by representatives of
post-Platonic philosophy, but we can try to use them to break through the
bad faith on which traditional ethics rests.
To return to the two ways in which Nietzsche thinks Thucydides sur-
passes Plato: his more open-minded psychology, and his resistance to un-
founded optimism (see above), each of them might contain a hint about
how we could advance our own understanding. Although there can be no
value-free psychology, not all values are ‘moral’ values, and not all moral
values are of the kind originally recognized by Plato (and then bequeathed
to the rest of the mainline of Western philosophy). We can try to become
aware of the extent to which we presuppose certain values, and try to make
our assumptions as realistic as possible. We can, that is, try to be as truth-
ful and truth-loving as possible in developing an alternative to the deceit-
ful, hypermoralized views of Plato, Aristotle, Kant, and the other major
figures in the history of Western ethics. There is a story inspired by Chris-
tianity and sharpened by Kant which makes us look down on the ancients
and especially ancient ethics for its deficient concept of will, or failure to
put volition in the centre of human life. A complementary story, presented
in a classic way by one of Williams’ predecessors as Sather Lecturer, E. R.
Dodds, in his book The Greeks and the Irrational (1951), denigrates an-
cient Greek culture as one based on ‘shame’—the highly primitive reaction
to loss of face vis-à-vis one’s compeers—rather than on ‘guilt’, which is
considered to be a more sophisticated and morally sensitive reaction. Con-
trary to this line of thought, Williams (1993) proposes that a psychology
which is not based on notions of ‘volition’ (p. 36), the will (pp. 41–46), the
distinction between the voluntary and the involuntary (pp. 66–68) or the
idea of ‘guilt’ (pp. 75–102), but is centred on an expanded and reflectively
clarified concept of ‘shame’, will actually contribute to a more realistic,
substantial, and socially enlightened form of ethical thinking.
Williams, then, invites us to reflect on a possible historical path not
taken, one from ancient shame, tragedy, and Thucydidean ‘enquiry’, rather
than from Plato, Christianity, and guilt; not, of course, with the intention of
inviting us to try to turn the clock back or embark now on the path not
taken two thousand years ago—it was not taken and history cannot be
turned back—but in order to inform our imagination for positive transfor-
mations of our own moral thinking.
On the question of optimism or pessimism, there are two different

ways in which one could depart from the consensual optimism that charac-
terizes most traditional philosophy. First, one could think that the world
had a purposive structure, perhaps imposed on it by a malicious creator-
god who delights in tormenting humans and who set it up in order to thwart
essential human aspirations. The second view is that there is no inherent,
discernible, purposive structure, sense, or meaning to the world at all, and
no guarantee that the items in the optimists’ package—rationality, individ-
ual happiness, natural human development, socially desirable action—are
all compatible. To think either that these items are set up so as to cohere, or
that they are ‘by nature’ ineluctably fated to conflict in an unresolvable
way—to be either an old-style philosophical optimist or a dogmatic pessi-
mist—is still to be prey to notions that are theological in their origins and
implications. When Nietzsche wrote that ‘the Hellene was neither an opti-
mist nor a pessimist’ (Nachlaß Winter 1869/70–Spring 1870, KSA 7,
3[62]), this is what I assume he meant, and no Hellene could illustrate this
more exactly than Thucydides. As Williams puts it, the world is not ‘intrin-
sically shaped to human interests’ (1993, p. 163), either for good or for ill.
This is a bleak view only relative to a set of exaggerated expectations about
how the world ought to make sense that are themselves highly questionable
(ibid., p. 68).
None of this at all suggests any serious form of ‘Cartesian’ scepticism
about our knowledge of the world, the existence of truth, the importance of
truthfulness, or our ability to make sense of our world and our lives (as
opposed to discovering a pre-existing ‘meaning’ in the universe). This is
the burden of Williams’ final book, Truth and Truthfulness. Of course, we
can know all sorts of things, and the very project of criticizing the Platonic-
Aristotelean-Kantian tradition in ethics would be impossible without the
apparatus of systematic enquiry and the evaluation of cognitive claims
which philosophy, and latterly also science, have done so much to develop.
There are some ‘universal materials’ out of which particular human ethical
conceptions are constructed, and Williams (1993, p. 56) believes that there
is no special problem in claiming that we can know this or what these ma-
terials are. However, he also holds that, contrary to what Plato and Kant
thought, investigation of these universal materials alone will not throw
adequate light on any particular concrete form of human ethical thought
because there is no unique path from these materials to any particular his-
torical conception. A more traditional philosopher would be inclined to
suggest that this is merely a limitation, not an invalidation of the claim to
pre-eminence of strictly philosophical analysis; abstract philosophical ac-
counts, of course, give only an outline, which of course needs to be filled
empirically, but this outline is a delineation of what is essential. Williams,
Raymond Geuss 49
I think, would have rejected this suggestion. Thus, to take one case that he
treats in some detail in Shame and Necessity, the concept of ‘responsi-
bility’ has been an extremely prominent part of much ethical thinking dur-
ing the past few hundred years, especially in the Kantian tradition. This
concept puts together a number of different elements, which refer to uni-
versal features of human action: facts about causation, human intention,
social needs for predictability, etc. There is, however, no unique way to put
these elements together into an ethical or legal concept of responsibility.
‘There is not, and there could never be, just one appropriate way of adjust-
ing these elements to each other—as we might put it, just one correct con-
cept of responsibility … in different circumstances [we] need different
conceptions’ (Williams 1993, p. 55). The particular way in which the ele-
ments are connected will depend in a substantive, or—if one wishes to use
this term—an ‘essential’ way on the particular social structure, political
institutions, and vagaries of the human history of the society in which the
concept has arisen and is used. The history, sociology, and politics of the
case do not simply fill in the details of the picture: they are the picture.
This is the most important thing we can learn from Thucydides, and we can
perhaps learn it more easily from him than from Plato.
Given that our main source of knowledge about Socrates is through the
Platonic dialogues, it is not surprising that there is a tendency to treat
‘Socrates-Plato’ as a single unitary philosophical personality, but, of
course, in their better moments everyone knows that this is incorrect. We
have seen above that Nietzsche accommodates a recognition of their du-
ality through his account of the way in which Plato ‘transformed’ Socrates.
In Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy (ch. 1) Williams claims that the
genuinely philosophical impulse is the Socratic impulse of questioning, in
particular asking the question how one should live; this is presumably in-
tended to imply the possibility of distancing oneself philosophically not
merely from Socratic optimism but also from the Socratic form of ration-
alism, especially as these are developed by Plato and the Western tradition.
How then can this impulse be prevented from running away with itself and
dissipating its energies in the sands of excessive abstraction, as it did in
traditional forms of post-Platonic philosophy? At various points in The
Birth of Tragedy Nietzsche appeals to the ideal of a ‘Socrates who makes
music’. In this essay I have been trying to claim that Williams’ later work
is similarly inspired by the ideal of what one might call a ‘Thucydides who
philosophizes’.
References
Berlin, Isaiah, 1969, Four Essays on Liberty, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dodds, E. R., 1951, The Greeks and the Irrational, Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Ford, Andrew, 2002, The Origins of Criticism, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Gomme, A. W., 1945, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, vol. 1, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Skinner, Quentin, 2002, Visions of Politics, vol. 3: Hobbes and Civil Science, Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stahl, Hans-Peter, 1966, Thukydides: Die Stellung des Menschen im geschichtlichen
Prozeß (Zetemata, Heft 40), Munich: Beck.
West, M. L. (ed.), 1978, Hesiod, Works and Days, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williams, Bernard, 1985, Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy, London: Fontana.
Williams, Bernard, 1993, Shame and Necessity, Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Williams, Bernard, 2002, Truth and Truthfulness, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
The Late Nietzsche’s Fundamental Critique
of Historical Scholarship
Thomas H. Brobjer
There exist a number of misconceptions about Nietzsche’s relation to his-

torical scholarship and methods. Most discussions of this theme have been
based on his early essay ‘On the Uses and Disadvantages of History for
Life’ (1873), but I have recently shown that the views he presents there are
not representative of the later Nietzsche. Already one or two years after the
publication of that essay, he changed his view dramatically.1 For example,
in 1877 he writes: ‘I want expressly to inform the readers of my earlier
writings [i.e. The Birth of Tragedy and the Untimely Meditations] that I
have abandoned the metaphysical-artistic views that fundamentally govern
them: they are pleasant but untenable’ (Nachlaß End of 1876–Summer
1877, KSA 8, 23[159]), and in 1883: ‘Behind my f i r s t p e r i o d grins the
face of J e s u i t i s m : I mean the deliberate holding on to illusion and the
forcible annexation of illusion as the f o u n d a t i o n o f c u l t u r e ’ (Nachlaß
Autumn 1883, KSA 10, 16[23]). Furthermore, Nietzsche very rarely dis-
cusses or praises his essay on history after 1875, in stark contrast to all of
his other books, and, after 1874, he never uses the several concepts and
expressions such as monumental, antiquarian, and critical history, or over-
historical, which he coined and used in that book. I have also shown, con-
trary to most discussions, that Nietzsche was deeply influenced by and
approved of the new historical views and methods which grew out of the
works of Wolf, Niebuhr, Mommsen and Ranke (see Brobjer 2007). Nietz-
sche thus approved of historical methods and studies, and frequently used
them in his philosophical investigations and critique. He was after all edu-
cated as a historian and classical scholar, and was a professor in the latter
_____________
1 In my article ‘Nietzsche’s View of the Value of Historical Studies and Methods’
(Brobjer 2004) I show that not only does Nietzsche have a different view of history
and historical scholarship after 1875/76, but also that he on many occasions explic-
itly rejected the view he proposed in ‘On the Uses and Disadvantages of History
for Life’. In this article and also in ‘Nietzsche’s Relation to Historical Methods and
Nineteenth-Century German Historiography’ (Brobjer 2007) I discuss many
secondary resources on Nietzsche’s relation to history.
52 The Late Nietzsche’s Fundamental Critique
field for ten years. Nonetheless, the late Nietzsche also expresses much
hostility towards historical scholarship (and, in many ways similar to this,
and related to it, towards natural science and scholarship generally). In this
paper I will examine the reasons for this later explicit critique and what it
entails. This later critique is primarily based on four factors or arguments:
relating to objectivity, the idea of progress, the viewing of history as a
means, not a goal, and on history as being reactive (like all sciences and
scholarship). Thereafter I will discuss the only published text, On the Ge-
nealogy of Morality III 26, in which the late Nietzsche explicitly discusses
modern historical writing.
What the late Nietzsche primarily objected to in regard to history was
not the new methods introduced at the early part of the nineteenth century,
but that history was placed above philosophy—that history and historical
scholarship were seen as a goal or an end in itself rather than as a means.
He saw this as a reflection of the nihilism which characterized modernity.
More specifically, he objected to a number of aspects regarding history and
historical scholarship, but most of this is the consequence of having ac-
cepted the historical revolution rather than standing in contradiction to it.
He was a severe critic of the idea of progress, assumed by almost all major
nineteenth-century historians (but not by Burckhardt). He regarded most
historians as far too idealistic in their views (and still governed by religious
faith) and accused them of lacking adequate knowledge of natural science
and medicine. Perhaps even more pronounced is that he regarded most
historians (and philosophers) as being much more anachronistic than they
were aware of, especially in regard to moral and cultural values—he here
thus regards them as bad historians according to their own and his criteria.
Related to this, he regarded almost all historians as possessing egalitarian
and anti-aristocratic values, and therefore only taking a stand for the sup-
pressed and failed groups (relating to a revaluation of values). He objected
to the almost exclusive concern with political history by the leading histor-
ians, and much preferred a broader cultural approach. He questioned both
the possibility and the desirability of historical objectivity. He regarded
history (and science) as by necessity reactive, and he felt that the historians
were often indecent, in digging into private worlds or by questioning things
greater than their own comprehension. But all these objections, with the
possible exception of his view of objectivity, can be and were stated from
within the historical turn which had occurred.
Throughout most of Nietzsche’s so-called middle period, c. 1875–
1880, he seems to have accepted the idea of progress, both generally and
Thomas H. Brobjer 53
for the case of morality.2 However, thereafter he strongly attacks it. Today,
when we have a more complex and ambivalent view of the idea of pro-
gress, this may not seem to be a major point. However, during the nine-
teenth century, especially after the acceptance of Darwinism, this idea
constituted a generally accepted dogma which penetrated into all fields and
areas of intellectual activity. It constituted a premise and a major assump-
tion of almost all historical writing. Nietzsche’s critique and rejection of it
was fundamental enough to suggest that he had a completely different view
of history and historical scholarship than most of his contemporaries.
The late Nietzsche expresses his contempt for the idea of progress
many times, but here it will be sufficient to quote one example: ‘Mankind
does n o t represent a development of the better or the stronger or the higher
in the way that is believed today. “Progress” is merely a modern idea, that
is to say a false idea. The European of today is of far less value than the
European of the Renaissance; onward development is n o t by any means,
by any necessity the same thing as elevation, advance, strengthening’ (A
4).3 The main reason for his rejection is also plainly stated—man is not,
and has not become better and more valuable. Instead Nietzsche on several
occasions says that we have become ‘smaller’. Note that Nietzsche thus
uses a different measure of progress than most commentators: Nietzsche
asks if men have become, better and more elevated, J. S. Mill and others if
they have become happier.
What does Nietzsche’s critique of historical objectivity mean and en-
tail? After all, objectivity is the keystone of the scientific and scholarly
approach. We can begin by noting that his critique of objectivity in histori-
cal scholarship has a direct parallel in his critique of the natural sciences. It
has two fundamental parts, one epistemological and one value-oriented.
_____________
2 For example, in HA I 236 he writes: ‘To us, however, the very e x i s t e n c e of the
temperate zone of culture counts as progress.’ Compare also: ‘W r a t h a n d p u n -
i s h m e n t h a s h a d i t s t i m e . —Wrath and punishment is a present to us from
the animal world. Man will have come of age only when he returns this birthday
gift to the animals. —Here there lies buried one of the greatest ideas mankind can
have, the idea of progress to excel all progress. —Let us go forward a few thou-
sand years together, my friends! There is a g r e a t d e a l of joy still reserved for
mankind of which men of the present day have not had so much as a scent! And
we may promise ourselves this joy, indeed testify that it must necessarily come to
us, only provided that the evolution of human reason d o e s n o t s t a n d s t i l l !’
(HA III 183). Further examples can be found in HA I 24 and 107; HA II 184 and
185.
3 Compare also GM II 12 and his discussions in TI ‘Reconnaisance Raids’ 37 and
48. See also Nachlaß June–July 1885, KSA 11, 36[48]; and Nachlaß End of 1886–
Spring 1887, KSA 12, 7[8]; and Nachlaß Autumn 1887, KSA 12, 9[185].
This critique of objectivity in historical writing is present and import-

ant throughout his whole life, beginning already in his early critique of
historical writing. He, for example, writes around the time of ‘On the Uses
and Disadvantages of History for Life’ that ‘The so-called objective writ-
ing of history is something unthinkable: the objective historians are
crushed or smug characters’ (Nachlaß Summer–Autumn 1873, KSA 7,
29[137]). When we return to the views of the late Nietzsche, we can ob-
serve that in a list of plans for books or lectures to write, from 1883, he
states that ‘there exists no “objective history”’, for ‘the appropriation of
h i s t o r y is done under the guidance of stimuli and the drives’ (Nachlaß
Spring–Summer 1883, KSA 10, 7[268]). This is in essence an epistemo-
logical claim—that objectivity is impossible—which he repeats frequently.
Both as individuals and as human beings, nothing is unaffected by our
conscious and subconscious desires and values. When we pretend that to
be the case, we falsify reality (and our relation to reality), and thereby fail
to give a correct account of reality. Objectivity, he repeats, is merely a
mask.
However, Nietzsche has a yet stronger critique of objectivity which is
less epistemological and more value-oriented. A natural or ‘healthy’ rela-
tion to reality includes evaluations—we are the evaluative animal—and
when we attempt to be objective we are denying ourselves as living organ-
isms, we are being ascetic and nihilistic, and such a desire is an expression
of self-rejection and self-contempt.
The ‘d e s i r e - t o - b e - o b j e c t i v e ’, e.g. in Flaubert, is a modern misconception
… It is self-contempt … ‘d e n i a l ’ of self. But there exists no ‘thing-in-itself’,
gentlemen! What you attain is science or photography, i.e., description without
perspectives … In fact, there is very much d i s p l e a s u r e [Unlust] in the mod-
ern historical and natural historical mania—one flees from oneself and also
from the making of ideals, the making b e t t e r . (Nachlaß Spring 1884, KSA
11, 25[164])
Shortly thereafter he repeats these two claims, perhaps even more clearly:
‘To mock the school of the “objective” and the “positivists”. They want to
get around the setting of values, and discover and present only the facts’
(Nachlaß Summer–Autumn 1884, KSA 11, 26[348]).4 And he exemplifies
with a historian, one that he generally values, to show how dishonest and
incorrect this is: ‘But one can see, e.g., in Taine: in the background he h a s
preferences: for the strong expressive types, e.g., also for those who enjoy
more than for the puritans’ (ibid.). But is Nietzsche able to solve the prob-
lem of how to combine history with the setting of values, without it merely
_____________
4 Compare Nachlaß End of 1886–Spring 1887, KSA 12, 7[60].
appearing as prejudice? To answer that we need to examine his discussion

of different types of historical writing.
Nietzsche’s Explicit Discussion of Modern Historical Scholarship
Only once does the late Nietzsche explicitly discuss at any length modern
writing of history, in the third essay of On the Genealogy of Morality. He
divides it into two main forms, positivistic history and idealistic (or judg-
ing and artistic) history. Unfortunately, he does not explicitly tell us what
sort of historical scholarship and historians we, in his view, ought to be-
come, but I will argue for an interpretation which is consistent with what
he states.
He begins by posing the question of the value of modern historical
work, in a manner which resembles that of ‘On the Uses and Disadvan-
tages of History for Life’ (but now it is less idealistically founded than in
1873, but still closely entwined with values).
Or does modern historiography perhaps display an attitude more assured of
life and ideals? (GM III 26, translated by Kaufmann)5
In his response to this question, he describes and discusses the two funda-
mental ways in which modern history is pursued. He begins with what can
be called positivistic history (which attempts to be scientific and objec-
tive):
Its noblest claim nowadays is that it is a m i r r o r ; it rejects all teleology; it no
longer wishes to ‘prove’ anything; it disdains to play the judge and considers
this a sign of good taste—it affirms as little as it denies; it ascertains, it ‘de-
scribes’… All this is to a high degree ascetic; but at the same time it is to an
even higher degree n i h i l i s t i c , let us not deceive ourselves about that! One
observes a sad, stern, but resolute glance … here nothing will grow or prosper
any longer, or at most Petersburg metaphysics and Tolstoian ‘pity’. (GM III
26)
This is contrasted by modern idealistic history, where historical scholarship
is combined with values and attempts to judge history:
As for the other type of historian, an even more ‘modern’ type perhaps, a
hedonist and voluptuary who flirts both with life and with the ascetic ideal,
who employs the word ‘artist’ as a glove and has today taken sole lease of the
praise of contemplation … I know of nothing that excites such disgust as this
kind of ‘objective’ armchair scholar, this kind of scented voluptuary of history,
_____________
5 Nietzsche is here asking for a ‘more assured’ than that of the natural sciences,
which he had discussed in the previous section.
half parson, half satyr, perfumed by Renan, who betrays immediately with the
high falsetto of his applause what he lacks, w h e r e he lacks it. (ibid.)
When Nietzsche compares these two types, there is no doubt that he prefers
the scientific or positivistic to the idealistic sort:
Oh how these sweetish and clever fellows [the idealistic historians] make one
long even for ascetics and winter landscapes! No! the devil take this type of
‘contemplative’! I would even prefer to wander through the gloomy grey, cold
fog with those historical nihilists! … The ‘contemplatives’ are a hundred times
worse. (ibid.)6
He even goes so far as to praise the former sort of history:
All honour to the ascetic ideal i n s o f a r a s i t i s h o n e s t ! so long as it be-
lieves in itself and does not play tricks on us! (ibid.)
In contrast, he goes on to vehemently criticize idealistic history at length.
However, at the end of the section he points out that there are advantages
with this overproduction of false ideals:
Europe is rich and inventive today above all in means of excitation; it seems to
need nothing as much as it needs stimulants and brandy: hence also the tre-
mendous amount of forgery in ideals [and he explicitly mentions ‘the Chris-
tian-moral ideal’] … With this overproduction there is obviously a new open-
ing for t r a d e here … don’t let this opportunity slip! Who has the courage for
it?—we have in our h a n d s the means to ‘idealize’ the whole earth! ... But
why am I speaking of courage: only one thing is needed here, the hand, an un-
inhibited, a very uninhibited hand. (ibid.)
The section ends here, and the last two sections of the third essay do not
continue this argument. However, it is clear what Nietzsche is referring to
at the end of this discussion, namely the idea of eternal recurrence, which,
according to Nietzsche, would crush those who have no ideals or false
ideals (thus the need for courage), and the idea of the revaluation of all
values, which would allow us to ‘“idealize” the whole earth’ (GM III 26).
That Nietzsche is referring to those topics is not only suggested by the
fact that he was at this time intensively working on writing a magnum opus
in which these two topics were going to be foundation stones,7 but also by
the fact that he, at the beginning of the next section, explicitly states that he
_____________
6 Nietzsche, while making this comparison, even hints that he would prefer yet
another type of ‘historian’ or scholar: ‘Indeed, if I had to choose I might even opt
for some completely unhistorical, anti-historical person’ (GM III 26), and exempli-
fies this by the philosopher Dühring, of whom he normally is highly critical. In the
early draft to this section, given in the Kommentar (KSA 14, p. 382), he explains
why he would prefer this alternative: because Dühring attacks the whole history,
we are persuaded to become its ‘historian’ and last judges.
7 See my ‘Nietzsche’s Magnum Opus’ (Brobjer 2006).
will continue this discussion in that work: ‘I shall probe these things more
thoroughly and severely in another connection (under the title “On the
History of European Nihilism”; it will be contained in a work in progress:
The Will to Power, A t t e m p t a t a R e v a l u a t i o n o f A l l V a l u e s )’
(GM III 27).8 This work was never completed, but among Nietzsche’s
notes we have the long, so-called Lenzer Heide-fragment, entitled ‘E u r o -
p e a n N i h i l i s m ’, written on 10 June 1887 (KSA 12, 5[71]),9 i.e., shortly
before he wrote On the Genealogy of Morality, in which the discussion of
nihilism is closely related to the idea of eternal recurrence, which itself is
referred to as ‘a hammer’ and a most dangerous idea.10 When Nietzsche
reviews the Genealogy in Ecce homo he states that the essays constitute
three preliminary studies for a revaluation of all values. He further claims,
while summarizing the content of the third essay, that ‘a c o u n t e r - i d e a l
was lacking — until Zarathustra’ (EH III GM), meaning his own mature
philosophy (in which the revaluation of values constituted a central tenet),
as expressed metaphorically in Thus Spoke Zarathustra and which he at-
tempted to develop and express more philosophically in the planned mag-
num opus.
What can we make of this account, and what does it say about Nietz-
sche’s view of historical writing and research? We are given two or three
ways of writing history, but Nietzsche seems to reject them all. It would be
the wrong approach to ask which of these ways Nietzsche approves of, or
with which one he shows most sympathy. The question of which methods
to use for one (for any person) to become a good composer, painter, or
historian is never sufficient for Nietzsche. Experience, appropriate values,
a healthy view of the world (for example, not being a pessimist or being
full of resentment), and personal characteristics are always required. Nietz-
sche’s general approach is therefore not to approve of specific methods,
but to argue that one should copy and learn from great predecessors. Com-
pare, for example, how he recommends his students to become good clas-
sical philologists: ‘How does one become a philologist?’, where he an-
swers not by methods but by exemplars: ‘Start from the conception of the
great philologists’ (KGW II.3, p. 366).
_____________
8 In an earlier version of this section, Nietzsche had written ‘my main work [Haupt-
werk] which is in progress [mein in Vorbereitung befindliches Hauptwerk]’ instead
of ‘a work in progress’ (Kommentar, KSA 14, p. 382).
9 KSA 12, 5[71]. In the note immediately before this one, 5[70], Nietzsche also
speaks of ‘a history of values’.
10 Compare my discussion in ‘Götzen-Hammer: The Meaning of the Expression “To
Philosophize with a Hammer”’ (Brobjer 1999).
What we see is that Nietzsche approves of positivistic or scholarly his-

torical research as a means to understand the world and to avoid illusions
and misconceptions. He is, for example, continually critical of those who,
like the priests, ‘lack all the preconditions of comprehension: who lack the
neutrality of the historian’ (Nachlaß November 1887–March 1888, KSA
13, 11[302]),11 and all bad historians (such as most philosophers and those
who discuss the history of morals).12 However, we should realize that this
sort of history can never achieve total objectivity, that values and personal
preferences can never be fully excluded. More important is that this sort of
history—when regarded not as a means but as an end—is and leads to
nihilism.
Is a higher sort of historical research and writing possible? It seems as
if Nietzsche believed that to be the case—that is what he suggests at the
end of this section; a history which is intertwined with values—not the old
corrupt and decadent Christian, moral, and modern values, but with re-
valued values. He says little about what sort of values these are—since he
is still working on that and hopes to present that in his forthcoming mag-
num opus, entitled precisely ‘Revaluation of All Values’—and thus he
does not say anything about how that sort of constructive or evaluative
history could appear.
However, a hint can be gained from the fact that the late Nietzsche
emphasizes the importance of cultural history, and he praises the works of
Ritschl, Burckhardt, and Taine, who all were skilful masters of modern
historical methodology. Equally important is that his own book, On the
Genealogy of Morality, shows us a way to be historians of values. Fur-
thermore, Nietzsche explicitly states what sort of history and historian he
hopes for, and offers the name of Thucydides, his favourite ancient histor-
ian. He calls him the perfect expression of ‘r e a l i s t c u l t u r e ’, and con-
tinues:
Thucydides: the great sum, the last revelation of that strong, severe, hard fac-
tuality which was instinctive with the older Hellenes. In the end it is c o u r a g e
in the face of reality that distinguishes a man like Thucydides from Plato:
Plato is a coward before reality—consequently he flees into the ideal; Thucy-
dides has control of h i m s e l f —consequently he also maintains control of
things. (TI ‘What I Owe to the Ancients’ 2)
_____________
11 This note was written shortly after the Genealogy.
12 See my longer discussion of this in ‘Nietzsche’s View of the Value of Historical
Studies and Methods’ (Brobjer 2004).
Nietzsche’s longest and most detailed discussion of Thucydides occurs in

his lectures on Greek literature, which he held twice in 1874/75.13 He there
refers to Thucydides as ‘the greatest researcher and thinker among the
historians’ (KGW II.5, p. 225). Most of this discussion was made by the
scholar and philologist Nietzsche, but later he added a long footnote with a
more personal touch, in which he describes what sort of historical research
and writing he dreams of encountering in the distant future: ‘A history
d e v e l o p e d in the spirit of Thucydides and suffused with a still more
p r o f o u n d philosophy than his was, remains my hope’ (KGW II.5, p.
258).
According to Nietzsche, life, as well as history and science, are mean-
ingless, unless we create a meaning for them.14 Once the belief in God
gave us and nature meaning, and subsequently truth and morality, but we
now risk having only nihilistic approaches left. What we need is to create
purpose and meaning, through a revaluation of all values, and that was the
final task which occupied Nietzsche during the last years before his mental
collapse. He never finished that work, and thus the question of how a cor-
responding non-nihilistic, value-affirming writing of history could be con-
structed also remained unanswered. We are left with the late Nietzsche
having affirmed historical methods and approaches for the purpose of
understanding the world and of disclosing illusions, as long as these meth-
ods and approaches are not made into fundamental goals, but remain
merely means and an aid in dealing with and supporting our comprehen-
sion of the world.
References
Brobjer, Thomas H., 1999, ‘Götzen-Hammer: The Meaning of the Expression “To
Philosophize with a Hammer”’, in: Nietzsche-Studien, 28, pp. 38–41.
Brobjer, Thomas H., 2004, ‘Nietzsche’s View of the Value of Historical Studies and
Methods’, in: Journal of the History of Ideas, 65, pp. 301–322.
Brobjer, Thomas H., 2006, ‘Nietzsche’s Magnum Opus’, in: History of European Ideas,
32, pp. 278–294.
Brobjer, Thomas H., 2007, ‘Nietzsche’s Relation to Historical Methods and Nineteenth-
Century German Historiography’, in: History and Theory, 2/46, pp. 155–179.
_____________
13 KGW II.5. Historical literature is discussed on pp. 224–269, Thucydides is men-
tioned throughout, but specifically on pp. 235–246.
14 Compare Nietzsche’s view of nature and cosmos, e.g., in Nachlaß June–July 1885,
KSA 11, 38[12] (the final section, 1067, of The Will to Power) and Nachlaß Spring
1888, KSA 13, 14[188].
Translations

Press, 1986.
On the Genealogy of Morality, trans. Walter Kaufmann and R. J. Hollingdale, New
York: Vintage Books, 1966.
The Antichrist, in: The Portable Nietzsche, ed. and trans. Walter Kaufmann, New York:
Viking Press, 1954.
Twilight of the Idols, in: The Portable Nietzsche, ed. and trans. Walter Kaufmann, New
York: Viking Press, 1954.
Part II
Genealogy, Time,
Becoming
Nietzsche’s Timely Genealogy:
An Exercise in Anti-Reductionist Naturalism
Tinneke Beeckman
Introduction
Nietzsche was the first thinker to develop a specifically philosophical no-

tion of ‘genealogy’, thereby granting the word a sense quite different from
the usual meaning, namely ‘family descent’ or ‘pedigree’. Genealogy rep-
resents a new historico-philosophical method, which is history practised
correctly. This ‘correctness’ means a genealogy is an active, critical, philo-
sophical investigation, which expresses above all an urge to enquire rather
than to formulate a definite solution to a problem. A genealogy also means
a ‘meticulous’ interpretation of history (Foucault 1971, p. 145).
Nietzsche’s concept of a genealogy is original vis-à-vis two streams of
thought. Firstly, he subverts the usual intention of tracing a pedigree. This
philosophical effort is widely discussed in academic writings, without it
necessarily containing a naturalist viewpoint.1 Secondly, Nietzsche offers
revealing insights for those interested in the question of cultural evolution
and thus for contemporary attempts to develop a naturalist theory of cul-
ture. Although the naturalist aspect is not always present in discussions of
Nietzsche’s work, I believe that Nietzsche’s genealogy is a striking exam-
ple of philosophical naturalism. Striking, because it offers something quite
different from a reductive naturalist analysis of culture.
In this article, I shall concentrate on this second aspect and discuss
how his genealogy continues to give tools for thinking about cultural phe-
nomena in a contemporary and challenging way.
_____________
1 See Foucault 1971 and Geuss 1994. Geuss discusses five different aspects of the
traditional interpretation of a pedigree: in the interest of a positive valorization
(genealogy wants to legitimize), the pedigree assumes a singular origin, which is a
source of that value and traces an unbroken line of succession from the origin to
that item, and during the series of steps, the value in question is preserved. Nietz-
sche, according to Geuss, breaks with all these aspects.
64 Nietzsche’s Timely Genealogy
I shall begin by briefly outlining what I mean by ‘naturalism’. Then I

will give two Nietzschean ‘criticisms’ of a reductionistic view on natu-
ralism that are crucial to the idea of a correct genealogical method. The
first criticism is related to the explanatory capacity of naturalism and to the
problem of functionality and utility. The second aspect of naturalism is the
question of the driving force for cultural evolution and change. For Nietz-
sche, this force is the ‘will to power’. In this context, I shall refer to Nietz-
sche’s antagonism towards Darwin as contrasted with Lamarck.
With regard to both comments, I will indicate how Nietzsche’s ap-
proach offers very relevant and original questionings of reductive natu-
ralism (e.g., evolutionary psychology and memetics). Today, the ‘social
sciences’ are described as bulwarks of resistance against a biological, natu-
ralist interpretation of the human being, that makes it seem that the true
choice is between either accepting natural selection as the main explana-
tory mechanism for what is specifically human or having a hopelessly old-
fashioned and narrow-minded viewpoint.2 I believe this not only to be a
false opposition, but also one that regrettably prevents a more stimulating
dialogue between scientific research and philosophical reflection.3 Seen in
this light, a genealogy is a narrative that tries to explain a cultural phenom-
enon by describing a possible way of its coming about. This implies that
culture evolves, although not necessarily solely according to the principles
of natural selection.
One factor complicates the analysis of Nietzsche’s naturalism, namely
that he often seems rather confused about what Darwin actually said, for
instance concerning teleology and the place of man in nature. When Nietz-
sche criticizes Darwin for supposing evolution means progress, he aims at
Lamarck for the simple reason that Darwin never supposed humanity was
on its way to perfection. This matter, unfortunately, occupies quite some
space in Nietzsche’s argumentation.
Another element is more relevant: Nietzsche felt a closer affinity to
Lamarck than to Darwin. In the Nachlaß of 1885, he exclaims, for exam-
ple, that without Hegel and Lamarck there was no Darwin—Darwin is just
‘eine Nachwirkung’, an after-effect (Nachlaß April–June 1885, KSA 11,
34[73]). The basic reason for this preference is clear: Lamarck offers an-
other interpretation of the forces of evolution, hereby anticipating the ‘will
to power’.
_____________
2 E.g., Barkow et al. 1992. For a criticism of their view, see, e.g., Kitcher 2003.
3 See also Williams 2002.
Tinneke Beeckman 65
What is Naturalism?
Nietzsche’s genealogy offers a naturalistic account of history. Firstly,

Nietzsche wants to understand the origins of morality without reference to
supernatural entities. This idea is very prominent throughout his work. He
resumes the essence of the Genealogy as such in Ecce Homo. In the Pre-
face to the Genealogy, he stresses the continuity with Human, All Too Hu-
man. In this work, he strives to explain the highest manifestations of cul-
tural activity in terms of the ‘lowest’. ‘Perhaps,’ he asks himself, ‘the
whole of humanity is no more than a stage in the evolution of a certain
species of animal of limited duration: so that man has emerged from the
ape and will return to the ape’ (HA I 247). In Beyond Good and Evil, he
wants ‘to translate man back into nature’ (BGE 230). In the Preface to the
Genealogy, Nietzsche recalls his attachment to a more theological compre-
hension of morality in his youth. But very soon, he stopped seeking the
origin of good and evil beyond this world and rephrased the problem as:
under which circumstances did man invent good and evil as judgements of
values, and what is the value of these values in itself? The first impulse to
effectively try to understand morality as a human creation, Nietzsche con-
tinues, came to him through Paul Rée’s work. So, concerning the geneal-
ogy of morals, Nietzsche wants to understand the value of value, consider-
ing man as a part of nature. This is the first meaning of ‘naturalism’.4
Secondly, naturalism refers to the natural sciences. Indeed, it is not a
coincidence that the very idea of a genealogy coincided with major scien-
tific developments (e.g., Lamarck, Darwin). As such, Nietzsche forces us
to position ourselves with regard to scientific methods or results, and I
believe this to be one of the lasting challenges of his work. How can we
develop a philosophical method that is not in contradiction to science, but
that allows at the same time for the best explanation of phenomena with a
broader than ‘scientific’ scope? This means that we should not stick to the
scientifically ‘provable’ solutions for human phenomena: reductionism is
not an option. But the balance between recognizing the relevance of scien-
tific results and a truly philosophical approach requires the skill—
flexibility and strength—of a ballerina dancing en pointe.
In the context of naturalism, culture poses the following problem. Hu-
man beings are part of nature. They are genealogically related to other
animals, but they are also different, for instance in the fact that they have
language. Explaining the differences with other animals is the main con-
cern of a naturalist approach. Claiming that culture is somehow different
_____________
4 For a further elaboration of this theme, see also Hatab 2005.
from mechanisms at work in ‘the rest of nature’ calls into question whether
cultural evolution does not occur according to entirely different principles.
Perhaps we are in need of different terms from the ones used to understand
other species. It is exactly in this context that Nietzsche’s genealogy has
some suggestions to offer.5
The Question of Functionality

(Anticipating a Criticism of Evolutionary Psychology)
The explanatory power of a naturalist theory seems to be generated by the

analysis of functionality. But immediately, this means entering dangerous
territory, because Nietzsche cautions precisely against a too narrow inter-
pretation of functionality.
Nietzsche begins the Genealogy with a remarkable statement concern-
ing his methodology. He opposes his genealogical project to another form
of reading history by distinguishing between a ‘correct’ way of genealogi-
cal thinking, namely one that results in a real history of morality, and ‘the
back-to-front and perverse kind of genealogical hypotheses’ (GM Preface
4). ‘English psychologists’6 (and Paul Rée) are at least partly responsible
for our misunderstanding of moral history because they produce mislead-
ing histories. The first psychologist Nietzsche discusses is his former
friend Paul Rée. According to Nietzsche, Rée is wrong to follow the Eng-
lish tendency by reducing the history and genesis of morality exclusively
to a concern for utility. Nietzsche assumes this criticism is applicable to
Darwinism in general, since he links Rée’s thoughts directly to Darwinian
theory. For instance, he contends: ‘But he [Rée] had read Darwin’ (GM
Preface 7). Although Nietzsche mistakenly compares Rée and Darwin, his
attitude is probably inspired by Rée’s own quotations of Darwin and La-
marck in the introduction to his work.
What is the confusion? Nietzsche seems to consider Darwinism as a
theory that supposes progress, in the sense of moral progress. The thought
that humanity is on a path to perfection irritates Nietzsche considerably
(Nachlaß Spring 1888, KSA 13, 14[123]). He therefore continues to ex-
plain that he doubts this idea of progress, because he fails to see in what
_____________
5 The central question for Nietzsche concerned ethical life, but this question posed in
a naturalistic way, as Williams (2002) shows, means we ask about human ethical
life in relation to the rest of human nature, thus in relation to motivations and
drives of human psychology.
6 Nietzsche probably has Lecky’s History of European Morals (1869) in mind when
he refers to the ‘English’.
Tinneke Beeckman 67
sense the strong have won, on the contrary.7 He thus applies Darwinism on
a moral level, which certainly was not Darwin’s intention. In fact, nothing
about natural selection supports the idea of a progression towards perfec-
tion, only the idea of an increasing complexity. It is necessary to distin-
guish between scientific interpretation and the interpretation of value.
Darwin was well aware that his theory could lead to such misinterpretation,
which is why he reminded himself in his notebook ‘never to say “higher”
or “lower”’ (Laland/Brown 2002, p. 65). This misreading of Darwin was
unfortunately quite frequent: throughout the nineteenth century, Darwin’s
name had been unfairly linked to theories about social life, which were
derived from Lamarck and Spencer. I shall return to a comparison between
Lamarck and Darwin. Here, it is rather unfortunate that Nietzsche did not
understand Darwin well enough to realize that his criticism was unjusti-
fied.
Nietzsche is actually criticizing social or German Darwinism, inspired
by Lamarck, whose views were linear and progressive. Each species has its
own, first ancestor (contrary to Darwin’s tree of life). Species have an in-
herent striving to evolve greater complexity. The human being is the pin-
nacle of creation. Lamarck’s central hypothesis to explain evolution was
the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Offspring could inherit charac-
teristics that the parents acquired during their lifetime. Unfortunately for
Lamarck, biology proved him wrong. The fact that his conception of biol-
ogy is untenable, however, does not mean Lamarck’s importance has di-
minished in the context of cultural change.
In a famous passage in the Genealogy, Nietzsche highlights the core of
his methodology. His most important objection is that naive genealogists
of law and morality, like Rée, confuse ‘origin’ and ‘purpose’. This inevi-
tably leads to a false interpretation of history.
But ‘purpose in law’ is the last thing we should apply to the history of the em-
ergence of law: on the contrary, there is no more important proposition for all
kinds of historical research ... —namely that the origin of the emergence of a
thing and its ultimate usefulness, its practical application and incorporation
into a system of ends, are toto coelo separate; that anything in existence, hav-
ing somehow come about, is continually interpreted anew, requisitioned anew,
transformed and redirected to a new purpose by a power superior to it. (GM II
12).
In other words, understanding something’s utility does not shed light on its
origin. Nietzsche rejects what he sees as a typical confusion of utilitarians.
I believe Nietzsche’s critique is equally relevant in the context of natu-
_____________
7 Another example see Nachlaß Spring 1888, KSA 13, 14[123].
ralism, although he did not realize to what extent his own incisive intu-
itions in this passage were thoroughly Darwinian—he was probably unable
to recognize them as such. Darwin states: ‘Nothing can be more hopeless
than to attempt to explain the similarity of pattern in members of the same
class, by utility or by the doctrine of final causes’ (Gould 2002, p. 100). He
himself cautioned ‘against the mistake of inferring current function or
meaning from ancestral function or meaning’ (Dennett 1995, p. 465).
Daniel Dennett, for example, admits that this fallacy is easily and fre-
quently committed, particularly by evolutionary psychologists. What
Nietzsche is effectively describing here comes close to Stephen Gould’s
idea of pre-adaptation or ‘exaptation’. Gould’s conception of ‘exaptation’
is methodologically important because it alters the way in which the gen-
esis of function can be historically reconstructed (Gould/Vrba 1982). The
possibility of ‘exaptation’ is certainly not a revolutionary invention with
regard to adaptation since it continues to invoke some notion of function. It
is significant, however, because it implies that a non-adaptive trait can
exist without being selected against, so long as it is not maladaptive, before
assuming a function different from the one it had previously served. This
has enormous implications for what it means to practice ‘decent’ genea-
logical thinking, because it suggests that there is no direct line between
what traits exists today and possible functions in the past. Thus we cannot
reconstruct the coming into being of certain traits by reasoning in terms of
‘best’ or ‘most adequate’ solutions to problems of adaptation. A solution
just has to be adequate enough, or present enough without disturbing or
diminishing the functioning of the organism, in order to be transmitted.
In his criticism, it is as if Nietzsche is hinting not so much at Darwin-
ism, but rather at sociobiology, recently resurrected under the name ‘evolu-
tionary psychology’. Spencer and Rée believed that they could detect the
simple, straight path to altruism. Nietzsche’s genealogy, by way of con-
trast, reveals that there is more than one point of origin, so a genealogy
cannot imply a direct retracing over time. The history of morality (or any
kind of cultural phenomenon) cannot be described in terms of a linear de-
velopment. The idea that a value or a phenomenon has many different
origins is consistent with Darwin and is an essential element of historical
thinking.
Nietzsche gives a methodological warning, when he insists that a func-
tional account can be given of items that were previously not seen as hav-
ing that same function. Especially the link between utility and adaptation is
a possible trap. This leads us to the next question, namely what driving
force causes cultural changes and thus the changes of function?
Tinneke Beeckman 69
The Driving Force of Evolution and Change: Time and Abundance
In ‘On Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life’ (UM II) Nietzsche
opposes the so-called objective historical practice to ‘life’. Later, when he
develops his genealogical method more fully, he sees the ‘will to power’ as
the driving force of change.
For Foucault, Nietzsche is the philosopher of power, and herein lies the
contribution of his genealogical method. It is generally accepted that will
to power does not denote any conscious, individual desire for power.8 But
how can will to power be understood in a naturalist reading? A good start-
ing point may be found in Twilight of the Idols. There Nietzsche describes
the will to power in opposition to the so-called ‘struggle for life’:
A n t i - D a r w i n . — As far as the famous ‘struggle for e x i s t e n c e’ is con-
cerned, this seems to me to be more of an opinion than a proven fact at the
moment. It takes place, but as an exception; the overall condition of life is n o t
a state of need, a state of hunger, but rather abundance, opulence, even absurd
squandering. —Where there is a struggle, there is a struggle for p o w e r ...
You should not confuse Malthus with nature. (TI ‘Reconnaisance Raids’ 14)9
In this passage, Nietzsche pointedly unites three thoughts. One, what Dar-
win says, is untenable. Two, this is because he focuses on the wrong strug-
gle, namely the struggle caused by a lack, a shortage (hunger and distress),
whereas life is abundance (wealth and luxury). Three, the correct represen-
tation of the struggle is a struggle for power.10
In order to understand how the will to power is an alternative to a
Darwinian solution, I shall turn to Nietzsche’s preference for Lamarck over
Darwin. I believe Nietzsche saw in Lamarck an opportunity to rethink
forces of cultural evolution. This assumption has consequences for a natu-
ralist genealogy in a contemporary context.
The basic idea of Darwinism is natural selection. Darwin was struck by
Malthus’ analysis that population growth would always reach a point
where food was not sufficiently available for everyone. The resulting
_____________
8 In this sense, my interpretation is thoroughly ‘Deleuzian’ (Deleuze 1962).
9 In The Gay Science, Nietzsche makes a similar point: ‘But a natural scientist
should come out of his human nook; and in nature it is not conditions of distress
that are d o m i n a n t but overflow and squandering, even to the point of absurdity.
The struggle for existence is only an e x c e p t i o n , a temporary restriction of the
will to life. The great and the small struggle always revolves around superiority,
around growth and expansion, around power—in accordance with the will to
power which is will to life’ (GS 349).
10 He repeats this ‘Darwinian mistake’ several times in the Nachlaß, especially in the
piece entitled A n t i - D a r w i n (Nachlaß Spring 1888, KSA 13, 14[123]).
shortage is a basic feature of demographic evolution. Darwin elaborated

this idea: within a group or species, the existing variation between the
members implies that those whose anatomical, physiological, and behav-
ioural characteristics best fit the challenges of the environment also have
the greatest chances of surviving and reproducing. Natural selection is a
process of variation, selection, and inheritance. Repeated over and over
again, the descendants of the original species will have new and distinctly
different features. Complex organisms are the result of the accumulation of
innumerable slight variations. One might therefore argue that the sole evo-
lutionary ‘force’ is the passing of time: only time is abundantly present in
the process of evolution. Put more precisely: only the limitless working of
adaptation over time creates change, unfortunately at the expense of a huge
number of ‘victims’.
As an abstracted idea, some thought natural selection simply too good
an explanation not to be applied to culture itself. Dawkins introduced the
notion ‘meme’ for a cultural replicator. Memes possess variation, heredity,
and differential fitness. Thus meme evolution is cultural evolution accord-
ing to natural selection.11 The world is full of brains—homes for memes
(Blackmore 1999, p. 37). There are more memes than can a find a home.
Understanding cultural evolution means finding the strategies and struggles
of memes to inhabit brains. The continuous and severe struggle for exist-
ence is the basic model of evolution. This struggle is the logical conse-
quence of an irresolvable lack or shortage: suffering and change are inter-
twined.
Nietzsche offers a fundamentally different model. He disagrees with a
Darwinian explanation of cultural chance, because he cannot accept Dar-
win’s emphasis on the environment as a generator of change. Instead, he
prefers a concept of inner power or transformation. This is where Lamarck
comes into the picture. He has two basic ideas: the first is the linearity and
progress of evolution, whereas the second is the ‘inheritance of acquired
characteristics’ as the driving mechanism of evolution. Nietzsche did not
believe in the progress predicted by evolutionary theory and, as we saw
earlier, (mistakenly) attributed this idea above all to Darwin. Concerning
the specificity of cultural evolution, Lamarck’s second idea is relevant. It is
important to note that Lamarck, the zoologist, did not apply his ideas to
culture. Nietzsche, however, aims precisely at understanding human pro-
ductions.
_____________
11 Besides natural selection, modern Darwinism emphasizes chance events such as
genetic drift and mutation, but these are for an evident reason not relevant in the at-
tempt to explain cultural evolution.
Tinneke Beeckman 71
What is the connection between Lamarck’s ideas and Nietzsche’s will

to power? The environment, Lamarck supposes, alters the form of organ-
isms. So organisms have to adapt to changes in the environment, by chan-
ging their habits. These, in turn, affect the form, through what he called
‘inheritance of acquired characteristics’: alterations in the habits of organ-
isms can be transmitted directly to the offspring. The classic and simple
example is: how come a giraffe has a long neck? Because the parents spot
the fresh leaves high up the tree. Subsequently, their will to have a longer
neck directly influences the next generation.
Unfortunately for Lamarck, this theory was refuted by Weismann in
1930: Lamarckism is genetically untenable. Evolution just does not work
this way. Since cultural evolution implies a different perception of time,
Lamarck’s hypothesis is more attractive than Darwin’s. During a certain
period Lamarck’s hypothesis seemed biologically appealing, because it
allows for evolutionary change to occur in the direction of an adaptation
within a very short period of time. Darwinian evolution implies that infor-
mation is acquired solely by way of a genetic system and can only be
transmitted at a specific point in time, namely conception. Consequently,
an organism cannot evolve faster than it reproduces. An organism or a
being develops abilities to react to short-term changes phenotypically, but
long-term changes require at least a generation (Callebaut 1993, p. 388).
This is why Darwinian evolution takes a very long time and makes a great
number of ‘victims’.
Culture, however, involves non-genetic learning. Therefore, it is useful
to distinguish between Lamarckism at the genetic level and Lamarckism at
the cultural level. Daniel Dennett suggests that the refutation of Lamarck-
ism at the cultural level (as phenotypic transmission) is less obvious (Den-
nett 1995): the idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics cannot be
refuted for culture the way it can be for biology. Thus, a preference for
Lamarck over Darwin in the context of cultural evolution does not mean
leaving the naturalist or scientific perspective.
But the question of refutation is only part of the story. At first sight,
Lamarck’s theory is not altogether different from Darwinian evolution,
apart from the genetic impossibility. After all, Lamarck maintains the idea
that changes occur in function of adaptations. The crucial difference, how-
ever, especially with regard to Nietzsche’s genealogy, is his introduction of
a transformative and purely active power that intervenes prior to the mo-
ment of adaptation. Lamarck has a specific word for the driving force of
evolution: ‘la volonté’, the will.
Time is no longer the force that enables evolution to happen. With his
preference for Lamarck, Nietzsche seems to conclude that evolution is
indeed, abundance, but not of time. Furthermore, this notion of ‘power’
makes the Lamarckian view on culture irreconcilable with the idea of natu-
ral selection. Returning to the contemporary debate, this aspect has import-
ant implications, although these are not recognized as such. According to
Dennett, for instance, assuming cultural evolution is Lamarckian comes
down to saying culture is about learning. But the application of Lamarck’s
biological theory to cultural change is more fundamental than the rather
tautological idea that culture involves learning. Or put differently, some-
thing more fundamental opposes the application of natural selection to
cultural phenomena. According to Aunger, memetics can become a science
if it can answer the following questions: whether selection is directional
rather than neutral and whether it allows for the identification of the selec-
tive agent (Aunger 2000, p. 14). But there can be no ‘agent’ in the analogy
with natural selection, because there is no concept of active force. Brains, it
seems to me, are just passive receptors of invading memes. Surprisingly
enough, some debate whether memetics is a Lamarckian theory, weary and
cautious not to come up with an ‘unscientific idea’.12 The answer sounds
more like: unfortunately not.
For Nietzsche, Lamarckism applied to culture leads to an essential dif-
ference: action versus reaction. The problem with Darwinism is that it only
captures reaction. Physiology and biology thus lack an elementary concep-
tion of activity. Adaptation is not active, but reactive. Nietzsche em-
phasizes Spencer’s fatal mistake: to see life itself as an inner adaptation to
external circumstances. This interpretation, however, denies life an essen-
tial activity: the priority of the spontaneous, assertive, affirming, and trans-
formative forces which Nietzsche calls the will to power.
Nietzsche’s turn against the reactive forces displayed by the natural
sciences is, however, only the beginning of his genealogical journey. He
subsequently elaborates a theory of how the conflicting forces influence
consciousness and the inner ‘eye’ of morality—and because they affect the
interpretation of history they require a genealogical correction.
Conclusion
I hope to have shown that the Lamarck–Darwin debate in Nietzsche’s

thought is more than a simple recapitulation of nineteenth-century science.
To this day, one of the truly puzzling questions concerns the driving forces
_____________
12 Whether this is the case would depend on the description of meme genotype and
meme-phenotype analogies (Blackmore 1999).
Tinneke Beeckman 73
of evolution that are called upon to explain phenomena.13 Struggle, lack,

and shortage are central ideas in many domains of the humanities: in econ-
omy, social theory, psychoanalysis, and cultural studies, to name but a few.
There always seems to be more desire than can be fulfilled, more individu-
als present than can survive, more units that want to multiply than can be
transmitted. And it is only ‘natural’, and thus inevitable, that some are left
out. But what if, Nietzsche seems to suggest, a different principle guides
human interaction, namely the struggle between active and reactive forces?
Such a principle would also give better insights into creativity and other
‘human’ characteristics. It is not naturally in contradiction either with sci-
ence or with naturalism (after all, memetics is not a science and evolution-
ary psychology has its difficulties). It might avoid the trap of reductionism
and reintroduce plurality and multiplicity that are so typical for all human
creations, including morality.
References
Aunger Robert, 2000, Conclusion, in: Darwinizing Culture: The Status of Memetics as
a Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 205–232.
Barkow, Jerome / Cosmides, Lena / Tooby, John, 1995, The Adapted Mind: Evolution-
ary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, New York: Oxford University
Press.
Blackmore, Susan, 1999, The Meme Machine, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Callebaut, Werner, 1993, Taking the Naturalistic Turn, or How Real Philosophy of
Science is Done, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Deleuze, Gilles, 1962, Nietzsche et la philosophie, Paris: Presses Universitaires de
France.
Dennett, Daniel, 1995, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meaning of Life,
London: Penguin.
Foucault, Michel, 1971, Nietzsche, Genealogy, History, in: Bachelard, Suzanne / Can-
guilhem, Georges / Dagognet, François / Hyppolite, Jean, Hommage à Jean Hyp-
polite, Paris: Presses Universitaire France.
Geuss, Raymond, 1994, ‘Nietzsche and Genealogy’, in: European Journal of Philoso-
phy, 2, pp. 275–292.
Gould, Stephen, 2002, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Gould, Stephen / Vrba, Elisabeth, 1982, ‘Exaptation—A Missing Term in the Science
of Form’, in: Paleobiology, 8, pp. 4–15.
Hatab, Lawrence J., 2005, Nietzsche’s Life Sentence: Coming to terms with Eternal
Recurrence, New York: Routledge.
_____________
13 For a recent update on the interaction between culture and environment, see Rich-
erson/Boyd 2005.
Kitcher, Philip, 2003, ‘Giving Darwin his Due’, in: Hodge, Jonathan / Radick, Gregory
(eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Darwin, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Laland, Kevin / Brown, Gillian, 2002, Sense and Nonsense. Evolutionary Perspectives
on Human Behaviour, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lecky, W. E. H., 1869, History of European Morals from Augustus to Charlemagne, 2
vols., London: Longman Green.
Richerson, Peter / Boyd, Robert, 2005, Not by Genes Alone. How Culture Transformed
Human Evolution, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Williams, Bernard, 2002, Truth and Truthfulness. An Essay in Genealogy, Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Translations

Press, 1986.
On the Genealogy of Morality, ed. Keith Ansell-Pearson, trans. Carol Diethe, Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Twilight of the Idols, in: The Anti-Christ, Ecce Homo, Twilight of the Idols, ed. Aaron
Ridley, trans. Judith Norman, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp.
153–229.
The Gay Science, ed. Bernard Williams, trans. Josefine Nauckhoff and Adrian del Caro,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
From Kantian Temporality to Nietzschean Naturalism
R. Kevin Hill
Interpretation of Nietzsche’s mature thought often focuses on his method

of genealogical critique, his perspectivism, his ontology of becoming, and
his naturalism. I want to suggest that Nietzsche’s naturalism is best under-
stood as a thesis about the nature of space and time, a problem he inherited
from Kant and Schopenhauer. Briefly, Nietzsche could not accept both the
idea that space and time, and hence those real things, events or processes
that fill them, are mind-dependent in the sense that Kant and Schopenhauer
intended, while also maintaining that the mind is itself something that oc-
curs within nature, as Schopenhauer had maintained. And though Nietz-
sche was concerned about the status of both space and time, he was espe-
cially concerned with the status of time.
In the fragment ‘On Schopenhauer’, Nietzsche early argued that
Schopenhauer’s use of Kant’s theory of space and time was unacceptable.
For Schopenhauer, the mind which constructs empirical phenomena is the
human brain, itself an empirical phenomenon. Nietzsche is quick to point
out that this position leads to incoherence.
[The] intellect is supposed to appear, i.e., the flower of knowledge is alleged to
have suddenly and abruptly blossomed forth from a world that does not exist.
Moreover, all of this is s u p p o s e d to have taken place in a realm devoid of
time and space, without the mediation of causality: yet that which has its ori-
gin in such an unworldly world must—according to Schopenhauer’s tenets—
be a thing-in-itself: either the intellect is now a new attribute, forever com-
bined with the thing-in-itself; or there can be no intellect, because an intellect
could never have come into being. But there does exist one [an intellect]: con-
sequently, it could not be an instrument of the world of appearances, as
Schopenhauer claims, but a thing-in-itself, i.e., a will. Thus Schopenhauer’s
thing-in-itself would be both principium individuationis and the ground of ne-
cessity: in other words: the world as it exists. (‘On Schopenhauer’ 4, Nachlaß
Autumn 1867–Spring 1868, KGW I.4, 57[55])
The collapse of Schopenhauer’s view leaves us with only two possibilities.
We can abandon Schopenhauer’s identification of the Kantian intellect
with the brain and return to a purer Kantian position which locates the
human intellect outside nature. Alternately, we can preserve the identifica-
76 From Kantian Temporality to Nietzschean Naturalism
tion of the human intellect with the Kantian intellect, but reject the claim
that the intellect produces the space and time of nature.
Because Nietzsche was ‘reluctant to deduce space, time and causality
from our pitiful human consciousness’ (Nachlaß September 1870–January
1871, KSA 7, 5[81]), he initially responded to this conundrum with the
daring and extreme expedient of considering space and time as the mind-
dependent projections of an intellect other than our own: the primordial
unity, the primordial intellect, the Dionysian world-artist. This way Nietz-
sche can say we all share a common space and time, while evading the
difficulties raised by identifying the brain with the human intellect. For
now it is not the human intellect which, in producing space and time, pro-
duces the brain and therefore itself. Rather the primordial intellect pro-
duces space and time and by that produces the brain.
However, by 1873, in ‘On Truth and Lying’, Nietzsche appears to be
asserting the Kantian view but with a twist:
But everything which is wonderful and which elicits our astonishment at pre-
cisely these laws of nature, everything which demands explanation of us and
could seduce us into being suspicious of idealism, is attributable precisely and
exclusively to the rigour and universal validity of the representations of time
and space. But these we produce within ourselves and from ourselves with the
same necessity as a spider spins. (OTL 1, KSA 1, p. 885)
However, Nietzsche also seems to be asserting the paradoxical Schopen-
hauerian view that identifies the Kantian intellect with the brain.
Someone could invent a fable like this and yet they would still not have given
a satisfactory illustration of just how pitiful, how insubstantial and transitory,
how purposeless and arbitrary the human intellect looks within nature. (OTL
1, KSA 1, p. 875)
I see no way of reconciling these strands other than by assuming that there
are two different natures: the nature which is the object of natural science
and the nature which contains the brain, nature as it seems to be and nature
as it is. Such a view is compatible with the notion of the primordial unity
that projects its own space and time. Nietzsche had expressed this notion in
public one year earlier, in Birth of Tragedy, and in notes dating back even
earlier. Such a view merely suggests that we cannot know through geomet-
rical intuition what the geometry of the primordial unity’s space is. For all
we know, it may be the same as the geometry of our own phenomenal
space. Early Nietzsche, following Kant, links natural science (i.e., New-
tonian physics) to our forms of intuition. Since our forms of intuition gen-
erate the space and time referred to in Newtonian theory, it follows that
Newtonian theory does not give us access to nature as it really is, the na-
ture within which we, and our brains, are embedded. Though real nature
R. Kevin Hill 77
may be Newtonian, it may very well not be. We do not know if phenom-
enal space resembles nature’s space. The result is scepticism.
This contrast between the two spaces and times, one known but imagi-
nary, the other real but unknown, persists long after Nietzsche had dis-
owned the ‘artist’s metaphysics’ of Birth of Tragedy: ‘[O]ur space is valid
for an imaginary world. Of the space, which belongs to the eternal river of
the things, we know nothing’ (Nachlaß Spring–Autumn 1881, KSA 9,
11[155]). And even later: ‘By my showing the subjective genesis, e.g., of
space etc. the thing in itself is neither refuted nor proven. Against Kant—’
(Nachlaß Summer–Autumn 1884, KSA 11, 27[68]). The mature view dif-
fers from the view in Birth of Tragedy and ‘On Truth and Lying’. First,
Nietzsche rejects the notion of the projection of a common space and time
by the primordial intellect. Second, though the notion of the Kantian intel-
lect developing over time is one Nietzsche carried over from Schopen-
hauer, Nietzsche ‘Darwinizes’ it. The specific character our forms of intu-
ition possess is due to their selective advantage over equally possible
competitors. Had rival intellects appeared, they would have perished, leav-
ing the field to nature’s favoured Euclideans.
The categories are ‘truths’ only in the sense that they are conditions of life for
us: as Euclidean space is such a conditional ‘truth’. (Between ourselves: since
no one would maintain that there is any necessity for men to exist, reason, as
well as Euclidean space, is a mere idiosyncrasy of a certain species of animal,
and one among many …) (Nachlaß Spring 1888, KSA 13, 14[152])
Now as the original formulation of the ‘neglected alternative’ thesis had it,
the relevant contrast was between transcendentally ideal space and time
and transcendentally real space and time, the space and time of things-in-
themselves. But Nietzsche rejects the intelligibility of a contrast between
appearances and things-in-themselves. If the very idea of the thing-in-itself
is unacceptable, then one would think that Nietzsche would be forced back
into a strict Kantianism, for the very idea of a contrasting domain that
might differ from the domain in which we find phenomenal space has lost
all purchase. Matters are further confused by Nietzsche’s repeated charac-
terization of phenomenal space as a falsification. This not only suggests the
existence of a contrasting domain, but even of some sort of access to it. We
see assertions seeming to confirm this, as when he says, ‘I believe in abso-
lute space as the substratum of force: the latter limits and forms. Time
eternal. But in themselves there is neither space nor time’ (Nachlaß June–
July 1885, KSA 11, 36[25]). In this last passage in particular, he seems to
give with one hand what he takes away with the other: how can space and
time be ‘absolute’ and ‘not exist in themselves’?
We begin to get a clue to what Nietzsche has done with his Kantian in-
heritance in the following: ‘Denial of empty space and the reduction of
mechanics to the tyranny of the eye and the touch. Denial of actio in dis-
tans’ (Nachlaß Autumn 1885, KSA 11, 43[2]). There is one possible ex-
planation for these Kantian themes in the late Nietzsche’s view of space.
The contrast is not between the space human beings construct versus the
space of the thing-in-itself. The contrast is between the space we directly
experience by virtue of our evolved, innate, space-producing psychological
mechanisms versus the space our best empirical theory posits. However,
this latter contrast does not commit Nietzsche to the claim that the space of
natural science is mind-independent. Possibly, nature as the late Nietzsche
understands it is mind-dependent (i.e., is not to be identified with the Kant-
ian thing-in-itself). Meanwhile we can still distinguish between the world
as it appears in naive, uncorrected experience, and the world as it appears
in scientifically corrected experience.
The heart of Nietzsche’s naturalism is his commitment to the existence
of two spaces and times. One pair is produced by the human intellect. The
other pair is that space and time within which the human intellect is em-
bedded (see Richardson 2006, pp. 214–216). The central claim of Nietz-
sche’s naturalism is that everything we are as individuals takes place in
nature. Now it will be familiar to contemporary readers of analytic phi-
losophy to identify nature with whatever it is that our best empirical theo-
ries posit as existing. For this sort of naturalism, a posit is acceptable if we
can reduce the theory in which the posit appears to our best empirical
theory (typically, physics).
In ‘On Truth and Lying’, Nietzsche embeds human beings and their
cognitive capacities within nature, while being a sceptic about natural sci-
ence’s ability to represent nature. Apparently for early Nietzsche in ‘On
Truth and Lying’, nature cannot be identified with the posits of natural
science. This suggests that early Nietzsche’s naturalism is actually a form
of transcendental realism about the space and time we are embedded in,
coupled with the thesis, inherited from Kant, that natural science only rep-
resents the phenomenal world. But that cannot be Nietzsche’s last word,
because by the 1880s, Nietzsche is claiming that there are no things-in-
themselves, and yet he continues to endorse some sort of naturalism, not
only in the sense that we are embedded in a space and time not of our mak-
ing, but also in the sense of a much higher epistemic value associated with
natural science itself. This suggests that the late Nietzsche parts company
with Kant by refusing to identify the space of physics with phenomenal
space, the space produced by our minds in organizing our sensory data. If
that is correct, the common denominator between early and late Nietzsche
is a rejection of the idea that there can only be a space and time whose
origin is the human mind; the difference between the early and late Nietz-
sche is that the early Nietzsche associates the space and time which the
R. Kevin Hill 79
human mind produces with the space and time with which physics is con-
cerned, whereas the late Nietzsche is willing to say that the space and time
which is not the product of the human mind is the one with which physics
is concerned. Whether Nietzsche can coherently maintain this while deny-
ing the existence of things-in-themselves remains to be seen.
Yet thus far, we have seen no underlying reason motivating Nietz-
sche’s departure from transcendental idealism in favour of naturalism. All
the twists and turns of his thoughts on space and time go back to the origi-
nal antithesis we mentioned above: the impossibility of reconciling a Kant-
ian theory with a Schopenhauerian identification of the Kantian intellect
with the brain. A reasonable conclusion would be to return to the original
Kantian position: distinguish the Kantian intellect from the brain and allow
the former to produce the latter without bootstraps. To grasp why Nietz-
sche believed that path was unavailable, we must turn to his views on time.
Nietzsche also began his thoughts about time as a Kantian, given his
Schopenhauerian starting point. While he came to regard Schopenhauer’s
naturalized Kantianism as unstable, he also concluded that Kant’s theory of
time fails on its own terms. In Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks,
in the discussion of Parmenides, Nietzsche identifies Parmenides’ view of
time with Kant’s, and then endorses Afrikan Spir’s objection:
‘Now first, it is plain that I can know nothing of a succession as such, if I do
not have the consecutive links together at once in my awareness. The represen-
tation of a succession is therefore not at all successive, consequently it is also
altogether different from the succession of our representations. Second, Kant’s
assumption implies such apparent absurdities, that it takes a miracle to see
how he could let them go unheeded. Caesar and Socrates are on this assump-
tion not really dead, they live still even as well as they did two thousand years
before and only seem dead to me because of the equipment of my “inner
sense”. Future persons now live already, and if they have still not stepped for-
ward as living, for this too the equipment of the “inner sense” is responsible.
Here one must ask above all: How can the beginning and end of conscious life,
together with all its inner and outer senses, exist only in the apprehension of
the inner sense? The fact is, one cannot deny the pervasive actuality of change.
Throw it out the window, it slips back in through the keyhole. One says “it
seems to me clear that conditions and representations change”—however, this
appearance itself is something objectively existing and in it succession has un-
doubted objective actuality, inside it something really follows one after the
other. —Furthermore one must notice that the whole criticism of reason could
have rationale and legitimacy only on condition that our representations ap-
pear as they are. Then if representations had appeared differently than they
really are, one would be able to make no valid claims about them, and there-
fore one could erect no theory of knowledge and no “transcendental” investi-
gation of objective validity. However it is beyond doubt that our representa-
tions appear to us as successive.’ (PTAG 15)
Spir’s weak objection is that transcendental idealism about time is simply

incredible if it means that ‘Caesar and Socrates are on this assumption not
really dead’. The stronger objection is that ‘our representations appear to
us as successive’. Even if we do construct appearances from our sensory
data and impose spatial form on them in the process, sensory data them-
selves are presented to us in temporal succession. Therefore, there is at
least one domain in which temporal succession is real: the domain of our
own representations. What is more, any operations on our representations
can only be conceived of as successive, and Kant’s transcendental psy-
chology is shot through with references to constructive processes; yet the
very idea of an atemporal process makes little sense on the face of it.
We have, then, a path from within Kantian thought away from trans-
cendental idealism, at least about time. For even if we do not speculate
about the character of the world outside the mind, transcendental idealism
about time is undermined even within the mind itself. We have no choice
but to embed the mind within a time extending before the existence of the
mind and continuing long after its destruction. Having been forced to make
this move, there seems little point in not embedding the mind within space
as well, at which point there are no further problems of Kantian origin to
prevent the identification of the human intellect with the brain.
There is an apparent problem with the interpretive claims we have
made thus far. Recall that we said that Nietzsche rejects Kant’s claim that
the space and time of nature are the space and time our cognitive apparatus
imposes on our sensations. Now for Kant, there are really only two pos-
sible positions: that space and time are transcendentally ideal or that they
are transcendentally real, where the former means that they are mind-
dependent and the latter means that they are features of things-in-
themselves. For Kant, the realm of nature is precisely the spatiotemporal
realm. So this question about the status of space and time, for Kant, just is
the question of whether nature is mind-dependent or whether nature is real
‘in itself’.
Nietzsche agrees with Kant that our minds impose a spatial form on
our sensations such that space appears to be Euclidean and in some regions
empty. The same holds true for time. Though the ‘geometry’ of time is
simpler by two dimensions, it does have a linear structure by which one
can infer, e.g., that if t2 is after t1 and t3 is after t2, then t3 is after t1, etc.
Also, just as regions of space can be empty, so too can moments of time.
Nietzsche diverges from Kant in his refusal to identify this phenomenal
space and time with the space and time of nature. He is willing to posit a
space and time of nature, which may differ from our intuitional space and
time as to geometry, emptiness, etc. Consequently, in rejecting Kant’s
identification of these two spaces (and times), Nietzsche must also reject
R. Kevin Hill 81
Kant’s thesis that the geometrical properties of physical space are know-
able a priori.
However, on Kant’s terms, this would be to reject the transcendental
ideality of physical space and time, and to affirm their transcendental re-
ality. For Kant, this is just to say that physical space and time (and what-
ever fills them) are things-in-themselves or transcendentally real relations
between things-in-themselves. Notoriously, Nietzsche in his latest writings
denies that the very idea of a thing-in-itself is coherent, and thus denies
that there are any such things. Thus, one would think, if space and time
cannot be transcendentally real (because nothing is transcendentally real,
the very concept being incoherent and empty) they must be transcenden-
tally ideal. This would collapse Nietzsche’s position into something not
unlike Kant’s again.
Here, however, appearances can be misleading. Kant himself allows
that natural science can posit entities, events, processes, etc. which are
‘empirical’ but unobservable for reasons relating to contingent limitations
on our cognitive capacities. Even outside science, in the domain of ordi-
nary life, there are countless cases of such ‘empirical’ speculation. We may
never know the precise number of people who shot at President Kennedy;
if there was more than one person, these other parties went (presumably)
unobserved, left insufficient traces behind to confirm their existence, etc.
Nonetheless, it is an empirical fact, not a noumenal fact, that the number of
assassins was one (or two, or three). Historians and conspiracy theorists
may posit the existence or nonexistence of these additional assassins, based
on available empirical evidence. In natural science, there are theoretical
posits which may not be directly observable, which are posited based on
available empirical evidence. Kant is not an instrumentalist about such
posits. They fall within the domain of the phenomenal. They are no less a
part of the world of empirical fact for being hidden, small, or far from ob-
servers. Whether this is the stance that Kant ought to have taken is a ques-
tion I leave aside; the point is that for Kant, quarks would be ‘empirically
real and transcendentally ideal’ despite being unobservable.
What I want to suggest, then, is that for Nietzsche, the space (and time)
of nature are empirically real but unobservable posits not unlike atoms.
The fact that we cannot directly perceive the world in anything but Euclid-
ean terms is analogous to the fact that we cannot perceive objects smaller
than a certain size. However, based on the empirical evidence we possess,
we can suppose that there are imperceptible quarks; similarly, based on the
empirical evidence we possess, we can suppose that the space of nature is
non-Euclidean. Whether our predisposition to perceive the world as
Euclidean helps or hinders us in getting the geometry of physical space
right is a question about nature. It is independent of whether nature as a

whole is mind-dependent.
Nietzsche’s understanding of what a thing-in-itself is is simply the no-
tion of a completely mind-independent object; in denying that there are
things-in-themselves, Nietzsche can be understood to be asserting a claim
analogous to Berkeley’s claim that to be is to be perceived. We must ex-
pand the scope of the perceived to encompass both the perceivable but not
presently perceived. We should also include theoretical posits of the same
general character as medium-sized objects, which for peculiar reasons are
unobservable (the extremely small and the extremely remote). The sum of
such objects, events, processes, etc. is what Nietzsche conceives nature to
be. However, there is no obstacle to Nietzsche regarding the entire natural
world as mind-dependent. Nietzsche’s persistent claims to the effect that
we falsify the world because our cognitive capacities have evolved under
conditions which select for expedient falsification, are completely inde-
pendent of his metaphysical claims that the world is mind-dependent, or
that the very idea of a mind-independent world is incoherent. The distinc-
tion between the falsified world and the not-falsified world should be made
within the sphere of the mind-dependent. The sphere of the mind-
independent is empty.
One worry concerning the interpretation I have offered so far concerns
the status of unperceived posits of our empirical theory. If we assimilate
Nietzsche’s view to Kant’s, it seems we would have to regard Nietzsche as
some sort of phenomenalist. We have already seen that when Schopen-
hauer defended his own idealism from incoherence, he fell back on quasi-
phenomenalist construals of statements concerning unobserved objects.
Yet Nietzsche rejected these construals in 1868 in ‘On Schopenhauer’. We
have no further discussion of phenomenalism in his texts, so we must as-
sume that this was a commitment he stood by. Without phenomenalism,
how can Nietzsche distinguish a space and time produced by our sensibility
from a space and time of nature? Such a nature is both mind-dependent in
Berkeley’s sense, and yet contains objects not currently perceived by us.
Nietzsche has available to him only the three options Berkeley had
available to him: either some mind perceives all of nature (God, and there-
fore an option late Nietzsche would reject), or the unobserved objects
really do not exist (which is incredible), or there are enough finite minds in
existence to guarantee that nothing we want to posit in our empirical theo-
ries goes unobserved. I believe that Nietzsche was committed to the third,
peculiar view, though not in a completely arbitrary or ad hoc fashion.
According to Nietzsche, the cosmos is essentially as Roger G. Bo-
scovich characterized it: fields of force are the fundamental reality, and
these fields permeate all of existence—where they are not, there is literally
R. Kevin Hill 83
nothing, not even empty space and time. However, Nietzsche also appears
to have endorsed a form of panpsychism regarding these fields of force.
His reasoning for this is not our primary concern; he thought the idea of
force makes no sense unless we understand forcing and being forced to be
something undergone, felt, something (in our sense of the word) mental.
Thus every field of force will have its corresponding ‘feel’ as it presses on
other fields and is pressed upon in turn. If force possesses rudimentary
awareness of its milieu, and force is pervasive, then the Berkeleian prob-
lem of unobserved items is solved. Everything is a perceiver because it
undergoes influence from other fields of force. Also, everything is being
perceived because there are fields of force upon which it expresses itself.
Panpsychism thus allows Nietzsche to escape from the most untoward
consequences of the esse est percipi principle. It allows Nietzsche to con-
tinue to affirm the existence of a nature within which we are embedded.
Though it is permeated with mind, Nietzsche’s nature transcends us. Our
knowledge of it may well be imperfect, thus affirming a distinction be-
tween how things seem and what is so.
Some readers understand Nietzsche’s perspectivism to be more funda-
mental than the thesis that the world is will to power. For them, it may
seem that I have not done justice to Nietzsche’s thesis that there is no
thing-in-itself, that nature brings the thing-in-itself in through the back
door. Conversely, one might think that calling Nietzsche’s nature ‘mind-
dependent’ stretches the meaning of that expression to its breaking point. I
think the resolution of this difficulty is to see Nietzsche’s concept of the
thing-in-itself as meaning less than it is typically taken to mean.
A ‘thing-in-itself’ is an object whose characteristics obtain independent
of all observers. To deny that there is such a thing does not mean that
things become reduced entirely to episodes within the experiences of ob-
servers without residue. There is a difference between regarding things as
collections of mental events, and regarding things as powers (Mächte or
Kräfte). An alternative to eliminating the thing altogether, or reducing it to
the sum of observers’ experiences, is to regard it as a locus affecting ob-
servers. The issue is not whether the thing has mind-independent qualities,
but whether its mind-dependent qualities inhere in it or in its perceivers. It
would be natural to ask the question, ‘What, apart from the affections it
produces in observers, is the object really like?’ If one replies, ‘Well, the
object surely has characteristics, but we will never know what they are,’
then one is committed to the object being a thing-in-itself. If, conversely,
one says that the very idea of what the object is like apart from how it af-
fects observers makes no sense, then one is denying that there is a thing-in-
itself in Nietzsche’s sense. However, clearly there is something out there,
from which flows the sum of the effects; this something is nothing other
than the locus. Nietzsche reinterprets things as complexes of power rela-

tions in which observers are always involved; he does not reduce things to
sums of episodes within subjects. This view, I believe, is remarkably like
Berkeley’s in certain respects, as seen in the following passages.
The properties of a thing are effects on other ‘things’: if one removes other
‘things’, then a thing has no properties, i.e., t h e r e i s n o t h i n g w i t h o u t
o t h e r t h i n g s , i.e., there is no ‘thing-in-itself’. (Nachlaß Autumn 1885–
Autumn 1886, KSA 12, 2[85])
That things possess a c o n s t i t u t i o n i n t h e m s e l v e s quite apart from inter-
pretation and subjectivity, is a q u i t e i d l e h y p o t h e s i s : it presupposes that
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a n d s u b j e c t i v i t y are n o t essential, that a thing freed
from all relationships would still be a thing. Conversely, the apparent o b j e c -
t i v e character of things: could it not be merely a d i f f e r e n c e o f d e g r e e
within the subjective? (Nachlaß Autumn 1887, KSA 12, 9[40])
Notice the strikingly Berkeleian character of these remarks. One could
almost say that Nietzsche is reliving an earlier philosophical drama, and
has cast Kant in the role of Locke and himself in the role of Berkeley. It is
true that for Nietzsche, as for Kant, the mind is not a genuine substance.
But it would be a mistake to think that because Nietzsche cannot believe
that only mental substance exists, Berkeleian patterns of argument are not
afoot. The rejection of a strong ‘veil of perception’ doctrine, a critique of
the idea that a substratum of properties can be conceived independent of
the properties it instantiates, the identification of sensible properties with
sensory states, and the doctrine that the only causality possible is between
minds, all bear the marks of deep Berkeleian commitments.
If we take this view, it is still easy to see how Nietzsche, like Berkeley,
could think that his view mitigated sceptical difficulties considerably. It is
not that we cannot be barred from access to reality because there is no
reality to be barred from. It is that we cannot be barred from access to re-
ality because there are no characteristics of reality apart from those which
produce experiences.
This view, as I understand it, is reminiscent of Berkeley’s in yet an-
other way. For on Berkeley’s view, it is not just that there are only experi-
ences and experiencers. Rather, experiences are caused by something ex-
ternal to them that places them in us: God. God’s intentions, then, occupy
the same role that mind-independent things do in a realist view: they are
not the experiences, nor the sum of experiences, but a locus that produces
them. Nietzsche himself seems to see this similarity, when he makes the
very Berkeleian remark that ‘“Will,” of course, can affect only “will”—and
not “matter” (not “nerves,” for example—)’ (BGE 36). The difference
from Berkeley, then, is not really at the level of fundamental metaphysics,
but at that of theology. Where Berkeley has one God, Nietzsche has many
R. Kevin Hill 85
gods, for that is what each ‘thing’ is: a petit Berkeleian deity producing
experiences in the minds it affects.
Nietzsche’s metaphysical commitment to the reality of time is also
central to his ‘genealogical’ critique of Kant. First, rejection of a beginning
to time is of a piece with Nietzsche’s rejection of the Judeo-Christian tradi-
tion, with its conception of a creator God. Second, Nietzsche’s concern to
vindicate the reality of time is not only of a piece with (though not strictly
required by) the historicist aspect of genealogical critique; Nietzsche sees
Kant’s rejection of the reality of time as symptomatic of a more general
failing of philosophers since Parmenides. By making time transcendentally
ideal, Kant can distinguish between an apparent world, in which there is
destruction, and a real world, in which there is no destruction. This con-
trast, in turn, allows Kant to associate that which he values (noumenal
agency) with a domain distinct from the world of experience and immune
to decay. Such a line of thought is symptomatic, Nietzsche thinks, of an
inability to cope with, and subsequently a hatred for, life itself.
You ask me which of the philosophers’ traits are really idiosyncrasies? ... For
example, their lack of historical sense, their hatred of the very idea of becom-
ing, their Egypticism … Death, change, old age, as well as procreation and
growth, are to their minds objections, —even refutations. Whatever has being
does not b e c o m e ; whatever becomes does not have b e i n g … But since they
never grasp it, they seek for reasons why it is kept from them. ‘There must be
mere appearance, there must be some deception which prevents us from per-
ceiving that which has being: where is the deceiver?’—‘We have found him,’
they cry ecstatically, ‘it is the senses! These senses, w h i c h a r e s o i m -
m o r a l i n o t h e r w a y s t o o , deceive us concerning the t r u e world …’ (TI
‘“Reason” in Philosophy’ 1)
The above described line of thinking is hardly the official basis for Kant’s
doctrine of the phenomenality of time. However it is surely fair to say that
Kant is happy to exploit the phenomenal/noumenal contrast. It is crucial to
his arguments licensing faith in such transcendent goods as free will, im-
mortality, and God, as we see in the second Critique. Nietzsche’s assess-
ment of such a metaphysics is that
Any distinction between a ‘true’ and an ‘apparent’ world, whether in the
Christian manner or in the manner of Kant (in the end, an u n d e r h a n d e d
Christian)—is only a suggestion of decadence, a symptom of the d e c l i n e of
life. (TI ‘“Reason” in Philosophy’ 6).
References
Richardson, John, 2006, ‘Nietzsche on Time and Becoming’, in: Keith Ansell-Pearson
(ed.), A Companion to Nietzsche, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 208–229.
Nietzsche’s Problem of the Past
John Richardson
Nietzsche has a problem with the past. He thinks we all have a problem
with it, indeed several interlocking problems, whose chief root he tries to
identify. His repeated attention to this topic, coming at key points in his
texts, amounts almost to a fixation.
My aims are to point out this repeating theme, which I think has been
under-recognized, but more importantly to suggest the underlying reasons
Nietzsche has for making the past a problem. And I’ll sketch how he ulti-
mately handles this problem—a solution that draws jointly upon his genea-
logical method, his ideal of freedom, and his thought of eternal return. For
this purpose I will use and extend certain lines of interpretation and argu-
ment that I presented in Nietzsche’s New Darwinism (Richardson 2004).
Let me start by reminding of a few places in Nietzsche’s corpus that
treat the past explicitly and with emphasis.1 In each of them our—
humans’—relation to the past is a problem we have difficulty addressing—
and Nietzsche offers to help us with it.
a. First an early passage. ‘On the Uses and Disadvantages of History
for Life’ focuses on certain kinds of misuse of history that Nietzsche thinks
are symptomatic of the present age: ‘we are all suffering from a consuming
fever of history and ought at least to recognize that we are suffering from
it’ (UM II Foreword). And then in section 1: ‘t h e r e i s a d e g r e e o f
sleeplessness, of rumination, of the historical sense, which
i s h a r m f u l a n d u l t i m a t e l y f a t a l t o t h e l i v i n g t h i n g ’ (UM II 1,
KSA 1, p. 250). This criticism of history and of a certain ‘historical atti-
tude’ which characterizes our age is probably the most emphasized point in
this essay.
Nietzsche claims that this modern misuse of history is connected to
(rooted in) something broadly and in fact essentially human: what distin-
guishes us from animals is that we remember the past, but this memory is
also our great burden: ‘Man ... braces himself against the great and ever
_____________
1 For the sake of (a kind of) economy, I’ll largely confine myself to these four texts:
Untimely Meditations II, Human, All Too Human, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and On
the Genealogy of Morality.
88 Nietzsche’s Problem of the Past
greater pressure of what is past: it pushes him down or bends him side-
ways’; ‘it was’ is ‘that password which gives conflict, suffering and satiety
access to man so as to remind him what his existence fundamentally is—an
imperfect tense that can never become a perfect one’ (UM II 1, KSA 1, p.
249). Another set of early passages I’ll use but won’t quote now are the
opening sections of Human, All Too Human, which detail how a primitive
past is still present—still works—in all of us.
b. Next a passage from Nietzsche’s ‘midday’, in Zarathustra. His fa-
mous explication there of the eternal return—the climax of the book—
presents this idea as responding to a deep human worry over the past. The
past disturbs us, because it is utterly beyond the will’s reach: the will ‘can’t
will backwards’: ‘Willing liberates; but what is it called that puts even the
liberator in fetters? / “It was”: that is the will’s gnashing of teeth and lone-
liest sorrow. Powerless with respect to what has been done—it is an angry
spectator of all that is past. / Backwards the will is unable to will; that it
cannot break time and time’s desire—that is the will’s loneliest sorrow’ (Z
II ‘On Redemption’). And soon after: ‘This, yes this alone, is what r e -
v e n g e itself is: the will’s ill-will toward time and its “It was”’ (ibid.).
Later in this section Zarathustra has an inkling how eternal return can
solve the problem, but he is only able to embrace that thought in part three.
By willing eternal return, the will is able to redeem the past and to say
(truly) ‘Thus I will it, thus shall I will it’, thus meeting the challenge that
had been set in ‘On Redemption’. And this is the dramatic turning point of
the book, which therefore hinges on the problem of the past. Eternal return
is needed above all to meet this challenge; its chief function is to change
our relation to the past, and solve that problem with it.
c. Finally a late passage, in the Genealogy. The second essay’s opening
genealogy is of memory: this capacity didn’t come to us from our animal
past, but had to be trained into humans by ages of brutal punishments. This
memory was imposed against the grain of our natural ‘f o r g e t f u l n e s s ’,
which is an active repression of the past, requisite for healthy and effective
functioning: ‘there could be no happiness, no cheerfulness, no hope, no
pride, no p r e s e n t , without forgetfulness’ (GM II 1).
Originally, what humans were trained to remember were their past
promises, including especially their promise to obey the social rules. Peo-
ple were trained to ‘remember’ them not just as past facts, but in the strong
practical sense of keeping allegiance to them, taking themselves to be
bound by them: ‘an active d e s i r e not to rid oneself, a desire for the con-
tinuance of something desired once, a real m e m o r y o f t h e w i l l ’ (GM II
1). This memory for the rules was a necessary condition for increasingly
close, large-scale, and efficient social life.
John Richardson 89
So society needed to ‘burn this memory into us’. Consider this com-
plex passage on the past, and memory: ‘perhaps there was nothing more
fearful and uncanny in the whole prehistory of man than his m n e m o -
t e c h n i c s … Something of the terror that formerly attended all promises,
pledges, and vows on earth is s t i l l e f f e c t i v e : the past, the longest, deep-
est and sternest past, breathes upon us and rises up in us whenever we be-
come “serious”’ (GM II 3).
This training in memory is the key first step in the ‘taming’ and
‘civilizing’ of humans, their socialization. But, Nietzsche says, both this
new capacity (memory) and that long training for it by means of terror,
pain, and punishment have had the overall, pervading effect of sickening
and depressing us, even today. It’s this training in memory, above all, that
has rendered us ‘the sick animal’.
Now seeing Nietzsche returning so often and so critically to the past
and memory raises the simple question: why is the past so important to
him? And we can mean this question in at least two ways: (a) What psy-
chological factors induced Nietzsche to worry over the past (and his rela-
tion to the past) in this way? (b) What does Nietzsche avow as the past’s
importance—i.e., what reasons or grounds does he offer?
I’ll say just a few things about (a), on the personal-psychological
weight of the past for Nietzsche, and what might be at the root of this.
Certainly there are reasons to think that his philosophical attention to the
past reflects a ‘fixation’ running down at the level of his own psychologi-
cal character.
His professional field, classical philology, is itself a major statement of
his special fascination with the past. We should take seriously the oddity in
this, that a philosopher who later prided himself on being so far ahead and
futural should have originally occupied himself with not just history but
ancient history. Famously, he later regretted this decision—and that he
hadn’t read in the sciences instead. So he expresses a retrospective regret at
his own retrospectiveness.2
I think we find another expression of Nietzsche’s personal problem
with the past in the hostility he so characteristically shows to his predeces-
sors—and especially to those who have clearly influenced him. His hyper-
bolic rejections of Socrates, Plato, Kant, Schopenhauer, and Darwin can be
read to show him bothered by their influence—by the debt he may owe to
_____________
2 Notice, in the 1886 Preface to HA II, how Nietzsche says that all of his works
except one (surely Zarathustra) ‘are to be d a t e d b a c k —they always speak of
something “behind me”’. Each of them describes a viewpoint Nietzsche had lived
through at varying distances in his past. So most of his writing is retrospective.
others’ ideas, and the threat to his independence and originality. This is
mixed with a sense of the flaws and failures in these sources. He expresses
some of this in Human, All Too Human: ‘He who has come to a clear
understanding of the problem of culture suffers from a feeling similar to
that suffered by one who has inherited a fortune dishonestly acquired …
He thinks with sorrow of his origins and is often ashamed, often sensitive
about them. The whole sum of the energy, will and joy he expends on his
property is often balanced by a profound weariness: he cannot forget his
origins’ (HA I 249).3
I don’t know, and do ask, whether Nietzsche’s relation to his personal
past was troubled—whether he struggled against unpleasant memories. Are
there things in his past that he regrets, and feels guilty or ashamed of? Per-
haps the Lou Salomé episode—his lack of success with her, his own re-
sentful reaction to her and Paul Rée? Perhaps his father—as a ‘priest’, as
having gone mad? Perhaps his rather embarrassing mother and sister,
surely deflating to his own grand ambitions and self-conception?
If this could be filled in, it would license a psychologistic suggestion:
that Nietzsche found himself obsessed with or fixated on the past in ways
he found troubling and self-undermining—and that he was both expressing
and working this personal issue through in his basic philosophical thinking.
He purports to have eventually succeeded in this. For in Ecce Homo
we find an utterly positive account of his past: he claims to be completely
content with it, seeing it all as the path by which he ‘becomes who he is’.
(We can read his glad emphasis here as a sign, perhaps, of how much dis-
content he overcame.) In the introductory paragraph: ‘H o w c o u l d I n o t
b e g r a t e f u l t o m y w h o l e l i f e ? ’ He depicts himself, perhaps, as ex-
emplifying the kind of gratitude towards the past, and will to have it just as
it was, that is involved in willing eternal return.4 Biographically, again, we
may wonder whether he really did achieve the reconciliation with the past
he so long wanted.
However, more important than these biographical speculations is the
task of clarifying the main structure of Nietzsche’s philosophical views
about the past and memory—to see how his various reflections on memory
might fit together into a coherent theory. So I’ll go on now to try to formu-
_____________
3 In this light HA II 110 may be read as a confession.
4 In the same paragraph he says, ‘I looked backwards [rückwärts], I looked out
[hinaus], I have never seen so many and such good things at once’ (EH ‘Why I Am
so Wise’, KSA 6, p. 263). These terms for the retrospective and prospective stan-
ces echo those in a key passage on eternal return in Zarathustra, which we’ll look
at in section 3 below. Nietzsche here claims the simultaneous satisfaction of both
stances that I’ll argue eternal return is supposed to represent.
John Richardson 91
late this ‘problem of the past’ more fully and exactly, and to settle his an-
swer or response to it. Here I mean to sketch the gist of the problem, as
Nietzsche came to see it in his maturity.
I’ll present the problem as lying in the tension or apparent contradic-
tion between two large points:
1. that the past is far too important to ignore (being important in ways
and for reasons we don’t suspect),
2. but that attention to the past seems to be harmful to us.
So, it seems, we’re damned whether we do or don’t pay attention to it.
1. The Past’s Importance
The past is important because we don’t and can’t ‘leave it behind’: it is the
secret meaning of who we are (and what we do). I think this is a point on
which Nietzsche disagrees with both common sense and science. He thinks
the past ‘gives our meaning’ not just in the (scientific and commonsensi-
cal) sense that it did make us, and hence explains us as a cause (something
externally determining)—the relevance the past usually seems to us to
have. Rather, the past ‘gives our meaning’ in the stronger sense that it has a
kind of ‘presence’ in us, constituting us now as who we are, determining
the meaning of what we now do. This is because, first, there are structures
or mechanisms in us that were made long ago in very different condi-
tions—that are ‘remnants’ of those past times. And it is because, second,
these structures were made by wills, and hence express the aims of these
wills, which carry their intentions ahead into us. Together these points
make the past constitutive of the present: of who I am, of the meaning of
what I do.
The first point is more to the fore in Human, All Too Human. Nietz-
sche states it most broadly at the opening of section 223 ‘W i t h e r w e
h a v e t o t r a v e l ’: ‘Direct self-observation is not nearly sufficient for us to
know ourselves: we require history, for the past continues to flow within us
in a hundred waves; we ourselves are, indeed, nothing but that which at
every moment we experience of this continued flowing [Fortströmen]’
(HA II 223). This section builds to the lesson that one might study the
sedimented layers of the past within oneself, discovering all of our cultural
and even organic past deposited there. Such a one ‘will rediscover the ad-
venturous travels of this becoming and changing ego [dieses werdenden
und verwandelten ego] in Egypt and Greece, Byzantium and Rome, France
and Germany, in the age of the nomadic or of the settled nations, in the
Renaissance and the Reformation, at home and abroad, indeed in the sea,
the forests, in the plants and in the mountains. —Thus self-knowledge will
become universal knowledge [All-Erkenntnis] with regard to all that is

past’ (ibid.).
This passage from the second volume of Human, All Too Human states
the lesson behind much of the discussion that opens volume one. Notice,
for example, the description of cruel people as ‘stages of e a r l i e r c u l -
t u r e s that have remained behind: the mountain ranges of humanity here
openly display the deeper formations that otherwise lie concealed … In our
brains there must also be furrows and whorls corresponding to that state of
mind, just as reminders of our existence as fishes should be ascertainable
in the form of individual human organs. But these furrows and whorls are
no longer the bed along which the stream of our sensation now rolls’ (HA I
43).5 Note again the reference to past evolution as layering structures into
us.
By the time of the Genealogy the second point—the intentionality of
those past ‘causes’—is clear. Those past shapings of us were for meanings
and purposes that our parts and processes continue to bear. So the book
elaborates (a) how our practices of punishment, bad conscience, and reli-
gion have been designed for certain functions, and (b) how the genealogy
of this design shows the ‘meanings’ these practices now have. The prac-
tices carry along the aims their selection-design has given them, so that
Christian values, for example, still carry the slavish and resentful purposes
with which they were first formulated.6
Here let me step back to give my current reading of Nietzsche’s no-
tions of will and drive, as the bearers of that intentionality.7 These are the
basic explanatory terms in Nietzsche’s account of human beings—and
indeed of ‘life’ more generally. Wills and drives are identified by what
they are ‘to’ or ‘for’. They therefore involve a kind of teleology. Explain-
ing by wills or drives involves explaining by what they are ‘to’ or ‘for’:
you cite the outcome as explainer, as why the drive did what it did. So for
example with ‘will to power’: this explains action/doing as ‘done as a
means to power’.
However, it is a persisting point for Nietzsche that we cannot explain
this ‘to’ (or this ‘done as a means to’) by the model usual in philosophy
and in common sense: the model of a personal and conscious aiming,
_____________
5 See also HA I 250: ‘the past is still too powerful in their muscles’.
6 This is why a critique of moral values depends on ‘a knowledge of the conditions
and circumstances out of which they have grown, under which they have devel-
oped and shifted’ (GM Preface 6).
7 Here I summarize an interpretation developed in Nietzsche’s New Darwinism
(Richardson 2004).
John Richardson 93
which represents and thereby ‘looks ahead’ towards a goal. Nietzsche

thinks this model is deeply false. We need to think our way out of it, des-
pite the tendency of our language’s very structure to pull us back in. Wills
and drives can’t be ‘mini-subjects’ or micro-consciousnesses. They can’t
have their ‘towardness’ by representing their goals in thought or con-
sciousness or anything mental (not even an unconscious mentality). They
don’t ‘look ahead’ or ‘anticipate’ in any straightforward sense.
On the other hand, wills can’t be mere causal tendencies to bring about
certain outcomes. Nietzsche’s term is richer than this. Power isn’t just the
tended-outcome of a will. If it were, ‘power’ would drop out of the explan-
ation. Nietzsche insists on the need to supplement mechanism with a ‘will’.
So we need a kind of ‘intentionality’ and ‘directedness’, but again not in a
cognitive or mental way. Nietzsche expresses his need for such a non-
mental directedness in those clearly metaphorical attributions to life of a
foresighting purposiveness, e.g., when he speaks of ‘life’s healing-artist
instinct’ (GM III 16). He forces us to look for a way that aiming could be
something non-mental.
So how do wills/drives get their aims? The suggestion I present in
Nietzsche’s New Darwinism is that wills have their ends precisely in their
having been selected for certain outcomes. So what makes a will ‘to
power’ is not that it holds power in view, or ‘looks ahead’ to it, but that a
selective process has ‘made’ this will ‘so that’ it tends to bring about
power. The causal tendency to bring about power would not itself be en-
ough to make it ‘to’ power. It must also have been selected to bring about
power, such that power explains why the tendency is here. This ‘etiologi-
cal’ account of wills (owing ultimately to Larry Wright and Ruth Millikan)
makes that selective process determinative of drives’ aims and meanings.
What’s the ‘selective process’ that determines a drive’s aim?
a. Originally natural selection, whereby drives serve ‘life’. I’ve tried to
show that Nietzsche takes over, though little mentioning it, the basic Dar-
winian insight: that selection for replicative success gives functions to
organs and goals to organic processes. Even here he thinks he has a correc-
tion to Darwin, on the consequence (or tendency) of natural selection: what
gets selected are especially drives and instincts for power, and not, as
Nietzsche thinks Darwin thought, instincts for survival.
b. Nietzsche has a second correction to Darwin: he thinks there’s a
new kind of selection that works in the human case, by virtue of our social
character. I call this ‘social selection’. Humans become capable of not just
‘drives’ but ‘habits’, i.e., behavioural dispositions transmitted not geneti-
cally, but by social copying. By this, a disposition for some behaviour is
‘selected’ by its spreading through the population. It is incrementally and
cumulatively modified (‘designed’) to facilitate this spread.
Nietzsche thinks this new kind of selection designs these habits for a
different ultimate end. Whereas natural selection designs structures that
further my ‘reproductive fitness’, social selection designs habits that favour
the success of my society—and especially by increasing society’s cohe-
siveness and homogeneity. So social selection’s main tendency is to design
practices that make us want to be similar to one another. Its tendency, in
other words, is to render us ‘herd animals’, by developing a ‘herd instinct’
in us. So: natural selection selects drives to power because they serve the
organism’s replicative success, but social selection selects habits of herd-
ing because they serve the society’s cohesion and strength.
It’s this social selection that mainly explains why I have the habits of
acting and thinking as I do. I acquire these by copying from the social
nexus, and they have their meaning and point in that wider context. The
‘meaning’ of the habit or practice is then not anything I believe myself
doing it for, as I do it, but the functions designed into it by the social pro-
cesses that spread it to me. These functions are ‘what the drive is doing in
me’, though often unbeknownst to me.8
Consider an objection: don’t I choose the habit because it appeals to
some psychological need or taste or desire? And isn’t the latter the explan-
ation why I have it, and what it’s doing in me? But this misses, first, how
the habit is rather, in Nietzsche’s view, a kind of virus that uses this desire
as a point of entry, for purposes of its own. This is how Nietzsche thinks
Christianity has worked: it appeals to certain weaknesses and sicknesses
for entry into persons, but then treats-aggravates that weakness for pur-
poses of its own (see, e.g., GM III 16). And it also misses how many of our
desires are themselves inserted into us by the same socializing process—
and above all the desire to ‘do as others do’.
So all of these wills/drives are (as it were) a great many ‘machines’ de-
signed for various purposes and built into us beneath our notice. It’s these
machines, and the functions designed into them, that explain most of what
we do. We need to realize that there are these many mechanisms in place in
us (as parts of us), which are unconsciously plastic towards certain out-
comes—which are ‘for’ these outcomes in the sense of having been de-
signed to accomplish them. It’s precisely because we don’t see how there
_____________
8 On the efficacy of these long early stages see Human, All Too Human I 2: ‘every-
thing e s s e n t i a l in human development occurred during primeval times, long be-
fore those four thousand years with which we are more or less acquainted; during
these years, humanity may well not have changed much more.’ And later On the
Genealogy III 9 speaks of ‘those enormous stretches of time characterized by the
“ethic of custom”, which lie before “world history” as the real and decisive princi-
pal history that established the character of humankind’.
John Richardson 95
can be such directednesses in us, except for the overt and cognitive sort
(i.e., consciously, deliberately willing an outcome) that we fail to see all
the meanings our behaviour has, ‘beneath’, ‘before’, even ‘instead of’ our
conscious meanings.
Ultimately, perhaps, Nietzsche is attacking what might be called a
‘psychology of presence’. He opposes our commonsense confidence that
we determine what we want and mean by our present acts of intending. ‘A
thought comes when “it” wants, not when “I” want’ (BGE 17). And what
the thought wants is determined by the processes that selected-designed the
thought. We might call this a ‘temporal externalism’ about meaning.
This social design of our habits and practices builds into us our values,
and in doing so gives these values their meanings. So the Genealogy un-
covers the meaning of Christian values: they’ve been designed as a ‘slave
morality’, i.e., have been structured to appeal to and further the interests of
the reactive, sick, and suffering. This design builds into us meanings we
don’t understand. It makes us ‘intend’ things we’re unaware of.
Human, All Too Human I 18 already states the point:
[W]hen the sensate individual observes itself, it takes every sensation, every
change for something i s o l a t e d , that is, unconditioned, without connection: it
rises up from within us without any tie to earlier or later things. We are hun-
gry, yet do not originally think that the organism wishes to be sustained; in-
stead, that feeling seems to assert itself w i t h o u t a n y g r o u n d a n d p u r -
p o s e , it isolates itself and takes itself as a r b i t r a r y . Therefore: the belief in
the freedom of will is an original error of everything organic.
So the ‘will’ of the organism to be sustained is not available in the sensa-
tion (or experience) of hunger. And the point extends much more widely:
all of our desires and values are doing further things, serving further pur-
poses, than what shows up in them.
Recall also the famous genealogy of punishment in GM II. In investi-
gating ‘why’ we punish, Nietzsche turns not to our present and conscious
intentions. Instead he considers the practice as a complex set of procedures,
and asks how different parts of this complex have been designed at differ-
ent times in the past for different functions now. These many functions
have been layered into the practice, which now has all these meanings.
And it has also built into us a host of metaphysical errors: ‘What we now
call the world is the result of a host of errors and fantasies, which emerged
gradually during the overall development of organic beings, merged to-
gether as they grew, and are now passed on to us as the accumulated treas-
ure of the entire past’ (HA I 16).
For all these reasons, we are in thrall to our past. This is the first threat
in the past: that it controls us. It deprives me of a freedom I have always
supposed myself to have. It means that I lack the responsibility I’ve
claimed for myself in acting and valuing. Of course we’ve always believed
that the past was the threat to our freedom, but because we might be cau-
sally determined by the past. Instead, it’s because the meanings of what we
do are logically constituted by past selection.
Now given these ways the past controls us, it seems attention to the
past is requisite, both for the sake of understanding ourselves, and for the
sake of realizing the autonomy or agency we suppose ourselves already to
have.
And this expectation is confirmed by Nietzsche’s frequent insistence
that philosophy must become ‘historical’: ‘A lack of historical sensibility is
the original failing of all philosophers … They do not want to learn that
humanity has come to be, that even the faculty of cognition has also come
to be’ (HA I 2). Later: ‘From now on therefore, h i s t o r i c a l p h i -
l o s o p h i z i n g will be necessary, and along with it the virtue of modesty.’
And: ‘The steady and laborious process of science, which will someday
finally celebrate its highest triumph in a g e n e t i c h i s t o r y o f t h o u g h t ’
(HA I 16).
2. Problems with Retrospection
And yet, when we do retrospect or remember or study the past, it seems

this tends to hurt or damage us.9 Or at least, Nietzsche often remarks on
such negative effects. We looked at three sets of passages (from Untimely
Meditations, Zarathustra, and the Genealogy) that presented this harm in
three different ways. Now we need a more comprehensive account of
Nietzsche’s considered judgement. How, given what we’ve seen, does he
think we should proceed to study and assess retrospection?
Clearly, we need to study retrospection’s genealogy: to see how this
stance arose and developed by the same kinds of historical processes we’ve
been treating. That is, we need a retrospective study of our retrospection, in
order to understand what it’s doing in us now. This is why it is—
paradoxically?—Nietzsche’s (retrospective) genealogy of retrospection
that best shows how the latter is harmful. Its damage lies in the ‘functions’
that have been designed into these retrospective abilities and practices.
So how did our capacity and propensity to remember and (in general)
‘regard’ the past arise and develop—and what functions has it thus been
selected for? I take this to be a or the central topic of the Genealogy’s sec-
_____________
9 This is one more place we find Nietzsche in dispute with Plato—and the value he
places on ‘recollection’ of the Forms.
John Richardson 97
ond treatise, which let’s examine. This essay, I’ll try to show, presents
memory as the decisive ability acquired by the earliest humans, upon and
around which our striking higher capacities were then built.
First a background point. The second essay opens with a certain picture
of the causality of this evolution: it presents ‘nature’ as ‘setting itself the
task’ to ‘breed an animal that m a y p r o m i s e ’ (GM II 1). Nietzsche speaks
as if nature foresightingly aims this process towards the ‘sovereign indi-
vidual’ who, he soon says, emerges eventually from it (GM II 2). Later in
the Genealogy he offers this picture again, to explain the social role of
priests; he develops ‘what I think life’s healing-artist instinct has at least
a t t e m p t e d through the ascetic priest’ (GM III 16). Such passages chal-
lenge the reader: Nietzsche clearly posits some kind of overall ‘design’,
and yet we can’t believe that he means literally this designer he men-
tions—‘nature’, treated as an agent working towards represented goals.
This agentive nature must be a stand-in for some other causal process
working at the level of the society or species as a whole, and somehow ‘in
the interest’ of such aggregates. As I’ve said, I think Nietzsche must mean
a selective process, working by aggregate effects over populations.
Memory evolves by selection in social groups. As animal, we were
capable only of the projective, forward-turning stance that Nietzsche asso-
ciates with will. This is what we share with all the rest of ‘life’. Memory—
our capacity for a second, retrospective and back-turning stance—arose
within society. Or better: memory arose at the very time that society
formed, and so that society could be the more possible and successful.10
Nietzsche gives the name Sittlichkeit der Sitte (ethic of custom) (GM II 2)
to this long early phase of our history, in which memory made social cus-
tom and vice versa. Humans’ retrospectivity, which distinguishes us from
all the rest of nature and life, was originally selected-designed to facilitate
our ‘socialization’—to make us creatures of habit and custom.
Indeed it might not be too strong to say that originally memory just
was the ability to acquire (social) habits or practices, distinct from the
innate drives. Memory was first and foremost the ability to remember the
rules, even when one’s drives pushed hard the other way. It was the ability
‘to keep a few primitive requirements of social co-existence p r e s e n t for
these slaves of momentary affect and desire’ (GM II 3). One remembers
_____________
10 Nietzsche later suggests that the beginnings of memory precede society, in the
more primitive relation between ‘buyer and seller, creditor [Gläubiger] and debtor
[Schuldner]’, which he says is ‘older than even the beginnings of any societal as-
sociations and organizational forms’ (GM II 8). But clearly the main work devel-
oping memory is done socially—and indeed Nietzsche goes on at once to focus on
the community [Gemeinwesen] as the most important ‘creditor’ (GM II 9).
not to steal the fruit in the market-place, even when one’s hunger drive
impels. So memory’s original work is to ‘give one pause’, restraining one
from acting on the immediate excited drive, by inserting a glance ‘back’ at
one’s commitment to the social rules.
Early humans were trained to remember this commitment by ‘burning’
into their bodies and senses certain vivid and powerful experiences of the
horrific punishments inflicted on those who break the rules. After many
generations of this training, ‘one finally retains in memory five, six “I will
nots”, in connection with which one has given one’s p r o m i s e in order to
live within the advantages of society’ (GM II 3).11 These dramatic punish-
ments train into us the ability to interpose between drive and action that
memory of the rule. And the capacity to remember all of the rules is the
ability to impose, on top of one’s drives, that new layer of social prac-
tices—to which one is committed to subdue one’s drives.12 All of this
shows how the first function of memory was to ‘socialize’ us—to make us
abide by the rules necessary for social existence.
This new power and propensity to remember gets inserted into an ex-
isting context of drives. It struggles to control the latter, but of course they
also struggle to control it. They try—by Nietzsche’s drive-psychology—
not only to enact themselves despite its restraining efforts, but also to infil-
trate, modify, and use that new capacity for their own purposes. We need
to bear in mind in what follows this counter-action by the drives upon
retrospection.
Now of course this is only the very beginning of a genealogy of our
retrospective powers, which have obviously evolved very richly from this
start. In fact, Nietzsche treats these powers as embryonic for major further
developments in our human cultural history, which we should look at. As
the retrospective stance is broadened and enriched into further powers, the
latter largely take up the original function of memory—to socialize us, or
in Nietzsche’s terms to ‘tame’ and ‘herd’ us. We can distinguish two sets
of such powers developed from that root.
a. First there are ways that memory, our backwards view, founds both
religion and morality. Nietzsche stresses how belief in gods develops out
of a retrospective view—the feeling of indebtedness to ancestors. The
social group reveres its ancestors as the founders of the customs and laws
_____________
11 Punishment effects ‘a lengthening of memory’, ‘a sharpening of prudence, mastery
of the appetites’ (GM II 15).
12 Among the drives subdued in this way is that to revenge oneself for injuries re-
ceived—one learns to treat these as offences against ‘the law’, to be punished by it.
Thus ‘the eye is trained for an ever m o r e i m p e r s o n a l appraisal of deeds, even
the eye of the injured one himself’ (GM II 11).
John Richardson 99
that have made the group strong (and the good life within it possible): ‘all
customs, as works of ancestors, are also their statutes and commands’ (GM
II 19). This retrospective feeling of debt binds each member more tightly to
those customs. And as the group grows stronger, those founders are magni-
fied into gods—and members’ debt to them is magnified as well.13
More than religion, morality is Nietzsche’s target, and this too is an
offshoot of that primordial power to ‘remember the rules’. Morality is a
next phase of social values, evolved from the ethic of custom. Though a
very complex phenomenon, its key ingredient I think is what Nietzsche
calls ‘bad conscience’ or ‘guilt’, and which he also genealogizes in the
second essay. Our bad conscience, which so poisons the moral stance for
Nietzsche, develops from memory in the following way.
Learning to remember the rules is learning to constrain or suppress the
aggressive drives that would threaten social life. Yet these drives crave
expression, and can’t be utterly stifled. So a way of making them subserve
our socializing-taming is found:14 these aggressive drives are turned back
against themselves, against the ‘entire animal old self’ (GM II 18). Mem-
bers are trained to feel guilty about their instincts, and this feeling is a way
of venting some of those instincts—especially those to inflict pain—
venting them on oneself. So here that retrospective stance which draws
back from the drives’ engagement re-aims those drives against themselves,
as a means to its own fuller control. Our memory for the social norms is
reinforced by the habit of paining ourselves with regrets at the drives that
tend to violate those norms. It’s this co-opting of members to punish them-
selves with a retrospective guilt that distinguishes morality from custom.
b. Besides its roles in religion and morality, that retrospective stance is
at the root of another main human achievement, which Nietzsche likewise
views with a famous suspicion. This is our reason, our cognition—the
attitude or stance in which we understand and know. Theory and science
are at root retrospective.15 We should notice how often Nietzsche takes
memory to represent and epitomize the theoretical attitude—an attitude we
take to be different and broader than memory. So his critique of ‘history’
becomes a critique of all science, and his critique of ‘memory’ becomes a
_____________
13 Nietzsche struggles against a related feeling of indebtedness when he fights (as we
saw above) to distinguish himself from the philosophical predecessors who most
influenced him.
14 It is ‘found’ by selection at the social level—and not necessarily by the conscious
discovery and design of determining individuals.
15 Notice how UM II 10 says that science ‘sees everywhere things that have been,
things historical’ (KSA 1, p. 330).
critique of all self-reflection (all looking at one’s aims or values from out-
side them).
Nietzsche treats this theoretical stance, the ‘will to truth’, in not the
second but the third essay of the Genealogy, where he identifies it as a
(surprising) manifestation of the ascetic ideal, indeed as its core (GM III
27). We can better see why he thinks so by seeing how this stance develops
out of that primordial memory.
Before and without this memory, the stance of our original willing was
and is dominantly futural: our drives make us lean ahead towards their
ends, and see and assess present conditions as they bear on those ends—as
opportunities or obstacles. In this willing we understand ourselves in what
we, in our drives, are trying to be (do, have).
Nietzsche thinks of memory as the root of a second stance humans be-
come able to take. By that primeval training to remember the rules, humans
learn to ‘step back’ from that immediate willing in their drives—to ‘insert
a pause’ in enacting those drives. Instead of focusing ahead on what our
impulses can achieve, our attention ‘turns back’ to some content independ-
ent of them.16 Moreover, one then binds and constrains those futural aims,
in line with this content.
Centrally, this independent content was and is the social rules. The
pause in enacting the drives is the ability to remember these rules—what
one must not do. Although I’m calling this ‘retrospective’, it is perhaps less
a matter of what ‘the mind’s eye’ sees than of what the mind’s ear hears—
verbal formulations of those rules. As well, one remembers all the more
particular commitments one has made, besides, to these norms: the prom-
ises made to others and oneself.
Now these memories are not mere reveries, but effective and practical:
I constrain my forward-pressing impulses and aims in view of past com-
mitments which I keep present. And the point and purpose of the content I
notice—my promises and commitments—is precisely to change what I do,
how I act. But, I think Nietzsche thinks, this capacity to ‘turn back’ from
the aiming in my drives into a space or attitude apart from them, resistant
to them, is the germ of humans’ capacity for theory—for the project of
knowledge or truth.
_____________
16 This way that (what I have been calling) memory turns us away from the drives,
and towards something separate from them, shows how it goes beyond the kind of
memory that subserves the drives, and that surely did occur in our animal past. The
latter is the power by which animals remember where the water source was, for
example; this doesn’t interrupt their thirst drive, but is entirely steered by it. So it
doesn’t count as the memory or retrospection we’re examining.
John Richardson 101
Our theoretical attitude, in which we try to know things ‘as they are’,
objectively, depends on that ability to pull back from our usual engage-
ment—to put a pause in our effort. But it uses this pause not to recall prac-
tical aims distinct from the drives (those social norms and promises), but
instead to ‘just look’ at things, in that space apart from drives’ effort.
To be sure, we must recognize that this ‘space apart’ from my drives
isn’t wholly apart, because of that counter-action of the drives upon retro-
spection, noted before. That new power is in competition with the drives,
and is affected by them as they are by it. So Nietzsche frequently stresses
how our theory expresses our drives and does not achieve the separation it
aspires to.
Moreover, in that ‘space apart’ I don’t find myself alone—not even
alone with my drives. Like that practical memory, theory too depends on
remembering rules: the vocabulary and methods of whatever practices of
knowing I have learned. So theory is not an individual and solitary stance,
but fully as social and intergenerational as our memory of the social norms.
I must remember those rules and guide my observing and describing by
them.
This begins to explain why Nietzsche thinks that this theoretical atti-
tude, our ‘will to truth’, belongs to the ascetic ideal. It is ascetic, ulti-
mately, precisely because it takes this stance contrary to the willing in our
body and drives. It turns away from our aims and ends, and binds us to
something independent of them. Indeed, in this regard our will to truth is
an ultimate form of that contrary stance—‘that ideal itself in its strictest,
most spiritual formulation’ (GM III 27).
This new stance, in which we front the world differently than in will-
ing, becomes most contrary to willing when it turns to study this willing
itself. Knowing, just as retrospective, already absents itself from our effort
to enact our drives. But when it turns back to look at those drives them-
selves—at the aims by which we really set our behaviour—it works ac-
tively against them. When we turn this retrospective eye upon our values
and aims, we chill and kill them. So the historical or genealogical study of
our values is the most ascetic of all.
Already in ‘On the Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life’ Nietz-
sche writes:
A historical phenomenon, known clearly and completely and resolved into a
phenomenon of knowledge, is, for him who has perceived it, dead: for he has
recognized the delusion, the injustice, the blind passion, and in general the
whole earthly and darkening horizon of this phenomenon, and has thereby also
understood its power in history. This power has now lost its hold over him in-
sofar as he is a man of knowledge: but perhaps it has not done so insofar as he
is a man involved in life (UM II 1, KSA 1, p. 257)
Moreover, because our will to truth is a development out of that prior

ability to ‘remember the rules’, it is entangled in some of the latter’s long
and harsh design; it has been partly aimed by that design. For example, it
participates in the ideology against the drives, and in guilt over failures to
abide by what the retrospective stance reveals. In acquiring this will we
inevitably receive with it elements with these remnant functions.
Overall, this genealogy of memory or retrospection shows it in a very
unfavourable light. It reveals how this back-turning stance has been de-
signed for a group of functions we were unaware of, and which are often
immediately unappealing—not functions we would want our attitude or
stance to perform. I’ll come back to give Nietzsche’s assessment of them in
a moment.
But first we should notice that there’s another, more positive way in
which this retrospective stance changes us. Besides these ways it lies at the
root of religion, morality, and theory, it also changes the kind of self we
can have or be. Before memory was acquired, a human was simply a col-
lection of drives—drives of differing strengths, which thereby naturally
formed a hierarchy or power-structure of impulses.17 Such a human—or
proto-human—identifies with the ends of these drives, or perhaps with the
ends of whichever drives happen to be active or dominant at the time. He is
who these drives are currently trying to be.
But once memory is developed, it functions in a new way of identify-
ing oneself. I now ‘find myself’ not just in these ends my drives aim me at,
but in the past commitments and promises I have made. I find myself retro-
spectively, in ways I have bound myself to be. And this changes as well
my prospective or projective stance. I now aim, not just at the end of what-
ever drive is now strongest in me, but at fulfilling my promises—at being
the person I have committed myself to be. This gets fixed in me as a new
drive—but a most anomalous one. By this binding I am someone some-
what independent of those (other) drives: I can act quite against them, to
keep my commitments. So I can have and feel a kind of power over my
drives. My ‘agency’ lies in the continuity I give my life by this retrospect-
ing committedness.
All of us feel, I think, this gratifying sense of control, in our identity as
deciding subjects. But although Nietzsche does think there is a major
achievement here, he believes it is less and different than we suppose. This
self-identifying involves a great error or illusion. I take my ‘moments of
_____________
17 This was, perhaps, too much the only way I treated our drive-structure in Nietz-
sche’s System (Richardson 1996). And Nietzsche himself sometimes operates with
this simpler picture.
John Richardson 103
decision’—the choices in which I commit myself to be a person like this—

as the complete and sufficient explainers of what I then am and do. And in
these moments of choice I feel my reasons as the only reasons that select
and explain how I choose. But in fact, my own reasons are selected by
those aggregate processes that ‘designed’ values for social functions. My
reasons are subordinate to those functions—I have been aimed by them,
and don’t really aim myself as I naively suppose.
The crucial such function is of course to socialize me—to induce me to
live by the rules, and more generally to fit my behaviour into the general
practice. What I bind myself to is—for the most part—these social rules, so
that my commitment to them serves, ultimately, not my own interests but
those of society. These seemingly free subjects are really a kind of au-
tomata, each of them committed to that same morality which holds them to
their social tasks.
So, like our theoretical attitude, our ‘sovereignty’, as a development
from that retrospective stance, retains deep design features that rather spoil
it, Nietzsche thinks. That positive sense of power we have in this stance
proves to be in important ways an illusion and even a deception. These
herding values disguise their own work by purveying this sense of personal
responsibility and control. Nevertheless, it is this image of a personal sov-
ereignty that inspires our immediate aversion to these herding forces, once
our genealogy reveals them. I discover that I’m very much not what I’ve
learned to pride myself as being.
3. Solving the Problem of the Past
Together, the points in sections 1 and 2 confront us with a dilemma: the

past is more important than we suppose, but attending to it seems to hurt
rather than to help. We’re in thrall to our past, but working on the problem
by studying the past seems only to make it worse, by diverting us into a
stance that undermines our natural drive-effort, co-opting it for social ends.
Early on, I suggest, Nietzsche has a simple (and somewhat mechanical)
way of answering this problem. He insists on the need to limit this retro-
spective stance. We must learn to subordinate our knowing to our willing.
Happiness (Glück) can’t occur in that stance, since it depends on forgetting
(UM II 1, KSA 1, p. 250). So science and knowing must be controlled:
‘science requires supervision; a h y g i e n e o f l i f e [Gesundheitslehre des
Lebens] belongs close beside science’ (UM II 10, KSA 1, p. 331).
Nietzsche does not make clear just how this limiting or constraining of
our retrospection would work. He says that ‘the unhistorical’ (forgetting)
and ‘the suprahistorical’ (art and religion) will be used as ‘antidotes’ to our
historical stance (ibid.). There may also be some kind of restriction on the
topics that get studied and known. A healthy culture, and a healthy indi-
vidual, will not turn this retrospecting scrutiny on the values most crucial
to it. This is a most important theme in the notes from the early 1870s.
When Nietzsche enters his positivist phase this naturally changes his
position on the worth of this retrospective, knowing stance. Perhaps we
should say that he now enters into and occupies it, and becomes preoccu-
pied with exposing as much about us as he can to the cold eye of study. So
he no longer fully recognizes those problems in the attitude—what it
misses, what it injures. This (temporary) loss of the sense of what’s best
for him was the means by which he cured himself of Romanticism (HA II
Preface 2).18
We find this less troubled stance expressed in Human, All Too Human
I 292, which counsels contentment with the way we’re still liable to reli-
gious, artistic, and other such ‘unclear [unreinen] thinking’—since we can
use this susceptibility for truth. This presence in us of past irrationalities
had seemed a threat to our knowing, but really it helps us ‘forward on the
path to wisdom’. For our rootedness gives us insight into the past, useful
for our future: ‘Turn back and trace the footsteps of mankind as it made its
great sorrowful way through the desert of the past: thus you will learn in
the surest way whither all mankind can and may not go again.’19 So the
way we are ‘thrown’ (geworfen) into this mixed condition turns out to be
useful for our effort to understand and learn from the past.
But—Nietzsche later thinks—this positivist embrace of knowing lost
sight of what knowing costs us. In his step ‘back to health’, in his maturity,
he regains ‘the perspective of life’, and his sense of how that knowing
stance is dangerous and undermining to it. This stance is responsible for
the death of God, and threatens to destroy all of our values as well and to
land us in nihilism. But now Nietzsche’s response is not to restrict or op-
pose our knowing, but to use it in a new project that realizes all of its po-
_____________
18 As usual in the retrospective 1886 Prefaces and 1888 Ecce Homo, Nietzsche
claims that an implicit purposiveness was at work in him. His ‘still healthy in-
stinct’ was using this cold and sceptical objectivity in a spiritual self-surgery. And
in Human, All Too Human II Preface 5: ‘so I, as physician and patient in one per-
son, compelled myself to an opposite and unexplored c l i m e o f t h e s o u l . ’
Similarly Ecce Homo says that Human, All Too Human ‘is the monument to a cri-
sis … I used it to liberate myself from things that d i d n o t b e l o n g to my na-
ture’—such as idealism (EH III HA 1).
19 See also HA I 616 on how absorption in past world-views gives us a valuable
perspective on the present as a whole. Also HA II 179 and HA II 223, quoted
above.
John Richardson 105
tential. He sees a way to reform and intensify our relation to the past by
putting it to work in a new healthy project, a project that betters our ‘life’
and ‘power’.
I will try to show how Nietzsche’s new solution to the problem has as
its two main components genealogy, as an epistemic ideal, and freedom, as
an ideal for willing; they are the new versions he offers for our two basic
stances, projective and retrospective, and which he thinks will allow a
reconciliation of them. And I’ll present eternal return as Nietzsche’s em-
blematic image for this reconciliation.
Let me start by suggesting another way to read a very familiar passage
of Zarathustra ‘On the Vision and Riddle’:
‘Behold this gateway, dwarf! I continued. It has two faces. Two ways come
together here: nobody has ever taken them to the end. / ‘This long lane back
here: it goes on for an eternity. And that long lane out there—that is another
eternity. / ‘They contradict themselves, these ways; they confront one another
head on, and here, at this gateway, is where they come together.’ (Z III ‘On the
Vision and Riddle’ 2)
I want to propose a different way to interpret these two paths: in terms of
the two ‘stances’ we humans are capable of. When Nietzsche speaks of the
paths ‘out’ (hinaus) and ‘back’ (zurück), he may mean not just (and even
not mainly) the future and the past, but these two different stances or
modes of comportment (of intentionality).20 The path ahead refers to our
projective thrust towards ends—to our willing. And the path behind refers
to that ‘retrospective’ pause or interruption in this willing, which distin-
guishes humans and reaches its fullest form in our knowing.
So when Nietzsche says that these stances contradict one another, he is
(partly, I suggest) referring to the incompatibility we’ve seen between
these attitudes: how the retrospective stance undermines and negates our
effort to will ahead. This reading lets us connect this crucial passage in
Zarathustra to the diagnosis we’ve seen Nietzsche makes of our human
condition as deeply disturbed by its special power of memory—by the way
we’re now ‘conflicted’ between our willing and our knowing. And this
passage, Z III ‘ On the Vision and the Riddle’ 2, is crucial because it sets
up the problem that eternal return is meant to solve.
This reading of the passage is reinforced, I think, by recalling Z II ‘On
Redemption’, which gave an earlier statement of the problem eternal return
must address. This problem was ‘the will’s ill-will toward time and its “It
was”’. The connection between this point and the contradiction between
_____________
20 Recall that very much the same terms occur in the introductory paragraph of Ecce
Homo, where Nietzsche tells how he affirms his life—in both stances.
the paths ‘back’ and ‘out’ is puzzling. I suggest that we think of the will’s
ill-will at not being able to will the past as expressing the point that the
retrospective view has stilled the will, contradicts the will. (Our fondness
for the retrospective stance has made our will ill.) So both passages con-
cern the same problem. And I’ll try to show that eternal return is so im-
portant to Nietzsche because it symbolizes his solution to this problem—to
our deep division.
Now in the terms of these ‘two paths’, what would it be to solve the
contradiction between them? It would be for the retrospective stance to
somehow ‘meet’ the stance of willing, and for the latter to meet it as well.
This would ‘complete the circle’ in both directions. But how might each of
these stances ‘meet’ the other? Each, I suggest, must be satisfied with the
other in its (the meeter’s) own terms, by its own standards. Each must find
that it grows (is empowered) through the other. And for us to be able to
‘will the past’ is for that retrospective stance to serve will.
The retrospective stance steps back from willing to regard things with-
out and despite that willing. In its original form it is the promise to comply
with the rules. But in its fullest, most developed form it is the commitment
to knowledge and science. What would satisfy it about (the stance of) will-
ing would be to know it, and to make it knowing. The first of these is ac-
complished by genealogy, and the latter by a conversion within willing
itself. I start with how genealogy knows willing.
For a long time humans have supposed that they know themselves.
Even in the early and simple forms of retrospectivity, in which persons
bind themselves only to the simplest of social rules, the stance still lets
each person find a self, an identity. It’s this backward turn from the drives
that makes it possible for a person to commit to a ‘self’ in some independ-
ence from them. One commits to certain rules or virtues, for the sake of
which one undertakes to overrule the drives. I now ‘remember’ who I’ve
promised (to myself and others) to be, and believe that this is me, much
more than those drives my commitments override. Since I seem to commit
to these rules and virtues in conscious acts, and then to remember and fol-
low them consciously, this self or identity seems transparently evident to
me.
This confidence in self-understanding is all the greater in persons with
developed forms of the will to truth—philosophers, psychologists, other
scientists. These take themselves to have an especially overt and con-
sidered awareness of their own decisions, thoughts, and feelings. It is the
John Richardson 107
framing point of the Genealogy that even here, and here especially, persons
fail in the most important points to understand themselves.21
We experience our own choice as the determining and responsible fac-
tor in our thinking and acting, but in fact this choice—where it is operative
at all—merely executes the aim or will embedded in the norms and values
by which we choose. Those values, by their design for social purposes,
make our choices instrumental for those purposes. The motives for which
we think we choose are trumped by ulterior purposes. Indeed even our
pride in our self-responsibility serves those purposes: we are the better herd
animals when we believe ourselves to be freely setting our own ends in our
own interests.
So I have never known my own willing. But genealogy, by exposing
the social formation of my values, now makes this possible. It lets my
retrospective stance truly understand—bring into view—the forces that
really aimed the rules and values to which I commit myself, and with
which I identify myself. It reveals the direction of that ‘throw’ whose mo-
mentum my choices merely follow. It even lets my retrospection under-
stand itself, in particular—how its own backwards look originally (and
partly still) serves to commit me to rules that oppose my drives. It lets me
grasp the ascetic function at work in the ‘will to truth’ in which I commit
myself to know.
Genealogy is the highest achievement of the will to truth, inasmuch as
it penetrates to the most hidden, most difficult, and most important
truths—the facts of what and why we are (as we are). By pursuing this
genealogy we close in on what we really are. We uncover to ourselves
more and more of the drives, habits, and values working in us, and more
and more of the selective forces that gave them their thrust and tendency.
Of course this insight is far from complete. But we do arrive, for the first
time, in the proper domain of a genuine self-understanding—we’re now
looking in the right place, in the right terms.
But even as the highest form of the will to truth, genealogy is in its
own right most dangerous. It is most effectively ascetic: it ‘cuts into life’,
by examining and exposing the drives, habits, values, and desires that to-
gether constitute our willing. As we diagnose any one of these, and under-
stand the forces that shaped it and the purposes they have made it serve in
us, we chill or enervate whichever will we study. We step out of this (pro-
jective) will, and expose it to a (retrospective) look that flattens and disen-
chants it. This is why genealogy can be a route to nihilism, alienating us
from our values, one after another.
_____________
21 See especially GM Preface 1; also, e.g., GM I 1–2, and the end of GM III 23.
Nietzsche’s answer is to show a way to turn this dangerous instrument

to a new positive purpose, a purpose that is rooted in the abiding core of
our will and drives. There’s a certain way we can put genealogy to work,
within a life-plan that promises us a superior kind of power and accom-
plishment. We can use genealogy to make ourselves stronger, by taking an
increasing control over the habits and values built into us by social-
historical processes. So we put it to the service of our ‘will to life’, which
deeply aims at power and control.
Genealogy exposes ways we have lacked such power—ways we have
been controlled and used by forces outside us, social forces in whose inter-
est our habits and values have been designed. As we’ve seen, there is an
overall tendency in social selection to evolve values and practices for their
social utility, i.e., for the way they make society more cohesive and effec-
tive. Our deep urges to be like others, to share their values and viewpoints,
serve this social function. Moreover, other of our values have been selected
to serve the interests of particular social groups or of specific kinds of peo-
ple. For example, most Christian values are a ‘slave morality’ in the sense
that they have developed and spread because of how they serve the inter-
ests of the weak, sick, and suffering. Nietzsche calls me to discover
whether my values have been designed in the interest of the kind of person
I really am.
By exposing how other forces have made us, genealogy gives us the
chance to work, prospectively, towards a kind of control that was never
possible before. We can act on these parts and constituents of ourselves for
the first time knowingly—with an understanding why we have them, and
what they are doing (have been aimed to do) in us. By genealogy, we can
judge those designed-in purposes of our ways of thinking and acting—and
decide whether we favour those purposes. And if we don’t favour them, we
can try, at least, to redesign those thoughts and acts for different ends. We
can try, as Nietzsche often urges us, to reconfigure them so that they suit
our individual physiologies—the peculiar mixture of animal drives at the
bottom of each of us.
It’s this new power, I think, that Nietzsche refers to as ‘freedom’, and
offers as his principal ideal for how a person should be. He thinks he has
discovered or invented an importantly new kind of freedom, stricter, fuller,
and more genuine than the old. He offers this ideal both as an improvement
on the existing value of freedom, and as a best (so far) achievement of the
‘power’ at which he thinks our most basic and indispensable drives aim.
Thus besides completing the knowing stance, genealogy also enables
the projective stance of will to perfect itself. It confers a self-understanding
that makes possible a new freedom in that willing, by which will achieves
the power and control at which it aspires. This new freedom is more genu-
John Richardson 109
ine than the kind we have just by our agency—by our being able to prom-
ise and commit ourselves. Genealogy corrects the mistake we ‘agents’ have
long made in thinking freedom something possessed and automatic. It
constitutes a ‘will to responsibility, f r e e d o m o f t h e w i l l ’ (GM III 10).
If freedom is being responsible, i.e., being the principal determiner or
explainer of the things I do, then that sovereignty I already have in being
able to honour commitments does indeed give me some of this. It lies es-
pecially in my sense of power over my drives—I identify myself not with
them but with those retrospected rules and promises, and pride myself in
being able to override those drives to follow those rules.
But as we’ve seen, there’s a major hole in my responsibility: I fail to
recognize that the values to which I commit myself have been designed to
‘do things with me’. They have been designed, for example, to make me a
better herd animal. Since I don’t understand what these values are ‘for’,
and what they’re doing in me—how I’m being ‘used’ in my commitment
to them—responsibility really slips through and out of me, and belongs to
the social forces that made my values by which I am steered. So, for exam-
ple, I may act out of a habit of pity or benevolence, and cite this as a mo-
tive in my choice, yet fail to understand why I have this habit or motive of
benevolence—what it is doing in me, what work it was designed to do.
And in this case I am in fact being used by those selective forces for those
purposes the drive was shaped to play in me.
So by the new (genealogical) insight into this ‘what’ we are, we now
notice a way we have not been free. We discover the incompleteness and
inadequacy of the freedom we’ve had by discovering a new constrained-
ness—how we are subject to the social-historical forces that designed the
habits and values we live by. And from this, we can next project and plan
out a way to overcome this constraint, and become for once (or more fully)
free.
To accomplish this freedom I need more than genealogy. The latter of
course belongs to the retrospective, theoretical stance, so the task is now to
reflect it in my projective stance of willing. I need to win my freedom not
just in theory but in practice. This is what Nietzsche calls ‘i n c o r p o r a t -
i n g ’ this understanding (see GS 11 and 110). It is to make it effective in
how I really do aim myself, moment by moment. My existing values are
built into my drives and socialized habits, and I don’t annul them just by
saying that I do. I need to push genealogical insights down to the very
points at which these drives and habits operate. I must build into my
everyday responses those countering diagnoses supplied by genealogy, so
that I see why I will, while I will. Willing only really takes up theory into
its own projective stance when it takes practical regard of it in its concrete
and everyday moments of willing.
Nietzsche thinks that our projective will must test and assess the ge-
nealogical truths by how far they can be incorporated. Some truths it will
be impossible to import into our practice. For there are limits to how pli-
able and alterable our drives and habits are. With some drives, we won’t be
able to make their diagnoses effective—they work on us so fundamentally
and pervasively that we can’t hope to make them self-aware. This means
there are limits to the freedom we are capable of. Here see, for example,
Human, All Too Human I 41 on how ‘the motives influencing [a human
being] cannot ordinarily scratch deeply enough to destroy the imprinted
script of many millennia’ (it says this is due to the shortness of human
life).
However it is not just truths that get tested by this effort at incorpora-
tion—for these truths also test our drives, and those norms and values we
identify ourselves with. I test a drive or value by seeing whether I can in-
corporate the insight why I have it—what it’s doing in me. Can I build a
diagnosis of my willing into my very willing? Can I, in the very act of
willing-valuing X, understand this act? Can I will X while I know why I
will it? Many or most of our aims and values, Nietzsche thinks, won’t sur-
vive this test—or rather they will need to be heavily revised so as to be
sustainable, still value-able, in the light of that incorporated diagnosis.
So our insight by genealogy into our willing gives us a new oppor-
tunity: to begin knowingly to redesign this attitude. Carrying out this re-
design is the way to freedom, the truer freedom we’re capable of.
At this point it’s worth noticing what this shows about Nietzsche’s dif-
ference from Kant. Nietzsche often seems to be finding ‘conditions’ of our
experience—limitations and biases built deeply into the ways we think and
value. But his naturalistic orientation makes these not Kantian transcenden-
tal and logical ‘conditions of the possibility’, but quasi-Darwinian condi-
tions-of-selection: what these ways of thinking and valuing have been se-
lected to do. Since the latter are not logical conditions, they are susceptible
to that redesign. The upshot indeed is that Nietzsche uses his ‘conditions’
for an opposite purpose than Kant: Kant identifies conditions to validate
them for science, but Nietzsche identifies them in the hope of freeing him-
self from them.
I’ve tried to show how the knowing stance completes itself in geneal-
ogy, and how the willing stance completes itself in the freedom this makes
feasible, which reconciles these two stances with one another. It shows
how the retrospective stance, when it finally finds truths, can be not a drag
and burden to our forward-pushing will, but can in fact help it to find a
new kind and degree of power, in the power over our values.
I suggest that Nietzsche means—or partly means—the image of eternal
return to express this reconciliation. In this reconciliation the will over-
John Richardson 111
comes its ill-will against the past, i.e., against the retrospective stance that
so deflates it, by discovering how the truth about its past empowers it to
overcome its past. I think one role of eternal return is to model and remind
us of this reconciliation. That these two paths, back (zurück) and out (hi-
naus), meet each other and join in a ring symbolizes how these two basic
stances of humans, whose conflict has been our grand problem, find their
own completion by joining one another.
So eternal return is the emblematic attitude in which one holds together
the contrary stances of retrospection (or theory) and will. It symbolizes the
fusion of retrospect and prospect, hence of will to truth and will to power
(life). It shows life how to face the past, and keep willing. It solves, finally,
our problem of the past.
References
Richardson, John, 1996, Nietzsche’s System, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Richardson, John, 2004, Nietzsche’s New Darwinism, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Translations
Untimely Meditations, ed. D. Breazeale, trans. R. J. Hollingdale, Cambridge: Cam-

Press, 1986.
Thus Spoke Zarathustra, trans. Graham Parkes, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
On the Genealogy of Morality, trans. Maudemarie Clark and A. J. Swensen, Indi-
anapolis: Hackett, 1998.
Philosophy and Truth: Selections from Nietzsche’s Notebooks of the Early 1870s, trans.
D. Breazeale, Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press International.
Towards Adualism:
Becoming and Nihilism in Nietzsche’s Philosophy
Manuel Dries
More strictly: one m u s t n o t a l l o w o f a n y t h i n g a t a l l t h a t h a s b e -

i n g [n i c h t s S e i e n d e s ü b e r h a u p t]—because then becoming loses its
value and appears downright meaningless and superfluous. (Nachlaß Novem-
ber 1887–March 1888, KSA 13, 11[72])
In this essay, I shall argue that Nietzsche held two doctrines of becoming:
one more radical, which he requires to fend off nihilism, and one much
more moderate—the ontology of relations he develops under the label ‘will
to power’. Based on the latter he develops what I wish to call his ‘adu-
alistic’—neither monistic nor dualistic—practice of thought, a ‘simulta-
neity-thinking’ (Zugleich-Denken) that is no longer subject to nihilism. I
shall argue further that we can only make sense of Nietzsche’s oft-
criticized radical affirmation of becoming (Werden) or impermanence—
best defined ex negativo that there is no rational, true, benign, systematic,
permanent reality for us—if we assume that he saw nihilism not merely as
a possibility but as a real threat.
For his belief in the reality of the threat of nihilism to be intelligible,
we have to attribute to Nietzsche at least three assumptions that underpin
his entire project. The three assumptions are these:
(1) ‘what there is, is becoming (and not being)’, and

(2) ‘most (if not all) strongly believe in being’.
(3) nihilism is a function of the belief in being.
Everything else can be seen as following directly from these assumptions.

This essay consists of six parts. In part 1, I wish to examine the above
assumptions in more detail and show that Nietzsche’s move towards be-
coming is motivated by the anomaly of nihilism. Secondly, I wish to show
that Nietzsche not only believes that nihilism is already happening, but also
that it is the task of the philosopher to be a Gegenkraft (‘counter-force’),
and this is the reason for the particularly radical nature of his affirmation
of becoming. In the third part, I will examine whether Nietzsche is himself
114 Towards Adualism
guilty of reintroducing a problematic dualism between becoming and lan-

guage that renders all conceptual determinations mere falsifications. This
issue will make it necessary, fourthly, to examine Nietzsche’s ontology of
relations. I will argue that Nietzsche’s presentation of becoming as will-to-
power relations can be seen as a less radical presentation of becoming. In
the fifth part, I will show that this only partially removes a problematic
dualism of becoming and language. Nietzsche struggles to find a language
that captures his views on temporality and identity. Finally, I wish to show
that Nietzsche, in order to avoid the above difficulties, at times suggests a
non-reductive practice of thought that accounts for both the relative per-
manence or duration of ‘persons’ and ‘things’ and their constantly chan-
ging, temporal complexity—in short, the simultaneity of being and becom-
ing.
1. Nihilism as the Function of the Belief in Being
Nietzsche wrestles with the problem of nihilism inherent in the valuation

of being and absolute truth, namely ‘that the highest values devalue them-
selves’ (Nachlaß Autumn 1887, KSA 12, 9[35]). He perceives a problem-
atic asymmetry between the secularized world-views people have adopted
or are in the process of adopting, and their values—moral and other—
which are still based on a strong belief in some kind of permanence or
essence(s) or being (and are supported by a grammar and language that
sustain their metaphysical picture). He is convinced that only when we
have successfully erased from our thinking the categories of being that we
formerly used to interpret existence—and which in Nietzsche’s eyes are
still used by everyone (apart from himself)—can nihilism be overcome:1
Assuming we have recognized how the world may no longer be interpreted
with these t h r e e categories [‘unity’, ‘purpose’, ‘being’, M.D.] and that upon
this recognition the world begins to be without value for us: then we must ask
w h e r e our belief in these three categories came from—let us see if it isn’t
possible to cancel our belief in t h e m . Once we have d e v a l u a t e d these three
categories, demonstrating that they can’t be applied to the universe c e a s e s
t o b e a r e a s o n t o d e v a l u a t e t h e u n i v e r s e . (Nachlaß November
1887–March 1888, KSA 13, 11[99])
In addition, the morality of the Western tradition that continues to sustain
the paradigm of being (despite the evidence for becoming delivered by
_____________
1 As I argue elsewhere, the early Romantics anticipated this view of Nietzsche’s
(Dries 2007, pp. 127–162).
Manuel Dries 115
natural science)2 must itself be shown to be an effect of becoming as will to

power, rather than grounded in, or corresponding to, divine being. Only
then will our attitude towards the world or ‘the whole’ (das Ganze) change.
Instead of incomplete, teleological notions of becoming (such as he attrib-
utes alike to Hegel, the young Hegelians, Socialists, and scientific realists)
and Schopenhauer’s privileging of permanence, Nietzsche wishes—in his
eyes for the first time—to do proper justice to becoming. His new ‘world
conception’ calls for the substitution of being with becoming:
One is necessary, one is a piece of fate, one belongs to the whole, one is the
whole—there is nothing which could judge, measure, compare, condemn our
Being, for that would mean judging, measuring, comparing, condemning the
whole … B u t t h e r e i s n o t h i n g a p a r t f r o m t h e w h o l e !—That no one
is made responsible any more, that a kind of Being cannot be traced back to a
causa prima, that the world is no unity, either as sensorium or as ‘mind’, t h i s
a l o n e i s t h e g r e a t l i b e r a t i o n —this alone re-establishes the i n n o c e n c e
of becoming. (TI ‘The Four Great Errors’ 8)
We see here a threefold shift: towards ‘the whole’ (das Ganze), towards
immanence (away from any exogenous stability or teleology), and towards
becoming. This is Nietzsche’s overcoming of nihilism in a nutshell: by
fully embracing becoming, by deracinating the categories which devalued
becoming in the name of transcendent being, nihilism can be overcome.
The state that Nietzsche wishes to reach is what he calls the ‘innocence of
becoming’ (Unschuld des Werdens). But this is only possible by undoing
the belief in being by teaching that there is no such thing as unity: ‘that the
world is no unity, either as sensorium or as “mind”’ (ibid.) is no objection
to it.
In a more formalized way, Nietzsche’s argument looks like this: if all
there is, is becoming, and most people (if not all and excluding himself)
believe in being, then nihilism is the result of the conflict that arises be-
tween the two premises—that is, the belief in (the value) being clashes
with the realization that all there is, is becoming. I would argue that we
need to attribute both the initial assumptions to Nietzsche in order to make
sense of pronouncements such as ‘nihilism is just around the corner’. If his
contemporaries did not strongly believe in being, the confrontation with
becoming simply would not have the nihilistic effect Nietzsche predicts.
It emerges, therefore, that for Nietzsche, the danger of nihilism is a
function of the belief in being: the higher the valuation of being (as Truth
with a capital, , permanence, unity as oneness, and systematicity), the
_____________
2 On the impact of the natural sciences on Nietzsche’s philosophy, see Moore 2002;
Stack 2005; and Emden 2005.
greater the risk and the effect of nihilism. But there is also, I believe, a
third assumption which we must attribute to Nietzsche if we wish to make
sense of his project, an assumption which derives from his general belief in
the efficacy of forces. It can be formulated as follows: the more deeply
ingrained a belief, the more radical a force is necessary to overthrow and
undo that belief. Consequently, Nietzsche’s radicalization of becoming has
to be proportional to the intensity he attributes to the belief in being of his
age. Given his first assumption (that all is becoming), it is not surprising
that most of his philosophical project is concerned with undoing the belief
in being which he attributes (second assumption) to most of his contempo-
raries.
2. Becoming as Gegenkraft
As many of his notes reveal, Nietzsche believes that the inevitable ‘an-
tagonism’ between the new paradigm of becoming and the old still domi-
nant paradigm of being is already at work and evident, resulting in a
gradual Auflösungsprozess, ‘a process of dissolution’: ‘This antagonism—
not esteeming what we know [becoming, M.D.] and no longer being per-
mitted to esteem what we would like to pretend to ourselves [being,
M.D.]—results in a process of dissolution’ (Nachlaß Summer 1886–
Autumn 1887, KSA 12, 5[71]). This insight leads him to the conclusion—
problematic at best—that the nihilistic process of dissolution should also
be accelerated (beschleunigt). Nihilism—this time induced by the philoso-
pher who is also a ‘physician’—is supposed to play a vital part in its own
cure.3 As he writes in one of his most problematic notes in Spring 1885:
‘an ecstatic nihilism could under certain circumstances be unavoidable for
the philosopher: as powerful pressure’ (Nachlaß May–July 1885, KSA 11,
35[82]). I will return to this passage towards the end of this section.
Let us again look at the argument implied in manifesto-like statements
such as the above. Convinced of the inevitability of the dissolution of the
paradigm of being through his own belief in the truth of becoming, he
wishes everyone else to accept his own change of paradigm. Zarathustra’s
conviction—that it is the task of the philosopher to ‘push that which is
already falling’ (Z III ‘Of Old and New Tables’ 20)—issues directly from
Nietzsche’s belief that nihilism is a function of the belief in being and that
it is actually a real threat. The task of the philosopher is therefore to accel-
_____________
3 ‘To be the doctor here, to be merciless here, to guide the blade here—this is for us
to do, this is our love of humanity’ (A 7).
Manuel Dries 117
erate this process of dissolution, i.e., actively to undo the belief in being.
How does he go about this?
For someone like Nietzsche who thinks in terms of forces and believes
in force and counter-force, it is not surprising that he frequently announces
his desire to be a counter-force (Gegenkraft) himself. As he says in the
Genealogy, any constitution of Sinn (‘meaning’), even at an organic level,
he sees as the result of successful encounters or ‘counteractions’: ‘Results
of successful counteractions. The Form is fluid, but the “meaning” [Sinn]
even more so’ (GM II 12). A counter-force is therefore required to balance,
control, or (and I take this to be Nietzsche’s intention) overthrow another
force if its ‘meaning’—its current interpretation—is perceived to be a
threat. Nietzsche’s choice of ‘therapy’ is designed to match his belief in the
intensity or embeddedness of belief in being. A counter-force of similar
magnitude and intensity is called for, because he believes that the belief in
being is still metaphysically grounded. This, I think, is the logic behind his
questionable and inconsistent radicalization of becoming and also the ar-
gument that justifies (for Nietzsche) his radical presentation of becoming.
His late note on the Birth of Tragedy, written in Spring 1888, could well be
applied to his entire project: what is needed is ‘a counter-force to all Nay-
saying and Nay-doing, a remedy for the great fatigue’ (Nachlaß Spring
1888, KSA 13, 14[15]).
Nietzsche’s ambiguous views on science also hinge on this argument.
According to him, science itself favours the required paradigm shift. While
people may regard science merely as useful and unproblematic, they will
soon discover, he thinks, that it is really ‘die grosse Schmerzbringerin’:
So far it [science] may still be better known for its power to deprive man of his
joys and make him colder, more statue-like, more stoic. But it might yet be
found t h e g r e a t g i v e r o f p a i n ! —And then its counter-force might at the
same time be found: its immense capacity for letting new galaxies of joy flare
up. (GS I 12)
But science proceeds slowly, by way of hypothesis, experiment, and falsi-
fications, and only over long stretches of time will it have an impact and
change a people’s self-image. Also, like the senses, science both shows
becoming and hides it—under the veil of objectivity—from view. And
while the natural sciences might reveal enough to slowly weaken people’s
belief in being (which is precisely what Nietzsche believes has been the
case since the Renaissance), the result is not that they have abandoned the
belief in being;4 rather, people no longer know who they are and what they
_____________
4 While future information technology might depend on results in quantum physics
(e.g., quantum cryptography), this does not require anyone to change his ontology.
should think. While this is a stage of nihilism that Nietzsche endorses (be-
cause its direction is right), he worries that people might become (or are
already) stuck in this nihilistic phase in which the belief in being stands
against the reality of becoming. As he realizes, a nihilist is
the man who judges that the world, as it is, should n o t exist and of the world,
as it should be, that it does not exist. Consequently, existing (acting, suffering,
willing, feeling) has no meaning: the pathos of the ‘in vain’ is the nihilist pa-
thos—and at the same time, as pathos, an i n c o n s i s t e n c y of the nihilist.
(Nachlaß Autumn 1887, KSA 12, 9[60])
Nietzsche is impatient and—against his own convictions—he even at-
tempts to control time. While science has the potential to be a Schmerz-
bringerin and bring about the painful paradigm shift, it simply does not do
it as quickly as the situation demands. Nietzsche’s project becomes that of
assisting science and presenting what he thinks is based on the latest results
in the natural sciences in such a radical form that it will deracinate the
belief in being either immediately, or at least more quickly.5 He accepts
that this may temporarily make matters worse, for a counter-force will take
some time to take effect. There will be a period in which the belief in being
still applies and functions, although its control over people’s world-view
and self-image will weaken. If the task of the philosopher is to speed up
the process, and if the belief in being is as metaphysically embedded as
Nietzsche believes is the case, it follows that the counter-belief he wishes
to offer as a remedy must be presented with the same metaphysical in-
tensity. He therefore does much more than simply suggest that the basic
belief in being must be denied. He insists that ‘one must not allow for there
to be anything permanent [nichts Seiendes überhaupt] at all’ (Nachlaß
November 1887–March 1888, KSA 13, 11[72]) and presents a quasi-
metaphysical counter-doctrine, namely, a radical, eternally-recurring, infi-
nite becoming without meaning and :
And do you know what ‘the world’ is to me? Shall I show you it in my mirror?
This world: an immensity of force, without beginning, without end, a fixed
brazen quantity of force which grows neither larger nor smaller, which doesn’t
exhaust but only transforms itself … as a play of forces and force-waves sim-
ultaneously one and ‘many’, accumulating here while diminishing there, an
ocean of forces storming and flooding within themselves, eternally changing,
eternally rushing back, with tremendous years of recurrence … as a becoming
_____________
5 Rex Welshon recently argued that Nietzsche’s view ‘is nothing more than a philo-
sophically free expression of the contemporary scientific worldview’ (2004, p.
159).
Manuel Dries 119
that knows no satiety, no surfeit, no fatigue. (Nachlaß June–July 1885, KSA

11, 38[12])6
The point is not to examine the plausibility of radical flux or an eternally
recurring becoming; my aim is merely to show why Nietzsche’s assump-
tions require him to attack being in the radical way he does, ‘since becom-
ing would otherwise lose its value’ (Nachlaß November 1887–March 1888,
KSA 13, [11[72]).
We can now return to the second part of the passage on the ‘ecstatic
nihilism’ Nietzsche wishes to induce. It runs as follows:
An ecstatic nihilism might, under certain circumstances, be unavoidable for
the philosopher: as powerful a pressure and hammer which he uses to destroy
and do away with degenerating and dying species, for a new order of life; or in
order to instil that which is degenerating and that which wants to die with a
longing for the end. (Nachlaß May–July 1885, KSA 11, 35[82])
There are many such passages in which he shows his willingness to change
the belief in being of his contemporaries at the expense of those who are
not able to bear what he sees as the new paradigm. This is a result of his
belief that nihilism (a function of the belief in being) will sweep people off
their feet, whereas a gradual weakening of the belief in being would sim-
ply take too long. He accordingly proposes a drastic remedy:
Bringing joy to humanity by sustaining their illusion, their belief. Instead my
countermovement: —D o m i n a t i o n o f h u m a n i t y f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f
i t s overcoming. O v e r c o m i n g w i t h d o c t r i n e s t h r o u g h w h i c h i t
p e r i s h e s , except those who can bear it. (Nachlaß Spring–Summer 1883,
KSA 10, 7[238])
He seems to suggest that his drastic revelation, though destructive of the
weak, will only last for a relatively short period and is therefore more de-
sirable than any protracted and lingering decadence that will ultimately
lead in any case to the same, inevitable paradigm shift.
As a physician of culture, Nietzsche believes that the ‘casualties’ will
still be fewer than are caused by leaving things as they are. His goal is a
new and cheerful ‘innocence of becoming’.7 If his three assumptions are
accepted, his argument is sound. Unfortunately, the same assumptions
_____________
6 It should also be said that Nietzsche goes against the standards which he derived
from his genealogy of being. He, too, employs unsinnliche ideas. Although he be-
lieves that there are instances when the senses reveal the truth of becoming—‘If
the senses show becoming, passing away, change, they do not lie’ (TI ‘“Reason” in
Philosophy’ 2)—he insists elsewhere on the ‘deception by the senses’ (Nachlaß
Spring 1880–Spring 1881, KSA 9, 10[E93]). We will return to this inconsistency
later.
7 This, I think, is Nietzsche’s eudaimonism, which I intend to discuss elsewhere.
commit him—despite his pronouncements against Hinterwelten (KSA 13,

p. 46)—to a new complex of problems. For he also insists that radical be-
coming cannot be described in language. This opens the way for another
‘anomalous’ dualism with, as we shall see, a similar nihilistic potential.
3. Becoming versus Language
In an attempt to defend Hegel’s conception of becoming, some critics ar-

gue that his critique of metaphysics is ultimately more successful than that
of Nietzsche. Nietzsche’s becoming denotes the absence of any real deter-
mination, and his critique of the metaphysical tradition amounts therefore
to a mere inversion of the traditional opposition of being and becoming.
For Nietzsche, one critic argues, ‘becoming’ denotes an ultimate reality:
‘What is real for Nietzsche is “becoming”—flux, multiplicity, change.
Nietzsche uses many different terms to denote this flux … But always the
meaning is the same: becoming is restless primordial indetermination’
(Houlgate 1986, p. 49; my emphasis). Nietzsche accordingly abolishes the
metaphysical dualism between a true world of being and an apparent world
of becoming; ‘however, within his own one world he has preserved an
opposition between what he sees as the fundamental reality and what he
sees as mere appearance [within language or sense experience]’ (ibid., p.
91). Thus, while he is right to criticize the abstract conception of being
which disregards becoming, he is wrong in believing that ‘life is becoming
without logical form or identity, without “being”’ (ibid.). He therefore
remains tied to the problematic opposition of being and becoming:
In criticizing being and seiend distinctions, Nietzsche should have gone on to
criticize the dichotomy between being and life which turned both into abstrac-
tions. This he failed to do; instead of criticizing both the abstractions of being
and becoming, he simply played off one against the other. (ibid., p. 95)
Hegel, on the other hand, overcomes this exclusive disjunction of being
versus becoming (‘either being or becoming’). Instead, he ‘sees being (at
least when it is fully determined as the Idea) as the inherent dynamic form
and continuity of becoming itself, and he sees the “apparent” world of
linguistic terms and concepts as revealing rather than concealing the char-
acter of the reality they describe’ (ibid., p. 93).
I am not concerned here with the soundness of this defence of Hegel.8
What I wish to examine is whether it accurately reflects Nietzsche’s posi-
_____________
8 Houlgate is unsuccessful in defending Hegel against Nietzsche for at least two
reasons. He fails to give an account of Hegel’s ‘being as becoming’ that is free
Manuel Dries 121
tion. More than once, Nietzsche does indeed refer to the inability of lan-
guage to express Werden. Despite his Spinoza-inspired attacks on the Pla-
tonic-Christian two-world metaphysics,9 he does seem to introduce a
dualism between becoming and language, thereby equating language with
‘error’ and ‘falsification’. Again we encounter one of his basic contradic-
tions: he simultaneously maintains that ‘the means of expression of lan-
guage are not suitable for expressing becoming’ (Nachlaß November
1887–March 1888, KSA 13, 11[73]), and also that all philosophy should
do (presumably within language) is to express becoming: ‘Philosophy, in
the only way acceptable to me, as the most general form of history, as an
attempt somehow to describe Heraclitean becoming and to abbreviate into
signs (so to speak, to t r a n s l a t e and mummify it into a kind of illusory
being)’ (Nachlaß June–July 1885, KSA 11, 36[27]).
This seems clear enough evidence that becoming is Nietzsche’s new
Hinterwelt—not beyond the matter and force of his new ‘one’ world, but
certainly beyond the schematizations of our senses and language. Is he
simply demanding the impossible? We seem to have here what I wish to
call Nietzsche’s version of the ‘impossible presentation thesis’: his exclu-
sive disjunction entails the impossibility of presenting becoming within
language, i.e., within a system of signs that ‘fixes’ meaning by ‘express-
ing’ it (Feststellung).10 As in the case of Schopenhauer’s being–becoming
dichotomy, Nietzsche’s own dichotomy between becoming and any kind of
determinateness annuls the value of what is given within language.11
Attributing this position to Nietzsche, who dedicated his entire mi-
graine-free time to becoming an ‘artist of language’ (Nachlaß April–June
1885, KSA 11, 34[124]), is, to say the least, problematic. His views on
language are indeed more subtle than this. Aware of the double nature of
language as both revealing and concealing, Nietzsche also knows that lan-
_____________
from the kind of systematicity, rationality, and teleology that, as we saw above,
Nietzsche finds so problematic. Further, he is mistaken in attributing to Nietzsche a
simple inversion of the being–becoming dichotomy. As I shall shortly argue,
Nietzsche also considers being and becoming as a unity, albeit not in the ‘system-
atic’ and ‘continuous’ way of Hegel.
9 See, e.g., A 17.
10 The early Romantic philosophers such as Novalis, Schlegel, and Schelling as-
sumed the logical and ontological priority of an Absolute (das Unbedingte) that is
never ‘present’ and can only be represented within reflection and language. This
idea leads them to their philosophies of ‘infinite approximation’ (see, e.g., Frank
1997 and Bowie 2003).
11 Volker Gerhardt points to this inconsistency—thereby tacitly accepting the ‘im-
possible presentation thesis’—when he remarks: ‘Nietzsche attempts the impos-
sible, namely, to express the fact of becoming within language’ (1996, p. 296).
guage is always both limitatio and conditio. Anticipating the later Wittgen-
stein’s view, he states, in a note on ‘mature artworks’ of Spring 1888: ‘Any
mature art is based on an abundance of conventions: insofar as it is lan-
guage. Convention is the condition of great art not its prevention’ (Nachlaß
Spring 1888, KSA 13, 14[119]). In this passage, he at least seems aware of
the pitfalls of metaphysical realism. And in another late note he makes it
unmistakably clear that it would be wrong to dismiss language for its al-
leged failure to present or correspond to any extant particulars or entities
(Wesen):
The demand for an a d e q u a t e m o d e o f e x p r e s s i o n is n o n s e n s i c a l : it’s
of the essence of a language, of a means of expression, to express only a rela-
tion … The concept of ‘truth’ is a b s u r d … the whole realm of ‘true’, ‘false’
refers only to relations between entities, not to the ‘in-itself’ … N o n s e n s e :
there is no ‘essence-in-itself’, it’s only relations that constitute entities, and
neither can there be a ‘knowledge-in-itself’. (Nachlaß Spring 1888, KSA 13,
14[122])
Here he clearly denies the viability of the view that language aims at cor-
responding entities or fundamental truths. The metaphysical realist will
always be unable to satisfy the sceptic’s doubt regarding the correspond-
ence of Denken and Sein. Nietzsche is aware of the nihilistic potential of
such a metaphysical realism and, anticipating the ontology of current her-
meneutics,12 he inverts what I shall call the ‘truth-vector’ of language:
essences and truths are not to be conceived as the targets of intentionality
or of interpretations, but should be understood as results of intentionality
or interpretations.13
But what are we to make of his contradictory insistence that there is no
‘in-itself’, that language constitutes entities, and yet, in any description,
fails to express becoming?
While Nietzsche might well have been—accidentally or deliberately—
self-contradictory (and both interpretations can be found in the secondary
literature), I think there is a strong argument, following directly from
Nietzsche’s assumptions, that would eliminate the above inconsistency. In
a nutshell, it runs as follows. We know that Nietzsche endorses the radical
doctrine of becoming in the (by his own standards) necessary attack on the
belief in being. This does not, however, mean that he himself actually sub-
scribes to any radical ontology of becoming. In the light of our earlier dis-
cussion, we might speculate that—at least for the later Nietzsche—talk
_____________
12 On Nietzsche’s importance for philosophical hermeneutics, see Vattimo 1986.
13 On truth as the result of interpretations, see Abel 2003, pp. 4–7; also Abel 1998, p.
326.
Manuel Dries 123
about all-pervasive becoming, inexpressible by language, is addressed to

those who need to be awoken ‘with a philosophical hammer’ from what he
certainly believed to be their ‘dogmatic slumber’. In order to examine this
issue further, we need to examine Nietzsche’s most detailed description of
becoming, his ontology (or phenomenology) of relations, also known by
the name of will to power.
4. Becoming as Power Relations
I will try to limit my analysis of the will to power to the one question of
relevance to our analysis: is Nietzsche guilty of merely inverting the be-
ing–becoming dichotomy, thereby introducing a dualism between a more
fundamental reality and language? This question has two parts: does will to
power—as a description of becoming—rule out being altogether and de-
note indeterminacy? And secondly, is will to power a metaphysical theory,
or should we interpret Nietzsche as a phenomenologist who is not inter-
ested in theories about ultimate reality?
I will begin with the second question. Peter Poellner has recently pro-
posed that Nietzsche should be read primarily not as a metaphysician (as
some critics still do)14 but as a phenomenologist.15 Anticipating the funda-
mental reorientation of phenomenology (against philosophy in its tradi-
tional orientation towards epistemology or metaphysics), Nietzsche regards
the ‘the first-personal investigation of how a world can manifest itself in
experience, and how, in particular, it does so in human experience, as the
fundamental philosophical enterprise’ (Poellner 2006, p. 302). Metaphysics
and epistemology in their traditional sense are ‘while not rejected, at best
considered derivative’ (ibid.). This, of course, requires the reader to under-
stand the radical nature of this phenomenological turn, and only then is it
possible to see, according to Poellner, that none of Nietzsche’s physiologi-
_____________
14 Despite his explicit attacks on foundations, Nietzsche is indeed often interpreted as
hypostatizing becoming and making it an ultimate reality. Stambaugh, for exam-
ple, argued that the novelty of Nietzsche’s position lies in his absolute denial of
duration: ‘The flux of time is in its own way a concealed kind of “substance”, for it
continuously flows on. The flux is constant, continuous. It always flows, or “is”’
(1972, p. 7; see also Danto 1965, p. 96; Poellner 1995, p. 91; and Young 1992, p.
97). In his recontextualization of Nietzsche’s ideas within the scientific writings of
his contemporaries, Moore also concludes that becoming as will to power is a
metaphysical Bildungstrieb (2002, p. 55).
15 Meaning here ‘phenomena as they are perceived’. Nietzsche would, of course,
reject the idea of any Cartesian ‘first philosophy’ or fundamental theory.
cal explanations or his accounts of the efficacy of consciousness are refer-

ring to ‘what really is the case in an ultimate ontological sense’ (ibid., p.
297). Instead, such descriptions should be interpreted as ‘non-
metaphysical, practical methods of understanding and acting on the world
within the context of a dominant concern with the phenomenology of the
human life-world’ (ibid., p. 298).16
What evidence do we have (other than the denial of ‘essences in them-
selves’ which we saw earlier) that when it comes to becoming, Nietzsche is
not trying to present a foundational metaphysics of becoming? I would like
to begin with section 370 of The Gay Science. Here, Nietzsche attacks not
only Schopenhauer’s pessimism and Hegel’s panlogism for their respective
privileging of ‘rest’, ‘stillness’, and ‘calmness’; he also dismisses those
Romantics who desire ‘intoxication’ (Rausch) and try to connect with an
ineffable absolute. This passage is important because it shows that the later
Nietzsche rejects any interest in some kind of noumenal realm.17 Dionysian
intoxication (Rausch) is now listed as a decadent form of ‘anaesthesia’, as
a problematic practice designed to shy away from the real contradictions of
life—‘real’ in a phenomenological sense, not as an ontological reference.18
In this passage at least, Nietzsche rules out any kind of noumenal beyond19
and, in the famous genealogy of truth in Twilight of the Idols ‘How the
“True World” Finally Became a Fable. The History of an Error’, he de-
mands a world-view that values this world as this world: ‘The true world is
gone: which world is left? The illusory one, perhaps? ... But no! W e g o t
r i d o f t h e i l l u s o r y w o r l d a l o n g w i t h t h e t r u e o n e !’ This passage
_____________
16 ‘Neither his (implicit or explicit) claims concerning the efficacy of consciousness,
nor his advocacy … of “physiological” explanation should be understood meta-
physically as theses about what really is the case in an ultimate ontological sense.
Rather, both of these approaches should be interpreted as mutually compatible,
non-metaphysical, practical methods of understanding and acting on the world
within the context of a dominant concern with the phenomenology of the human
life-world’ (2006, pp. 297–298).
17 See also GM III 5.
18 Poellner invokes Frege’s distinction between sense and reference: ‘the phenomen-
ologist is only interested in the level of sense (in Husserl’s broad understanding of
Sinn, whereby all intentional contents, not merely linguistic ones, involve senses).
She is not interested, qua phenomenologist, in the level of reference, e.g., in
whether some apparent represented object used as a sample really exists. But this
temporary suspension of the “natural attitude” is of course not an end in itself, but
is engaged for a better understanding of the Sinnstruktur of our actual experiential
world’ (2006, p. 299).
19 See also Nietzsche’s remark on ‘secret routes to worlds beyond and false divini-
ties’ (Nachlaß November 1887–March 1888, KSA 13, 11[99]).
Manuel Dries 125
invites multiple readings, of course, and it does not follow (as Poellner
and, for example, Clark argue)20 that Nietzsche now steers clear of founda-
tional metaphysics and refers to the human lifeworld only. We could
equally read this passage as referring to his new and metaphysical world of
will-to-power becoming, which would be entirely different from (and
thereby ‘abolish’) the Platonic-Christian world formerly considered to be
‘true’, and also entirely different from (and thereby ‘abolish’) the world
that was ‘formerly’ seen as mere appearance, namely, sense impressions,
things, etc. We come back to the alternative of either phenomenology or
metaphysics.
It is easier to see what Nietzsche rules out by emphasizing becoming.
By his shift towards becoming as will to power, he deracinates the four
metaphysical hypostases he regards as most problematic: substantiality,
rest, causality, and agency.21 But what is he affirming when he describes
becoming as ‘will to power’? At first sight, will to power seems like a
traditional metaphysical doctrine insofar as it makes a statement about the
world as a whole. In the light of our previous discussion of Nietzsche’s
explicit denial of extant particulars as referents for language, we should be
cautious about assuming from the start that any description of the whole as
will to power corresponds to any ‘essence’ of what is ontologically real.
For now, I shall treat the will to power as an attempt to formulate an expla-
natory hypothesis, and not, as many passages would certainly allow us to
do, as a transcendent principle that controls the movement of totality from
outside and to which every phenomenal configuration might be reduced.22
In one of the most famous passages, Nietzsche describes the will to power
as follows:
_____________
20 See Clark 1990.
21 As Richardson (2006, pp. 211–212) argues, becoming as will to power seems
therefore to imply that change is pervasive, i.e., that there are no substrata exempt
from change; that change is constant, i.e., there are no pauses in change; that
change is along a continuum rather than by way of isolated causes and effects; and,
finally, that change is what there is, i.e., there are no underlying beings that
change.
22 In support of this interpretation of will to power, see, e.g., Müller-Lauter 1999a,
1999b. Recent scholarship on the will to power, e.g., Deleuze 1983, 1994;
Richardson 1996; Figal 1998; Müller-Lauter 1999b; Smith 2000; Porter 2006,
understands ‘power’ not as an independent state to be reached (Richardson 1996,
p. 16). It also rejects the notion of power as self-preservation, because the goal of
life as will to power is not the maintenance of power relations but an increase in
change, even at the expense of particular forms of successful power (Smith 2000,
p. 111).
My idea is that every specific body [atoms, chemical substances, M.D.] strives
to become master over all space and to extend its force ( —its will to power:)
and to thrust back all that resists its extension. But it continually encounters
similar efforts on the part of other bodies and ends up arranging (‘uniting’)
with those that are sufficiently related to it: —t h u s t h e y t h e n c o n s p i r e
t o g e t h e r f o r p o w e r . And the process goes on. (Nachlaß Spring 1888, KSA
13, 14[186])23
A ‘body’ (Körper) cannot, however, have any numerical identity because it
is not based on parts but on relations, and the number of relations is con-
stantly changing.24 Körper, as any other Dinge or ‘objects’, are themselves
best conceived, Nietzsche thinks, not as substances but as ‘sums’ or ‘bun-
dles’ (Summen) of will to power quanta. Yet even the term ‘quanta’25
shows that he still retains some kind of entities which together form rela-
tions. As Nietzsche writes:
Every thing is a sum of judgements (fears, hopes, some inspire confidence,
others do not). Now, the better we know physics the l e s s p h a n t a s m a l this
sum of judgements becomes ... Finally we understand: a thing is a sum of ex-
citations within us: h o w e v e r , s i n c e w e a r e n o t h i n g f i x e d [ F e s t e s ]
a t h i n g i s a l s o n o t a f i x e d s u m . And the more stability we attribute to
things, – – – (Nachlaß Spring 1880–Spring 1881, KSA 9, 10[F100])
This passage seems to give support to the view that Nietzsche starts out
from the kind of phenomenological attitude Poellner suggests, by discuss-
ing intentional states such as fear, hope, and trust. But there can be no
doubt that he immediately adds weight to his phenomenological ‘sum
_____________
23 In Henry Staten’s reading, this passage denotes the ‘overwhelming of others’
(1990, pp. 141–142) and Nietzsche’s ‘fantasy of infinite extension, as though in
the case of some monstrous cosmic protozoan’ (1990, pp. 141–142). It should be
said that Staten omits the second half of the passage in which Nietzsche explains
that power is not an independent state to be reached, nor is it the goal of one ‘body’
to annihilate its relational other. Instead, ‘power’ denotes the relation (conspirieren
zusammen).
24 See the following note: ‘And for us, even those smallest living beings which con-
stitute our body (more correctly: for whose interaction the thing we call body is the
best simile–) are not soul-atoms, but rather something growing, struggling, repro-
ducing and dying off again: so that their number alters unsteadily, and our living,
like all living, is at once an incessant dying. There are thus in man as many “con-
sciousnesses” as—at every moment of his existence—there are beings which con-
stitute his body’ (Nachlaß June–July 1885, KSA 11, 37[4]).
25 ‘If we eliminate the ingredients, what remains are not things but dynamic quanta in
a relationship of tension, whose essence consists in their relation to all other
quanta, in their “effects” on these—the will to power not a being, not a becoming,
but a pathos, is the most elementary fact, and becoming, effecting, is only the re-
sult of this’ (Nachlaß Spring 1888, KSA 13, 14[79]).
Manuel Dries 127
selves’ by referring to physical theories (obviously about processes be-

tween quanta underlying—or at least coexisting with—the above phenom-
enological perspectives) that would support his view.26
In another example, Nietzsche again tries to argue for the reality of re-
lations, and proposes that even if one of his books existed only in the heads
of all the people who had previously read it (of course, at the time, hardly
anybody had actually read any of his books), this book would should still
be considered as real:
Let us assume that my book existed only in the minds of people, then every-
thing consisted, in a sense, of their thoughts and essences—it would be a
‘s u m o f r e l a t i o n s ’. Yet is it therefore no longer anything? Parable for all
things. Just as our ‘Neighbour’ [Nächster]. That a thing dissolves into a sum of
relations proves nothing a g a i n s t its being real. (Nachlaß Autumn 1881, KSA
9, 13[11])
Of course, the point Nietzsche is trying to argue is that abolishing any
metaphysics of substance (the doer behind a deed, etc.) should not devalue
our phenomenological description of it. Again, this shows to what extent
many of the arguments hinge on his belief in belief in being: even here he
is attacking this belief in order to avert nihilism. There are other passages,
of course, that seem to imply ontological ‘referents’ rather than a phenom-
enological ‘sense’: ‘The law of conservation of energy demands e t e r n a l
r e c u r r e n c e ’ (Nachlaß Summer 1886–Autumn 1887, KSA 12, 5[54]). But
then again, every Weltconception, as Nietzsche had earlier argued, should
not be seen as realist but justified instead as a creative act (Nachlaß Sum-
mer 1872–early 1873, KSA 7, 19[52]). Against the scientific realism of his
times he argues:
The physicists believe in a ‘true world’ in their own way: a static atom-
systematization that is the same for all entities and follows necessary motions,
—so that for them the ‘apparent world’ reduces to each entity’s perspective of
universal and universally necessary being … But they are wrong here: this
atom they arrive at according to the logic of that consciousness-perspectivism,
_____________
26 According to Hales and Welshon (2000), Nietzsche promotes the idea of a ‘bundle
self’ that implies the ‘No-Self view’ consistent with Buddhism. The self is seen as
‘a loosely organized confederation of functional states and dispositions’ (p. 159)
without a strong notion of diachronic identity. Manfred Frank (2007, pp. 152–170)
among others has shown that such a theory of subjectivity has difficulties in ac-
counting for self-consciousness—a serious deficiency in Nietzsche’s philosophy of
mind (as well as in most post-modern accounts of subjectivity) that has yet to re-
ceive proper attention. Paul Katsafanas (2005, pp. 24–25) shows an awareness of
the problem.
—is then itself a subjective fiction … They forgot to make this perspective-
positing force part of ‘true being’. (Nachlaß Spring 1888, KSA 13, 14[186])
We could play this pseudo-Heraclitean game indefinitely. The textual evi-
dence suggests that Nietzsche tries to write sometimes as a phenomenolo-
gist and at other times loses himself in (meta-)physical speculation—or
like Lucretius, in (meta-)physical poetry—and we can safely suggest that
all three modes are meant to avert the impending and actual threat of nihil-
ism. Also, Nietzsche’s move is, I think, characteristic of the paradigm of
becoming: he shifts from an ontology of substances to an ontology of pro-
cesses or relations. Becoming as will to power denotes processes involving
directional forces and counter-forces, and Nietzsche conceives of such
forces as engaged in a process of ‘interdetermination’ (reminiscent of
Wechselbestimmung, the early Romantic term for the constitution of con-
sciousness). ‘Is will possible without these two oscillations of Yes and
No?’ Nietzsche asks:
there must be oppositions, resistances, and thus, relatively, o v e r a r c h i n g
u n i t i e s ... Localized – – –
if A exerts an effect on B, then only as localized is A separated from B. (Nach-
laß Spring 1888, KSA 13, 14[80])
Because Nietzsche’s process metaphysics requires that there be not just
flux, i.e., constantly changing relations between forces, but also, as he says,
‘übergreifende Einheiten’ (‘overarching unities’), Johann Figl proposes
(and I agree with him) that we should understand will to power not as radi-
cal becoming, but as the irreducible relation of both being and becoming:
‘will to power is then that concept which ties together being and becoming’
(1982, p. 85). This seems to provide an answer to our first question: be-
coming is not to be conceived as absolute ‘indetermination’, or ‘structure-
less thereness’ (Danto 1965, pp. 96–97), entirely separate or free from
determination. On the contrary, the description of becoming, once untan-
gled, seems much more moderate.
But we have yet to explain Nietzsche’s contradictory statements re-
garding the ability of language to express this (more moderate) becoming.
5. Becoming, Language, and Time
Nietzsche believes (and says) that, on the one hand, ‘t h e r e i s n o w i l l :

there are points of will constantly augmenting or losing their power’
(Nachlaß November 1887–March 1888, KSA 13, 11[73]); and that on the
other, ‘the means of expression that language offers are of no use to ex-
press becoming’ (ibid.). I will deal with the former proposition first.
Manuel Dries 129
While will to power supposedly designates the mode of being of every

configuration in the phenomenal world, Nietzsche warns that ‘will’ or
‘power’ (understood as a single substance or principle) ultimately does not
exist. Every world constitution, conscious or unconscious, is the result of
multiple ‘volitional’ or ‘intentional’ processes.27 A ‘sum’ of dynamic will-
points always culminates in a ‘power situation’ between volitional activi-
ties, but as processes, they never arrive at final positions, and continually
reconfigure in different relationships of power:
Struggle of atoms, as of individuals, yet, at a certain difference of force two
atoms become one, and two individuals one. And vice versa one becomes two
when the internal state effects a disgregation of a centre of force. —H e n c e
a g a i n s t any absolute conception of ‘atom’ and ‘individual’. (Nachlaß
Autumn 1885, KSA 11, 43[1])
And as for the supposed inadequacy of language to express becoming,
Nietzsche insists that language is unable (unbrauchbar) to express will to
power, but he then proceeds immediately to deliver a reformulated descrip-
tion of his (non-substantial) idea of will as ‘will-points’ (Willens-
Punktuationen). Once again, his assumptions help us to clarify why he
holds such a paradoxical position. The subject-object structure of language
supports what he believes to be the belief of his contemporaries, namely a
metaphysics of substance that carries within itself nihilism as a product of
the belief in being. Because of its inherent structure, language cannot cap-
ture what he himself regards as true: namely, processes and relations with-
out any essential agents to sustain them. As I indicated at the end of the
section 2, we have to assume that he switches at times between, or tries to
speak from, and for, more than one paradigm.
When addressing adherents of the paradigm of being, Nietzsche argues
(in keeping with the ‘impossible presentation thesis’) that language cannot
express becoming. Why is this so? Regardless of what is expressed within
the subject-object structure of a language, to someone who believes in
being, i.e., in isolated and substantive subjects and objects, language’s
semantic units and grammar will always confirm that structure and with it
the paradigm of being itself. Therefore, when he addresses his contempo-
_____________
27 What Nietzsche describes as ‘dynamic quanta’ or ‘will-points’ (Willens-
Punktuationen) seems to have something like the following structure: centre
vector goal; or alternatively, subject affect intentional object. As Welshon
(2004) suggests, ‘The structure of intentional psychological events: <subject af-
fect intentional object> is … an instance of a more general structure that is
plausibly instantiable by non-conscious, non-animated and perhaps even non-
living entities. Nietzsche is proposing that psychological events are structured in a
manner isomorphic to that exemplified by all efficient causal relations’ (p. 173).
raries (who, in his view, believe in being), Nietzsche must necessarily up-
hold the view that language cannot express becoming, thereby introducing
the problematic dualism we have just noted. In short: (i) language cannot
express what you [my contemporaries] think the world is essentially,
namely being; (ii) fortunately, being does not exist. It is important to
understand that Nietzsche’s discourse is always located or positioned, ad-
dressing particular people or groups, and, to some extent (to make himself
comprehensible to them) by using their language, and so his whole activity
is how to get them from their false conception—expressed in a specific
linguistic form (which he adopts when speaking to them)—to his own
views.
But when addressing, as he often does, the future paradigm of becom-
ing, Nietzsche thinks he can indeed express and describe becoming within
language. Again, we might ask how this can be so. Will-points also follow
a teleological structure somewhat similar to that of language (‘I need be-
ginnings and centres of motion, starting from which the will reaches
out’).28 For someone who has already changed and who accepts Nietz-
sche’s paradigm of becoming, who already believes in processes and rela-
tions rather than substances and ‘doers behind deeds’, etc., language can
indeed correspond to and express becoming (as plural events between di-
rected quanta of forces, but without any teleology that governs the whole):
‘a quantum of power, a becoming, insofar as none of it has the character of
“being”’(Nachlaß November 1887–March 1888, KSA 13, 11[73]).
But can the implied dualism really be avoided? The task language
would have to master within a paradigm for which something like the will
to power serves as its explanatory hypothesis would be to express the sim-
ultaneity of two different, yet related, levels of becoming or temporality.
As Richardson (2006, p. 225) has recently argued, becoming as will to
power firstly denotes a real, pre-conscious background becoming, ‘by
which perspectivity and meaning arise and evolve’ (let this be ‘background
time’); and secondly, will to power also denotes an ideal, perspectival tem-
porality for a perspective, i.e., ‘the way time appears to the perspectives’
(let this be ‘conscious time’). Nietzsche frequently observes that, behind all
conscious intentionality and language (‘conscious time’) lies also an un-
_____________
28 Nietzsche admits of a plurality of teleological forces but he wishes to refute any
outside, first cause behind such plural events. As he tries to explain in his refuta-
tion of any strong notion of causality in 1888: ‘Will to power in principle. Critique
of the concept of “cause”. I need the starting point “will to power” as the origin of
motion. Consequently, motion must not be conditioned from outside—not caused
… I need beginnings and centres of motion, starting from which the will reaches
out’ (Nachlaß Spring 1888, KSA 13, 14[98]).
Manuel Dries 131
conscious intentionality (‘background time’), an unbewusste Absichtlich-

keit (Nachlaß Autumn 1885–Spring 1886, KSA 12, 1[76]). He can there-
fore hold that any conscious time (e.g., the way I perceive time) must al-
ways already be a selection, ‘an interpretation that can be false; moreover a
simplification and falsification etc.’ (ibid.). How are we to understand
‘falsification’ (Fälschung) in this context?
I think that Nietzsche’s idea may best be understood by analogy with a
spotlight picking out a certain scene on a theatre stage on which many
scenes are being performed simultaneously. The spotlight picks out one
scene and brings it into focus, while the rest of the actions on and off stage
continue, but in the dark. In order to illuminate the complexity, we should
have to introduce multiple temporal and intentional ‘spotlights’—
originating from the point of view of each actor within the diegetic29 time
of his particular scene, thereby overlooking the temporality of his non-
diegetic perspective (the person he is in ‘real’ life), and so forth. Of course,
the ‘spotlights’ not only reveal pre-existing events or objects, to some ex-
tent they also create and constitute them. Conceived as such, ‘the whole’ in
Nietzsche’s world-conception denotes a continuum of perspectival, inter-
pretative processes, both unconscious ‘background time’ and ‘conscious
time’: ‘The will to power i n t e r p r e t s : the development of an organ is an
interpretation; the will to power sets limits, determines degrees and differ-
ences of power’ (Nachlaß Autumn 1885–Autumn 1886, KSA 12, 2[148]).
Viewed as such, life is seen as perspectival at all levels: a minimal inten-
tionality or directedness is assumed to be already at work in non-conscious
organic life-forms such as ‘protoplasm’: ‘In truth, i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s
itself a means of becoming master of something (The or-
g a n i c p r o c e s s p r e s u p p o s e s c o n s t a n t interpreting)’ (ibid.). On
more complex organic levels, Nietzsche’s ‘sum selves’ acquire their own
complicated perspective, composed of inherited and selected drives, sense
experiences, incorporated memories, and unconscious and conscious future
projects.30 In his description of perspectivism, Nietzsche attacks the pre-
supposition underlying any subject distinct from the body and sense per-
ception. Such a view of the self is implausible, since it requires a non-
_____________
29 Pertaining to diegesis: ‘the fictional time, place, characters, and events which
constitute the universe of the narrative’ (OED).
30 See Nachlaß May–June 1885, KSA 11, 35[58, 59]. Earlier (ibid., 26[272]), Nietz-
sche insists that even the inorganic must be thought of as having a minimal direct-
edness. Recently, philosophy of mind has started to seriously consider such a ‘pan-
psychist’ theory, see, e.g., the responses to Galen Strawson’s paper ‘Realistic
Monism. Why physicalism entails panpsychism’ in the collection of essays entitled
Consciousness and its Place in Nature (Freeman/Strawson, et al. 2006).
directional ‘vision’, ‘an eye turned in no direction at all, an eye where the
active and interpretive powers are to be suppressed, absent, but through
which seeing becomes a seeing-something, so it is an absurdity and non-
concept of eye that is demanded’ (GM III 12).
The fundamental asymmetry, then, is between the ‘directional’31 way
in which ‘übergreifende Einheiten’ view and thereby experience becoming
(conscious temporality), and the multi-directional temporality of the whole
(background temporality) in which they become by participation in what
Nietzsche calls the continuum. This leads, according to Richardson, to the
following asymmetrical situation: ‘Life itself (the organism) views time
differently than it lives it. Since becoming lies in the temporal structure of
perspectives, and not in how they view time, life tends to miss its own
becoming’ (2006, p. 215).32 Both temporalities are, so to speak, at work
within us simultaneously. Within a ‘reductive’ physicalist theory of
mind,33 one might argue that conscious time supervenes on background
becoming, implying that the temporality of the whole determines conscious
time, even from within a conscious perspective.34 This, I think, is not the
view Nietzsche holds.35 Rather, his ‘sum selves,’ from within their per-
spectival temporality which limits their causal efficacy, determine the con-
tinuum, just as background temporality determines the ‘sum selves’. I sug-
gest that this type of adualistic ‘interdeterminism’ is perhaps best
conceived along the lines of mutual ‘interruptions’: at a certain conscious
moment, you intend to carry out a certain action, and then, after some
‘time’ (which you have failed to notice) has passed, you might wonder why
you ended up doing something completely different; or at other times, you
‘find’ yourself engaged in an action you had not been consciously aware
_____________
31 The German word gerichtet implies both ‘having a direction’ as well as a valuation
or judgement.
32 Richardson sees proof for Nietzsche’s temporal realism in his ‘naturalist allegiance
to a physical reality, within which these wills have evolved’; Nietzsche therefore
‘cannot avoid supposing a time that is independent of those wills—a time in which
not just organisms’ bodies but all matter interacts, including inorganic matter that
does not support perspectival will’ (2006, p. 226). Günter Abel, on the other hand,
situates Nietzsche’s temporal continuum within his general interpretationism,
thereby defending Nietzsche’s anti-realism against the charge of a new essen-
tialism (2000, p. 438).
33 As opposed to non-reductive physicalist theories that also exist in the ‘analytical’
tradition (see Strawson et al. 2006).
34 Which leads to an over-determination.
35 I think it is necessary to go further than Leiter’s illuminating but reductive readings
in 2001, 2002, p. 104, and Leiter/Knobe 2007.
Manuel Dries 133
of, and from that ‘moment’ on you are ‘interrupting’ and ‘determining’ this
action, thereby taking it in a different direction.36
We have finally arrived at a much less radical version of Nietzsche’s
Werden: he allows for instances of being with relative duration and also
relative stability; his sums are indeed ‘complex forms of relative life-
duration [with their conscious temporality, M.D.] within the flux of be-
coming [within the temporality of the whole, M.D.]’ (Nachlaß November
1887–March 1888, KSA 13, 11[73]). So when he states that language falsi-
fies and ‘fails’ to express becoming, he could be understood as indicating
that language cannot afford a God’s-eye perspective, and that it falsifies
when it presumes37 to use what modal logicians today call ‘rigid designa-
tors’ that pretend to capture an event once and for all in all possible worlds.
This would indeed efface the simultaneity of unconscious background
becoming and conscious becoming as it is experienced from within a per-
spective. It is necessary to use language in such a way that it shows an
awareness of the interrelation of both temporalities. But the argument we
used earlier still applies: whether or not you understand such a language
‘correctly’ would depend on your paradigm.
For his descriptions to be true to his belief in becoming as will to
power, Nietzsche sometimes tries to express his vision through adualistic
descriptions: self-consciousness is, he thinks, better described as Selbst-
bewusst-Werden rather than Selbstbewusstsein. Each ‘sum self’ has the
status of relative being and its own perspective; yet at the same time, it is
also the result(ing) of a long process of selection. It instantiates and is liv-
ing its entire evolutionary history that it has incorporated (einverleibt):
Man is n o t just an individual but the living-on organic totality [das
Fortlebende Gesammt-Organische] in one particular line. That h e exists
proves that one species of interpretation (albeit always under further construc-
tion) has also kept existing, that the system of interpretation has not switched.
‘Adaptation’. (Nachlaß End of 1886–Spring 1887, KSA 12, 7[2])
_____________
36 This more complex interdeterminism (see also Richardson 2008) should perhaps
be conceived along the lines of interruptions in both directions—the kind of inter-
ruption recently suggested by studies into the effect of testosterone levels. After
exposure to images of sexual content, those with higher levels of testosterone
(measurable through the length of their index fingers) show a higher level of
arousal which—for a considerable amount of time—interferes with their ability to
make informed decisions.
37 Something any hypothetical adherent of the paradigm of becoming would no
longer think possible.
In the light of this passage, Nietzsche’s intertwining of being and becom-

ing demands not a monistic but rather an adualistic reading.38 In his late
philosophy, he delivers a theory that corroborates the intuition he had as
early as 1872: ‘The order in the world, the toilsome and slowest result of
horrific evolutions understood as the nature of the world—Heraclitus’
(Nachlaß Summer 1872–Beginning of 1873, KSA 7, 19[124]).
I now wish to leave Nietzsche’s adualistic intertwining of being and
becoming—both being and becoming, neither being nor becoming—
behind and move from the micro-level of the will to power to the macro-
level of Nietzsche’s philosophy as a whole. As already indicated, Nietz-
sche follows two agendas. His reception shows how difficult it is to ac-
count for both.
6. Nietzsche’s Simultaneity-Thinking
The logic of our conscious thinking is only a crude and facilitated form of the
thinking needed … by the particular organs of our organism. A simultaneity-
thinking [ein Zugleich-Denken] is needed of which we have hardly an inkling.
(Nachlaß April–June 1885, KSA 11, 34[124])
Life no longer dwells in the whole … The whole no longer lives at all: it is
composite, calculated, artificial, an artefact. (CW 7)
So far I have attributed to Nietzsche a certain double standard: when he

addresses the adherents of the paradigm of being he presents a radical doc-
trine of becoming in hyperbolic terms; on the other hand, his process on-
tology (hypothetical or not) of will to power turns out to be much less radi-
cal, allowing for stability and duration. But this schematic separation of
standards obfuscates the real problem, namely that Nietzsche tries to do
both at the same time: shock the believers in being out of their nihilistic
assumption and prepare for a non-nihilistic, new paradigm. To date, his
reception shows that his strategy was successful in so far as it has certainly
generated wide-ranging interest, but it also shows that it failed miserably
by generating a plethora of (mis-)appropriations. As we know, he has been
_____________
38 Abel interprets this passage as follows: ‘An adualistic viewpoint is required. Nietz-
sche advocates such a view. He assumes a continuous spectrum of what exists or
happens in one form or another, from the furthest reaches of the inorganic to men-
tal states, consciousness, becoming-self-conscious, cognitive and other mental ac-
tivities, and planned actions and their executions. The organic appears therefore as
the evolutionary-historical and continuous precursor of consciousness. The world
of Nietzsche is a world of such continuum-relations (Abel 2001, pp. 6–7).
Manuel Dries 135
both celebrated and rejected as the thinker of new values for the select few,
for an aristocracy of the powerful against cultural disintegration (Nietzsche
uses the term Disgregation) and weakness.39 More recently, he has become
the forebear of deconstructive trends in the continental tradition, the
thinker of becoming, multiplicity, interpretation, masks, etc.—hailed for
his non-totalizing aspects and despised for his laissez-faire relativism
(mere interpretation). I believe reconstructing Nietzsche’s assumptions
helps considerably to make sense of this reception, which is puzzling at
best.
In this final section, however, I also wish to move from the double
standard and the consequences I have just described to a second ‘double
standard’ of a different kind. I wish to show that, at least at times, Nietz-
sche thinks about unifications, also on an interpersonal and socio-political
level, within an adualistic framework. Nietzsche’s project of forestalling
nihilism requires him to conceive a proper unity (das Ganze) as well as
difference. As I will show, in some of his remarks on the phenomenology
of love, he finds evidence for a notion of community for the new paradigm
he envisages in his moderate moments (i.e., when he is not speaking as a
strong counter-force to the belief in being). For Nietzsche’s deconstructive
demands exist side by side with his calls for unity,40 and both issue from
his attack on nihilism.
Like several of his predecessors, Nietzsche is very aware of a set of
problems that tend to undermine the success of unifications. The three
dilemmas that concerned, for example, Schiller in his reaction to Kant—I
call them elsewhere the either-or dilemma, the synthesis dilemma, and the
relativism dilemma (Dries 2006, pp. 53–58)—also feature prominently in
some of Nietzsche’s phenomenological observations on unities. He, too,
realized at an early stage that most unities suffer from a confusion of unity
with oneness. Thus, if the concept of a new unity is necessary in order to
attain an affirmative attitude towards life after any two-world metaphysics
_____________
39 For passages in which Nietzsche associates ‘disgregation’ with weakness, see TI
‘The Problem of Socrates’ 9 and Nachlaß Spring 1888, KSA 13, 14[83, 219]; also
May–June 1888, KSA 13, 17[6]. Disgregation is, however, also associated with
‘genius’, the ‘sublimest machine’, and Nietzsche equates complexity with Zer-
brechlichkeit, ‘fragility’ (Nachlaß Spring 1888, KSA 13, 14[133]).
40 ‘But there is no such substratum; there is no ‘being’ behind doing, effecting, be-
coming’, he writes in GM I 13, making his liquidation (Verflüssigung) of any an-
thropocentric viewpoint all too apparent. And yet, he clearly has a vision of a new
free and durational subject that appears to be—in Quine’s terms—an ‘entity with
identity’: ‘The freer and the more stable the individual, the more demanding his
love: finally it longs for the Übermensch because nothing else satisfies his love’
(Nachlaß November 1882–February 1883, KSA 10, 150).
has been abandoned, then this new unity—in order to avoid relapsing into
the old belief in being—must be conceived differently.
Let me begin with a note on Goethe in which Nietzsche criticizes two
methods of enquiry which he finds equally problematic. Any scientific
method that attempts to fuse and combine what should remain separate is
seen as problematic and just as unsuccessful as any method that attempts to
separate what belongs together (das Zusammengehörige).41 In his evalu-
ation of altruism in 1880, to give another example, he points out that the
idea of a unified society problematically demands that the oppositions
among individuals be reduced to a minimum. The kind of society created
by such a homogenization turns out to be uninteresting and unproductive,
‘to its palest hue … reduced’ (Nachlaß Autumn 1880, KSA 9, 6[58]).
Nietzsche also thinks that such lowest-common-denominator reductions
fail, because in their attempt to bring about the desired ‘sameness’
(Gleichheit), all productivity stops and the unity as unity dies: ‘This is
euthanasia, utterly unproductive! Just like those men without deep feel-
ings—the kind, calm and so-called happy—are, after all, also unproduc-
tive’ (ibid.).
But Nietzsche does not only distrust levelling syntheses. Conversely,
he also thinks that our traditional practice of oppositional thinking creates
the impression that we can always select and choose between two sides. He
disapproves of this practice of thinking in mutually exclusive, either-or
alternatives: ‘Just as we have separated dead and alive, logical and illogical
etc. To unlearn our mutually exclusive oppositions—this is our task’
(Nachlaß July–August 1882, KSA 10, 1[3]).
Aware of the dilemma of relativism, the early Nietzsche reminds us
that only those things which are not absolutely other and separate can have
any effect on each other: ‘what is absolutely foreign to each other, cannot
have any kind of effect on each other’ (PTAG 14). Provocatively, he re-
marks in Human, All Too Human that the ability to ‘kill’ depends on ‘dis-
tance’:
We all, indeed, lose all feeling of injustice when the difference between our-
selves and other creatures is very great, and will kill a mosquito, for example,
without the slightest distress of conscience. (HA I 81)
If distance increases to such an extent that a connection is no longer felt,
then annihilation of the other side becomes a possibility. For a community,
this means that, at the very moment when one group perceives itself as
absolutely self-sufficient, it will be in danger of becoming indifferent to
_____________
41 See Nachlaß Winter 1872–73, KSA 7, 24[2].
Manuel Dries 137
other groups. Unities can only be successful, according to Nietzsche, if all

of the above problems are kept in view.42
In this context, Heraclitus emerges as an interesting model. As early as
Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks, Nietzsche presents and praises
him for his move towards immanence, i.e., his denial of the existence of
incompatible metaphysical realms: ‘he denied the duality of totally diverse
worlds’ (PTAG 5); he also approves of his affirmative attitude towards
change, so that rather than associating it with suffering, becoming is per-
ceived with ‘blissful wonder’ (beglücktes Erstaunen) (ibid.); and, finally,
he admires his adualistic epistemology—a method Nietzsche finds appeal-
ing because it lacks the reductive either-or structure and displays a differ-
ent way of dealing with oppositions (such as whole and part, nature and
man, object and subject). In contrast to Nietzsche’s reading of Parmenides
and Plato, Heraclitus understands oppositions not as mutually exclusive
alternatives, and he is therefore able to adopt a different perspective on the
world. What Nietzsche finds promising is Heraclitus’ attitude towards the
world as a whole. He no longer separates absolutely, nor does he unite
absolutely; he allows neither dualistic, absolute distinctions nor monistic
oneness.43 Instead, his practice of seeing suspends such a logic of alterna-
tives. For Heraclitus, Nietzsche emphasizes,
the many perceivable qualities are neither eternal substances nor phantasms of
our senses (Anaxagoras is later to imagine the former, Parmenides the latter);
they are neither rigid autocratic being [Sein] nor fleeting semblance [Schein]
flitting through human minds. (PTAG 6)
Perceptions are neither eternal essences nor mere appearances, neither
static, independent being (Sein), nor fleeting transient illusions of the hu-
man mind (Schein). Whereas the metaphysical realist holds that what ex-
ists, exists in itself, independent of my naming or thinking, and the idealist
holds the exact opposite, namely, that what is, is only because of my think-
ing it, Heraclitus undercuts such a false rigidity. There are two concomitant
types of nihilism here: the idealist loses the world (Jacobi’s charge against
Fichte’s subjectivism) and the realist loses the self (Fichte’s charge against
Spinoza’s fatalism). Once the reductive either-or is discarded, Heraclitean
_____________
42 As we saw earlier, precisely because Nietzsche feels so distant from his contempo-
raries (who adhere to the paradigm of being which he has left behind), he appears
willing to sacrifice some of them along the way to his goal of overcoming nihilism.
43 In Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche will give a more critical assessment of Heracli-
tus (TI ‘“Reason” in Philosophy’ 2).
phenomena erhalten sich—con-tinue, preserved in (and not devalued by)

their hovering between the poles defined by the neither-nor.44
For Nietzsche, then, Heraclitus’ understanding of becoming breaks
with our common practice of thinking in our inherited dualistic manner.
The latter’s active suspension enabled Heraclitus to think and approach the
world differently: his neither-nor does not lead to any kind of absolute
disintegration or to any levelling synthesis; it leads precisely to ‘bliss’ and
‘astonishment’ and a better way of seeing, negating neither the observer
nor the observed.45 To borrow a term from the phenomenologist Bernhard
Waldenfels (2002, p. 193), reality becomes, as a Widerfahrnis, an implicat-
ing ‘en-counter’ (‘ein ein-dringliches Ereignis’)—not between two already
existing subjects or between an already determined subject and an object;
instead, it is from the ‘encounter’ that both self and world emerge.
Nietzsche understands the self as such a meeting point of will-to-power
relations. As we saw, as complex ‘sum’, it does not disappear altogether; as
constant encounter, it is not ‘redundant’ (überflüssig) but emerges as real.
Again, I think, it is crucial to distinguish between the Nietzsche who an-
nounces the ‘death of the subject’ in his advocacy of becoming as against
the belief in being; and the Nietzsche who attempts to think from within,
assisting those who have made the leap towards the paradigm of becoming.
Did he perhaps envisage those who agree with Quine that physical objects
are myths, ‘a device for working a manageable structure into the flux of
experience’ and that ‘forces are another example … nowadays that the
boundary between energy and matter is obsolete … these are myths on the
same footing with physical objects and gods, neither better nor worse ex-
cept for differences in the degree to which they expedite our dealings with
sense experiences’ (1980, p. 45)?
For those who no longer believe in being, radical gestures will no
longer be necessary. Yet Nietzsche’s assumptions imply that even then,
new ideas will be needed in order to adjust our necessary web of beliefs in
_____________
44 Zupani has recently described ‘the figure of the two’ as Nietzsche’s most radical
gesture. As in Novalis’ understanding of ‘illness’, she explains the logic of the as-
cetic ideal as the irreducible doubleness of life and death as follows: ‘That which,
in a decadent way, turns against life (the “ascetic ideal”) is itself something that
springs from life … the opposition of life and death, the tension between them, be-
comes the very definition of life. Life is two things: it is life and it is death; it is the
living edge between them. Therefore, death, in the emphatic sense of the word, is
the death of this edge, the end of this tension, the fall into one or the other …
which is always the fall into One’ (Zupani 2003, pp. 18–19).
45 See also Nietzsche’s passage on ‘the differential [der Unterschied] as the true
object of feelings’ (Nachlaß Summer 1875, KSA 8, 9[1]).
Manuel Dries 139
such a way that life flourishes within the new paradigm. Thinking the
whole, but differently, then becomes the vital task. Caught up in his violent
rhetorical assaults on the belief in being, and without compassion for those
in need of it, Nietzsche only rarely delivers ideas for such a new com-
munity.
I wish to close with a brief examination of Nietzsche’s phenomenology
of love. In the aphorism ‘Love and Duality’, Nietzsche describes love as a
special type of unity that is only successful as a unity when it retains its
constitutive duality:
What is love but understanding and rejoicing at the fact that another lives,
feels and acts in a way different from and opposite to ours? If love is to bridge
these antitheses through joy it may not deny or seek to abolish them. —Even
self-love presupposes an unblendable duality (or multiplicity) in one person.
(HA II 75)
The unity between two lovers cannot last, Nietzsche observes, when they
allow either the one side or the other to become dominant. Differences
must be given a positive value and give rise to joy (Freude). A unity will
only last, Nietzsche holds, if it remains in a state of ‘unblendable duality’
(unvermischbare Zweiheit)—in a state of adualistic togetherness, both
together and separate. Similarly, in another passage on ‘L o v e m a k e s t h e
s a m e ’ (D 532), he ridicules the idea that love demands that we erase the
dividing differences. In the attempt to achieve a union without otherness,
both give up their idiosyncrasies for the other. Such a false synthesis is
again just as problematic as the above either-or.
In his discussion of love, then, Nietzsche—like many thinkers before
him, for example, the young Hegel—comes closest to a possible model for
his new ‘whole’ as a community: any false either-or would diminish the
other and with it the relation; any false synthesis would ultimately truncate
the characteristics of both; and, as we saw earlier, allowing for radically
independent domains leads to separation by indifference. In order for a
community to be successful, the two (or multiple) parties must avoid the
three dilemmas. I interpret Nietzsche’s scattered phenomenological obser-
vations, informed and supported as they are by his process metaphysics, as
pointing in his less aristocratic and selective moments towards a unity that
would foster cohesion (Zusammen-halt) that would no longer be subject to
the confusion of unity with oneness and would thus provide the right kind
of model for the paradigm of becoming which he envisages. Once the be-
lief in being has dissolved, Nietzsche clearly wants more than joyful affir-
mation that ‘determines the noncenter otherwise than as loss of centre’
(Derrida 1978, p. 292). He also wants new identities and centres, but for
that to be a possibility (as a new paradigm of becoming for and from which
he thinks he is already speaking), he thinks our logic must first be adapted

to the new paradigm (on ‘unity’, see Gemes 2001, pp. 350–354).
In the fragment ‘The New World-Conception’ of 1888, Nietzsche
seems to offer a new myth; and, while incommensurable to those who
believe in being, his conception would ensure what I interpret as a conten-
tious contentment (providing some kind of haltloser Halt) for the new
paradigm of becoming. This seems to require us to think the world as both
becoming and being and as neither becoming nor being. Nietzsche imposes
a double vision:
The world persists; it is not something that becomes, not something that passes
away. Or rather: it becomes, it passes away, but it has never begun to become
and never ceased from passing away—it c o n t a i n s itself in both. (Nachlaß
Spring 1888, KSA 13, 14[187])
In Ecce Homo 9, he seems to confirm that the task of revaluation requires
many abilities, but most of all it requires an adualistic art that would com-
bine—in a kind of alchemy of thinking46—separatio and conjunctio,
namely, ‘the art of separating without making inimical, to mix nothing, to
“reconcile” nothing; a tremendous variety that is nevertheless the opposite
of chaos—this was the precondition, the long secret work and artistry of
my instinct’ (EH ‘Why I Am so Clever’ 9). Again, it can be shown that this
model of simultaneity he proposes in his more compassionate moments
issues from his fight against what he assumed to be the real threat of nihil-
ism. In The Gay Science 346, he cautions against what he calls a ‘terrifying
either-or’ (furchtbares Entweder-Oder) that might come upon future gen-
erations:
Have we not come to mistrust an opposition—an opposition between the
world in which until now we were at home with our venerations—and which
may have made it possible for us to e n d u r e life—and another world t h a t
w e o u r s e l v e s a r e … and that could easily confront coming generations
with the terrible either-or: ‘Either abolish your venerations or—
y o u r s e l v e s !’ The latter would be nihilism; but would not the former also
be—nihilism? That is o u r question mark. (GS 5 346)
For an adualistic practice of thinking to become a reality, he felt—perhaps
by reflecting upon himself—that we need to work on the logic we have
inherited, incorporated (in our evolutionary temporality), and accepted. As
Nietzsche insists: ‘a simultaneity-thinking is needed of which we have
hardly an inkling’ (Nachlaß April–June 1885, KSA 11, 34[124]). More
precisely: the simultaneity of that which appears to be mutually exclu-
_____________
46 The forgotten German name for alchemy is Scheidekunst.
Manuel Dries 141
sive.47 If we read Nietzsche’s ‘simultaneity-thinking’ as the double stan-

dard he considered necessary for the new paradigm of becoming to be
proof against nihilism, then his two agendas have to be understood as con-
sistent. The real inconsistency lies, I think, in the violent separation and
selection he was happy to accept as part of his cure.
Conclusion
I suggested in this essay that Nietzsche’s entire project is motivated by

what he sees as the real threat of nihilism. I further suggested that this
threat seems to depend on two assumptions we attributed to Nietzsche:
firstly, that all there is, is becoming, and secondly, that the belief in being
among his contemporaries is all-pervasive. From these two assumptions,
we inferred that nihilism is a function of the belief in being, i.e., the
stronger the latter, the higher the existential disillusionment when it is con-
fronted with becoming. Nietzsche accordingly attacks the belief in being,
since, convinced as he is that all is becoming as will to power, it is only by
undoing the belief in being that we can overcome nihilism.
We saw further that, in Nietzsche’s eyes, nihilism was already emer-
ging—albeit slowly—and that he regarded it as his task as a philosopher to
accelerate this process.48 In order to undo the belief in being, he makes
another assumption: a counter-force is required, and the intensity of be-
coming as Gegenkraft must be equivalent to the intensity of the belief in
being. I took this to explain Nietzsche’s radical doctrine of becoming. An-
other example would be his formulation of eternal recurrence as ‘the most
extreme form of nihilism’ (Nachlaß Summer 1886–Autumn 1887, KSA 12,
5[71]).
We have also seen that, faced with the nihilistic implications of the
‘impossible presentation thesis’, Nietzsche does not himself hold any radi-
cal doctrine of flux. His conception of will to power is, when examined
closely, much more moderate. But again, he is not consistent here and his
tone changes frequently, depending on whether he is trying to attack the
belief in being, or whether he is genuinely trying to present plausible ex-
_____________
47 For current developments in ‘transconsistent’ logic, see Priest 1987 and 1995.
48 That he saw himself precisely as both annihilator and donor is clear in Ecce Homo:
‘I am by far the most terrible human being there has ever been; this does not mean
I shall not be the most beneficient. I know joy in destruction to a degree corres-
ponding to my strength for destruction—in both I obey my Dionysian nature,
which does not know how to separate No-doing from Yes-saying’ (EH ‘Why I Am
a Destiny’ 2).
planatory accounts of the world’s constitution, both phenomenological and

metaphysical, within a paradigm that has already abolished the strong be-
lief in being.
But even in his conception of becoming as will to power, he only par-
tially deflates the ‘impossible presentation thesis’. His attempts to express
within language the simultaneity of a real background temporality and a
conscious perspectival temporality ultimately fail to capture and express
the processes he assumes in his metaphysics of relations. This failure is not
ultimately problematic, since in his theory of truth, truths are not timeless
and ‘out there’ to be discovered, but are always the result of temporal,
interpretative processes that can no longer be thought of as presupposition-
less. In this respect, Nietzsche’s ontology of processes supports his theory
of truth: for an organism is always already an interpreting ‘unity’ before it
somehow acquires a conscious, first-person perspective. The first-person
perspective is the blind spot not only in Nietzsche’s theory of self-
consciousness.
Finally, we saw that Nietzsche attempts to conceive of ‘the whole’ be-
yond the logic of mutually exclusive alternatives. He tries to account for
both being and becoming without privileging either the one or the other.
We found additional support for this in his scattered remarks on relation-
ships and love. Again—and this applies to his overall project—Nietzsche’s
adualism is ultimately motivated by the weight he attributes to the threat of
nihilism.
What remains after all this is obvious. An evaluation of Nietzsche’s
project must depend on an evaluation of his two (or three) basic assump-
tions. What do we make of his belief in our belief in being? And what do
we make of his belief in becoming? And if we really conclude that he had a
point, then perhaps we should consider the model of ‘simultaneity-
thinking’ (Zugleich-Denken) as an alternative to Nietzsche’s own impatient
and radical agenda.49
_____________
49 I would like to thank the participants of the 2005 conference ‘Nietzsche on Time
and History’ at Peterhouse, Cambridge, where an early version of this paper was
first presented. I am very grateful for the comments and criticism I received from
the members of the Cambridge German Philosophy Seminar, Raymond Geuss,
Richard Raatzsch, Fabian Freyenhagen, Christian Skirke and Jörg Schaub. Without
the extensive discussions with Walter Schmoll, Mark Henderson, Hugh Barr Nis-
bet, Manolis Simos, Margaret Clare Ryan, and Anna Wehofsits this paper would
not have been possible. The usual disclaimers apply.
Manuel Dries 143
References
Abel, Günter, 1998, Die Dynamik der Willen zur Macht, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Abel, Günter, 2000, Interpretationswelten, Stuttgart: Suhrkamp.
Abel, Günter, 2001, Bewusstsein–Sprache–Natur: Nietzsches Philosophie des Geistes,
in: Nietzsche-Studien, 30, pp. 1–43.
Abel, Günter, 2003, Wahrheit und Interpretation, www.nietzschesource.org/gabel-1.
Bowie, Andrew, 2003, Aesthetics and Subjectivity: From Kant to Nietzsche, Manches-
ter: Manchester University Press.
Clark, Maudemarie, 1990, Nietzsche on Truth and Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Danto, Arthur C., 1965, Nietzsche as Philosopher, New York: Columbia University
Press.
Deleuze, Gilles, 1983, Nietzsche and Philosophy, trans. H. Tomlinson, New York:
Columbia University Press.
Deleuze, Gilles, 1994, Difference and Repetition, trans. P. Patton, London: Athlone
Press.
Derrida, Jacques, 1978, ‘Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sci-
ences’, in: Writing and Difference, trans. A. Bass, Chicago: Chicago University
Press, pp. 278–294.
Dries, Manuel, 2006, ‘Friedrich Schiller’s Adualistic Conception of Unity’, in: Publica-
tions of the English Goethe Society, 1/75, pp. 53–58.
Dries, Manuel, 2006, The Paradigm of Becoming, PhD Thesis, University of Cam-
bridge.
Emden, Christian J., 2005, Nietzsche on Language, Consciousness and the Body, Chi-
cago: University of Illinois Press.
Figal, Günter, 1998, Nietzsche: Eine philosophische Einführung, Stuttgart: Reclam.
Figl, Johan, 1982, Interpretation als philosophisches Prinzip: Friedrich Nietzsches
universale Theorie der Auslegung im späten Nachlaß, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Frank, Manfred, 1997, ‘Unendliche Annäherung’: Die Anfänge der philosophischen
Frühromantik, Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.
Frank, Manfred, 2007, ‘Non-objectal Subjectivity’, in: Journal of Consciousness Stud-
ies, 14/5–6, pp. 152–173.
Freeman, Anthony / Galen Strawson, et al., 2006, Consciousness and its Place in Na-
ture. Does Physicalism Entail Panpsychism? Charlotteville, VA: Imprint Aca-
demic.
Gemes, Ken, 2001, ‘Postmodernism’s Use and Abuse of Nietzsche’, in: Philosophy and
Phenomenological Research, LXII/2, pp. 337–360.
Gerhardt, Volker, 1996, Vom Willen zur Macht, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Hales, Steven / Rex Welshon, 2000, Nietzsche’s Perspectivism, Urbana: University of
Illinois Press.
Houlgate, Stephen, 1986, Hegel, Nietzsche and the Criticism of Metaphysics, Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Katsafanas, Paul, 2005, ‘Nietzsche’s Theory of Mind’, in: European Journal of Phi-
losophy, 13/1, pp. 1–31.
Leiter, Brian, 2001, ‘The Paradox of Fatalism and Self-Creation in Nietzsche’, in: John
Richardson / Brian Leiter (eds.), Nietzsche, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.
281–321.
Leiter, Brian, 2002, Nietzsche on Morality, London: Routledge.
Leiter, Brian / Joshua Knobe, 2007, ‘The Case for a Nietzschean Moral Psychology’,
in: Brian Leiter / Neil Sinhababu (eds.), Nietzsche and Morality, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, pp. 83–109.
Moore, Gregory, 2002, Nietzsche, Biology, Metaphor, Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-

sity Press.
Müller-Lauter, Wolfgang, 1999a, ‘Über Werden und Wille zur Macht’, in: Nietzsche-
Interpretationen 1, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Müller-Lauter, Wolfgang, 1999b, ‘Über Freiheit und Chaos’, in: Nietzsche-
Interpretationen 2, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Poellner, Peter, 1995, Nietzsche and Metaphysics, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Poellner, Peter, 2006, ‘Phenomenology and Science in Nietzsche’, in: Keith Ansell-
Pearson (ed.), A Companion to Nietzsche, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 297–313.
Porter, James I., 2006, ‘Nietzsche’s Theory of the Will to Power’, in: Keith Ansell-
Pearson (ed.), A Companion to Nietzsche, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 548–564.
Priest, Graham, 1987, In Contradiction: A Study of the Transconsistent, Dordrecht:
Martinus Nijhoff.
Priest, Graham, 1995, Beyond the Limits of Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Quine, Willard V., 1980, From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Richardson, John, 1996, Nietzsche’s System, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Richardson, John, 2006, ‘Nietzsche on Time and Becoming’, in: Keith Ansell-Pearson
Richardson, John, 2008, ‘Nietzsche’s Problem with the Past’, in: Manuel Dries (ed.),
Smith, J. H., 2000, Dialectics of the Will: Freedom, Power, and Understanding in Mod-
ern French and German Thought, Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
Stack, G. J., 2005, Nietzsche’s Anthropic Circle: Man, Science, and Myth, Rochester,
NY: Boydell and Brewer.
Stambaugh, Joan, 1972, Nietzsche’s Thought of the Eternal Return, Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Staten, Henry, 1990, Nietzsche’s Voice, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Vattimo, Gianni, 1986, ‘Nietzsche and Contemporary Hermeneutics’, in: Yirmiyahu
Yovel (ed.), Nietzsche as Affirmative Thinker, Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, pp.
58–68.
Waldenfels, Bernhard, 2002, Bruchlinien der Erfahrung, Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.
Welshon, Rex, 2004, The Philosophy of Nietzsche, Stocksfield: Acumen.
Young, Julian, 1992, Nietzsche’s Philosophy of Art, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Zupani, Alenka, 2003, The Shortest Shadow: Nietzsche’s Philosophy of the Two,
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Translations
The Case of Wagner, trans. Walter Kaufmann, New York: Vintage Books, 1967.
Daybreak, ed. Mademarie Clark and Brian Leiter, trans. R. J. Hollingdale, Cambridge:
Ecce Homo, trans. R. J. Hollingdale, introduction Michael Tanner, London: Penguin,
1992.
The Gay Science, ed. Bernard Williams, trans. Josefine Nauckhoff and Adrian del Caro,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Press, 1986.
Manuel Dries 145
On the Genealogy of Morality, ed. Keith Ansell-Pearson, trans. Carol Diethe, Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
‘Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks’, trans. Marianne Cowan, Washington,
DC: Regnery Publishing, 1962.
Thus Spoke Zarathustra, ed. Adrian del Car and Robert B. Pippin, trans. Adrian del
Caro, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Twilight of the Idols, trans. Duncan Large, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Part III
Eternal Recurrence,
Meaning, Agency
Shocking Time: Reading Eternal Recurrence Literally
Lawrence J. Hatab
In this essay I argue that Nietzsche’s idea of eternal recurrence, the identi-
cal repetition of life in every detail, can and should be read literally.1 Read-
ers of Nietzsche usually have been perplexed by his avowal of this concep-
tion, and the literal sense of the repetition of life generally has been seen as
problematic, if not false, even by Nietzsche’s admirers. Yet I assume that
Nietzsche was perfectly serious about eternal recurrence and saw it as the
heart and climax of his philosophy.
I concede a point that has become something of a standard view, that
Nietzsche did not in the end offer eternal recurrence as an objective, scien-
tific, cosmological fact. For many, this means that eternal recurrence
should not be understood as a claim about world events, but as an expres-
sion of an existential task, a test or a means of coming to affirm the condi-
tions of life (which is the spirit of the published versions in The Gay Sci-
ence and Zarathustra). I too stress an existential version, but I add
something that seems missing in other versions: unless eternal recurrence
is taken ‘literally’, its existential effect would be lost; one would always be
susceptible to the psychological loophole that repetition ‘isn’t really true’.
To avoid the possibility of ‘armchair affirmation’, I focus on the literal
meaning of eternal recurrence, without necessarily endorsing its factual
meaning. This distinction between the literal and the factual has the follow-
ing advantages. While not presuming a cosmological interpretation of eter-
nal recurrence, we can better understand why Nietzsche did experiment
with an objective, descriptive approach to this notion. In my reading,
Nietzsche always regarded eternal recurrence as more than simply a hypo-
thetical thought experiment pertaining only to human psychology: he al-
ways took it to express something about life and the world as such. A cer-
tain extra-psychological literality would better fit the world-disclosive and
‘revelatory’ spirit of Nietzsche’s accounts of eternal recurrence, and it
would also not be utterly inconsistent with cosmological experiments in the
_____________
1 A good deal of this essay is drawn from the text of my book Nietzsche’s Life Sen-
tence: Coming to Terms with Eternal Recurrence (Hatab 2005). I thank Routledge
for permission to publish the essay.
150 Shocking Time: Reading Eternal Recurrence Literally
notebooks. In sum, my argument is that eternal recurrence should be seen

as the only authentic expression of a Nietzschean life-affirmation by force
of its literal meaning. In advancing this argument, I challenge those who
concede eternal recurrence as some kind of literal claim about the world,
but who see such a claim as either false or injurious to other elements of
Nietzsche’s thought; and those who redescribe eternal recurrence as a
metaphorical or symbolic expression of some insight or philosophical posi-
tion that has nothing to do with literal repetition. To prepare my account I
need to set out a few basic elements of Nietzsche’s philosophy that are
essential for coming to terms with eternal recurrence.
Nietzsche’s philosophy, in all its elements, is focused on the question
of the meaning of life—not in the sense of finding a decisive answer to
‘Why are we here?’ but rather the problem of finding meaning in a world
that ultimately blocks our natural interest in happiness, preservation, know-
ledge, and purpose. To be precise, the question is not ‘What is the meaning
of life?’ but ‘Can there be meaning in life?’ So the question that preoccu-
pies Nietzsche’s investigations runs: is life as we have it meaningful,
worthwhile, affirmable on its own terms? No culture, no form of thought
has ever denied (how could it?) that our ‘first world’, immediate existence,
is constituted by negative limits—confusion, change, suffering, loss, and
death—as checks on all positive possibilities in life. In the end one must
confess that life as we have it is tragic, measured against our highest aspi-
rations.
Nietzsche’s diagnosis of the Western tradition is that, in one form or
another, the answer to this question of meaning in life as we have it has
been: No. ‘Concerning life, the wisest men of all ages have judged alike: i t
i s n o g o o d’ (TI ‘The Problem of Socrates’ 1). Whether in scientific,
rationalistic, religious, or moralistic terms, initial conditions of existence
have been judged to be deficient, confused, fallen, alien, or base, and thus
in need of correction or transcendence altogether. Nietzsche judges all such
judgements as implicitly nihilistic, and sees as his task an affirmative reva-
luation of a necessarily tragic existence, captured in the phrase amor fati
(GS 276).
It is important to establish that life-affirmation, in response to the ques-
tion of meaning in life, is the core issue in Nietzsche’s thought, and that it
lies behind and animates all of his supposed ‘doctrines’, such as will to
power, perspectivism, and especially eternal recurrence. Accordingly,
Nietzsche’s texts cannot be reduced to ‘doctrines’ or ‘propositional con-
tent’ that call for assessment according to conceptual, empirical, or logical
criteria. Nietzsche’s philosophical work always bears on the existential
task of coming to terms with meaning and value in life.
Lawrence J. Hatab 151
Nietzsche’s proclamation of the death of God offers an effective entry

point to the force of his thinking. God in the West was the ultimate symbol
of foundational transcendence. God’s demise, however, reaches far beyond
religion because a divine reference had been the warrant for all sorts of
cultural constructs in moral, political, philosophical, even scientific
spheres. With God out of the picture, all corollary constructs dissolve as
well. The death of God, therefore, announces the loss of all traditional truth
principles, and we are left with a stark choice: either a nihilistic collapse of
meaning or a revaluation of meaning in different terms according to im-
mediate life conditions. Nietzsche takes the latter option and advances
what can be called an existential naturalism: not a reductive naturalism
confined to scientific categories, but an embrace of the full range of life
forces that exhibit a radical becoming. The finite, unstable dynamic of
earthly existence—and its meaningfulness—become the new measure of
thought, to counter various attempts in philosophy and religion to ‘reform’
lived experience by way of a rational, spiritual, or moral ‘transcendence’
that purports to rectify an originally flawed condition (GS 109; TI ‘“Rea-
son” in Philosophy’ 16).
Nietzsche’s conception of will to power embodies his naturalistic
measure of thought. Traditional philosophy was animated by constructions
of binary opposites, with the aim of privileging a positive side over a nega-
tive side: being over becoming, eternity over time, constancy over change,
good over evil, truth over appearance, etc.—all providing fixed measures
that can resolve negative forces confronting human existence. Nietzsche
rejects such oppositional structures in favour of mixed conditions, where
each side cannot escape, in fact is structurally related to, the other side.
Will to power is Nietzsche’s counter-concept to binary thinking because it
indicates an ‘agonistic’ force field, where any state is partly constituted by
its ‘contest’ with some counter-force, its drive to overcome resistances. So
world conditions emerge in a network of tensions that cannot be reduced to
stable identities. Will to power depicts in dynamic terms the idea that any
affirmation is also a negation, that any condition or assertion of meaning
must overcome some ‘Other’, some obstacle or counter-force. Since power
intrinsically requires resistance from an obstacle (Nachlaß Autumn 1887,
KSA 12, 9[151]), one’s power to overcome is essentially related to a
counter-power; if resistance were eliminated, if one’s counter-power were
destroyed or even neutralized by sheer domination, one’s power would
evaporate, it would no longer be power. Power is overcoming something,
not annihilating it: ‘t h e r e i s n o a n n i h i l a t i o n i n t h e s p h e r e o f
s p i r i t’ (Nachlaß End of 1886–Spring 1887, KSA 12, 7[53]). Will to power
enables Nietzsche to both explain and diagnose various incapacities to
affirm the natural course of life. The most dramatic element in Nietzsche’s
account of life-denying dispositions is his portrayal of the ascetic ideal,

where an inability to withstand or engage external contests of power directs
power internally and conducts a self-consuming battle against natural
drives in the name of a presumed spiritual transcendence.
My aim is to make sense out of Nietzsche’s serious interest in eternal
recurrence as essential to his philosophical project. In the light of tradi-
tional approaches to the problem of time, which exhibit metaphysical, epis-
temological, and normative objections to sheer temporal conditions, eternal
recurrence can be seen as Nietzsche’s formula for the ‘redemption’ of time
and becoming. As I read Nietzsche, eternal recurrence is the only authentic
alternative to all other conceivable models of time with respect to affirming
natural life and its temporal flux. Without qualification Nietzsche calls
himself ‘the teacher of eternal recurrence’ (TI ‘What I Owe to the An-
cients’ 5). With life-affirmation as the central focus, recurrence is called
the ‘highest formula of affirmation that is at all attainable’ (EH III Z 1),
and a notebook passage calls it ‘the thought of thoughts’ (Nachlaß Spring–
Autumn 1881, KSA 9, 11[143]).
For Nietzsche, finding meaning is the primal task of life. With the
death of God, tragic finitude is now shown to be the ‘brute given’, and all
cultural issues will have to be traced back to this abyssal base. The ques-
tion now is: can meaning be found in tragic finitude? If it can, what could
be its measure? I argue that, for Nietzsche, these questions can only be
answered adequately in the light of eternal recurrence, which amounts to
the only positive expression of meaning that is not susceptible to flinching
from finite becoming.
For Nietzsche, temporal becoming cannot be explained or justified in
terms of something ‘other’ than its immediate conditions. We cannot leap
outside becoming and justify in linear terms the present according to the
future or the past according to the present. The ‘self-justification’ of be-
coming is what Nietzsche calls necessity (Nachlaß November 1887–March
1888, KSA 13, 11[72]). Necessity, for Nietzsche, is not equivalent to cau-
sal or logical necessity, or the necessary teleological force of an intended
beginning or an inevitable end. Such notions account for temporal move-
ment in terms of something other than immediate conditions of temporal
flux. Nietzschean necessity simply captures the idea of ‘no alternative’, but
without recourse to some fixed explanatory scheme that constructs neces-
sity by bracketing temporal events as such. This is why Nietzsche can say
in stark terms that ‘event and necessary event is a t a u t o l o g y’ (Nachlaß
Autumn 1887, KSA 12, 10[138]). Necessity also figures in Nietzsche’s
approach to the meaning question and his call for affirmation, which en-
tails the capacity to say Yes to the necessity of all events in themselves,
that is, only in terms of how they emerge immediately in time, with no
mandate for grounding them in causes, purposes, or fixed references. In

Zarathustra, Nietzsche specifically plays on the German word for neces-
sity (Notwendigkeit), calling it the turning around (Wende) of distress
(Not), distress over the existential trauma of eternal recurrence (Z III ‘On
Old and New Tablets’ 2–3). Necessity for Nietzsche is bound with affirm-
ing all elements of existence, including those that exceed rational models
of necessity.
My argument is that eternal recurrence is the only way in which Nietz-
sche’s ideal of life-affirmation can be even ascertained, much less ex-
pressed. To make headway here, I need to make a clear distinction between
life-affirmation and life-enhancement, terms that make various appearan-
ces in the texts (Bejahung and Erhöhung), and that may easily confuse
readers. Nietzsche obviously promotes affirmation, while at the same time
he discusses beliefs that are called life-enhancing, life-preserving, and life-
promoting. The problem is that often these beliefs are attacked as life-
denying. What are we to make of this? Life-affirmation is consistent with
the agonistic structure of will to power as an affirmation of otherness.
Since meaning can only be understood in terms of tensional conflict, af-
firming one’s meaning dictates affirming what runs counter to it as well.
Affirmation is anything but comfortable and pleasant, anything but the
approval of everything; it entails the difficult capacity to contend with
otherness without wanting to annul it. Life-denial stems from an incapacity
to affirm the agonistic structure of meaning, which incites various projects
of transcending, reforming, resolving, or stilling tensional becoming. Yet
Nietzsche can call life-denying projects life-enhancing because they further
the interests of certain types of life and cultivate their own forms of power.
Although these projects are deemed nihilistic by Nietzsche, they are never-
theless valuable as antidotes to suicidal nihilism (GM III 28). So, short of
suicide, all forms of life are saying Yes in some way. Nietzschean affirma-
tion is different from selective, enhancing Yesses in calling for a global
Yes to all conditions, including those that run counter to one’s interests.
This is why eternal recurrence can have a ‘crushing’ effect (GS 341); it
allows no escape from the perpetual occurrence of what threatens or ne-
gates one’s deepest values.
We are now in a better position to fathom the central drama in Thus
Spoke Zarathustra. The figure of Zarathustra comes to redeem the meaning
of the earth from all convictions that look away from natural life out of
revenge against time and becoming. Yet Zarathustra is not some sage with
an achieved wisdom who delivers the task of affirmation to others; he him-
self must go through the task and experience its difficulties. Eternal recur-
rence is the mark and measure of saying Yes to life, and Zarathustra must
confront his own revulsion at the recurrence of the small man, and of the
very forces that turn away from life. If Zarathustra is to love life, he must
will the return of life-denying forces. Far from being a sign of weakness,
Zarathustra’s struggle is in keeping with the agonistic structure of meaning.
Life-affirmation requires the willing of that which opposes one’s will. And
the repetition motif in eternal recurrence ensures that such a task could not
rest with a ‘formal’ affirmation of the abstractions ‘life’, ‘time’, or ‘the
earth’. Rather, repetition forces us to face the material task of engaging the
precise events and course of our lives, including the most repulsive occa-
sions. Not even Zarathustra can escape the traumatic shock of recurrence.
The drama of Zarathustra’s task of affirmation would seem to lose all
its force if recurrence is read as something other than literal repetition. I
think this is one reason why Nietzsche was interested in exploring a ‘cos-
mological’ account. But I also think that such an account would only
amount to a perspectival supplement to the central drama of life-
affirmation, and that Nietzsche never would have taken a scientific ac-
count, even if cogent, as decisive or sufficient for engaging eternal recur-
rence. As long as the existential core of recurrence is retained, Nietzsche
would not be averse to a ‘descriptive’ approach to the course of time, par-
ticularly because cyclic repetition is inseparable from Nietzsche’s sense of
affirmation and its challenges.
Although Nietzsche does not explicitly say so, I think there is in his
texts an implicit default argument for eternal recurrence with respect to
how time, becoming, and meaning are to be construed. In other words, all
other conceivable models fail the affirmation test in one way or another,
leaving eternal recurrence as the only alternative. Keeping in mind that, for
Nietzsche, the concept of time cannot be separated from the existential
meaning of temporal events, there seem to be six conceivable alternative
models of time and meaning, each of which would be diagnosed by Nietz-
sche as fugitive evasions of the life-world. I name these alternative models
positivistic, salvational, teleological, cyclical, pessimistic, and novelistic.
The positivistic model of time can be dismissed because it conceives
temporal movement in objective terms as the measurable relations between
quantified ‘points’ of past, present, and future ‘nows’. Although Nietzsche
appreciates the non-teleological element in scientific thinking, he dismisses
its detachment from matters of existential meaning (GS 346). Indeed, ob-
jective models of time require their own constructions of ‘being’ (the
‘now’, and the cognitive permanence of the measuring principle itself) that
look away from becoming. The purported value of such an outlook stems
from the sense of detachment and mastery over temporal events. What is
dishonest here is the presumption of a value-free, objective analysis. At
least asceticism is honest in responding to temporal life as an existential
problem. Scientific approaches to time ignore (suppress) the deep issues of

meaning that are intrinsic to temporal finitude.
The salvational model of time is best illustrated in the Christian view,
where the temporal world is a once and for all creation with an absolute
beginning and end, consummated by a transformation into eternal perfec-
tion. The Christian account insists on a linear, irreversible, non-repeatable
course of time that finally overcomes temporal life altogether. Such a view
obviously fails Nietzsche’s affirmation test and would honestly admit as
much. The existential significance of linear time is directly addressed by
Augustine in book 12 of The City of God, where he argues against the
Greek model of eternal, cyclic repetition because it entails the return of the
fall after the achievement of blessedness (ch. 13). In this same chapter he
cites a scriptural passage describing the birth and death of Christ as a
unique, unrepeatable event. Cyclic repetition would render the effort for
salvation meaningless and absurd. Augustine defines religious truth as the
‘straight path’ to salvation, as opposed to a ‘godless’ circularity (ch. 20).
Teleological models of time modify the trajectory of the salvational
view by staying within temporal movement. But time is still conceived as a
direction towards completion that will overcome or resolve the temporal
finitude and limitations of earlier or present conditions. Nietzsche diag-
noses worldly forms of progress as no less moralistic and fugitive than
salvational models. For teleological thinking, conditions of temporal be-
coming can only be meaningful or bearable in terms of something ahead
of, other than, immediate experiences of life.
Certain cyclical views of time seem to avoid the faults of salvational
and teleological models by not picturing an end to temporal movement.
Yet Nietzsche’s proposal of identical cycles would draw out the existential
issues that distinguish eternal recurrence from other cyclical views. Stoic
philosophy proposed a model of identical cycles, but even this would not
measure up to the existential test: for the Stoics, repetition follows from a
strict causal necessity and an immanent divine providence; and the posture
of Stoic equanimity suggests an avoidance (suppression) of the existential
trauma intrinsic to the repetition scheme (again, at least the salvational
model does not evade the trauma).
The pessimistic model of time is well expressed by Schopenhauer.
Like the salvational view, pessimism engages the trauma of temporal fini-
tude but rejects the idea of any positive transcendence or transformation.
Time simply manifests itself (as appearance) and then ends in nothingness.
For Schopenhauer, the tragic finitude of existence, surrounded by nothing-
ness, should prompt one to turn against life as an absurd mistake, and to
welcome extinction as the only conceivable release. So of course Schopen-
hauer would (willingly) fail Nietzsche’s affirmation test.
The novelistic model is the most interesting case. With the pessimistic
model, we can see why Nietzsche would reject a finale in nothingness,
even though it might at first seem consistent with a tragic acceptance of
destruction. But given Nietzsche’s promotion of creativity, one would
think that a repetition scheme would not be his preference. Why not a
model of eternal novelty, where time neither begins nor ends and issues
forth ever new conditions, never to be transcended, transformed, reformed,
completed, or annihilated? Would not eternal novelty be the more Nietz-
schean choice over the seeming constriction of eternal repetition? It cer-
tainly would seem so, and yet the case of eternal novelty is specifically
rejected by Nietzsche, which helps show why he was convinced of the
unique significance of eternal recurrence with respect to the question of
life-affirmation. In a note of 1885, Nietzsche diagnoses eternal novelty as a
residue of theological habits that took solace in God’s infinite freedom
from earthly constraints: ‘It is still the old religious way of thinking and
desiring, a kind of longing to believe that i n s o m e w a y the world is after
all like the old beloved, infinite, boundlessly creative God’ (Nachlaß June–
July 1885, KSA 11, 36[15]). Nietzsche seems to think that eternal novelty
would be a naturalized modification of theological freedom from worldly
conditions as they are.
In the light of life-affirmation, it seems to me that eternal novelty is the
most plausible alternative to eternal recurrence. Yet Nietzsche was con-
vinced that it could not measure up, because it stems from a ‘desiring’ and
‘longing’ that the world be ‘boundlessly creative’. Since Nietzsche does
not argue on strictly cognitive grounds, since values, interests, and needs
are his first-order concerns, his question would not be ‘What are your rea-
sons supporting eternal novelty?’ but rather, ‘Why is eternal novelty im-
portant to you? Why are you interested in such an idea?’ The existential
response to the prospect of repetition is the baseline issue. Eternal novelty,
in Nietzsche’s estimation, is still another form of looking away from con-
crete conditions of life. In rejecting repetition, the novelistic model betrays
a dissatisfaction with life as it is, masked by its apparent celebration that
the world will always be different (better?).
Such is the sketch of what I have called the default argument for eter-
nal recurrence. Given the question of life-affirmation, eternal recurrence
comes forth as the only conceivable temporal model that does not fall prey
to a fugitive gaze away from life as lived. Moreover, it is important to rec-
ognize that the scheme of identical repetition is essential for the operation
of this argument (especially evident in the case of eternal novelty). If eter-
nal recurrence were in any way disengaged from a literal sense of repeti-
tion, the force of the default argument would be lost.
As I indicated earlier, I want to argue that Nietzsche’s commitment to

eternal recurrence can best be explained by reading cyclic repetition liter-
ally but not factually. A literal account can stand ‘in between’ an existen-
tial and a factual sense of recurrence. Resistance to a literal reading of
recurrence stems not only from a preference for presumably subtler, more
interesting (safer?) metaphorical senses; it also reflects epistemological
concerns owing to descriptive, referential connotations in common usage:
‘literally true’ can be equivalent to ‘factually accurate’. But a look at the
Oxford English Dictionary reveals a complex history of usage that opens
up many questions about literal language. The primary meaning of ‘literal’
pertains simply to alphabetic letters, and thus not to a differentiation from
metaphor (since metaphors have letters). In this sense, a ‘literal mistake’
would refer not to a descriptive error but a misprint. Other meanings grow
out of and modify this primary sense: word for word transcription (e.g.,
quotation vs. paraphrase); taking words in their natural or customary mean-
ing; the primary sense of a word or the direct wording of a passage, as
distinguished from metaphorical or suggestive meaning; a matter-of-fact,
unimaginative disposition; accurate meaning or reference, free of meta-
phor, exaggeration, or error. We notice here a shift from ‘literal’ in a
wordly sense (cf. the German wörtlich), pertaining to written words as
such, to a descriptive sense, pertaining to how a text (or the world) is
understood.
The tendency to conflate literal descriptions and factual accounts opens
up another complex history of usage. The Latin factum originally referred
to actions and deeds as opposed to words (the Greek had the same
sense; and consider the German Tatbestand). Then fact came to mean an
actual event known through direct observation or reliable testimony, as
opposed to conjecture, fiction, or misrecollection. My point is that a his-
torical look at language usage shows that current familiar meanings of the
literal and the factual have arisen out of linguistic shifts and relations that
exhibit anything but clear, direct references, and thus anything but ‘literal’
or ‘factual’ sources. The same holds true for the literal–metaphorical dis-
tinction, which itself has a philosophical history within Greek thought,
when new frameworks emerged for understanding natural speech and
mythopoetic language, frameworks which generally presumed deficiencies
in these prior modes of discourse. The problem is that even ‘metaphor’ is
metaphorical; μ
in Greek means ‘to carry over’, and so the familiar
sense of metaphor—as ‘combining’ one sense with another owing to a
similar, though non-equivalent, likeness—is itself a metaphorical trope. As
we have seen, the connotations of ‘literal’ as univocal (non-combined)
meaning and descriptive accuracy are themselves ‘carried over’ from a
reference to written letters. One can say then that the former extended
senses are no longer ‘literally’ literal (in the primary wordly sense). A
similar metaphorical process can be located in the meaning of ‘factual’ as
carried-over from doing-versus-speaking. So the familiar connotation of
the literal–factual dyad, which presumes a secured, unambiguous actuality
(as is), is itself an ambiguous extension of even more direct meanings (as
written, as done). Consequently, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that
indirect, non-literal forces such as metaphor go all the way down in human
language, thus undermining the presumed privilege bestowed on the lit-
eral–factual dyad, and also subverting the notion that a metaphor cannot
have a literal sense.
It is well known that Nietzsche insists upon and celebrates a non-
foundational perspective on language. For Nietzsche, language by its very
nature is a formative, creative shaping of the unstable flux of experience.
Language cannot be understood as a representational description of non-
linguistic ‘facts’ presumed to be independent of metaphorical, rhetorical,
and imaginative forces in language. Nietzsche’s linguistic theory and his
own textual practices presume and portray a radical undecidability between
literal and figurative meanings in philosophical language. But there is evi-
dence in Nietzsche’s writings that the groundlessness of language is on
occasion associated with an irreducible immediacy in linguistic presenta-
tions, which I take as a source for my venture into the literal sense of recur-
rence.
If the literal–factual dyad cannot be sustained as a baseline reference,
there opens up the possibility of a different sense of the literal that is not
equivalent to, or suggestive of, factuality. I want to understand the literal in
a functional and performative sense rather than a descriptive sense. I begin
by calling the literal as written in place of the descriptive as is. But this is
not enough. In addition to what a text presents, I need to include how lan-
guage and texts are engaged and received. This brings us to certain histori-
cal questions and particular remarks in Nietzsche’s writings that will help
shape what I want to call mimetic literality.
The story of the literal–factual dyad cannot be told apart from the
complex history of orality and literacy in the Greek world. The emergence
of philosophical reflection in ancient Greece was intrinsically connected to
shifts from an oral mode of culture to one influenced by reading and writ-
ing. Oral culture was shaped according to structures of poetic production
and audience reception that in retrospect exhibit a non-reflective immedi-
acy: poets were ‘inspired’ vehicles for sacred transmissions, and audiences
were ‘enchanted’ recipients of enthralling poetic performances. The sheer
graphics of writing permitted an isolation of texts from such performance
milieus, and the fixity of written words permitted a host of reflective oper-
ations that greatly altered how the linguistic resources of Greek culture
would be understood.
I bring this up only to highlight the ‘literal’ effect of graphic letters in
crafting a reflective departure from an oral sense of ‘literalness’ that has
nothing to do with familiar connotations of rational truth, but rather the
immediate disclosive force of poetic language in performance. As is well
known, Plato criticizes poets and rhetors because they were ‘out of their
minds’ when performing their creative and oral functions. Their inspired
condition overtook self-control and was incapable of reflective analysis of
what they were saying and why they were saying it. What is not always
recognized is how this critique of poetic psychology figured in Plato’s
discussion of imitation (μμ) in the Republic. In addition to Plato’s
concerns about the content of traditional poetry (particularly its tragic
world-view), he also targeted the form of oral performance and its effects
on both performers and audiences. The ‘representational’ sense of μμ
(copying a natural object) was not Plato’s primary concern (see 603B ff.);
rather, it was the psychological effects of mimetic identification, wherein
performers and audiences would be captured by, and immersed in, oral
presentations, thus losing reflective self-control and being enraptured by
the ‘reality’ of poetic speech and disclosure. Particularly dangerous for
Plato was the mimetic force of empathic identification with the suffering of
tragic heroes (605).
Nietzsche occasionally discusses what I am calling mimetic psychol-
ogy, especially in his reflections on Greek art. The Birth of Tragedy con-
tains several relevant treatments. Apollonian and Dionysian forces are
exhibited in nature herself, before the mediation of artistic works (BT 2).
Forming and deforming powers are intrinsic to nature’s very course, and
dreams and intoxicated states (both of which exceed conscious control) are
preconditions for the more cultivated manifestation of Apollonian and
Dionysian powers, particularly those of language and music. Artists are
said to ‘imitate’ such primal natural energies, which could not mean repre-
sentational simulation, but rather the more performative sense of ‘imper-
sonating’ these energies in artistic practices (impersonation being one of
the meanings of μμ in Greek). Singing and dancing, for example, ex-
hibit an enchanted, ecstatic elevation, a quasi-divine transformation where
one is not really an artist because one ‘has become a work of art’ (BT 1).
In many respects Nietzsche associates the Dionysian with music (BT 6,
17), especially its immediate emotional force that ‘overwhelms’ conscious
individuation. The Apollonian is associated with poetic language and theat-
rical technologies that shape a more individuated world. But since music
and language are coordinated in tragic drama (BT 21), immediate disclo-
sive force still operates in its performances. Poetic metaphors are thus not
‘symbolic’, they possess a living power to disclose (BT 8). For Greek
audiences, dramatic fiction was not a departure from reality, it produced on
stage powerful scenes of ‘a world with the same reality and irreducibility
that Olympus with its inhabitants possessed for the believing Hellene’ (BT
7). Tragic drama produced a Dionysian effect of mimetic identification,
originally embodied in choral impersonation, where one acts ‘as if one had
actually entered into another body, another character’ (BT 8). Tragic ap-
pearances have a reality because they tell us: ‘Look there! Look closely!
This is your life’ (BT 24).
The problem with Euripidean drama, as Nietzsche saw it, was that it
brought the critical ‘spectator’ on stage (BT 11). Particularly problematic
was the effect of the Prologues in Euripides’ plays, where the context and
course of the drama was laid out in advance for the audience. The effect
was to preclude or diminish mimetic identification, so that the audience
would no longer ‘become completely absorbed in the activities and suffer-
ings of the chief characters or feel breathless pity and fear’ (BT 12). The
modern ‘aesthetic’ audience has been thoroughly schooled in the mode of
critical reflection, where art is meant to be understood by way of interpre-
tive tools beyond the immediate presentation of the work, beyond the
‘powerful artistic magic’ that should ‘enrapture the genuine listener’ (BT
22).
Nietzsche admits that ‘the meaning of tragic myth set forth above
never became transparent in conceptual clarity to the Greek poets’, which
is one reason why tragedy did not have the strength to survive (BT 17).
This is why Nietzsche found favour with Kant and Schopenhauer in The
Birth of Tragedy: they made it possible for philosophy to confront tragic
limits and thus expand the sense of tragedy beyond its original artistic
forms. Indeed, Nietzsche designates the tragic turn in philosophy as ‘D i o -
n y s i a n w i s d o m apprehended in concepts’ (BT 19). In gathering these
issues, I want to argue that eternal recurrence can be understood as a
tragic-mythic concept, a formation meant to engender a literal, immediate
disclosure that yet is not construed as a cosmological fact.
Nietzsche naturally assumed that eternal recurrence would prompt re-
flection, and he did mean it to have philosophical significance. But it can
be said that reflection is a second-order disposition derived from the im-
mediacy of mimetic identification. I do not think we can say, for instance,
that Zarathustra was engaged in a ‘philosophical analysis’ of eternal recur-
rence; he was responding to its world-disclosive impact directly in terms of
his own life and experience of meaning. There is still nothing wrong with a
reflective stance towards eternal recurrence. Yet, recalling Nietzsche’s
complaint about an exclusively ‘critical audience’ in drama, I think Nietz-
sche would question a philosophical audience that is exclusively critical,
that engages recurrence solely in terms of philosophical adjudication rather

than existential impact. He would not object to his audience becoming
critical, but rather arriving critically.
In Ecce Homo Nietzsche relates the ‘history’ of Zarathustra and its
‘fundamental conception’ of eternal recurrence, which ‘came to’ him dur-
ing a walk through the woods in August 1881 (EH III Z 1). Zarathustra is
described as having ‘invaded’ and ‘overtaken’ him. Then Nietzsche offers
an account of inspiration that clearly articulates the advent of the text as he
experienced it (EH III Z 3). He speaks of ‘revelation’, where ‘one is merely
incarnation, merely mouthpiece, merely a medium of overpowering for-
ces’. The process is involuntary: ‘like lightning, a thought flashes up, with
necessity, without hesitation regarding its form––I never had any choice.’
The presentation of image and parable is also involuntary: ‘one no longer
has any notion what is an image or a parable: everything offers itself as the
nearest, most obvious, simplest expression.’ Alluding to Zarathustra, he
suggests that parables show a kind of irreducibility, ‘as if the things them-
selves approached and offered themselves as parables’. A text from
Zarathustra (III ‘The Homecoming’), which Nietzsche then quotes, also
contains a description of parabolic speech as being ‘upright’ (aufrecht),
‘straightforward’ (aufrichtig), and issuing ‘straight talk’ (gerade redet).
What is important here is the recognition of a non-reflective original base
out of which eternal recurrence takes shape. And I am suggesting that
Nietzsche aimed to offer his readers the possibility of a comparable non-
reflective engagement with recurrence and its immediate disclosive force.
Let me close with a few questions. The kind of mimetic immediacy I
am suggesting raises an interesting problem concerning the relationship
between eternal recurrence and life-affirmation. Surely affirmation is cent-
ral to the meaning of eternal recurrence, but the inspirational milieu Nietz-
sche hints at makes me cautious about assuming recurrence to be ‘based’ in
life-affirmation in some way, in the sense that affirmation was Nietzsche’s
primary message and recurrence served a kind of instrumental function, to
draw out or test affirmative dispositions. This is a widely held view and
there is certainly something right about it. But I am not sure Nietzsche was
simply searching for devices that could express or serve the kind of life-
affirmation that marks his thought (recall the distinction between affirma-
tion and life-enhancement). I ask: could we, or even Nietzsche, have imag-
ined his strict sense of life-affirmation apart from or before the presentation
of eternal recurrence? I’m not sure. Could it be that absent or prior to the
stark sense of eternal recurrence, ‘affirmative’ postures towards life would
simply be confined to, or delimited by, affirming various kinds of life-
enhancement, which are not equivalent to Nietzsche’s agonistic/holistic
conception of affirmation? Life-denial was Nietzsche’s target from the
beginning of his thinking. But everyone claims to be pro-life! Was it the

vision of eternal recurrence that first clarified for Nietzsche what genuine
affirmation of natural life would have to mean? And did recurrence first
give him a way to weed out and smoke out all other selective forms of life-
enhancement that parade as pro-life yet always aim away from it? Could
even interpretations of eternal recurrence that aim away from its literal
sense be part of this parade?
References
Hatab, Lawrence J., 2005, Nietzsche’s Life Sentence: Coming to Terms with Eternal
Translations
The Birth of Tragedy, in: Basic Writings of Nietzsche, trans. and ed. Walter Kaufmann,
New York: Viking Press, 1966.
Ecce Homo, in: Basic Writings of Nietzsche, ed. and trans. Walter Kaufmann, New
The Gay Science, trans. Walter Kaufmann, New York: Vintage Books, 1974.
On the Genealogy of Morality, in: Basic Writings of Nietzsche, ed. and trans. Walter
Kaufmann, New York: Viking Press, 1966.
Thus Spoke Zarathustra, in: The Portable Nietzsche, ed. and trans. Walter Kaufmann,
The Will to Power, trans. Walter Kaufmann and J. R. Hollingdale, New York: Random
House, 1967.
Suicide, Meaning, and Redemption
Paul S. Loeb
1. The Problem of Suicide
In the famous opening sentences of his 1942 collection of essays, The Myth
of Sisyphus, Albert Camus writes:
There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judg-
ing whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamen-
tal question of philosophy. All the rest—whether or not the world has three
dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories—comes after-
wards. These are games; one must first answer. And if it is true, as Nietzsche
claims, that a philosopher, to deserve our respect, must preach by example,
you can appreciate the importance of that reply, for it will precede the defini-
tive act. These are facts the heart can feel; yet they call for careful study before
they become clear to the intellect. (Camus 1991, p. 3)
Now, against this startling declaration, Nietzsche scholars would probably
want to cite his claim in Twilight of the Idols that the value of life cannot
be estimated by the interested party of the living. Nietzsche also says there:
judgements of value concerning life, for it or against it, can in the end
never be true and are in themselves stupidities. But they are worthy of
consideration as symptoms, and for a philosopher even to see a problem in
the value of life—much less to adopt a negative attitude to life—is thus an
objection to him, a question mark concerning his wisdom, an un-wisdom
(TI ‘The Problem of Socrates’ 2).
It might seem, then, that Nietzsche would not consider Camus’ prob-
lem an authentic problem, much less the single truly serious and funda-
mental problem of philosophy. He might even think that Camus’ declara-
tion is a question mark concerning his wisdom. But there is a sense, of
course, in which Camus’ declaration poses a meta-problem that is at the
heart of Nietzsche’s entire philosophy: namely, why is it that so-called
164 Suicide, Meaning, and Redemption
sages since Plato have seen a problem in the value of life and contemplated
the necessity of practising what they preach?1
In the third essay of the Genealogy, Nietzsche offers a partial solution
to this meta-problem by pointing to the peculiar character of philosophers
themselves: their instinct for an optimum of favourable conditions under
which they can expend all their strength; as well as their need for ascetic
cloaks as a result of the emergency conditions under which philosophy
arose and survived at all. But Nietzsche soon widens his enquiry to con-
sider the causes of the dissatisfaction with life felt by every human animal.
The answer, he proposes, is that human animals are unable to find any
meaning for their lives and are therefore inherently inclined to suicide.
What has so far prevented them from acting on this inclination is their
invention of a meaning in the ascetic ideal—that is, in the rebellion against
life and its most fundamental presuppositions (the animal, the material, the
senses, appearance, change, becoming, desire, death) (GM III 28). Indeed,
Nietzsche is amused to tell us, it was secretly the love of life that prompted
the human animal to find its meaning in this ascetic ideal. For it was only
by rebelling against life that the human animal was able to find the mean-
ing it needed to continue living, willing, and suffering. As he expresses it
in his introductory and concluding formula, the human animal preferred to
will nothingness rather than not will at all.
Thus, when philosophers such as Camus declare that the question of
suicide is a fact that the heart can feel, Nietzsche would point, first, to the
peculiar character of the philosopher’s heart. Second, to the nihilistic
meaning of the ascetic ideal that was implanted millennia ago into the heart
of the human animal so that it might survive. And, finally, but most
fundamentally, to the death-wish that dwells in the heart of every human
animal because it secretly suspects that there is in fact no meaning at all to
its willing and suffering (not even the nihilistic meaning of the ascetic
ideal). Camus’ problem is thus absolutely worthy of consideration for
Nietzsche: not as a question to be answered, but as a symptom of the pro-
found and ineradicable drive to suicide built into the human animal.
What Nietzsche might find surprising, however, is Camus’ method for
solving his problem of suicide—what he calls ‘absurd reasoning’ (Camus
1991, p. 3). This is because it is a point of honour for Camus to presup-
pose, and directly confront, the complete absence of meaning in all human
life. Thus, shortly after posing his problem of suicide and the worth of life,
_____________
1 Recall here Plato’s claim at the start of the Phaedo that philosophers should be
willing and ready to die. Although they should not help themselves, they should
eagerly wait for someone else to benefit them.
Paul S. Loeb 165
Camus notes that dying voluntarily implies that you have recognized, even
instinctively, the uselessness of suffering and the absence of any profound
reason for living. So the true subject of his essay, he tells us, is ‘precisely
this relationship between the absurd and suicide, the exact degree to which
suicide is a solution to the absurd’ (ibid., p. 6):
One must brush everything aside and go straight to the real problem. One kills
oneself because life is not worth living, that is certainly a truth—yet an un-
fruitful one because it is a truism. But does that insult to existence, that flat
denial in which it is plunged come from the fact that it has no meaning? Does
its absurdity require one to escape it through hope or suicide—this is what
must be clarified, hunted down, and elucidated while brushing aside all the
rest. Does the absurd dictate death? This problem must be given priority over
others, outside all methods of thought and all exercises of the disinterested
mind. (ibid., pp. 8–9)
In keeping with this statement, Camus nowhere seeks refuge in any aspect
of the ascetic ideal that according to Nietzsche has injected meaning in all
human life up to now. As he works his way towards his solution, and
against existentialist philosophers such as Jaspers and Kierkegaard, Camus
insists on the question whether it is possible to find life worth living with-
out appeal to any of the ascetic concepts that devalue our life in this world:
God, afterlife, ideal other world, immortal soul, eternal freedom, morality,
sin, and guilt. All such appeals, he writes, involve a sacrifice of the intel-
lect, a suicide of thought:
My reasoning wants to be faithful to the evidence that aroused it. That evi-
dence is the absurd … There can be no question of masking the evidence, of
suppressing the absurd by denying one of the terms of its equation. It is essen-
tial to know whether one can live with it or whether, on the other hand, logic
commands one to die of it. I am not interested in philosophical suicide, but ra-
ther in plain suicide. I merely wish to purge it of its emotional content and
know its logic and integrity. Any other position implies for the absurd mind
deceit and the mind’s retreat before what the mind itself has brought to light.
(Camus 1991, pp. 49–50)
2. Conscious Revolt
What would not surprise Nietzsche, I think, is Camus’ solution to his prob-
lem of suicide, his idea of ‘conscious revolt’ against the absurd (1991, p.
53). Although Camus rejects as escapist the conclusion of other existen-
tialist philosophers that there is after all a meaning to life (through the
concept of God, for example), he himself paradoxically concludes that a
life can have meaning if, and only if, it is lived in full consciousness of,
and revolt against, the absence of meaning. As Camus writes: ‘That revolt
gives life its value. Spread out over the whole length of life, it restores its
majesty to that life’ (ibid., p. 55). For this reason, Camus asserts, the prob-
lem of suicide is reversed: ‘It was previously a question of finding out
whether or not life had to have a meaning to be lived. It now becomes
clear, on the contrary, that it will be lived all the better if it has no mean-
ing’ (ibid., p. 53). Since suicide is the extreme acceptance of death and its
absurdity, life lived in conscious revolt against the absurd actually dictates
the rejection of suicide:
It is essential to die unreconciled and not of one’s own free will. Suicide is a
repudiation. The absurd man can only drain everything to the bitter end, and
deplete himself. The absurd is his extreme tension, which he maintains con-
stantly by solitary effort, for he knows that in that consciousness and in that
day-to-day revolt he gives proof of his only truth, which is defiance. (ibid., p.
55)
Lest Camus’ existential solution seem dated or irrelevant today, let me
point out that it is not so far from the solution most contemporary scholars
attribute to Nietzsche. For example, Brian Leiter even cites Camus when
he concludes his commentary on the third essay of the Genealogy with
Nietzsche’s supposed view that there is no meaning or justification for
human suffering. But whereas Camus says that we can find meaning in the
conscious revolt against the absurdity of our lives, Leiter interprets Nietz-
sche as saying that the highest human beings can avoid both suicidal nihil-
ism and asceticism by finding meaning in the affirmation of their lives’
absurdity: ‘This is the attitude of existential commitment, through brute
force of will, to carry on in the absence of such a meaning or vindication,
to give up, in effect, asking “Suffering for what?”’ (Leiter 2002, p. 288).
But let me continue for now with Camus’ full solution. As I said, I
think that Nietzsche would recognize this solution. Because Camus insists
that life is essentially absurd, and because he finds meaning in conscious
revolt against the absurd, we may infer that he finds meaning in living a
life of rebellion against life. Hence, although he no longer finds himself
guided by the concepts of the ascetic ideal, Camus is still proposing the
kind of ascetic or life-denying life that Nietzsche calls a contradiction in
terms. As Nietzsche writes in the third essay of the Genealogy:
This is all in the highest degree paradoxical: we stand before a discord that
w a n t s to be discordant, that e n j o y s itself in this suffering and even grows
more self-confident and triumphant the more its own presupposition, its
physiological capacity for life, d e c r e a s e s . ‘Triumph precisely in the last
agony’: the ascetic ideal has always fought under this hyperbolic sign; in this
Paul S. Loeb 167
riddle of seduction, in this image of torment and delight, it recognized its

brightest light, its salvation, its final victory. (GM III 11)2
But Nietzsche would not rest content with this analysis. He would argue
further that, from the perspective of physiology rather than psychology, the
self-contradiction of ‘life against life’ which Camus seems to represent can
be only apparent. In truth, it must be the case that Camus embodied a de-
generating life, an unsatisfied instinct and will to power, a sickliness, an
exhaustion that longed for the end.3 But the deepest protective and healing
instincts of life which remained intact in Camus found a new means and a
new invention, played a new trick, so as to ward off his suicidal instinct:
namely, the existentialist philosophy of conscious revolt. Considered more
closely, then, Camus’ absurd reasoning is highly instructive. Because Ca-
mus chooses to live his life in conscious revolt against the absurdity of
death, he is committed to rejecting suicide. But death is a precondition of
life. So if Camus had chosen instead a conscious embrace and affirmation
of life, his logic would have dictated suicide.
3. Life-Affirming Suicide
Here, then, is a striking Nietzschean reversal of Camus’ own reversal of

the problem of suicide. It is ironic that in this context Camus cites
Schopenhauer as a philosopher who should be judged poorly because he
did not admit his logic to the point of taking his own life. As careful read-
ers know, Schopenhauer actually rejected suicide and recommended in-
stead the sort of ‘self-depletion’ endorsed by Camus. Indeed, Schopen-
hauer’s reasoning, which Nietzsche studied closely, anticipated Camus’
absurd reasoning by over a century. Here is the relevant passage from the
first volume of The World as Will and Representation:
Far from being denial of the will, suicide is a phenomenon of the will’s strong
affirmation … The suicide wills life, and is dissatisfied merely with the condi-
tions on which it has come to him … He wills life, wills the unchecked exist-
ence and affirmation of the body; but the combination of circumstances does
not allow of these, and the result for him is great suffering. (Schopenhauer
1969, §69)
_____________
2 Here and throughout this essay I have consulted the translations of Nietzsche’s
writings by Kaufmann, and the translation of GM by Kaufmann and Hollingdale.
3 Similarly with Socrates. According to Nietzsche, Socrates was incurably sick and
knew it, secretly wanted to die, and in the end committed suicide by forcing
Athens to give him the poison cup (TI ‘The Problem of Socrates’ 12).
Nietzsche, of course, was interested in reversing Schopenhauer’s valuation

and was therefore interested in looking at the problem of suicide from the
perspective of life-affirmation. Thus, already in Zarathustra’s speech on the
preachers of death, he had expressed the view that we should welcome the
wish of those who would like to be dead. To those who say that life is only
suffering, Zarathustra replies: ‘See to it, then, that y o u cease … And let
this be the doctrine of your virtue: “Thou shalt kill thyself!”’ (Z I ‘On the
Preachers of Death’). So it is no surprise to find Nietzsche later, in the
Twilight of the Idols, offering the same advice to Schopenhauer—advice I
think he certainly would have extended to Camus:
It is not in our hands to prevent our birth; but we can correct this mistake—for
in some cases it is a mistake. When one d o e s a w a y with oneself, one does
the most estimable thing possible … with it one almost earns the right to live.
... Society, what am I saying! l i f e itself derives more advantage from this than
from any ‘life’ of renunciation, anaemia, and other virtues—, one has liberated
the others from one’s sight; one has liberated life from an o b j e c t i o n . Pessi-
mism, pur, vert, [pure, green] f i r s t p r o v e s i t s e l f through the self-
refutation of the pessimists: one must advance a step further in its logic, not
negate life merely with ‘will and representation’, as Schopenhauer did—one
must f i r s t o f a l l n e g a t e S c h o p e n h a u e r . (TI ‘Reconnaissance Raids’
36).
Notice Nietzsche’s explicit claim here—in agreement with the logic of
both Schopenhauer and Camus—that the decadent or pessimist who longs
for death performs a life-affirming and life-enhancing act by committing
suicide.4 Life itself, he says, derives an advantage from the pessimist’s
suicide, and the pessimist’s suicide liberates life from an objection. Al-
though the pessimist does not have the right to live, he almost earns this
right through his life-affirming and life-enhancing suicide.5
Now, if we equate life-affirmation with life-preservation and self-
preservation, we will certainly find strange and contradictory Nietzsche’s
recommendation of the decadent’s suicide. But this equation misses his
distinction between what benefits life in general and what benefits particu-
lar living beings.6 Certainly, he would agree, there are life instincts within
_____________
4 See Zarathustra’s speech on free death for similar advice to those whose advancing
age leads them to ‘hang withered wreaths in the sanctuary of life’ (Z I ‘On Free
Death’).
5 Compare this with Julian Young’s assertion that Nietzsche has no answer to Ca-
mus’ question of suicide and that Nietzsche assumes without telling us why that
suicide is a non-option for those who reject life and ought to commit suicide (2003,
pp. 103–104).
6 This interpretation differs from Lawrence Hatab’s: 2005, pp. 44ff.
Paul S. Loeb 169
the decadent that keep him alive despite his longing to die. But these forces
are residual and limited in the economy of the whole. Although they keep
the decadent alive, they cannot eliminate, or even ameliorate, the predomi-
nant illness, impoverishment, and fatigue that render him constitutionally
unable to affirm life. In order to survive his death-wish, the decadent has
no choice but to live in revolt against the life for which he is not suited.
The residual life-preserving forces that keep alive this particular living
being thus invariably work against the advantage of life in general. For
they keep in existence someone who will always object to life in general
and whose very existence constitutes an objection to life in general. The
only way for the decadent to affirm life in general is to deny, that is, end,
his own particular life.
Nietzsche draws some fairly radical conclusions from this line of rea-
soning—conclusions that belie the usual, and quite innocuous, understand-
ing of his insistence on life-affirmation. I want to focus here on three of
these conclusions. In the first place, Nietzsche’s claim that the decadent
has only two choices, life-denying survival or life-affirming suicide, means
that it is impossible for decadents to live in a life-affirming manner. We
always hear that Nietzsche promotes the life-affirming life for everyone,
and that he advises pessimists to change or improve the life-denying aspect
of their lives. But this cannot be right. Although Nietzsche does want to
promote life-affirmation even with respect to decadents, what this means is
that he wants to encourage and intensify their innate urge to self-
destruction. This is why he insists, in the same section of Twilight of the
Idols cited above, that ‘the highest interest of life, of a s c e n d i n g life,
demands that degenerating life be ruthlessly pushed down and aside’. Or,
why he writes a little later in the Antichrist: ‘The weak and ill-constituted
shall perish: first principle of o u r philanthropy. And one shall help them to
do so’ (A 2).
Nietzsche’s second conclusion has to do with his quest for a counter-
ideal [Gegen-Ideal] to the ascetic ideal. For consider his claim that the
decadent cannot affirm life even though the ascetic ideal gives his life
meaning. Thus, meaning is a precondition of survival, but does not guaran-
tee life-affirmation. A counter-ideal must therefore provide the kind of
meaning that supports life-affirmation. However, since Nietzsche thinks
that suicide is the sole life-affirming option for decadents, this counter-
ideal must embody a new meaning that will overwhelm any residual life-
preserving forces and help the decadents give in to their dominant suicidal
instincts. This means that the usual interpretation of the counter-ideal can-
not be right. According to Leiter, for example, the alternative non-ascetic
ideal ‘must be able to bear the burden of answering the question, “Suffer-
ing for what?” and thus blocking “suicidal nihilism”, for that is the existen-
tial task the ascetic ideal discharges’ (2002, p. 287). Given Nietzsche’s
reasoning above, however, it is actually the case that the counter-ideal must
oppose the ascetic ideal’s ability to block the suicidal nihilism of degener-
ating life. Or, put differently, the counter-ideal must oppose the ascetic
ideal’s ability to preserve the impoverished life of decadents who consti-
tute a disadvantage and objection to life. Whereas the ascetic ideal was a
trick played by life in its struggle against the decadents’ imperative death-
wish, the counter-ideal must expose that trick and at the same time re-
inforce and justify the decadents’ appropriate desire to do away with
themselves.
4. The Suicidal Human Animal
Nietzsche’s third conclusion is by far the most radical and the one I want to
discuss in the rest of this essay. Recall his claim in the third essay of the
Genealogy that sickliness is the norm in humankind:
That this [ascetic] ideal was able to attain power and dominate humans to the
extent which history demonstrates, particularly wherever the civilization and
taming of the human was set under way, is the expression of a great fact: the
s i c k l i n e s s of the type of human which has existed so far, of the tamed hu-
man at least, of this human’s physiological struggle against death (more pre-
cisely: against disgust with life, against exhaustion, against the desire for the
‘end’) … For the human is more sick, more uncertain, more mutable, less de-
fined than any other animal, there is no doubt about that—he is t h e sick ani-
mal … how should such a courageous and well-endowed animal not also be
the most endangered, the most chronically and deeply sick of all the sick ani-
mals? (GM III 13)
Nietzsche’s references here to the influence of the ‘civilization and taming
of the human’ and to the sickliness of ‘the tamed human’ allude back, of
course, to his thesis in the second essay that society led to the worst sick-
ness ever contracted by the human animal—its suffering from itself. This is
a sickness, he writes, from which the human animal has not yet recovered,
and that makes the human animal the sickest animal on earth. Society, he
speculates, involved a kind of incarceration in which the human animal
could not externally discharge its hostile, cruel, and destructive instincts.
Instead, the human animal had to turn these instincts inward and against
itself—thereby becoming what Nietzsche calls ‘the master of self-
destruction’ (GM III 13):
from lack of external enemies and resistances and forcibly confined to the op-
pressive narrowness and punctiliousness of custom, [it] impatiently lacerated,
persecuted, gnawed at, assaulted, and maltreated himself; [it] rubbed itself raw
against the bars of its cage as one tried to ‘tame’ it; this deprived creature,
Paul S. Loeb 171
racked with homesickness for the wild, had to turn itself into an adventure, a
torture chamber, an uncertain and dangerous wilderness. (GM II 16)
According to Nietzsche, then, the human animal as such—the internalized
animal with a vast inner world called the ‘soul’—is forced to inflict con-
stant suffering upon itself and therefore embodies a self-destructive and
degenerating life, an unsatisfied instinct and will to power, and a depres-
sion, lethargy, and fatigue that longs for the end. So it is the human animal
as such that is inherently suicidal and unable to live a life-affirming life.
As Nietzsche puts it in the third essay, the human animal was ‘suffering
from itself in some way, suffering physiologically in any case, like an ani-
mal locked in a cage, uncertain as to why and wherefore, desiring reasons
[as a relief]’. Finally, the ascetic priest provided reasons for its suffering in
the form of the ascetic ideal (GM III 20). Of course, these reasons—
interpreting the human animal’s suffering as punishment for its past mis-
deeds—were false reasons, and they actually led to even more self-inflicted
suffering. But, nevertheless, the human animal found in the ascetic ideal a
pretext to keep on living despite its self-destructive instincts—so that now
it survives even to this day as an objection to life and as a constant source
of objections against life.
But this means that Nietzsche’s recommendation of a life-affirming
suicide, and his quest for a new counter-ideal that will enforce this recom-
mendation, is intended not just for the individual pessimists like Schopen-
hauer and Camus, nor even just for the weak and sick majority-herd of
humankind that he everywhere deplores, but for humankind itself. Whereas
the hitherto reigning life-denying ideal gave suicidal humankind an il-
legitimate reason to live, the new life-affirming counter-ideal must give it a
legitimate reason to die. Whereas prior to the ascetic ideal the void of
meaning prompted humankind to suicide, the new counter-ideal will offer
humankind a meaning and justification for its suicide.
5. Zarathustra’s Counter-Ideal
In the third essay of the Genealogy, Nietzsche only hints at this last, and
most radical, conclusion.7 In this third essay, he spends most of his time
dissecting and criticizing the reigning ascetic ideal, and dismissing seem-
ingly plausible candidates for a new counter-ideal (especially modern sci-
_____________
7 But see his remark in the second essay: ‘the mass of humankind sacrificed to the
flourishing of a single stronger species of human—now that w o u l d be progress’
(GM II 12).
ence). But he never actually proposes or explains what he thinks should be

the new counter-ideal. Accordingly, many scholars have found his con-
cluding discussion dissatisfying, evasive, or simply more evidence that
Nietzsche is better at tearing down than building up. However, here I think
we need to take more seriously his Ecce Homo claim (EH III BGE) that his
post-Zarathustra books were supposed to be purely critical and merely
preparatory to the constructive solutions he had already proposed in Thus
Spoke Zarathustra.8 The reason for this, he tells us at the end of the second
essay of the Genealogy, is that he himself belongs to his decadent age and
is therefore not healthy enough, or strong enough, or courageous enough,
or free enough, to speak in his own voice on behalf of the needed counter-
ideal to the ascetic ideal. Instead, he says, he needed to imagine a man of
the future who would possess the required sublime wickedness and self-
assured intellectual malice. Here Nietzsche acknowledges the immoralism
of the needed counter-ideal and admits that he is not courageous or free
enough to advocate it himself. Only a man belonging to a stronger future
age, he says, can liberate us as much from the previous ideal as from what
was bound to grow out of it, from the great nausea, from the will to noth-
ingness, from nihilism. Since Nietzsche says elsewhere that ‘the great nau-
sea’ is induced by the decadence of humankind (GM III 14), and that
‘nihilism’ is the weariness of humankind over its own decadence (GM I
12), he hints again here at the life-affirming need to facilitate humankind’s
suicide.
In his Ecce Homo review of the Genealogy, Nietzsche comments that
the reason the ascetic ideal has been so powerful despite being so harmful
is that it has been the only ideal so far and has had no rival: ‘Above all a
counter-ideal was lacking—until Zarathustra.’ According to Nietzsche
himself, then, the counter-ideal to the ascetic ideal does not belong to him
and is therefore nowhere proposed or explained by him in any of the works
written in his own voice (such as the Genealogy). As he writes at the end
of the second essay, when he abruptly cuts off his own exuberant account
of the counter-ideal’s effects, the only fitting thing for him to do is to keep
silent. Otherwise he would interfere with something that only the stronger,
more godless Zarathustra is at liberty to do. He would interfere, presum-
ably, because if he were writing in his own voice, he would be too cow-
ardly to communicate the sublimely wicked and intellectually malicious
aspects of the needed counter-ideal. We therefore need to turn at this point
to the work in which Nietzsche imagined how a future anti-nihilist and
conqueror of nothingness, a redeemer of great love and contempt, would
_____________
8 I discuss this claim at length in Loeb 2005.
Paul S. Loeb 173
bring into the world the first rival ever to the ancient and all-powerful as-
cetic ideal.
Now, as soon as we open Thus Spoke Zarathustra, we find Nietzsche’s
imagined man of the future commanding humankind to overcome itself
and to will its own downfall (Untergang). In an inaugural refrain that is
repeated at many key moments throughout the book, Zarathustra proclaims
that humankind is something that should be overcome and that humans
themselves must do this. Speaking first as the redeemer of great contempt,
Zarathustra calls on humankind to finally achieve its greatest experience,
the experience that will enable it to overcome itself. This is the hour of the
great contempt towards itself, the hour when humankind recognizes that all
it has valued most highly about itself as its reason for being—its wisdom,
its soul, its happiness, its reason, its virtue, its justice, its pity—is nothing
but poverty and filth and wretched contentment. Speaking next as the re-
deemer of great love, and alluding to the Gospel’s beatitudes, Zarathustra
proclaims his love for all those self-destructive humans who want to perish
and who find the necessary means to gladly do so.9 And speaking finally as
what he is not, a preacher of repentance, Zarathustra warns humankind of
the consequences of preserving itself, and of the despicable smallness,
impoverishment, and sterility that will accompany its long-term survival.
To paraphrase Nietzsche himself (EH ‘Why I Write Such Good Books’
1), most readers of Zarathustra’s first public speech simply cannot believe
their own ears (or eyes), and so spend a lot of time and energy trying to
explain away Zarathustra’s inaugural command. Some scholars debate the
meaning of Nietzsche’s terms, Untergang or überwinden; others claim that
Zarathustra’s command is merely metaphorical, or spiritual, or psychologi-
cal; others claim that there is a retraction, and even deconstruction, of
Zarathustra’s inaugural command as the book progresses; and yet others
dismiss the entire book as abandoned by Nietzsche when he entered the
‘mature’ period of his ‘true’ masterpieces such as the Genealogy. But it
seems to me that these various scholarly stratagems are an expression of
hermeneutic denial, and that for the most part they have been refuted along
the way. So I do not propose to discuss them any further here. Instead, I am
simply going to assume that Nietzsche does indeed envision his future
philosopher as commanding the self-destruction of humankind. I want to
ask now what further reasons Nietzsche gives in Zarathustra for thinking
_____________
9 See also Zarathustra’s praise to the perishing tightrope walker (a symbol of hu-
mankind) who tossed away his pole and plunged into the depths: ‘You have made
danger your vocation: there is nothing contemptible in that. Now you perish of
your own vocation: for that I will bury you with my own hands’ (Z Prologue 5).
this command necessary, how he proposes to ensure that this command is

obeyed, and what he imagines will be left if this command is indeed
obeyed. In order, my replies to these questions will be: humankind’s impo-
tence with respect to the past; the unveiling of the truth of eternal recur-
rence; and the splitting of the history of humankind in two.
6. The Meaningless Human Past
In trying to understand further Nietzsche’s idea that humankind is some-

thing that must be overcome, it is important first of all to get past his diag-
noses of the decadence that afflicts certain ages or certain segments of
humankind. In the Genealogy, Nietzsche pronounces upon the incurable
illness of the Jewish slaves, Christian history, modern socialists and anar-
chists, the priestly caste, the majority herd, and even the sick half of the
human race. By contrast, he praises as exceptionally healthy and strong the
ancient Greek nobles, the Romans, Renaissance history, Napoleon, the
ascetically cloaked philosophers, and humankind’s strokes of luck, its rare
cases of psychic and physical health. The real question, then, is what kind
of incurable affliction Nietzsche finds even in all members of the second,
otherwise privileged, list.
We have already seen the start of the answer to this question in Nietz-
sche’s claim that social enclosure led to the human animal’s self-inflicted
suffering and to its anguished search for the meaning behind this suffering.
Nietzsche returns to this point in the last pages of the Genealogy, where he
emphasizes the existential plight of the human animal, its experience of
itself as ‘a leaf in the wind, a plaything of absurdity, of the absence of
meaning’:
If we put aside the ascetic ideal, then the human, the a n i m a l human, has had
no meaning up to now. Its existence on earth has lacked a goal: ‘why does the
human exist at all?’—was a question without an answer; the w i l l for the hu-
man and earth was missing; behind every great human destiny rang the even
greater refrain: ‘In vain!’ For the meaning of the ascetic ideal is none other
than t h i s : that something was missing, that the human was surrounded by a
gaping v o i d —it did not know how to justify, explain, affirm itself, it s u f -
f e r e d from the problem of its meaning. (GM III 28)
Notice Nietzsche’s point here that there was an absence of meaning even
behind every great human destiny. Even those he admires most—for ex-
ample, the ancient Greek nobles, or Napoleon—suffered from the problem
of meaning. More particularly, and alluding back to his second essay’s
claim of the internalized animal’s innate suffering from itself, Nietzsche
writes that the problem of meaning for the sickly human animal has always
Paul S. Loeb 175
been ‘the absence of an answer to his questioning cry: “W h y do I suffer?”’

The meaninglessness of suffering, he observes, has been the curse which
has hung over humankind up to now (GM III 28). Although Nietzsche’s
genealogical hypothesis points to the sudden and violent manner in which
the human animal’s instinct for freedom was forcibly made latent (GM II
17), this does not provide a reason or a meaning for the resulting self-
inflicted suffering. Indeed, speaking of the conquering predatory animals
that first created society, Nietzsche says that they ‘arrive like fate, without
motive, reason, consideration, pretext, they arrive like lightning’ (GM II
17).
So Nietzsche only fully confronts the problem of meaning, the most
tremendous problem there is for humankind, in the last pages of his Ge-
nealogy. And this confrontation itself is actually only a lead-in to the
proper confrontation, and solution, in his previous book, Thus Spoke
Zarathustra. This is why at the end of the second essay Nietzsche de-
scribes the man of the future, Zarathustra, in precisely the same terms as
the passage I have just quoted. So far, he says, human existence on earth
has lacked a goal, and so far the will for the human and earth has been
missing, but Zarathustra shall liberate or release the will and give the earth
its goal and humankind its hope. Nietzsche’s idea that the human will
needs liberating, and that this liberation will succeed in giving meaning to
human existence and suffering, refers of course to Zarathustra’s well-
known speech about the creative will’s imprisonment in the unchangeable
past:
The will itself is a still a prisoner. Willing liberates; but what is it that puts
even the liberator itself in fetters? ‘It was’: that is the name of the will’s gnash-
ing of teeth and most solitary affliction. Powerless against that which is
done—it is an evil spectator of all that is past. The will cannot will backwards;
and that it cannot break time and time’s desire, that is the will’s most solitary
affliction … That time cannot run backwards, that is its wrath: ‘That which
was’—that is the name of the stone that it cannot roll away. (Z II ‘On Re-
demption’)
As predicted in the Genealogy, Zarathustra simply presupposes the death
of God and with it the end of all belief in some external, transcendent, or
metaphysical meaning such as that proposed by the ascetic ideal. Nietz-
sche’s problem of meaning thus becomes a purely immanent one.10 Since
_____________
10 Since Nietzsche denies the kind of transcendent meaning provided by the ascetic
ideal, and since he suggests that the absence of such meaning is only a problem for
those who have overreacted to the death of God (Nachlaß Summer 1886–Autumn
1887, KSA 12, 5[71]), it might seem that he also thinks there is no problem regard-
ing the absence of human self-given immanent meaning. As I argue in this essay,
human creative willing is the only possible source of meaning in the world,
how is it possible for the human animal to create for itself and for its own
existence a genuine, this-worldly, and life-affirming meaning? How is it
possible for the human animal to set for itself a goal other than nothing-
ness? Zarathustra’s reply here is that it must first find a way to give such a
meaning or goal to its own past existence. As he says in the same speech:
‘All “it was” is a fragment, a riddle, a dreadful accident—until the creative
will says to it, “But thus I willed it.” Until the creative will says to it, “But
thus I will it; thus shall I will it.”’ (See also Z III ‘On Old and New Tab-
lets’ 3.)
But this cannot be done. Although the human animal may creatively
will a meaning or goal for its future, time does not run backwards and the
human animal cannot will this same meaning or goal backwards into its
past. This means that the human animal must always leave its past exist-
ence without meaning or goal—in Zarathustra’s words, as a fragment, a
riddle, and a dreadful accident. And since the past determines the present
and the future, this meaninglessness undermines even the human animal’s
goal for its future. So human existence must remain meaningless after all.
7. Providential Reasoning
Most Nietzsche scholars think there is a fairly straightforward resolution to

this seemingly intractable problem. Although there are still quibbles here
and there, it has been agreed for a long time now, at least since Nehamas’
1985 Life as Literature, that there is a perfectly obvious way—one Nietz-
sche intended—in which the human creative will can extend backwards
into the past and give it meaning.11 All that is needed, as Nehamas puts it,
is to notice Nietzsche’s literary assumption that ‘[t]he events of the past are
necessarily located through and within a narrative, and [that] different
narratives can generate quite different events’. From this it follows that my
present retrospective willing can indeed have a creative influence on my
past that grants it meaning. Here is Nehamas’ argument:
[E]very one of my past actions is a necessary condition for my being what I
am today. How I see my present self affects crucially the very nature of my
_____________
however, Zarathustra’s speech on redemption and the concluding section of GM III
show otherwise. Indeed, it is precisely the death of God that for the first time frees
humans to consider how they might be able to give themselves meaning (Z II ‘On
the Blessed Isles’).
11 For recent formulations of this interpretation, see Anderson 2005, and Richardson
2006.
Paul S. Loeb 177
past. If I am even for a moment such as I would want to be again, then I would
accept all my past actions, which, essential to and constitutive of the self I
want to repeat, are now newly redescribed. By creating, on the basis of the
past, an acceptable future, we justify and redeem everything that made this fu-
ture possible; and that is everything … To accept the present is then to accept
all that has led to it. It is in this sense that one can now say of what has already
happened, ‘Thus I willed it’. (1985, p. 160)
The broader literary framework behind Nehamas’ argument is nicely ex-
plained and summarized by Julian Young in his recent book, The Death of
God and the Meaning of Life. Citing Gay Science 277, Young argues that a
human being’s life story and task is according to Nietzsche not given as
part of the furniture of the world but is rather always an act of free interpre-
tation and the product of ‘our own practical and theoretical skill in inter-
preting and arranging events’ (2003, pp. 94–95). It follows that ‘Nietz-
sche’s response to the question of how one is to render one’s life
meaningful … is to construct one’s life as if it were a well-constructed
work of literature [a Bildungsroman] with oneself as its “hero”’ (2003, p.
94). Citing Gay Science 299 (and also GS 78), Young observes that we
therefore need to learn from artists in order to become the poets of our own
lives, and this means we must learn the art ‘of viewing our life as if from
its end—grasping ourselves as a completed totality, as something “past and
whole”’ (2003, p. 87). But an essential element in such art is knowing how
to construct a redemptive state, ‘one that makes sense of, and makes up for,
the sufferings and imperfections that have preceded it’ (ibid., p. 90). Such a
state should enable us to love the whole of our unalterable past and every-
thing that has happened to us—so much so, that we would want to live it
all over again, down to every last detail. Citing Gay Science 277 again,
Young concludes that we must therefore be able to see a ‘personal provi-
dence’ (2003, p.91) in things and reach a ‘high point’ in which we see, as
Nietzsche writes,
how palpably always everything that happens to us t u r n s o u t f o r t h e
b e s t . Every day and every hour, life seems to have no other wish than to
prove this proposition again and again. Whatever it is, bad weather or good,
the loss of a friend, sickness, slander, the failure of some letter to arrive, the
spraining of an ankle, a glance into a shop, a counter-argument, the opening of
a book, a dream, a fraud—either immediately or very soon after it proves to be
something that ‘must not be missing’; it has profound significance and use
precisely f o r u s . (GS 277)
As Nehamas himself acknowledges, however, there is a ‘grave difficulty’
in this literary interpretation of Zarathustra’s speech on redemption. For
self-deception, he writes, ‘may convince us that we are approaching this
[ideal affirmative] relationship to life and to the world when in fact we are
not’. As he puts it, ‘I might be willing, for example, to repeat my life only
because I do not let myself see it for what it is, because I do not allow my-
self to see in the proper light, or to see at all, large and objectionable parts
of it’ (1985, pp. 162–163). This is indeed a difficulty, but it is grounded on
a further, and graver, difficulty. Although Nietzsche does indeed think that
my past is a necessary condition for my being what I am today, it does not
follow from this that my past has my present state as its meaning or goal.
Certainly, I can want to affirm my present state as a peak in my life and I
can accordingly redescribe my past so that it appears to have this present
state as its inevitable meaning and goal. But this does not mean that my
redescription is true or that it is supported by any evidence. In fact, given
my wish to affirm what I am today as a high point, and to see what I am
today as the inevitable goal of my past, it is much more likely that my re-
description of my past is falsification and wishful thinking.
Ironically enough, the Gay Science 277 passage cited by Young and
others as support for the literary interpretation of Zarathustra’s redemption
speech makes just this point. Far from recommending that we must learn
how to see a personal providence in our past that leads up to our present
high point, Nietzsche argues here that this ability is now actually ‘the
greatest danger of spiritual unfreedom’, ‘our hardest test’, and our most
‘dangerous seduction’. The truth which we have worked so hard to under-
stand, and which we are now in danger of falsifying, is that existence is
beautiful chaos devoid of all providential reason and goodness. So when
we find, Nietzsche writes, that ‘the idea of a personal providence confronts
us with the most penetrating force, and the best advocate, the evidence of
our eyes, speaks for it’, we should ‘rest content instead with the supposi-
tion that our own practical and theoretical skill in interpreting and arran-
ging events has now reached its high point’. Even when at times ‘we are
excessively surprised by a wonderful harmony created by the playing of
our instrument—a harmony that sounds too good for us to dare to give the
credit to ourselves’—even then, Nietzsche writes, we should suppose that
it is not providence that guides our hand, but rather ‘good old chance’—
‘the wisest providence could not think up a more beautiful music than that
which our foolish hand produces then’.
According to Nietzsche himself, then, it is chance and chaos that de-
termines our past as well as the path from our past to our present state.
Although we may wish to read our present state back into our past as its
meaning or goal, this cannot be done without falsification. So when
Zarathustra says that the only way for the human animal to give itself
meaning is for it to recreate all of its ‘it was’ into a ‘thus I willed it’, this
cannot simply mean—as the current consensus has it—some kind of re-
demptive redescription of the past. Although I might now say to my past,
‘thus I willed it’, this does not make it so. In fact, since time does not run
Paul S. Loeb 179
backwards, it is impossible for my present willing to influence my past

willing in such a way that the latter shapes the arc of my life as inevitably
leading up to my present state. Again, I can say, as Zarathustra teaches I
also need to say: ‘thus I will it’, and ‘thus I shall will it’. But neither of
these can actually be true. Neither my present nor my future willing can
have any power over my past—much less the power to shape my past in
such a way that it has my present state as its meaning or goal. Indeed, how
could my present or future willing shape the past that made this willing
possible in the first place? Thus, it is impossible for the human animal to
creatively will a meaning or goal for its own past. Since there is no other
source of meaning, and since the past determines the present and the fu-
ture, it would appear again that human existence must remain meaningless.
Against this line of argument, Nehamas and Young might want to re-
call their interpretive claim that according to Nietzsche the past is an act of
free interpretation and the product of our own practical and theoretical skill
in interpreting and arranging events. But we have just seen that this is a
misreading of Nietzsche’s remarks in Gay Science 277, where he is con-
cerned rather to show that the accidental reality of the past is falsified by
this kind of providential interpretation.
Or, leaving aside his broader literary framework, Nehamas might want
to respond that for Nietzsche the nature of the past lies in its relationship to
the future, and since the future is yet to come, the nature of the past is not
yet settled (1985, pp. 160–161). But this reading is quite clearly contra-
dicted by Zarathustra’s emphasis on the unchangeability of the past. And it
is contradicted as well by Nietzsche’s Genealogy analysis of the human
animal as the mnemonic animal. In this analysis, Nietzsche argues that,
before society bred a faculty of memory, the prehuman will actively forgot
anything outside the present moment that could confine its activity. But the
new memory faculty suspended or disconnected this active forgetting and
represented an active will not to let go, to keep willing that which it once
willed in the past. With the advent of society and its mnemotechniques,
some things were impressed upon moment-centred animal affects and de-
sire so that they remained there—inextinguishable, omnipresent, fixed—
just as they once were. The human will was therefore forced to recognize
for the first time an entire arena of possible willing—much more extensive
than the sphere outside society—that was completely and forever outside
of its reach: namely, that which was willed and can now never be unwilled,
deeds that can never be undone, in short, the past, the ‘it was’. Nowhere in
this analysis does Nietzsche define the nature of this remembered fixed
past as determined by its relation to the future, or as somehow still remain-
ing to be fixed by a future that is yet to come, or as somehow transform-
able by its relocation within different narratives.
8. The Hammer of Eternal Recurrence
Although Zarathustra does not explicitly introduce his teaching of eternal

recurrence in his redemption speech, he obviously points in this direction
when he concludes by asking how the creative will might be taught to will
backwards so that it might will something higher than any reconciliation
with time. According to the consensus reading I have been concerned to
criticize, what Zarathustra means by this is that my affirmation of my pres-
ent state should teach me how to ‘will backwards’—that is, to will the
exact repetition of my entire past. And I would not be able to will in this
way unless I had successfully redescribed my past as directed inevitably
towards my present state. As Nehamas writes: ‘If I am even for a moment
such as I would want to be again, then I would accept all my past actions,
which, essential to and constitutive of the self I want to repeat, are now
newly redescribed’ (1985, p. 160, my emphasis). Or, as Julian Young
writes, the key is to ‘“write” my life so that I not merely like it, but like it
so much that I can will its recurrence for ever and ever, down to every last
detail’ (2003, p. 91), and to do this we must be able to see the kind of per-
sonal providence in things that Nietzsche describes in Gay Science 277.
Hence eternal recurrence, which Nietzsche describes in Ecce Homo as ‘the
highest formula of affirmation that is at all attainable’ (EH III Z 1), turns
out to be the new counter-ideal and the means whereby the human animal
can for the first time will a life-affirming meaning for its past and thereby
for its entire existence.
However, this invocation of eternal recurrence does nothing whatso-
ever to eliminate the kind of self-deception pointed out by Nietzsche him-
self in Gay Science 277. Saying to my past, ‘Thus I will it t o b e r e -
p e a t e d ’ , or, ‘Thus I will it to be repeated e t e r n a l l y ’ , does not add any
more meaning to my past than saying to it merely, ‘Thus I will it.’ Just as
my present willing can do nothing whatsoever to direct my past inevitably
towards my present state, so too my present willing can do nothing what-
soever to ensure the repetition of my vanished past. Indeed, this is pre-
cisely Nietzsche’s point about the irreversibility of time: ever since its
acquisition of a faculty of memory, the human animal has nostalgically
willed the return, and even eternal repetition, of its most treasured and
joyous past moments. The problem is not that the human animal has never
before willed this, and that it should start doing so now. The problem, ra-
ther, is that the human animal has always willed this, and that this willing
has been of no avail whatsoever. Indeed, it is precisely this impotence, this
confrontation with the immovable stone ‘it was’, that has caused the hu-
man animal to find its existence and suffering devoid of meaning, to take
Paul S. Loeb 181
revenge on life, to formulate the ascetic ideal, and to live its life against
life.
When, therefore, Nietzsche describes eternal recurrence as the highest
formulation of life-affirmation that is at all attainable, his point is not that
the human animal should aim to will this eternal recurrence and thereby
achieve the highest life-affirmation possible.12 Instead, his point is that the
human animal can never will this and that therefore the human animal can
never achieve such life-affirmation. Indeed, no matter how strong and heal-
thy he deemed himself, perhaps the strongest and healthiest of all of his
contemporaries, Nietzsche found himself unable to will his life’s eternal
recurrence. Writing in his notebooks in 1883, Nietzsche exclaims: ‘I do not
want life again. How have I borne it? What has made me endure the sight?
the vision of the superhuman who a f f i r m s life. I have tried to affirm it
m y s e l f —alas!’ (Nachlaß November 1882–February 1883, KSA 10,
4[81]).13
So, rather than conferring meaning upon the human animal’s past, the
thought of eternal recurrence actually multiplies and intensifies the mean-
inglessness of this past to a new and devastating degree. This is why Nietz-
sche writes in his 1887 notes that the thought of eternal recurrence builds
upon the nihilism that follows the demise of the ascetic ideal—that is, upon
the most paralysing thought of ‘continuing with an “in vain”, without aim
and purpose’. Eternal recurrence, he writes, is the most extreme form of
nihilism because it is the ‘thought of existence as it is, without meaning or
goal, but inevitably recurring, without any finale into nothingness’ (Nach-
laß Summer 1886–Autumn 1887, KSA 12, 5[71], my emphasis). It is not
just the thought of meaninglessness, but the thought of meaninglessness
eternally. Previously the human animal sought solace in the idea of death
and nothingness as an escape from the meaninglessness of its life and suf-
fering. But the thought of eternal recurrence closes off all such escape and
condemns the human animal to eternal meaninglessness. As Nietzsche
writes in his 1883 notes: ‘everything becomes and recurs eternally— e s -
c a p e is i m p o s s i b l e !” (Nachlaß Winter 1883–1884, KSA 10, 24[7]).14
Nor can it be replied to this that, because death no longer affords an escape
to life’s suffering, there is actually less point to suicide. For in the third
_____________
12 Compare Reginster 2006, pp. 201ff.
13 This is the reason why Nietzsche would argue (pace Simmel 1986, p. 178; or
Berkowitz 1995, pp. 209–210) that his doctrine of eternal recurrence is not itself a
comforting self-deception of the kind he criticizes in GS 277.
14 In Loeb 2006 I criticize the argument (Soll 1973) that eternal recurrence precludes
any continuity of consciousness and therefore cannot lead to any feeling of accu-
mulated meaninglessness.
essay of the Genealogy Nietzsche argues that the thought of death as es-
cape keeps humans from giving in to their pre-existing death-wish by im-
parting meaning to life’s suffering and offering the hope of a different or
better life. Because eternal recurrence undermines both this meaning and
this hope, nothing remains to keep humans from giving in to their inherent
suicidal instincts.15
Properly understood, then, Zarathustra’s doctrine of eternal recurrence
is the counter-ideal to the ascetic ideal that has so far helped humankind to
survive in the face of its longing for death. It is the means whereby
Zarathustra compels humankind to will its own downfall. In Gay Science
341, Nietzsche describes this thought causing the life-impoverished human
to gnash his teeth and throw himself down to be crushed under its heaviest
weight. And Zarathustra himself, in the midst of his deadly combat with
the dwarf that is a symbol for the small human animal, warns his arch-
enemy that he will not be able to bear the deadly blow (Schlag) of the
heavy weight of his death-wielding hammer (Todtschläger) of eternal re-
currence. Similarly, in his 1883 notes, Nietzsche has Zarathustra say about
his teaching of eternal recurrence: ‘The human is something that must be
overcome. I h o l d h e r e t h e h a m m e r that will overcome him!’ (Nachlaß
Autumn 1883, KSA 10, 21[6]).
In all these places, Nietzsche incorporates his metaphorical conception
of the remembered past as a kind of heavy weight. Already at the start of
his second Unfashionable Observations, he had written of the remember-
ing human being who ‘braces himself against the great and ever-greater
burden of the past’ that ‘weighs him down or bends him over, hampers his
gait as an invisible and obscure load’. Unlike other animals that are able to
forget, the human being is perpetually confronted with the ‘it was’ that
brings him suffering and instils in him a longing for oblivion through death
(UM II 1). Later, as we have seen, Nietzsche argues that the human ani-
mal’s mnemonic essence renders it impotent towards the crushingly heavy
stone of the past that it cannot move, and that this impotence causes it to
turn its destructive instincts inward against itself. Hence, confronted with
the eternal recurrence of this immovable and meaningless past, and also
with the loss of its previous hope for some escape in death and nothing-
ness, the degenerate human animal has no choice now but to act on its
_____________
15 See also Nietzsche’s contemporaneous note: ‘I n e v i t a b l y there emerges con-
tempt and hatred for life. Buddhism. The European energy [Thatkraft] will push
towards a mass-suicide. Thereto: m y theory of recurrence as the most terrible bur-
dening’ (Nachlaß Summer–Autumn 1882, KSA 10, 2[4]).
Paul S. Loeb 183
exponentially intensified drive to self-destruction.16 This is why Nietzsche

writes in his 1885 notes that eternal recurrence acts as a ‘pessimistic teach-
ing and way of thinking, an ecstatic nihilism, [that] can under certain con-
ditions be indispensable precisely to the philosopher—as a mighty pressure
and hammer with which … to implant into that which is degenerate and
desires to die a longing for the end’ (Nachlaß May–July 1885, KSA 11,
35[82]).17
9. Superhuman Meaning
The interpretation I have just outlined stands in stark contrast to the usual
‘existentialist’ reading according to which Nietzsche hopes that eternal
recurrence, a doctrine that intensifies this meaninglessness to the highest
degree, will enable the human animal to become strong and healthy enough
to accept, affirm, and even thrive on this meaninglessness. As I mentioned
earlier, Brian Leiter—taking his cue from Camus—proposes this kind of
reading when he writes that ‘the “meaning” embodied in affirmation of the
eternal return is precisely that there is no meaning or justification for suf-
fering’. According to Leiter, and I think this a view widely attributed to
Nietzsche today, ‘to affirm the doctrine of eternal return is to recognize
that there is no such meaning’: ‘This is the attitude of existential commit-
ment, through brute force of will, to carry on in the absence of such a
meaning or vindication, to give up, in effect, asking “Suffering for
what?”’(2002, p. 288). Although Leiter speculates that Nietzsche thinks
some higher human beings might be able to do this (something I have ar-
gued against here), he also endorses the more usual view that Nietzsche
thinks this is something that only the superhuman will be able to do.
Now, it is true that Nietzsche does think the superhuman will be able to
will eternal recurrence and affirm life. He says as much in the quote I just
_____________
16 There is an interesting link here to Freud’s later association, in Beyond the Pleas-
ure Principle, between the compulsion to repeat and the death drive.
17 There are many other similar statements in Nietzsche’s contemporaneous notes:
‘The great noon as turning point—the two paths. The hammer to overpower the
human: highest development [Entfaltung] of the individual, s o t h a t i t m u s t
p e r i s h o f i t s e l f (and not, until now, of dietary mistakes!) (H o w d e a t h c a m e
i n t o t h e w o r l d ! )’ (Nachlaß Autumn 1883, KSA 10, 21[3]). And: ‘The hammer:
a doctrine which, by u n l e a s h i n g a death-longing pessimism, brings about a s e -
l e c t i o n of t h o s e m o s t s u i t a b l e f o r l i f e’ (Nachlaß Autumn 1885–Autumn
1886, KSA 12, 2[100]). And: ‘the h a m m e r —a danger that can shatter the hu-
man’ (Nachlaß April–June 1885, KSA 11, 34[78]).
cited, where he bemoans his own human inability to do either, but says that
he has nevertheless endured life through his vision of the superhuman that
will be able to do both. However, contrary to Leiter and the usual existen-
tialist reading, Nietzsche nowhere says that the superhuman accepts, af-
firms, or thrives on meaninglessness. Nor does Nietzsche say that the
superhuman, like the human, finds meaninglessness in the thought of eter-
nal recurrence. Indeed, my argument so far shows that his view has to be
quite the reverse. Although Nietzsche denies that meaning guarantees life-
affirmation, he believes that the only way to affirm life is to find meaning
in it. So it must be the case that he envisions the superhuman as being able
to give meaning to its own existence. And since Nietzsche describes the
highest formula of affirmation as the willing of eternal recurrence, it must
be the case that he envisions the superhuman as finding meaning in the
thought of eternal recurrence.
Which brings me finally to my third and last question: what does
Nietzsche imagine will be left once humankind has been led by the thought
of eternal recurrence to will its own downfall? In several places, Nietzsche
describes eternal recurrence as the thought about time that will split hu-
mankind, or the history of humankind, in two.18 This is in keeping with
Nietzsche’s thinking about time and history, and in fact represents what he
regarded as his most profound and consequential thinking about both. The
split Nietzsche has in mind has horizontal and vertical dimensions. Hori-
zontally, the history of humankind will be split into what came before the
thought of eternal recurrence and what comes after it. Vertically, human-
kind itself will be split in two by the selective action of the thought of eter-
nal recurrence. The lower segment, and great majority, of humankind will
be driven by its lower will to power to crushing despair and suicide. But
the higher segment, and very small minority, comprising the ancestors of
the superhuman, will be driven by its higher will to power to an initial self-
emancipation from its mnemonically imposed fetters. This minority’s new
freedom will in turn enable it to begin giving meaning to its own existence
and thereby to begin affirming life.
Elsewhere I have articulated what I believe is Nietzsche’s vision of the
revolutionary development that will take place after the advent of the
thought of eternal recurrence and within the highest and smallest and most
powerful segment of humankind (see Loeb 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006). This
is a complex vision and I do not have the space here to rehearse all of its
details, nor the many compelling objections to this vision, nor the re-
sources I find in Nietzsche’s texts for meeting these objections. However,
_____________
18 See for example his 10 March 1884 letter to Overbeck (KSB 6, p. 485).
Paul S. Loeb 185
if I have been successful here, I hope to have at least shown that the stan-
dard metaphorical interpretation of Zarathustra’s teaching of backwards-
willing is incapable of explaining how the superhuman will is supposed to
gain control over, and give meaning to, its own past. The only way to ex-
plain this, I have argued in these other essays, is to recognize that Nietz-
sche really does intend Zarathustra’s doctrine of eternal recurrence—which
he defines in Ecce Homo as a teaching of the unconditioned and endlessly
repeated circular course of all things—to be understood literally and cos-
mologically.19 Although the direction of time is still irreversible, and al-
though it is still impossible to change the past, the cosmological truth of
circular time allows—indeed, requires—present and future willing to have
a causal influence on past willing. But this means that it is in fact possible
for the superhuman will to shape its own past existence in such a way that
it has its own completion and perfection as its meaning or goal.
In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche illustrates this possibility
through a narrative in which the cosmic truth of eternal recurrence reveals
that Zarathustra’s life is a self-enclosed circular course. Because
Zarathustra ceases to exist in the time observed by others between his
death and his recreation, he experiences no break or ending at the moment
of his death and finds his last conscious moment immediately succeeded
by his reawakening consciousness (Nachlaß Spring–Autumn 1881, KSA 9,
11[318]). Zarathustra’s life is thus a ceaselessly forward-flowing ring in
which the endpoint eternally turns back to become the starting point. This
means that the completed and perfected Zarathustra is able to ‘backwards-
will’—that is, to store mnemonic messages, commands, and reminders
(such as, ‘It is time!’ ‘It is high time!’) which are addressed to himself at
an ‘earlier’ stage in his life. This mnemonic willing is then buried in his
‘younger’ self’s subconscious and manifests itself in the form of precogni-
tive dreams, visions, omens, and voices. This is why Zarathustra hears
disembodied cries, whispers, and laughter calling to him, admonishing
him, and commanding him at critical times in his life when he is tempted
away from himself or does not feel adequate to his destiny. Because this
voice is easily identified as that of his own self at a ‘later’ point in the nar-
rative, we are led to understand that Zarathustra possesses a recurrence-
conscience that enables him to keep promises to his perfected self and to
become who he is. The superhuman Zarathustra is thus able to transmit his
completion and perfection backwards throughout his entire past existence
so as to guarantee it meaning, necessity, and wholeness. What appeared to
_____________
19 And even ‘factually’ in Lawrence Hatab’s sense of the term in his recent study
(Hatab 2005, pp. 91ff.).
be riddles in his past are solved by the underlying hidden meaning that is
his backwards-willed destiny. What appeared to be accidents in his past are
necessitated and preordained by his backwards-willing perfected future
self. And what seemed to be fragments in his past are unified by the back-
wards-willed destiny towards which they are directed by his future com-
pleted self. As a self-propelled wheel that wills its own will, Zarathustra is
quite literally the artist-creator of his own life, and his aesthetic creation
may be said to have a meaning that is affirmable for all eternity.
Thus, when Nietzsche says that eternal recurrence will cause a split in
human history between what came before and what came after this
thought, he does not mean that there is a unidirectional flow of influence
from this before to this after. Indeed, given his conception of the superhu-
man as the type of being that has gained control over time, Nietzsche is
actually more concerned with the backwards-willing influence that extends
from the future superhuman to its past human ancestry. As we have seen,
the human animal, whose essence is defined mnemonically, is impotent
with respect to its own past and therefore cannot give its own existence
meaning. But it does not follow that human existence is meaningless. As
Zarathustra says in his inaugural speech: ‘Behold, I teach you the super-
human. The superhuman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the
superhuman s h a l l b e the meaning of the earth.’ And a bit later, when he
is reflecting on his inability to communicate his teaching, Zarathustra says:
‘Human existence is uncanny and still without meaning: a jester can be-
come the human’s fatality. I will teach humans the meaning of their exist-
ence—the superhuman, the lightning out of the dark cloud of the human’
(Z Prologue 7). What these pronouncements mean is that the human ani-
mal, not being able to give itself meaning, and not being able to derive
meaning from the cosmos or its past, must instead receive this meaning
from its future progeny—namely, the superhuman that has gained power
over time and is therefore able to give meaning to a past existence that
includes its human ancestry.
10. The Myth of Sisyphus
Let me now conclude by returning to Camus, and in particular, to his dis-

cussion of the myth of Sisyphus. Here is Camus’ synopsis of this myth:
‘The gods had condemned Sisyphus to ceaselessly rolling a rock to the top
of the mountain, whence the stone would fall back of its own weight. They
had thought with some reason that there is no more dreadful punishment
than futile and hopeless labour’ (1991, p. 119). Although neither Nietzsche
nor Camus mentions it, scholars have rightly found in this myth a fruitful
Paul S. Loeb 187
representation of the doctrine of eternal recurrence—that is, of the endless

and eternal repetition of the same with no hope of a final culmination or
even of any escape into death or nothingness. Indeed, Nietzsche even
seems to allude to this myth in the dwarf’s reply to Zarathustra about the
philosopher’s stone being thrown high in the air only to fall back down on
him. In this myth, as with eternal recurrence, we find an extreme intensifi-
cation of the meaninglessness and absurdity that Camus finds in all of hu-
man life. So it is quite surprising to see Camus simply reapplying here the
philosophy of conscious revolt that he outlined in his introductory essay on
suicide. According to Camus, Sisyphus is still the absurd hero, and this is
because he is able to achieve a moment of consciousness and lucidity at the
top of the mountain when he ‘watches the stone rush down in a few mo-
ments toward that lower world whence he will have to push it up again
toward the summit’ (1991, p. 121):
It is during that return, that pause, that Sisyphus interests me … I see that man
going back down with a heavy yet measured step toward the torment of which
he will never know the end. That hour is like a breathing-hour of conscious-
ness. At each of those moments when he leaves the heights and gradually
sinks toward the lair of the gods, he is superior to his fate … If this myth is
tragic, that is because its hero is conscious. Where would his torture be, in-
deed, if at every step the hope of succeeding upheld him? … powerless and
rebellious, [Sisyphus] knows the whole extent of his wretched condition: it is
what he thinks of during his descent. The lucidity that was to constitute his tor-
ture at the same time crowns his victory. There is no fate that cannot be sur-
mounted by scorn … If the descent is thus sometimes performed in sorrow, it
can also take place in joy. This word is not too much … One must imagine
Sisyphus happy. (Camus 1991, pp. 121–123)
Let us forget for a moment that Sisyphus is supposed to be immortal, and
let us follow Camus in imagining his plight to be representative of the
human plight. In that case, I think there can be little doubt that Camus’
response is profoundly dissatisfying. As Julian Young comments, we cer-
tainly do not imagine Sisyphus happy: ‘Surely our response to his pre-
dicament is not admiration but rather pity.’ To make him relevant to the
question confronting humans, Young writes, Sisyphus has to be given the
option of suicide, and ‘given the option it is far from clear that he should
not take it’ (2003, pp. 166–167). Why does Camus think he would not take
it? Well, because Sisyphus finds meaning in his scorn and rebellion against
the gods who have punished him with his futile and hopeless task. Thus,
insofar as the gods and their punishment are a symbol for life itself, Ca-
mus’ response to the myth of Sisyphus confirms once again Nietzsche’s
idea that the human animal cannot live its meaningless life except by
scorning it and rebelling against it, except by ascetically willing nothing-
ness. But this time Camus seriously underestimates the new intensity and
scale of self-destructiveness induced by the prospect of an eternally recur-

ring meaninglessness. To a far greater degree than before, Camus’ own
logic dictates that a mortal Sisyphus has no choice but to take the life-
affirming option of suicide. For the human animal, eternal recurrence is the
hammer which crushes any remaining life-preserving instincts that would
still rather will nothingness than not will at all.
Given our discussion of Zarathustra’s doctrine of backwards-willing, it
is noteworthy that Camus thinks that Sisyphus’ mountain-top moment of
conscious revolt somehow injects meaning into his futile and hopeless
task. According to Camus, ‘[a]t that subtle moment when man glances
backwards over his life, Sisyphus returning toward his rock, in that slight
pivoting he contemplates that series of unrelated actions which becomes
his fate, created by him, combined under his memory’s eye and soon
sealed by his death’ (1991, p. 123). For Camus, then, Sisyphus’ retrospec-
tive glance transforms his task into a fate that is ‘his’ and ‘created by him’.
Here we see the idea, endorsed by most Nietzsche commentators, that
Sisyphus can find meaning in his endlessly repeated climb up the mountain
if he retrospectively becomes aware of this climb as leading inevitably to
the peak where he has successfully achieved his task. Thus, Ivan Soll
(1973, pp. 338–339) and Maudemarie Clark (1990, pp. 270–272), for ex-
ample, both liken eternal recurrence to the myth of Sisyphus, and both
argue that this doctrine allows the meaningful to be repeated eternally as
long as each cycle ends by reaching an ideal state or realizing a goal. As
Soll writes: ‘The entire development of each cycle would exhibit a mean-
ingful pattern. And one might derive great metaphysical comfort from the
thought of the successful pattern of fulfilment displayed and repeated in
each cycle’.
But in Gay Science 277, as we have seen, Nietzsche himself explains
how it is that our highly developed practical and theoretical skill in inter-
preting and arranging events may lead us to precisely this kind of self-
deceptive comfort. In fact, the task performed by Sisyphus is imposed on
him by the gods and is not in any way his or created by him. Nor, despite
the providential reasoning Camus attributes to Sisyphus, is this task in any
way meaningful. The gods deliberately select an arbitrary stone, an arbi-
trary mountain, and the completely meaningless task of pushing the stone
up the mountain. That the stone always rolls back down after it has been
pushed up shows that there is nothing meaningful or successful in Sisyphus
reaching the mountain top, or in pushing the stone up there, or even less in
achieving a moment of lucidity there. Because the gods who selected
Sisyphus’ task intend precisely the reverse, it is only self-deception that
allows him to believe that his climb up the mountain has any meaning at
all. Similarly, according to Nietzsche, the human animal may derive self-
Paul S. Loeb 189
deceptive comfort from the providential thought that its life displays a
successful pattern of fulfilment. But in reality, the human animal has no
power over its remembered past. The human past does not belong to it, is
not created by it, and does not have any later peak moment as its meaning
or goal. For the human animal that is unable to achieve even one single
meaningful cycle, it does not matter that eternal recurrence allows the
meaningful to be repeated eternally. Since it cannot give its own existence
meaning, the human animal must always find in Zarathustra’s doctrine the
eternal repetition of meaninglessness.
Let us now imagine instead the superhuman Zarathustra in Sisyphus’
situation. There is still the stone, there is still the mountain, and there is
still the task of pushing the stone up the mountain. But because Zarathustra
has liberated his own will and gained control over time, he is able to
choose the stone, to choose the mountain, and to choose the task of push-
ing the stone up the mountain. Whereas the human Sisyphus can only de-
ceive himself into believing that the task of pushing the stone up the moun-
tain is his and is created by him, the superhuman Zarathustra is right to
believe this. From the mountain top where he has completely achieved his
goal, the perfected and ripened Zarathustra—a kind of circulus vitiosus
deus who makes himself necessary (BGE 56)—commands and helps his
imperfect and still-ripening self to achieve just this goal. Whereas the hu-
man Sisyphus is only able to attain a peak moment of awareness in which
he looks back on his past life and scorns the very conditions of his exist-
ence, the superhuman Zarathustra is able to achieve a peak moment of
awareness in which he has not only come to terms and learned to get along
with whatever was and is, but wants to have it, just as it was and is, re-
peated into all eternity, shouting insatiably da capo (BGE 56).20
References
Anderson, R. Lanier, 2005, ‘Nietzsche on Truth, Illusion, and Redemption’, in: Euro-
pean Journal of Philosophy, 13/2, pp. 185–226.
Berkowitz, Peter, 1995, Nietzsche: The Ethics of an Immoralist, Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Camus, Albert, 1991, The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays, trans. Justin O’ Brien,
New York: Vintage International.
Clark, Maudemarie, 1990, Nietzsche on Truth and Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
_____________
20 I would like to thank Keith Ansell-Pearson, Daniel Blue, Manuel Dries, Mark
Jenkins, and participants in the 2005 Nietzsche in New York conference for their
helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.
Hatab, Lawrence, 2005, Nietzsche’s Life Sentence: Coming to Terms with Eternal
Leiter, Brian, 2002, Nietzsche on Morality, New York: Routledge.
Loeb, Paul S., 2001, ‘Time, Power, and Superhumanity’, in: Journal of Nietzsche Stud-
ies, 21, pp. 27–47.
Loeb, Paul S., 2002, ‘The Dwarf, the Dragon, and the Ring of Eternal Recurrence: A
Wagnerian Key to the Riddle of Nietzsche’s Zarathustra’, in: Nietzsche-Studien,
31, pp. 91–113.
Loeb, Paul S., 2005, ‘Finding the Übermensch in Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morality’,
in: Journal of Nietzsche Studies, 30, pp. 70–101.
Loeb, Paul S., 2006, ‘Identity and Eternal Recurrence’, in: Keith Ansell-Pearson (ed.),
A Companion to Nietzsche, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 171–188.
Nehamas, Alexander, 1985, Nietzsche: Life as Literature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Reginster, Bernard, 2006, The Affirmation of Life: Nietzsche on Overcoming Nihilism,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Richardson, John, 2006, ‘Nietzsche on Time and Becoming’, in Keith Ansell-Pearson
Schopenhauer, Arthur, 1969, The World as Will and Representation, vol. 1, trans. E. F.
J. Payne, New York: Dover.
Simmel, Georg, 1986, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, trans. H. Loiskandle, D. Wein-
stein, and M. Weinstein, Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
Soll, Ivan, 1973, ‘Reflections on Recurrence: A Re-examination of Nietzsche’s Doc-
trine of Die Ewige Wiederkehr des Gleichen’, in: Robert Solomon (ed.), Nietzsche:
A Collection of Critical Essays, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, pp. 322–342.
Young, Julian, 2003, The Death of God and the Meaning of Life, New York: Rout-
ledge.
Translations
Ecce Homo, in: Basic Writings of Nietzsche, ed. and trans. Walter Kaufmann, New
On the Genealogy of Morality, in: Basic Writings of Nietzsche, ed. and trans. Walter
Kaufmann, New York: Viking Press, 1966.
Thus Spoke Zarathustra, in: The Portable Nietzsche, ed. and trans. Walter Kaufmann,
Unfashionable Observations, trans. Richard T. Gray, Stanford: Stanford University
Press, 1995.
Nietzsche and the Temporality of (Self-)Legislation
Herman W. Siemens
1. Introduction
The concept of (self-)legislation or (Selbst-)Gesetzgebung is well known as

a central category in both Nietzsche’s descriptive-phenomenal philosophy
of power, and his prescriptive-affirmative ethics. But in the research litera-
ture, the temporal articulations and insertions of this category have not
received sufficient attention. This paper aims to make good this deficit by
examining the concept of (self-)legislation in its multiple intersections with
the themes of time and history.
Within the framework of Nietzsche’s pluralistic ‘ontology’ of becom-
ing, (self-)legislation has a central and profoundly ambivalent place. It is
central, because for Nietzsche the character of becoming is to be an inces-
sant Fest-setzen, a multiple fixing (Feststellen) or positing (Setzen) of be-
ing.1 It is ambivalent because, on the one hand, Gesetzgebung names the
positing of the moral law, immutable and universal, in radical contradiction
with the pluralism and dynamism of life-as-becoming. On the other hand,
however, it also names the only resource we have against the moral law, as
can be seen in Nietzsche’s repeated attempts to formulate a naturalistic
counter-model of legislation that enhances the dynamic and pluralistic
character of life.
Legislation is a central theme in Nietzsche’s thought from his early
Auseinandersetzung with the pre-Socratics, the Kulturphilosophie of the
Untimely Meditations, the natural histories of morality from Human, All
Too Human on (especially the phase of the ‘ethics of custom’), through to
Zarathustra’s ‘Old and New Tables’, and the question of the transvaluation
of all values dominating his later writings. Equally constant is Nietzsche’s
_____________
1 See, e.g., Nachlaß Autumn 1887, KSA 12, 9[91]: ‘All that happens, all movement,
all becoming as a fixing of relations of degree and force, as a s t r u g g l e.’ See also:
Nachlaß April–June 1885, KSA 11, 34[88, 89]; Nachlaß Summer–Autumn 1884,
KSA 11, 26[359]; Nachlaß August–September 1885, KSA 11, 39[13]; Nachlaß
Autumn 1885–Autumn 1886, KSA 12, 2[139]; UM III 3; GS 370; A 58.
192 Nietzsche and the Temporality of (Self-)Legislation
view that legislation has its sources in the individual and is to be under-
stood as a function of individuated power. In this respect, Nietzsche’s
thought conforms to the psychologization of power in the nineteenth cen-
tury.2 Because Nietzsche sees legislation as a function of individuated
power, his attention is directed towards the legislator as a type, or rather,
towards a variety of different legislator-types and their exemplifications,
including, the Greeks (in the early 1870s); Schopenhauer and Wagner as
legislative types in cultural crisis of the present (1874–1875); Zarathustra
(1883); and finally, the legislators of the future, the ‘Gesetzgeber der Zu-
kunft’ (1884–1886). The problematic of legislation is therefore best studied
by tracing the sequence of legislator-types across Nietzsche’s writings and
reconstructing the systematic relations between them. In this paper Nietz-
sche’s ambivalent relation to legislation will be examined by way of some
key moments in this diachronic typology of the legislator: Schopenhauer,
Wagner, and Zarathustra. I will examine these legislator-types, and their
temporal articulations, as efforts to solve the problem of life-affirmative
and/or life-enhancing legislation, attempts (Versuche) that are successively
problematized and superseded by the next type.
Among the different legislator-types generated by the Nietzschean
thought process of self-critique and renewed attempt (Kritik-Versuch),
there are also a number of constants. In the first place, it is characteristic of
all these contexts that the thematics of legislation and self-legislation are
hard to separate; this is not just sloppy thinking, but a consequence of
Nietzsche’s conviction that true legislators must at the same time be self-
legislators (e.g., Nachlaß Autumn 1885–Autumn 1886, KSA 12, 2[57]).
Secondly, what emerges clearly from all these contexts is that the creative
and evaluative moments of legislation are central for Nietzsche. And
thirdly, that in the forms of legislation affirmed or sought by him, both the
descriptive, theoretical meaning and the prescriptive, evaluative meaning
of the term ‘law’ are taken up, so that Nietzsche’s affirmative notion of
legislation can be seen as an attempt to overcome the categorical separation
of is from ought in modern philosophy, to synthesize the theoretical and
the moral domains. This goes emphatically for Nietzsche’s own performa-
tive instantiations of philosophical legislation (as in, e.g., the formulation
‘Gesetzt … ’). Although I will not do so in the confines of this essay, these
should be considered within the thematic of legislation.
_____________
2 See, e.g., Nachlaß Summer 1875, KSA 8, 6[40]; cf. Nachlaß Spring–Summer
1875, KSA 8, 5[170]; Nachlaß Beginning of 1880, KSA 9, 1[68]; Nachlaß April–
June 1885, KSA 11, 34[88]. See also Gerhardt 1996, pp. 76–78.
Herman W. Siemens 193
Throughout the essay, attention will be paid to ‘legislation’ as a word

in Nietzsche’s vocabulary, not just as a concept. A striking feature of
Nietzsche’s engagement with the problem of legislation is that his unre-
lenting criticisms of traditional and existing conceptions do not on the
whole issue in calls to excise the word ‘legislation’ from our (moral) vo-
cabulary, nor in efforts to replace it with alternative words. Instead, he
attempts time and again to invest the word with new meanings and values.
In this regard, the topic of legislation presents a rich case study in Nietz-
sche’s sense of linguistic finitude. Just as the moral law can only be over-
come from within, through an effort to rethink the concept of law in the
context of its genealogy (‘d i e S e l b s t a u f h e b u n g d e r M o r a l’ (D Pre-
face 4), so too our only recourse against the word ‘law’ is the effort to
invest it with new meanings and values. In what follows I hope to shed
light on some of ways in which Nietzsche engages in this task.
2. Schopenhauer and Wagner as Legislators
2.1. ‘Schopenhauer as Educator’ (UM III)
‘Schopenhauer as Educator’ is the first published text of Nietzsche’s in

which legislation and self-legislation are absolutely central. Despite its
complex, transitional character, this text is of fundamental importance for
understanding the nature and sources of Nietzsche’s demand for legislation
throughout his work. Yet in this, its first appearance, the concept of legisla-
tion becomes enmeshed in an aporia of time that Nietzsche is unable to
resolve. ‘Richard Wagner in Bayreuth’ (UM IV) is the first of several sub-
sequent attempts to come to grips with the temporal aporia of legislation.
The demand for self-legislation appears in the very first section of the
text. This opening section reads as a manifesto of radical individualism
against conformism with prevailing tastes and fashions:
In his heart every man knows quite well that, being unique, he will be in the
world only once and that no imaginable chance will for a second time gather
together into a unity so strangely variegated an assortment as he is: he knows
it but he hides it like a bad conscience—why? From fear of his neighbour, who
demands conventionality and cloaks himself with it. But what is it that con-
strains the individual to fear his neighbour, to think and act like a member of a
herd, and to have no joy in himself? Modesty, perhaps, in a few rare cases.
With the great majority it is indolence, inertia, in short that tendency to lazi-
ness. (UM III 1, KSA 1, p. 337)
Nietzsche goes on to describe artists as the non-conformists par excellence:
Artists alone hate this sluggish promenading in borrowed fashions and appro-
priated opinions and they reveal everyone’s secret bad conscience, the law that
every man is a unique miracle; they dare to show us man as he is, uniquely
himself to every last movement of his muscles, more, that in being thus strictly
consistent in uniqueness he is beautiful, and worth regarding, and in no way
tedious. (UM III 1, KSA 1, pp. 337f.)
Value is clearly located in the (potential) uniqueness of each of us, or more
precisely: in the unique convergence of multiplicity, chance, and necessity
that makes each of us what we are, but is buried or suppressed in oblivion
by the ease of conformism. As a way to free ourselves from conformity
towards our own, unique existence, Nietzsche goes on to propose radically
individual self-legislation. Our measure of happiness can only be attained
by exercising freedom, that is, gaining control over our lives, by taking
responsibility for our own existence, so that we exhibit what its meaning is.
We must, in short, find a way to ‘live according to our own law and meas-
ure’ (UM III 1, KSA 1, p. 339).3
In this opening section of the text, then, self-legislation articulates a re-
sponse to two moral impulses driving Nietzsche’s thought. The first is the
moral particularism4 that finds expression in Nietzsche’s demand for radi-
_____________
3 ‘The fact of our existing at all in this here-and-now must be the strongest incentive
to us to live according to our own law and measure: the inexplicable fact that we
live precisely today, when we had all infinite time in which to come into existence,
that we possess only a short-lived today in which to demonstrate why and to what
end we came into existence now and at no other time. We are responsible to our-
selves for our own existence; consequently we want to be the true helmsman of
this existence and refuse to allow our existence to resemble a mindless act of
chance’ (UM III 1, KSA 1, p. 339).
4 Nietzsche’s moral particularism, in turn, is to be understood as part of the project
to (re-)naturalize morality, formulated with increasing clarity in Nietzsche’s later
thought, and is grounded in two features of that project: (1) his pluralistic ‘ontol-
ogy’ of diverse life-forms, the uniqueness of each, and its particular life-conditions
(Lebens- or Existenz-bedingungen); and (2) his naturalized concept of values as
means for a given life-form to meet its life-conditions (Nachlaß November 1887–
March 1888, KSA 13, 11[118]; Nachlaß Spring 1888, KSA 13, 14[158]). On the
(re-)naturalisation of morality, see Nachlaß Autumn 1887, KSA 12, 9[86]: ‘my
task is to translate the the seemingly emancipated and n a t u r e - l e s s moral values
back into their nature—that is, into their natural “immorality”’; or, more bluntly:
‘basic principle: to be like nature’ (Nachlaß Spring 1884, KSA 11, 25[309]). On
the physiology of morality, see: Nachlaß End of 1876–Summer 1877, KSA 8,
23[87]; D 174; Nachlaß November 1882–February 1883, KSA 10, 4[90]; Nachlaß
Spring–Summer 1883, KSA 10, 7[76]: ‘In truth we follow our drives, and morality
is only a s i g n - l a n g u a g e of our drives?’); also Nachlaß Spring 1884, KSA 11,
25[460] (cf. GS 162; also Nachlaß Summer–Autumn 1884, KSA 11, 26[38]);
Nachlaß Autumn 1887, KSA 12, 10[157]; Nachlaß Spring 1888, KSA 13, 14[105];
cally individual legislation. This is the first (published) articulation of what

Volker Gerhardt has described as Nietzsche’s sustained attempt to develop
a radically individual morality, a morality of das individuelle Gesetz (‘the
individual law’), often placed by Nietzsche in polemical opposition to
moral universalism, especially the Kantian morality of the universal law.5
The second moral impulse behind self-legislation motivates Nietzsche’s
rejection of conformism or heteronomy, our self-subjection to prevailing
norms and conventions.6 At stake here is a positive perfectionist impulse to
extend one’s attainments and enrich the range of human possibilities.
Nietzsche’s articulation of this impulse in ‘Schopenhauer as Educator’
owes much to the powerful influence of Emerson. As Cavell, Conant,7 and
others have shown, Nietzsche’s Emersonian perfectionism is fuelled by an
aversion to heteronomy; or, in Emerson’s idiom, to the complacent, con-
formist acceptance of who we are. Nietzsche’s lifelong opposition to heter-
onomy is here expressed in Emersonian terms as a practice of aversion that
is bound up with a positive perfectionist impulse.
In ‘Schopenhauer as Educator’, then, self-legislation is a response to
the twin moral impulses of particularism and perfectionism. But these
impulses do not simply stand on their own. They constitute an affirmation
_____________
Nachlaß Spring 1888, KSA 13, 14[158]; see also Nachlaß Summer 1880, KSA 9,
4[67]; BGE 188. On legislation from the perspective of the body, see Nachlaß
Spring–Summer 1883, KSA 10, 7[126, 150].
5 ‘What? You admire the categorical imperative within you? This “firmness” of your
so-called moral judgement? This absoluteness of feeling, “here everyone must
judge as I do”? Rather admire your s e l f i s h n e s s here! And the blindness, petti-
ness, and simplicity of your selfishness! For it is selfish to consider one’s judge-
ment a universal law, and this selfishness is blind, petty, and simple because it
shows that you haven’t yet discovered yourself or created for yourself an ideal of
your very own—for this could never be someone else’s, let alone everyone’s,
everyone’s!’ (GS 335; cf. A 11). Gerhardt (1992, p. 41) takes the expression ‘das
individuelle Gesetz’ from Georg Simmel’s ‘Das individuelle Gesetz. Ein Versuch
über das Prinzip der Ethik’ (Simmel 1968), but it also occurs in a note of Nietz-
sche’s, where it is opposed to the ‘ewiges Sittengesetz’ (Nachlaß Spring–Autumn
1881, KSA 9, 11[182]).
6 ‘The virtues are as dangerous as the vices, to the extent that one allows them to
rule as authority and law from outside instead of generating them from within one-
self, as is right: as the most personal self-defence and necessity, as a condition of
precisely o u r existence and benefit, which we know and acknowledge, regardless
of whether others grow with us under the same or under different conditions’
(Nachlaß End of 1886–Spring 1887, KSA 12, 7[6]). For Nietzsche’s opposition to
heteronomy and self-subjection, see also D 108; and Nachlaß Spring 1880, KSA 9,
3[159].
7 See Cavell 1990; Conant 2001; and Conway 1997, esp. pp. 52–56.
of what Nietzsche will come to describe as the pluralistic character of life

as will to power and its intrinsic dynamic of self-overcoming and intensifi-
cation. In the context of ‘Schopenhauer as Educator’ itself, Nietzsche’s
particularist and perfectionist ethic is a response to the critical diagnosis of
the present generated by his practise of aversion. It is a diagnosis that bears
striking similarities to the account of contemporary nihilism that fuels
Nietzsche’s demand for self-legislation in later years. It also bears striking
similarities to the problem of modernity, as perceived by Schiller, the
young Hegel, and others of his generation. As Habermas describes it in The
Philosophical Discourse of Modernity (1987, pp. 23–44), modernity is
marked by the pervasive and radical sense of disorientation brought on by
the collapse of traditional authorities at the hands of modern, Enlight-
enment critique. In the absence of credible rules or models from the past,
modernity is thrown back on itself and must find ways to orient and guide
itself in its own terms. In ‘Schopenhauer as Educator’ the need for self-
legislation comes from the moral bankruptcy of the present, denounced as
a ‘low tide of all moral powers’, incapable of generating values; we live
instead on a dwindling capital of inherited morality.8 The line from here to
Nietzsche’s later account of nihilism, as a bankruptcy of transcendence, is
obvious. The same goes for another feature of Nietzsche’s Zeitdiagnose in
‘Schopenhauer as Educator’: the pervasive conflict (Vernichtungskrieg)9 of
forces and values, resulting in a condition of diremption, atomistic disgre-
gation, and alienation (see UM III 4, KSA 1, p. 367). For Hegel, this is the
second major problem of modernity, stemming from the loss of the unify-
ing powers of religious belief and worship brought on by Enlightenment
critique. Modernity must find ways both to unify and orient itself.
_____________
8 ‘—then one finally asks oneself: where are we, scholars and unscholarly, high
placed and low, to find the moral exemplars and models among our contempo-
raries, the visible epitome of all creative morality in our time? What has become of
any reflections on questions of morality—questions that have at all times engaged
every more highly civilized society? There is no longer any model or any reflec-
tion of any kind; what we are in fact doing is consuming the moral capital we have
inherited from our forefathers, which we are incapable of increasing but know only
how to squander’ (UM III 2, KSA 1, p. 344).
9 For the similarities between early and later texts on nihilism as a pervasive conflict
of forces, compare the following two texts from 1873/74 and 1887: ‘Now is lack-
ing that which binds all fractional forces: and thus we find everything antagonisti-
cally opposed and all noble forces engaged in a mutually destructive war of exter-
mination [Vernichtungskrieg]’ (Nachlaß Autumn 1873–Winter 1873/74, KSA 7,
30[8]). And: ‘that the synthesis of values and goals (on which every strong culture
rests) dissolves, so that the individual values wage war on each other: disintegra-
tion’ (Nachlaß Autumn 1887, KSA 12, 9[35]).
For Nietzsche, then, self-legislation is to be both the source of orienta-

tion and a unifying power in modernity. And yet: at crucial junctures in the
text a profound ambiguity enters into Nietzsche’s concept of legislation. It
is unclear whether it serves to overcome the times by provoking the ac-
tualization of better selves in a perfectionist dynamic of intensification; or
whether it serves the overcoming or transcendence of time itself, in a meta-
physics of being (Sein). I shall try to indicate three such moments.
a. The first intimation comes in Nietzsche’s account of self-knowledge
in ‘Schopenhauer as Educator’ 1. In a move that recurs again and again in
the later writings, Nietzsche’s thought moves from the demand for self-
legislation to the need for self-knowledge. In section1 he describes an indi-
rect, Emersonian route to self-knowledge by way of others—the objects of
our love and reverence, who serve to reveal (not who are, but) a higher,
unattained but attainable self.10 The telos of self-knowledge is described by
Nietzsche as ‘the fundamental law of your own true self’, but also as some-
thing ‘completely incapable of education or formation’. Here the term
Gesetz serves to connect and synthesise moral legislation and self-
knowledge, a self-knowledge that points to something fixed and binding, a
sense of necessity or Müssen as the ground of the Sollen of legislation.
This dual usage is a good example of how Nietzsche’s affirmative use of
Gesetz cuts across the prescriptive and the descriptive meanings of the
_____________
10 See in particular UM III 1: ‘But how can we find ourselves again? How can man
know himself? He is a thing dark and veiled; and if the hare has seven skins, man
can slough off seventy times seven and still not be able to say: “this is really you,
this is no longer outer shell”. Moreover, it is a painful and dangerous undertaking
thus to tunnel into oneself and to force one’s way down into the shaft of one’s be-
ing by the nearest path. A man who does it can easily so hurt himself that no phy-
sician can cure him. And, moreover again, what need should there be for it, since
everything bears witness to what we are, our friendships and enmities, our glance
and the clasp of our hand, our memory and that which we do not remember, our
books and our handwriting. This, however, is the means by which an inquiry into
the most important aspect can be initiated. Let the youthful soul look back on life
with the question: what have you truly loved up to now, what has drawn your soul
aloft, what has mastered it and at the same time blessed it? Set up these revered ob-
jects before you and perhaps their nature and their sequence will give you a law,
the fundamental law of your own true self … your true being lies not buried deep
within you, but immeasurably high above you or at least, above that which you
normally take as your I. Your true educators and formative teachers reveal to you
that the true, original meaning and basic stuff of your nature is something com-
pletely incapable of being educated or formed and is in any case something diffi-
cult to access, bound and paralysed; your educators can be only your liberators’
(KSA 1, pp. 340–341).
term. But is this ‘something fixed’ and the constraint it exercises any more
than a name for being?
b. This ambiguity is expressed again in a passage from ‘Schopenhauer
as Educator’ 4 where, under the sign of the ‘Schopenhauerian human’,
Nietzsche describes his own practice of critical aversion and its sources in
a perfectionist longing to extend human life. The specific question ad-
dressed in this passage is: what is to be the standard of critique for the
aversive practice of the Schopenhauerian(-Emersonian) human?
But there is a kind of denying and destroying that is the discharge of that
mighty longing for sanctification and salvation and as the first philosophical
teacher of which Schopenhauer came among us desanctified and truly secu-
larized men. All that exists that can be denied deserves to be denied; and being
truthful means: to believe in an existence that can in no way be denied and
which is itself true and without falsehood. That is why the truthful man feels
that the meaning of his activity is metaphysical, explicable through the laws of
another and higher life, and in the profoundest sense affirmative: however
much all that he does may appear to be destructive of the laws of this life and a
crime against them. (UM III 4, KSA 1, p. 372)
But what exactly is the status of this ‘other and higher life’ and ‘the laws’
or standard of critique that it offers? Is it transcendent and unattainable, a
vision of pure being like Plato’s sun, a metaphysical ground or standard of
judgement that distends the untimely critique of the present into a total
negation of becoming? Or is it immanent, the vision of a possible form of
life, whose law or standard makes possible a transformative critique of the
present in favour of a better life,11 a ‘transfigured physis’ (UM III 3, KSA
1, p. 363)?
c. The ambiguity of legislation takes its most insidious form in section
3, where Nietzsche first presents Schopenhauer as the philosophical legis-
lator-type:
Let us think of the philosopher’s eye resting upon existence: he wants to de-
termine its value anew. For it has been the proper task of all great thinkers to
be law-givers as to the measure, stamp and weight of things. (UM III 3, KSA
1, p. 360)
But Nietzsche does not go on to offer a faithful account of Schopenhauer.
Instead, the passage involves a reflection on, and correction of, Schopen-
hauer’s problem: what is the value of life? What is life worth? Nietzsche
takes up the question of the value of life, but then corrects it by asking the
_____________
11 Barbera (1994, pp. 229–230) has argued persuasively for the influence of the
young Schopenhauer (before World as Will and Representation) on ‘Schopenhauer
as Educator’, in particular his notion of the ‘bessere Bewusstsein’.
prior question: What are conditions for a ‘fair’ or ‘just judgement’ (ein
gerechtes Urteil) of the value of life? The argument developed in the pas-
sage can be put as follows.
With Schopenhauer, Nietzsche agrees that life as it is cannot be af-
firmed. He does not, however, go on to draw Schopenhauer’s practical
conclusion: that life therefore ought not to be. Instead he questions the
standpoint of this judgement of life, and argues that a just judgement re-
quires first a transformation of the evaluating perspective, and then a trans-
formation of life itself into something better. The problem is, these trans-
formations bring practical and aesthetic resources into play, which
compromise the philosopher-legislator’s truthfulness (Wahrhaftigkeit). The
philosopher gets torn between ‘the reformer of life and the philosopher,
that is: the judge of life’ (Reformator des Lebens, Richter des Lebens). He
gets caught in ‘the discord between the wish for freedom, beauty and
greatness of life, and the drive for truth which asks only: what is existence
worth?’12
The worry expressed in these lines is whether the legislator can be
truthful like Schopenhauer and still affirm existence, or whether illusion is
necessary to affirm existence. There is, in other words, a tension for Nietz-
sche between the truthfulness of the philosopher and the possibility of life-
affirmation. The background to this tension in ‘Schopenhauer as Educator’
is a conflict of loyalties in Nietzsche’s mind between Schopenhauer and
Wagner, and specifically, between their respective concepts of genius. For
Schopenhauer, the genius is primarily a theoretical figure, a thinker de-
voted to truth, dwelling on the margins of culture; his exceptional insights
culminate in the realization that life is worthless. For Wagner, by contrast,
the self-modelled genius is an ecstatic, affirmative figure at the very heart
of culture. His orientation is primarily practical and he devotes himself to
the creation of life-serving illusions (Wahngebilde, edle Täuschungen).
What troubles Nietzsche is the Wagnerian linkage between illusion and
affirmation: what, after all, is an affirmation of life worth, if it is based on
an illusory vision of life? It is not until Human, All Too Human that Nietz-
sche will break with this equation decisively and shake off the Wagnerian
_____________
12 See UM III 3: ‘Let us think of the philosopher’s eye resting upon existence: he
wants to determine its value anew … A modern thinker will, to repeat, always suf-
fer from an unfulfilled desire: he will want first to be shown life again, true, red-
blooded, healthy life, so that he may then pronounce his judgement on it … But
this longing also constitutes their d a n g e r : there is a struggle within them between
the reformer of life and the philosopher, that is to say the judge of life. Wherever
the victory may incline, it is a victory that will involve a loss’ (KSA 1, pp. 360–
362).
figure of genius in favour of the ‘free spirit’. But in ‘Schopenhauer as Edu-

cator’, he is genuinely torn between Wagner and Schopenhauer. His
equivocation is laid bare by a telling slippage in his portrait of Schopen-
hauer, one that culminates in an ambiguity in his use of the word Zeit. The
slippage is between Schopenhauer’s rejection of the timely (das Zeit-
gemässe) and his rejection of time itself as a ‘false, vain, unworthy
mother’. The slippage trades on the ambiguity of Nietzsche’s use of the
word Zeit (‘time’) when he speaks first of Schopenhauer’s struggle against
die Zeit (meaning: the times, the present), and then of Schopenhauer’s
struggle against Zeit (meaning: time, temporal existence, becoming).
Consider the following three lines from the closing passage:
and in the end the supposed child of his time [Kind der Zeit] proves to be only
its s t e p c h i l d . (UM III 3, KSA 1, p. 362)
Here die Zeit means the times, the present. The passage continues as fol-
lows:
Thus Schopenhauer strove from his early youth against that false, idle and un-
worthy mother, the times [jener falschen, eiteln und unwürdigen Mutter, der
Zeit]. (ibid.)
Again: die Zeit means the times, the present. But then there is the line:
and when he had conquered his age in himself [die Zeit in sich] he beheld with
astonished eyes the genius in himself. The secret of his being was now re-
vealed to him, the intention of that stepmother time [die Absicht jener
Stiefmutter Zeit] to conceal his genius from him was frustrated, the realm of
transfigured physis was disclosed. (ibid.)
Here Stiefmutter Zeit (without the definite article) can only mean: time
itself. If this is correct and Schopenhauer’s struggle against the times be-
comes a struggle against time itself, that is, against becoming in the name
of being, then we have to ask: does the affirmation of being (against be-
coming) constitute an affirmation or a negation of life? Can one possibly
negate becoming and affirm life? In what sense is being in exclusion of
becoming alive at all? In his effort to escape the Wagnerian equation of
life-affirmation and illusion, Nietzsche falls back into Schopenhauerian
metaphysics. For in this passage, there is an unmistakable alignment of
philosophical legislation (qua Wahrhaftigkeit) with being against becom-
ing.
2.2. ‘Richard Wagner in Bayreuth’ (UM IV)
‘Richard Wagner in Bayreuth’ represents an effort to rethink genius and

specifically the legislation of genius in its temporal character, its articula-
tions with being and becoming. In the figure of Wagner, self-legislation is
once again identified with emancipation from the present. In this text, the
word Gesetz is used for the ‘evil’ external power of society and convention
(on Burckhardt’s böse Macht, see Gerhardt 1996, pp. 71–76, 104–112).
Nietzsche speaks of ‘power, law, ancestry, contract and the whole order of
things’ (UM IV 4, KSA 1, p. 451) and their ‘apparently unconquerable
necessity’ (ibid.) or (Nachlaß Summer 1875, KSA 8, 11[20]). But
Gesetz is also used for the ‘good’ power of the individual Kulturkämpfer
(‘fighter for culture’) and his striving for freedom. As Gerhardt (1996, pp.
99–100) points out, Wagner’s life story is dramatized between these two
poles of power, from conformity to the former in his early ambitions for
‘honour and power’, through to a Wotan-like renunciation of external
power, in which he gives himself over to his free creative force. In this
text, Nietzsche looks for a standpoint or ground of legislation that is suffi-
ciently removed or distant from ‘power, law, ancestry, contract and the
whole order of things’ to allow for radically individual legislation; yet one
that also resists the transcending of becoming or temporality towards being
that we saw in ‘Schopenhauer as Educator’. Thus Wagner is portrayed as
caught in a Kreuzung der Empfindung—between hatred and rejection of
the present and a yearning need for love and community with his contem-
poraries.13 Nietzsche’s quest for a ground of legislation that is removed
from yet immanent to becoming—or at least too indeterminate to signify
being—culminates in a kind of ‘homelessness’, a legislation from no-
where, as when he writes that
the uncanny and exuberant sensation of surprise [Befremdung] and amazement
at the world is coupled with the ardent longing to approach this same world as
lover. (UM IV 7, KSA 1, p. 471)
Or again:
For it is, to be sure, a life full of torment and shame, to be a homeless wan-
derer in a world to which one nonetheless has to speak and of which one has to
make demands, which one despises and yet is unable to do without—it is the
actual predicament of the artist of the future. (UM IV 10, KSA 1, p. 500)14
But on its own this is evidently unsatisfactory for Nietzsche, and he looks
to characterize Wagner’s actual insertion in the present in positive terms.
He wants to describe the real necessity for Wagnerian art in modernity, a
necessity that is opposed to the ‘apparently unconquerable necessity’ of
_____________
13 For Kreuzung der Empfindung see UM IV 7: ‘But this sensation becomes a pecu-
liar hybrid [eigenthümlich gekreuzt], when to the brightness of this exuberance is
joined quite a different impulse, the longing to descend from the heights into the
depth, the living desire for the earth, for the joy of communion.’
14 See also UM IV 10 on saving ‘this homeless art’ for the future (KSA 1, p. 504).
convention opposed by genius. He does so in the language of ‘law’, de-

scribing ‘true music’ as ‘a piece of fate and primal law’ that speaks through
the mysterious ‘primordially determined nature [ur-bestimmte Natur]’
(UM IV 6, KSA 1, p. 465). This mysterious necessity linking Wagner’s art
to the present is explained in section 9:
his appearance in the history of the arts is like a volcanic eruption of the total
undivided artistic capacity of nature itself after humanity had accustomed it-
self to seeing the arts isolated from one another as though this were an eternal
rule. (UM IV 9, KSA 1, p. 485; cf. UM IV 7, KSA 1, p. 468)
Wagnerian art is here cast as an organizing force that brings together and
synthesizes the chaotic multiplicity of individual arts in its works. What
Nietzsche here says of art is part of the broader explanation offered for the
real necessity of Wagner and Wagnerian legislation in the present: namely,
as a unifying, organizing force able to bind the centripetal atomistic forces
of modernity. As Gerhardt argues, Wagner’s later self-realization as a free,
(self-)legislative genius described in section 9 is to be understood above all
as a ‘new form of exercising power’: as the organizational genius with his
‘sovereign disposal over conflicting forces’ (Gerhardt 1996, pp. 100–101).
Legislation is here thought of as inseparable from freedom or emancipation
(UM IV 9, KSA 1, pp. 493–495), as a unifying instance that binds and
holds together the most disparate elements. This goes for the personal do-
main (the forces within Wagner); for the domain of art, for the particular
arts and elements of his drama; but also—what Nietzsche especially
values—for the political domain, the ‘connection between state, society
and art’ (Nachlaß January–February 1874, KSA 7, 33[7]).15 This organiza-
tional legislation is made possible by Wagner’s eye for ‘relations’ or
‘large-scale connections’. It is often presented in Heraclitean terms as
‘unity in diversity’ (‘E i n h e i t i m V e r s c h i e d e n e n’) (Nachlaß Beginning
of 1874–Spring 1874, KSA 7, 32[12]; also January–February 1874, KSA
7, 33[7]), or as the ‘unity of justice and enmity’ (‘Einheit von Gerechtig-
keit und Feindschaft’) (UM IV 9, KSA 1, p. 494). This goes in particular
for Wagner’s dramas, which are described as the realization of the ‘inner
lawfulness’ of his life story, namely of his ‘One will’ and the ‘strictly indi-
viduated passion’ that enforces itself over ‘a plurality of passions’ and the
‘confusing multiplicity of claims and desires’ (ibid.; cf. UM IV 2, KSA 1,
pp. 435–436). What these expressions reveal, however, is not a genuine
Heraclitean balance between the One and the Many (or ‘unity in di-
versity’), but a preponderance of the One over the Many. Nor do they ex-
_____________
15 Compare also Nachlaß Summer 1875, KSA 8, 11[51]; Nachlaß January–February
1874, KSA 7, 33[4]; Nachlaß Beginning of 1874–Spring 1874, KSA 7, 32[10].
press a Heraclitean affirmation of conflict, but a desire for peace. This can
be seen from the following series of expressions taken from section 9:
the compelling force of a personal will [die zwingende Gewalt eines persön-
lichen Willens]
an overpowering symphonic understanding, which gives birth continuously to
concord out of war [ein übermächtiger symphonischer Verstand, welcher aus
dem Kriege fortwährend die Eintracht gebiert]
that we have before us conflicting particular streams, but also, in force over all
of them, a stream with One mighty direction [dass wir widerstrebende
einzelne Strömungen, aber auch über alle mächtig, einen Strom mit Einer ge-
waltigen Richtung vor uns haben]
to assert One will across a confusing multiplicity of claims and desires [durch
eine verwirrende Mannichfaltigkeit von Ansprüchen und Begehrungen, Einen
Willen durchführen] (UM IV 9, KSA 1, pp. 493–494)
Such distortions of Heraclitus for Wagner’s sake unwittingly exhibit Nietz-
sche’s insight into the tyrannical absolutization of power as Wagner’s true
tendency. Nietzsche’s worries about the egocentric absolutization of power
into the tyrannical in Wagner are strongly attested in the Nachlaß, even
before the writing of ‘Richard Wagner in Bayreuth’.16 With time this per-
ception gains the upper hand, as can be seen in the later reinterpretation of
Wagner in terms of the décadent (Nachlaß Spring 1888, KSA 13, 15[88]),
and a tyrannical absolutization of bad taste (Nachlaß Summer 1880, KSA
9, 4[221]).
3. Zarathustra as Legislator-Type:
Nietzsche’s Agonal Model of Self-Legislation
The Wagnerian model of legislation may or may not avoid the metaphysi-
cal pitfalls of Schopenhauer’s model, but it certainly fails the test of plu-
_____________
16 See Nachlaß Beginning of 1874–Spring 1874, KSA 7, 32[32]/7: ‘The “false om-
nipotence” produces something “tyrannical” in Wagner. The feeling of being with-
out h e i r s —this is the reason why he tries to give his idea for reform as much
room as possible, as if to propagate himself by adoption. Striving for legitimacy.
The tyrant will not allow for any other individuality but his own and that of his
confidants. The danger for Wagner is great when he does not accept Brahms etc.:
or the Jews’ (cf. HA I 577). Also 32[34]: ‘The tyrant-sense for what is c o l o s s a l.
There is no respect coming his way, the true musician regards him as an intruder,
as illegitimate.’ And again 32[61]: ‘Here lies Wagner’s significance: he attempt
tyranny with the help of the theatre-masses [die Tyrannis mit Hülfe der Theater-
massen].’
ralism required for a life-affirming form of legislation. It is in response to

this problem that Nietzsche develops the third type of legislator I shall
examine. At stake here is a pluralistic, egalitarian, and dynamic model of
legislation inspired by the signature institution of archaic Greek culture:
the agon or contest. Already in ‘Homer’s Contest’, written in 1872 (three
years before ‘Richard Wagner in Bayreuth’), Nietzsche’s abhorrence of
Wagner’s absolutization of power is hard to miss in his description of ‘the
Hellenic notion of the contest: it abhors the rule of one [Alleinherrschaft]
and fears its dangers; it desires, as a p r o t e c t i o n against genius—a second
genius’ (CV 5, KSA 1, p. 789).17 This same sentiment is expressed eleven
years later in the Zarathustra Nachlaß of 1883 with even greater clarity:
To rule? dreadful! I do not want to enforce m y type. My joy is d i v e r s i t y !
Problem! (Nachlaß Summer–Autumn 1883, KSA 10, 15[21]; cf. Nachlaß
Autumn 1883, KSA 10, 16[86])
It is to this period, and the pluralistic model of self-legislation developed in
a series of notes from 1883 (Nachlaß Summer–Autumn 1883, KSA 10,
notebooks 15 and 16), that I now turn. In these notes, the three moments of
the problematic of legislation in ‘Schopenhauer as Educator’ are very
prominent; that is, his opposition to the heteronomy of self-subjection and
to moral universalism in the context of the necessity to respond to contem-
porary nihilism. What is distinctive about these notes is how the claims of
moral particularity are articulated in a pluralistic context of collective self-
legislation. This implies a shift towards a more political concept of legisla-
tion and suggests that Gerhardt’s thesis of Nietzsche’s radically individual
morality needs to be modified in the direction of moral laws that bind col-
lectively across particular communities (Conway 1997, pp. 29–30).18
In these notes, the task of legislation and new goals is not taken on by
Nietzsche himself; nor is it ascribed to Zarathustra as such. Instead the task
is pluralized around the figure of Zarathustra, who serves as the legislator
for further legislators (not subjects). In response to the question: ‘What
s e n s e does it have to give laws?’ Nietzsche writes:
_____________
17 This line needs to be read together with the remark by Kelterborn, Nietzsche’s
student, that the latter honoured Wagner ‘in the first instance not just as the genial
musician und dramatist, but above all else as a cultural force, a fellow fighter next
to him (not above him) in the struggle for a higher German culture [einen Mitstre-
iter neben, (nicht über ihm)]’ (original emphasis). Dated 1875, from the Nach-
bericht, BAB 4, p. 351.
18 See also Siemens (2002) where I use the concept of taste to develop this sense of
ethical laws.
the general type of law-giver, who is the h e r a l d for many law-givers. M a i n

d o c t r i n e : to achieve completeness and a sense of well-being on every level
— n o jumping! (Nachlaß Summer–Autumn 1883, KSA 10, 15[10])
According to this lapidary response, law or law-giving must meet two
basic demands, if it is to have any sense: first, the law must be provisional
and not final, not the law to end all legislation; secondly, the law must be
responsive to diversity, a law for many, not a law that subjects the many to
One. In these terms, it is clear that Nietzsche’s concept of law is radically
opposed to the moral law in its traditional claims to eternity and universal
validity. But Nietzsche’s underlying motives are positive, not negative: the
provisional, pluralistic qualities of Nietzsche’s law are intended to take the
side of life against the moral law, as part of the Nietzschean project to natu-
ralize morality. This is clearly expressed in two subsequent notes. In note
15[19], he writes:
Zarathustra offers the model for how one has to behave towards the law, inso-
far as he s u p e r s e d e s [aufhebt] the law of laws, morality, with higher [ones]
(Nachlaß Summer–Autumn 1883, KSA 10, 15[19])
It is as an example of the dynamic character of life that Zarathustra’s atti-
tude to the law becomes exemplary: like him, we are to engage in the dy-
namic of destruction and creation, in the processes of self-overcoming and
intensification intrinsic to life.19 And in the second note (cited above), it is
Zarathustra’s joy in the plurality of life-forms, in ‘the spectacle of many
o t h e r s ’, that first brings him face to face with the problem of legislation.
The problem is, then, whether law and law-giving can be rethought in a
way that reflects and enhances the dynamic and pluralistic qualities of life
against the rigidity and universalism of the moral law. Nietzsche’s solu-
tion, adumbrated in the next line, is to rethink law and law-giving on the
model of the agon or ‘contest for power’:
To call for the agon! Precisely those who would dearly like to hide them-
selves, the s t i l l o n e s , the p i o u s o n e s , —competition for mastery! (Nach-
laß Summer–Autumn 1883, KSA 10, 15[21]; cf. Nachlaß Autumn 1883, KSA
10, 16[86])
In order to reconstruct Nietzsche’s agonal solution, we must return to note
15[10] and Nietzsche’s demand that law-giving be somehow counter-final
and pluralistic for it to be meaningful. In order to meet this demand, Nietz-
sche indicates three lines of thought:
_____________
19 See also Nachlaß Autumn 1883, KSA 10, 16[84], where the ‘law-giver’ is literally
placed in between the destruction of existing laws and the clarion call for new
laws: ‘The destroying of tablets. The ideal “law-giver”. Clarion call [Heroldsruf]’.
1. It is to be a ‘law for law-givers’, not for passive subjects or ‘suppli-

cants’: a ‘law for law-givers / From s u p p l i c a n t s [ B e t e n d e n ] w e
m u s t become b l e s s e r s [ S e g n e n d e ] !’ (Nachlaß Summer–Autumn
1883, KSA 10, 15[58])
2. It is to be productive and pluralistic, the creative source of many ideals
and not a subjection of many to the ideal or law of One: ‘Not One ideal
of the wise man, instead a hundred i d e a l s o f t h e f o o l I wish to
erect!’ (Nachlaß Autumn 1883, KSA 10, 16[86]).
3. It is to be law or law-giving that blesses, completes, and fulfils ‘on
every level’, not a leveller that demands or pleads that we all ‘jump’ to
the same One level.
The first two points are best understood by way of the third. What Nietz-
sche means here is explicated in the note 15[19] (cited above) on
Zarathustra’s exemplary, destructive-creative attitude to the law, which
continues as follows:
the f u l f i l l a b i l i t y g r e a t e r than before (accessible to the individual’s inter-
pretation). NB. it must be fulfillable and from the fulfilment a higher ideal
and its law must grow! (Nachlaß Summer–Autumn 1883, KSA 10, 15[19])
In these lines Zarathustra figures as the counterpart or counter-exemplar to
Paul and his tortured relation to the law that cannot be fulfilled (see D 68).
But again, Nietzsche’s thought must be grasped from a positive perspective
in his concept of life: the demand for fulfillable laws, in the sense of laws
that are accessible to individual interpretations, addresses the claims of
particularism, understood as the ethical articulation of the radical plurality
and diversity of life forms. This demand, in turn, is presented as the key to
the development of further, higher laws; that is, to a dynamic sense of law-
giving that replicates the self-overcoming and intensification intrinsic to
life. But how exactly is a higher law to ‘grow’ from the individual interpre-
tations and fulfilment of the law? This thought is developed in note 16[86]
that takes up the demand for fulfillable laws:
D e m a n d : the new law must be f u l f i l l a b l e —and from the fulfilment the
overcoming and the higher law must grow. Zarathustra gives the attitude to-
wards the law, insofar as he s u p e r s e d e s the ‘law of laws’, morality. Laws as
backbone. To work on them and create, insofar as one carries them out. Hi-
therto slavishness b e f o r e the law! (Nachlaß Autumn 1883, KSA 10, 16[86])
With the image of laws as a ‘backbone’ (Rückgrat) Nietzsche brings us
back to the notion of a ‘law for law-givers’ (1 above). Laws that are subject
to individual interpretation and fulfilment break, for the first time, our
slavish subjection to eternal, immutable laws, what Nietzsche elsewhere
calls our ‘fear of commanding’, that ‘one would rather obey an available
law than c r e a t e a law for oneself, than command oneself and others. The
fear of commanding—Rather subject oneself than react’ (Nachlaß End of

1886–Spring 1887, KSA 12, 7[6]).
At the centre of Nietzsche’s dynamic conception of laws is the notion
of creativity: where laws are subject to interpretation and fulfilment—
according to the model of a ‘backbone’ or provisional framework—
individuals are placed in a position to work and rework them so as to create
new and better laws of their own. With this notion of a ‘law for law-
givers’, we come up against the central paradox for Nietzsche’s reinterpre-
tation of law: how to overcome our ‘slavishness b e f o r e the law’ through
law-giving? How to legislate active self-legislation, rather than passive
obedience or prostration? Under what conditions does law-giving cease to
be coercive and become instead productive—a stimulant towards individ-
ual self-emancipation, towards autonomy in the sense of radically individ-
ual self-legislation?
Such questions go to the heart of Nietzsche’s problematic relation to
the law. For with them, the challenge is posed: can the gestures of tyranny,
coercion, subjection, and making-fast, can the functions of unity and uni-
versal validity so closely wedded to the concept of law, be overcome? Or
must we abandon the concept of law altogether in the name of life? It is
these questions that Nietzsche’s agonal model of the law is designed to
address. What makes the agon interesting as a solution is that it does not
attempt to reinvent the concept of law from scratch. Rather, it exploits the
traditional meanings and functions of law—coercion/subjection, rig-
idity/eternity and universality—in order to transform the meanings and
functions of law. By situating the traditional concept of law within a
unique constellation of forces, Nietzsche turns it against itself, so as to
generate a dynamic, pluralistic, and emancipatory sense of law.
Nietzsche’s concept of the agon turns on a reinterpretation and re-
evaluation of resistance in the context of conflicting or competing powers.
The resistance offered by an opponent need not be experienced as a nega-
tive, inhibiting force, as pain, loss, or a diminution of power to be avoided
at all costs. It can also be a stimulant that one seeks out, an obstacle that
provokes one to exercise, extend, and measure one’s own resources in the
effort to achieve mastery (see CV 5, KSA 1, p. 789; cf. EH ‘Why I Am so
Wise’ 7; also Nachlaß Spring 1888, KSA 13, 14[173, 174]). When placed
in the context of a ‘contest for power’, law takes on precisely this meaning,
as an obstacle or stimulus that provokes others to resist and surpass it with
their own, better laws:
The rights that I have conquered for myself I will not g i v e to the other: rather,
he ought to r o b them for himself! like me—and [he] may take them and
w r e s t them from me! To this extent there must be a law which emanates from
me, as if it wanted to make all into my likeness [zu meinem Ebenbild mache]:
so that the singular individual finds himself in contradiction with it and

strengthens himself ... Whoever a p p r o p r i a t e s a right will not g i v e this
right to the other—but will be an opponent to him i n s o f a r a s h e a p p r o -
p r i a t e s i t f o r h i m s e l f : the love of the father who clashes with his son.
The great educator, like nature: he must pile up o b s t a c l e s , so that they are
o v e r c o m e . (Nachlaß Autumn 1883, KSA 10, 16[88])
On one level, these lines leave the traditional, problematic meanings of the
word Gesetz untouched. Indeed, they exploit these meanings in order to
undo them. For only if Zarathustra legislates as if he wanted to coerce oth-
ers and make a claim on all will he evoke their resistance, provoking each
one (der Einzelne) to extend himself and seek its own law, thereby destroy-
ing Zarathustra’s law and its universal claim in a plethora of self-
legislation.
On another level, however, the law does undergo significant reinter-
pretations. Most importantly, the relation of law to rights is reversed. The
traditional (liberal) concept of legislation as a giving of (equal) rights to
others and/or safeguarding of those rights is rejected in favour of a sym-
metrical regime of power, in which rights are claimed, conquered, or
usurped by dint of one’s deeds, not given.20
The central problem raised by this model of law is how to stimulate
others to conquer their own rights. Nietzsche’s agonal solution is to raise
one’s own law as if (als ob) it were universally binding, thereby usurping
all rights and forcing others who oppose one to discover and assert their
own capacities in reclaiming their rights—like the love of a father who
intentionally clashes with his son. Even here, where the relation of laws to
rights is reversed and tied to the concept of love, the coercive character of
law remains the key to rethinking law in non-coercive terms.
Whether Nietzsche’s agonal solution works is questionable. What, af-
ter all, is to distinguish ‘as if’ universal claims designed to provoke conflict
and self-legislation from those that simply pacify and subject? What sepa-
rates the father who clashes with his son out of love, from tyrannical, over-
bearing fathers like Kafka’s? The agonal regime of power presupposes
conditions—creative resources, and a resilience on the part of many—
which, on Nietzsche’s own diagnosis, are scarcely imaginable in the pres-
ent. As far as I can tell, Nietzsche does not ask what, for contemporary
_____________
20 Compare ‘M y C o n c e p t o f F r e e d o m’ (TI ‘Reconnaisance Raids’ 38) where
Nietzsche argues that the safeguarding of liberal values under liberal institutions
has had the effect of producing unfreedom: they turn equality (Gleichheit) into
sameness (Gleichmachung). Against this, Nietzsche defines his concept of freedom
as the struggle for rights, that is, as the exercise of illiberal—agonal—capacities in
the struggle for liberal institutions.
democratic sentiments, are the most urgent questions: under what condi-
tions does law-giving cease to be coercive and become instead produc-
tive—a stimulant towards individual self-emancipation? And how can
these conditions be promoted and extended across social life? Such ques-
tions seem rather to arouse his suspicion,21 and these notes culminate in a
very different line of thought: the deferral of legislation to the future.22 In
this, the next phase of Nietzsche’s thought on law, the agon migrates to
particular communities, to a class or caste of ‘legislators of the future’,
charged with the task of transvaluation. Nonetheless, the notes on agonal
law are valuable as an effort to retain the language of law, while reinvest-
ing it with naturalistic meanings that undo the problematic features of the
traditional concept of law. What is more, the agonal model of power they
deploy brings with it an insight of fundamental importance to the problem-
atic of law and legislation: that legislation is irreducibly relational in char-
acter. This means that moral particularism, and its realization in radically
individual legislation, is unthinkable without relations of resistance—
attraction to concrete others, a ‘new love’23 that includes relations of ten-
_____________
21 See, e.g., BGE 259: ‘To refrain from mutual injury, mutual violence, mutual ex-
ploitation, to equate one’s own will with that of another: this may in a certain
rough sense become good manners between individuals if the conditions for it are
present (namely if their strength and value standards are in fact similar and they
belong to One body). As soon as there is a desire to take this principle further,
however, and if possible even as the f u n d a m e n t a l p r i n c i p l e o f s o c i e t y , it
at once reveals itself for what it is: as the will to the d e n i a l of life, as the principle
of dissolution and decay.’
22 See Nachlaß Summer–Autumn 1884, KSA 11, 26[407]; Nachlaß April–June 1885,
KSA 11, 34[33, 199, 207, 212]; Nachlaß May–July 1885, KSA 11, 35[9, 39, 45,
47]; Nachlaß June–July 1885, KSA 11, 37[14]; Nachlaß Autumn 1885–Autumn
1886, KSA 12, 2[57].
23 See Nachlaß November 1882–February 1883, KSA 10, 4[83]: ‘The dissolution of
morality leads in practical consequence to the atomistic individual, and then to the
division of the individual into multiplicities—radical flux. This is why now more
than ever a new goal is necessary and love, a n e w l o v e.’ See also note 4[89]:
‘O n t h e m o r a l i t y o f h i g h e r h u m a n b e i n g s. Everything that is otherwise
morality, has here become love. But there now begins a new “thou shalt”—the
knowledge of the free spirit — the question of the highest g o a l s ’. These notes re-
iterate the problems of disorientation and atomistic disgregation in modernity mo-
tivating Nietzsche’s call for self-legislation in ‘Schopenhauer as Educator’. But
they do so in a radicalized form that indicates why a strictly individual morality on
its own is insufficient. The problem of ‘atomistic Chaos’ (UM III 4, KSA 1, p.
367) is now radicalized into a boundless conflict of forces and values that threatens
not just relations between ‘atomistic individuals’, but the very constitution of indi-
viduals. In line with this heightened perception of the threat, Nietzsche’s demand
sion and antagonism. A radically individual morality cannot, in other

words, be achieved in isolation, but is inseparable from the task of found-
ing the kind of ethical community that makes it possible.
References
Barbera, Sandro, 1994, ‘Ein Sinn und unzählige Hieroglyphen’, in: Tilman Borsche /
Federico Gerratana / Aldo Venturelli (eds.), ‘Centauren-Geburten’: Wissenschaft,
Kunst und Philosophie beim jungen Nietzsche, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 217–
233.
Cavell, Stanley, 1990, ‘Aversive Thinking: Emersonian Representations in Heidegger
and Nietzsche’, in: Conditions Handsome and Unhandsome: The Constitution of
Emersonian Perfectionism, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 33–63.
Conant, James, 2001, ‘Nietzsche’s Perfectionism: A Reading of Schopenhauer as Edu-
cator’, in: Richard Schacht (ed.), Nietzsche’s Postmoralism, Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, pp. 181–257.
Conway, Daniel, 1997, Nietzsche and the Political, London: Routledge.
Gerhardt, Volker, 1992, ‘Selbstbegründung. Nietzsches Moral der Individualität’, in:
Nietzsche-Studien, 21, pp. 28–49.
Gerhardt, Volker, 1996, Vom Willen zur Macht. Anthropologie und Metaphysik der
Macht am exemplarischen Fall Friedrich Nietzsches, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Habermas, Jürgen, 1987, The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures,
trans. Frederick Lawrence, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Siemens, Herman, 2002, ‘Agonal Communities of Taste: Law and Community in
Nietzsche’s Philosophy of Transvaluation’, in: Journal of Nietzsche Studies, 24
(Special Issue on Nietzsche and the Agon), pp. 83–112.
Simmel, Georg, 1968, Das individuelle Gesetz. Ein Versuch über das Prinzip der Ethik
(1913), in: Michael Landmann (ed.), Das individuelle Gesetz. Philosophische
Exkurse, Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp, pp. 174–230.
Translations
Untimely Meditations, ed. Daniel Breazeale, trans. R. J. Hollingdale, Cambridge: Cam-

Beyond Good and Evil, trans. R. J. Hollingdale, introduction Michael Tanner, London:
Penguin, 1990.
_____________
for a source of orientation, a new ‘goal’, is coupled with the call for a unifying
counter-force that cannot be met by individual self-legislation: for ‘a n e w l o v e’.
Part IV
Nietzsche’s
Contemporaries
Geschichte or Historie? Nietzsche’s Second Untimely
Meditation in the Context of Nineteenth-Century
Philological Studies
Anthony K. Jensen
In the second Untimely Meditation ‘On the Uses and Disadvantages of

History for Life’,1 Nietzsche outlines three dominant trends in historiogra-
phy: the ‘critical’, the ‘antiquarian’, and the ‘monumental’. These designa-
tions were not wholly invented, but indicate a then significant debate in
classical philology, which Nietzsche knew intimately.2 Indeed, the dispute
between the historical trends Nietzsche names in ‘On the Uses and Disad-
vantages’ ‘was to become the most famous quarrel between philologists in
the history of modern scholarship, and the exchange between Nietzsche
and Wilamowitz furnished the concluding satyr play’ (Müller 1990, p.
232). Throughout the nineteenth century, scholars such as Friedrich August
Wolf, Gottfried Hermann, Karl Lachmann, and August Boeckh debated as
to which of those trends should mark the proper impulse of the field they
labelled Altertumswissenschaft, how philological pursuits should be carried
out, and how their students might most properly be instructed. It was a
feud seen rekindled by the politically unpopular actions of Nietzsche’s
teachers, Friedrich Ritschl and Otto Jahn. Nietzsche’s meditations on that
debate are manifest in a plain, if somewhat psychologistic and oversimpli-
fied, manner. His very selection of the borrowed academic term Historie
over the more expected Geschichte in the title of his essay suggests that his
aim was not simply to proffer a purely theoretical reflection on the nature
or essence of history, but equally to expound on the current state and direc-
tion of the discipline.3 Thus, to understand the complicated turns of argu-
_____________
1 For a sampling of the consulted secondary literature on this essay, see Campioni
1975; Zuckert 1976; Salaquarda 1984; Gerhardt 1988; and Stambaugh 1987.
2 See Nietzsche’s ‘Encyclopädie der klassischen Philologie’ for a more closely
philological statement of many of the issues I read into UM II. See especially,
KGW II.3, p. 365, pp. 366–376.
3 I owe the recognition of this point to Glenn Most, who was generous enough to
share with me a draft that visits many of these same themes, but does so with an
214 Geschichte or Historie?
ment in the second Untimely Meditation requires an acquaintance with that

historical debate and Nietzsche’s place within it.
Similarly, the content of ‘On the Uses and Disadvantages’ should not
be considered in isolation from the well-known circumstances that sur-
rounded the publication of the Birth of Tragedy. Now famous is the some-
what over-blown struggle between Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff
and Nietzsche’s friend Erwin Rohde. For his part Nietzsche never publicly
commented on the Zukunftsphilologie! review, at least not in a philological
fashion, but poured his labour into writing an essay on history and its value
as a field of study within the German university. This essay will indicate
how his remarks on the characteristic traits of historians was informed
significantly by his lessons in classical studies and how the Meditation is
itself partly an attempt to address the criticisms of Wilamowitz and to
justify the manner of history Nietzsche believed himself to be doing in The
Birth of Tragedy.4 I wish to contend that the second Untimely Meditation is
a book about history, foremost, but also a book about a particular set of
historians. I do not wish to contend that this was Nietzsche’s only motiva-
tion for writing—certainly it was not—nor that the few philologists I can
name here were the only historians Nietzsche was characterizing; but the
backdrop of Nietzsche’s philological environment has been underestimated
in connection with his Meditation and so it is my purpose here to highlight
and emphasize those theoretical aspects which have a tangible root in
Nietzsche’s own biography.
An Overview of Classical Studies in the Nineteenth Century
A generation after the matriculation of Friedrich August Wolf into the

University of Göttingen in 1777 as a Studiosus Philologiae5 and his later
lectures at Halle, which attracted the admiration of figures the likes of
Goethe, von Humboldt, and the Schlegel brothers, the field known as Al-
_____________
eye more concentrated on the role Wilhelm von Humboldt played in the structuring
of humanistic pedagogy.
4 This way of reading is given weight when we note how similar the language and
themes between the two works are, and, moreover, the timing involved—the Wi-
lamowitz pamphlet appeared 30 May 1872, while the manuscript of UM II was
likely begun in early September 1873 (see Calder 1983, p. 228; also Salaquarda
1984, p. 5).
5 Of the day Wolf declared his ambition to study philology at Göttingen (8 April
1777), Nietzsche proclaims a ‘birthday of philology’ (Nachlaß March 1875, KSA
8, 3[2]).
Anthony K. Jensen 215
tertumswissenschaft became divided along the widening breach between

two pillars of the discipline. Gottfried Hermann and August Boeckh be-
came heads of two rival schools, the first of which has sometimes been
labelled ‘positive’, ‘critical’, or Wort-Philologie, approaching antiquity
with the tools of textual emendation, codices, and literary criticism, while
the second, being more concerned to effectively demonstrate the writ-large
spirit of antiquity and to implant that ideal into the hearts and minds of
their students, was variously named ‘hermeneutical’, ‘antiquarian’, ‘hu-
manistic’, or Sach-Philologie.6 The antiquarians sought to construct classi-
cal world-views, while the critical philologists tried to tear down their
speculative fancies in the name of philological certainty and interpretive
precision. Nietzsche, as we shall see, was on the front lines of this debate
during his education at both Bonn and Leipzig.
Turning first to Johann Gottfried Jakob Hermann, we find the precur-
sor of what might now be called a philological positivist. His primary in-
terest was the critical study of classical languages. In his grammar, the De
emendanda ratione Graecae Grammaticae, in his dissertation on the term

, and in his ‘Four Books on the particle , Hermann insisted on the
central importance of syntactical perfection as the prior condition of any
knowledge of antiquity (Sandys 1908, vol. 3, p. 91). A hermeneutical ren-
dering of classical texts without a grounded insight into the myriad uses
and meanings of the words and grammar of those texts would prove empty.
Not a fanciful construal of the ancient world—like something out of
Hölderlin, Goethe, or Schiller7—but a certain, precise, and elemental philo-
logical method should be the aim of established scholars’ research, as well
as their sole pedagogical goal. For how could an author such as Goethe say
anything about the ‘spirit’ of Iphigenia or Prometheus without an adequate
knowledge of Aeschylus’ grammar or the history of the emendations of
Aeschylean texts? No, the aim of philology is, as Nietzsche quotes
Hermann, ut recte intellegantur scripta verterum (BAW 4, p. 6). Among
Hermann’s many respected students at Leipzig, of particular note are Mo-
ritz Haupt and Theodor Bergk, on whom Nietzsche relied for his own ‘On
_____________
6 I myself am inclined to believe that this division is too simplistic. However, this
seems to be the picture Nietzsche inherited from his instructors and from the his-
tories of philology composed at the time. So, whether or not the debate was as sig-
nificant as I make it out to be here, my point is that Nietzsche himself thought it
was—so much so that he spent several chapters of UM II discussing it, that he
nearly completed a work that dealt explicitly with it (‘W i r P h i l o l o g e n’), and
that his own inauguration lectures at Basel were caught up with it.
7 Among the best studies on these influences are those of Politycki 1981 and 1989,
Siemens 2004, and Ulfers/Cohen 2004.
the History of the Collection of the Theognideian Anthology’ (KGW II.1,

pp. 3–58), and also, interestingly enough, Friedrich Ritschl (Sandys 1908,
p. 95).
August Boeckh exemplified a methodology antithetical to that of
Hermann. The student of Wolf and Schleiermacher, Boeckh sought to ex-
plain from the broad scope of a comprehensive Weltanschauung what he
considered the most pedagogically important aspects of antiquity, rather
than focusing on the grammatical or technical mastery of any particular
text. His lectures stand as a profound application of previous generations of
scholarship to holistic branches of classical learning: methods of inscrip-
tion or household management. The aim of studying the classics was even-
tually to emulate the classical models; and to accomplish this task, one
must sense the overarching spirit of the classics, something which a single-
mindedly technical focus on individual words and phrases was likely to
retard. Unlike Hermann and his later followers, Boeckh viewed grammati-
cal and technical scholarship as a mere tool towards the more interesting
and more pedagogically valuable portrayal of antiquity as a whole. Among
his prize students at Berlin is Nietzsche’s professor Otto Jahn. And though
Ritschl studied under Hermann, the great historian of philology John Ed-
win Sandys categorizes him ‘among the warmest admirers of Boeckh’
(1908, vol. 3, pp. 100–101).
The generation of classical scholars that followed was effectively
polarized into either the camp of Boeckh or else the school of Hermann. In
the antiquarian group, we find Gottfried Bernhardy, after whom Nietzsche
patterned his own attempt at a Geschichte der griechischen Literatur
(KGW II.5, pp. 7–353) and at an Encyclopädie der klassischen Philologie
(KGW II.3, pp. 339–437). Following the critical school of Hermann was
Karl Lachmann, who largely codified textual criticism into a strict method-
ological discipline—something he believed was not much respected by
those poets, artists, and musicians more concerned with generalizations
about the ‘true majesty of antiquity’ (Bursian 1883, vol. 2, p. 789). Along
with his close friend Moritz Haupt, Lachmann maintained an almost guard-
dog attitude toward the teachings of Hermann. Among the most important
students of this pair—one who actually obtained his doctorate under
Haupt—was none other than Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff.
Although this historical sketch is all too general, it is a fair summary of
the two major opposing trends of philological scholarship with which
Nietzsche was certainly familiar. The stage is now set for us to discuss the
most important philologists with respect to Nietzsche: Friedrich Ritschl
and Otto Jahn. Once the student of Boeckh, Otto Jahn was for a time em-
ployed as an archaeologist alongside the philology department of Hermann
and his disciple turned son-in-law Mortiz Haupt at Leipzig. Having devel-
oped a personal friendship with the pair, Jahn joined with Haupt in the
1849 political agitation for the maintenance of the imperial constitution, for
which he was prosecuted for high treason and relieved of his professorship.
Ritschl would later invite Jahn to join the ‘humanistic’ school at Bonn as
the successor of F. G. Welcker, who had been an ardent critic of Hermann.
All involved parties were apparently unaware of Jahn’s growing distaste
for antiquarianism, initiated by his friendship with the Hermannians at
Leipzig.8 Now, while Ritschl likely considered himself to be of the
Hermannian ‘critical’ school—having written his dissertation under
Hermann with the title Schedae Criticae and having even turned
Hermann’s failed initiatives on Plautus into his own life’s work (Vogt
1990, p. 390)—his ties were becoming strained. Ritschl’s student and bi-
ographer Otto Ribbeck believed this was due to increasing political ten-
sions during the 1850s between Ritschl and his Hermannian counterparts at
Berlin: Lachmann, and now Haupt (Ribbeck 1879–1881, vol. 2, pp. 332–
381).9 The first break likely occurred in 1839, when Ritschl secured the co-
editorship of the Rheinisches Museum für Philologie along with F. G. Wel-
cker. The long-time Bonn journal had been founded there by Boeckh in
1827. As a former student of Hermann, though, Ritschl’s appointment to
its helm would have raised some curious eyebrows, doubting Ritschl’s
loyalty to the principles of his teacher.10 Now, when Ritschl split with
Jahn,11 he transferred the editorial offices of the journal to Leipzig. Rather
than handing over the reigns of Boeckh’s journal to his colleague and
Boeckh’s own student Jahn, Ritschl deprived his old university and one-
_____________
8 There was a further complication in the story. Jahn admits in his letters that he long
aspired to be the successor to Welcker’s chair at Bonn, and when Ritschl issued the
call in 1854 he found himself positively delighted (see Petersen 1913, nos. 91–92).
However, it seems that Ritschl never informed Welcker, who had been on tempo-
rary leave at the time. Jahn reasonably assumed that Welcker himself was suppor-
tive of the appointment. Welcker, however, was deeply and justifiably insulted at
being replaced without consultation after decades of excellent and loyal service at
Bonn, though to his credit he did not direct his indignation towards Jahn. Ritschl
was made the culprit, and, since he was then the senior scholar, the tensions around
the department heightened proportionately (see Müller 1990, p. 231).
9 Haupt was professor at both Leipzig and Berlin. He taught at Leipzig from 1837 to
1850. After his forced resignation, he was invited to Berlin by Lachmann, where
he taught from 1853 to 1874.
10 Ernst Vogt (1979, pp. 103–121) suggests that the impetus underlying the division
between Jahn and Ritschl was in fact due to their opposing sides in the Hermann
and Boeckh conflict. This view, however, reduces the complexity of Ritschl’s own
professional standing.
11 There were several reasons for their break, which the author is presently exploring
in a comprehensive treatment of the influence of Ritchl and Jahn on Nietzsche.
time friend of their most important publication. Moreover, Leipzig was the
school of Hermann;12 to have Boeckh’s old journal published in the uni-
versity of his great rival would have made something of a scene (Sandys
1908, vol. 3, p. 135). In short, Ritschl was a Hermannian with growing
sympathies towards antiquarianism; Jahn was a student of Boeckh but
became personally linked to the Hermannians. When Ritschl gave his
commencement address at Leipzig in October 1865, with a young Nietz-
sche in tow, he entered the lecture hall as a conquering hero for the ‘anti-
quarian’ school. But in the eyes of Lachmann, Haupt, and now Jahn,
Ritschl had conducted something of a coup; and any student who followed
him from Bonn to Leipzig, much less one who was signalled out by Ritschl
at his inaugural address, would have been cast in the same light.
What transpired politically affected the scholarly ideals held by all par-
ties. Ritschl attempted but largely failed to embrace two traditions of
scholarship that at the time were not to be commingled. Jahn, in the time
he had left, moved closer to the Hermannians and impressed upon his stu-
dents a definite distaste for the methodologies and personality of Ritschl—
and among those students at Bonn was Wilamowitz. Nietzsche, whose
motivations for following his teacher were more personal than philologi-
cal,13 was at first hastily regarded in the same light as Ritschl. But Nietz-
sche would not remain a disciple for very long (a fact Ritschl recognized
and lamented) but would in his first two books, with a powerful new voice,
reject both traditions on the way to positing a third way of his own.
Nietzsche’s Untimely Response to Wilamowitz
What in Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff’s now infamous Zu-

kunftsphilologie! review was labelled the
[first falsehood] is
Nietzsche’s presumption that the music of Richard Wagner could contri-
bute to our understanding of antiquity.14 As Hermann and Lachmann had
argued a generation earlier, a comprehensive understanding of scholarly
emendations and textual analyses was prerequisite for philological re-
_____________
12 Nietzsche understood well the significance of Hermann’s influence at Leipzig. See
Nietzsche to Hermann Mushacke, 30 August 1865, KSB 2, no. 478, p. 81.
13 See Nietzsche to Carl von Gersdorff, 25 May 1865, KSB 2, no. 467, p. 56.
14 ‘His [Nietzsche’s] solution is to belittle the historical-critical method, to scold any
aesthetic insight which deviates from his own, and to ascribe a ‘complete mis-
understanding of the study of antiquity’ to the age in which philology in Germany,
especially through the work of Gottfried Hermann and Karl Lachmann, was raised
to an unprecedented height’ (Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 2000, p. 4).
search—what could a musician know of this? Nietzsche, it is further

claimed, did not engage in any sustained source criticism; he was more
concerned with his ‘intuitions’—Anschauungen—or ‘glorious experiences’
about the ‘inner truths’ of the tragic age. Completely unacceptable was his
shamelessness, the arrogance of his self-proclaimed ‘certainty of some-
thing directly apprehended [unmittelbaren Sicherheit der Anschauung]’
(BT 1). Rather than a serious philological enquiry in the manner of
Hermann, Nietzsche believed he could shortcut the scholarship for the sake
of his ‘direct intuitive faculty’—something more often propounded by a
Romantic poet or novelist than a university professor.
We might defend Nietzsche against some of Wilamowitz’s criticisms:
for to say that Nietzsche did not engage in source criticism reveals that
Wilamowitz could not have meant the works already published in
Rheinisches Museum, one of which was even titled, De Laertii Diogenis
fontibus, and a German version named, Beiträge zur Quellenkunde und
Kritik des Laertius Diogenes. To say that Nietzsche was ignorant of the
secondary scholarship completely overlooks the fact, which Wilamowitz
surely knew, that Nietzsche himself was responsible for the creation of a
176-page catalogue indexing the first twenty-four volumes of the
Rheinisches Museum.15 Contra Wilamowitz, Nietzsche was thoroughly
acquainted with the sort of ‘critical scholarship’ Wilamowitz found lacking
in The Birth of Tragedy, and was, moreover, proficient in the critical tech-
niques.16 Yet this itself reveals that Nietzsche had consciously transferred
his efforts away from a more critical philology in order to pursue a more
magisterial pronouncement on the nature of tragedy—and it was especially
this disengagement, from a chaired philologist no less, that attracted the
_____________
15 A commentary and publication history on this project can be found in Brobjer
(2000, pp. 157–161).
16 Furthermore, the work of Hermann himself pervades Nietzsche’s philologica.
Nietzsche’s ‘Griechische Rhythmik’ (KGW II.3, pp. 101–201), ‘Aufzeichnungen
zur Metrik und Rhythmik’ (KGW II.3, pp. 205–261), ‘Zur Theorie der quanti-
tirenden Rhythmik’ (KGW II.3, pp. 267–280), and ‘Rhythmische Untersuchungen’
(KGW II.3, pp. 285–338) were each heavily indebted to Gottfried Hermann’s De
metris poetarum graecorum et latinorum (Hermann 1796), Elementa doctrinae
metricae (Hermann 1816), and Epitome doctrinae metricae (Hermann 1818).
Hermann also edited most of the canonical editions of and commentaries on the
works of Aeschylus and Sophocles that were available to Nietzsche at that time,
and Nietzsche drew freely on their contents in his Basel lectures, ‘Prolegomena zu
den Choephoren des Aeschylus’ (KGW II.2, pp. 1–30), and ‘Kommentar zu den
Choephoren’ (KGW II.2, pp. 45–104).
young Wilamowitz’s invective.17 In his eyes, Nietzsche’s transformation

was even worse than Ritschl’s; for whereas Ritschl had tried to embrace
two traditions, Nietzsche seemed to ignore the only one Wilamowitz re-
garded as valid. Whereas Wilamowitz—who was the last disciple of the
then recently departed Jahn and who thereafter obtained his doctorate
under Haupt—fancied himself at this time to be the defender of the critical
school,18 Nietzsche—the favourite of the defector Ritschl—was seen as an
apologist for the antiquarians. But for various reasons, the remaining anti-
quarian scholars did not embrace Nietzsche, nor would Nietzsche ever
really embrace them. As a result, Nietzsche felt himself almost wholly shut
out of both scholastic factions. Any adequate response to the ‘conspiracy’,
I think Nietzsche believed, would require him to disclaim both sides and to
effectively demarcate his own position on the proper aims of historiogra-
phy.
While Rohde was induced into a published response, and while Rich-
ard Wagner eagerly sought to rebuff the ‘Berlin bum’ (Gründer 1969, pp.
57–65) for his ‘literary Jewry’,19 Ritschl urged Nietzsche to write a ‘strict
scholarly response’ to Wilamowitz.20 This never came: Ritschl and Nietz-
_____________
17 ‘In any case, I want nothing to do with N, the metaphysician and apostle. Were he
only this, I would not have bothered to appear as a “new Lycurgus” against this
Dionysian prophet, because I would have then hardly encountered his revelations.
Yet Mr. N is also Professor of Classical Philology. He engages some of the most
important questions of Greek literature’ (Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 2000, p. 4).
For a more complete evaluation of Wilamowitz’s objections, see Porter 2000, pp.
225–288.
18 Wilamowitz himself would later realize the arrogance of this attitude, writing in
his autobiography, ‘Have I taken up this struggle because I had perverted concep-
tions, crude errors, all in all philological sins to reproach [Nietzsche’s theory]
with? Or was it a tendency, as may perhaps be believed of me, to turn my efforts
against Anschauung of art as a whole, against the method of science? No, there
yawns an unbridgeable gulf here. To me, the highest idea is the unfolding of the
world according to regular laws, full of life and reason. Gratefully do I look upon
the great minds who, proceeding from level to level, have wrested out the world’s
secrets: with wonder do I seek to draw nearer the light of the eternally beautiful
which art, in every different instance of its appearance, expresses in its special
way; and in the science which fills my life, I strive to follow the path of those who
free my judgement, because I have willingly given myself to their charge.’ The let-
ter is preserved in Gründer 1969, p. 134.
19 This was a common phrase shared between members of the Wagner circle. See, for
example, Carl von Gersdorff to Nietzsche, 31 May 1872, KGB II 4, no. 326, p. 9.
20 See Ritschl to Nietzsche, 7 February 1872, KGB II 4, no. 335, p. 33.
sche remained silent in the journals.21 Nevertheless, what I would like to

suggest in what remains of this essay is that the opening chapters of ‘On
the Uses and Disadvantages’ can at least in part be read as a specific type
of response, that Nietzsche’s criticisms of the critical and antiquarian
schools, and his proposal of the perhaps fanciful ‘monumental’ mode of
historicity, are to be viewed—again, at least in part—as a response to the
indictment of Wilamowitz and to that whole tradition which he believed
had spurned both himself and his teacher before him. Yet, if this is a re-
sponse to specific scholarly trends, then it was intentionally not carried out
as Ritschl had once advised—in a ‘strict scholarly fashion’. Nietzsche
never challenges Wilamowitz’s many specific criticisms nor addresses any
of his scholarly arguments. In fact, Wilamowitz is never once mentioned
by name. Nietzsche’s response is one that is both philosophical and psy-
chological in one breath. It cuts more deeply because it targets the instincts
and motivations of the historian, rather than simply those scholarly meth-
ods outlined here. It is in effect even more ad hominem than had been Wi-
lamowitz’s diatribe because it understands their methods as the practical
extension of their character. For as Nietzsche believes, it was not just that
Wilamowitz’s criticism was misguided, but that the entire historical per-
spective from which it was issued was ‘unhealthy’, and the type of histor-
ian who was driven to it, ‘degenerate’. This goes some ways towards ex-
plaining why Wilamowitz, Hermann, Boeckh, and even Ritschl and Jahn
are not mentioned in the text of the second ‘Untimely Meditation’: Nietz-
sche feels compelled to reveal their advantages and disadvantages for life
as psychological types rather than as scholars with the methodologies I
have described here.
Even if these individuals are not singled out, they are present through-
out Nietzsche’s writing during the early 1870s. Turning to the critical his-
torian, Nietzsche writes in ‘On the Future of our Educational Institutions’:
Others, again, pass their lives in counting the number of verses written by
Greek and Roman poets, and are delighted with the proportions 7:13 = 14:26.
Finally, one of them brings forward his solution to a question, such as the
Homeric poems considered from the standpoint of prepositions, and thinks he
has drawn the truth from the bottom of the well with and . All of
them, however, with the most widely separated aims in view, dig and burrow
in Greek soil with a restlessness and a blundering awkwardness that must
surely be painful to a true friend of antiquity. (FEI 3, KSA 1, p. 702)
_____________
21 At least part of the reason, which has been overlooked, is that shortly after Wila-
mowitz wrote his pamphlet he undertook a long-planned pilgrimage to Italy and
Greece. He did not return until 1874, when the anger on both sides of the debate
had somewhat cooled (see Fowler 1990, p. 492).
Now, he who is said to consider the Homeric poems from the perspective
of its prepositions is Gottfried Hermann, who wrote on the Homeric hymns
in 1806, whose dissertation was on the word , and who wrote four
entire volumes on the particle . But, ‘What does the teaching of Greek
particles have to do with the meaning of life?’ (Nachlaß March 1875, KSA
8, 3[63]). As for the type that takes joy in discovering the hidden propor-
tions of Greek and Roman verses, it was Karl Lachmann who counted
among his greatest achievements the discovery that the total number of
lines assigned to chorus and actors in tragedy was invariably divisible by
seven.22 Nietzsche labels them ‘pedantic micrologists’ (UM II 2, KSA 1, p.
258). Notice, however, that he does not quibble with any particular philo-
logical ‘fact’ here—he never disputes the numerical reductions or the ap-
plicability of . It is ever only the spirit, drives, or intentions of these
positivistic philologists that suffer his rancour: it comes down to their dis-
cipline’s efficacy within educational institutions to shape the future of
culture and society, to their discipline’s value for life.
As Nietzsche says in the never-completed Wir Philologen, ‘Those who
say, “But certainly classical culture survives as an object of pure scholar-
ship, even if all its educational aims are disavowed,” deserve this reply:
‘Where is pure scholarship here? Achievements and qualities have to be
a s s e s s e d , and the assessor has to stand above what he assesses. So your
first concern must be to s u r p a s s a n t i q u i t y . Until you do that, your
scholarship isn’t pure, but impure and limited’ (Nachlaß Beginning of
1875–Spring 1876, KSA 8, 5[53]). Every type of scholarship must recog-
nize its pedagogical dimension; what distinguishes them rests on a certain
quality of character. These critical philologists tend to exhibit a lack of that
grand and majestic taste required of the true philologist to create new, simi-
larly grand idols to overcome, and are, Nietzsche thinks, thereby unable to
assess the greatness of the Greek culture. The critical historian only tears
down what others have built up: ‘he does this by bringing it before the
tribunal, scrupulously examining it and finally condemning it’ (UM II 3,
KSA 1, p. 269). Their destruction of the old antiquated world-views by
means of source criticism and meticulous textual analysis is an advantage
for life; their Nachteil is their ‘wanton analytic drive’ (UM II 6, KSA 1, p.
295) to reduce all philology to this destructive task. As Nietzsche writes in
_____________
22 Nietzsche certainly knew this, writing, ‘So profoundly and frequently oppressive is
the u n c e r t a i n t y in p r e d i c t i o n that it now and then becomes a morbid p a s -
s i o n for b e l i e v i n g at any price and a desire to be c e r t a i n : e.g., as concerns
Aristotle, or in discovering numerical necessities—almost a disease in Lachmann’
(Nachlaß Beginning of 1875–Spring 1876, KSA 8, 3[36]).
his Encyclopädie, ‘Criticism in itself cannot be goal, but only the means to
the full understanding [Kritik selbst kann nicht Ziel sein, sondern nur Mit-
tel für das Volle Verständniß]’ (KGW II.3, p. 375).
Unlike the critical type, who discredits the inherited constructions of
antiquity for their lack of ‘objective’ critical analysis, the antiquarian
scholar recognizes the interrelation of their personal world-views and their
representations of historical topics. Their need or instinct to find and ex-
posit a Gesammtanschauung is set in stark contrast to grammatical reduc-
tionism: theirs is an instinct towards artistic virtuosity, towards the produc-
tion of a ‘plastic apprehensible portrait’ of the world. But reality, Nietzsche
believes, especially the tangled web of history, does not allow representa-
tion of its comprehensive structuring without the intrusion of the artistic
impulse of that active subject. More hermeneutically minded, they recog-
nize the influence of their own ideals upon their historical presentations.
‘The history of his city becomes for him the history of himself; he reads its
walls, its towered gate, its rules and regulations, its holidays, like an il-
luminated diary of his youth and in all this he finds again himself, his
force, his industry, his joy, his judgement, his folly and vices’ (UM II 3,
KSA 1, p. 265). This necessarily does ‘violence’ to what some call ‘the
facts’, and affords us only a history that prohibits the designation ‘objec-
tive’ in the critical sense. But not only is this ‘violence’ a non-issue for
Nietzsche, he endorses it with his stamp of ‘necessity’. The individual has
never been born, he thinks, who could represent the world in itself, unen-
cumbered by an already determined cluster of epistemological and, more
importantly, psychological categories. ‘Thus man spins his web over the
past and subdues it, thus he gives expression to his artistic drive—but not
to his drive towards truth or justice’ (UM II 6, KSA 1, p. 290).
In UM II, Nietzsche maintains that the ‘antiquarian’ serves life by add-
ing value to what is inherently valueless, and in this respect he is better off
than his critical counterpart. No aspect of the past has value in and of itself;
value is only bestowed by the legislating activity of the historian. ‘The
small, truncated, decaying, and obsolete acquire their own dignity and
inviolability through the fact that the preserving and revering soul of the
antiquarian man has emigrated into them and made there a homely nest’
(UM II 3, KSA 1, p. 265). These scholars consciously or unconsciously
value the noble, the tranquil, and the scholarly; it is therefore no wonder
that the image of antiquity they construct tends to highlight these aspects of
the past. It is a prejudiced account, to be sure, but an honest sort of preju-
dice since they admit the intuitional status of their accounts: they recognize
that their world-views are really their world-views. This creative activity is
the healthy aspect of the illusion these historians have created for them-
selves.
But Wolf, Boeckh, and the rest of the ‘antiquarian’ school are not
spared Nietzsche’s venom either: they too have impulses that Nietzsche
finds distasteful.23 For the antiquarian type, present-day life stands in poor
comparison with what he has elected to represent to himself of the past,
and his turning back to some perceived ‘good old days’ (which, again, is
the result of the philologist’s creative intuition) carries the effect of turning
him away from the present. Frustrated by his inability to render the present
at all palatable and incapable of creating new idols for the future, he de-
votes his efforts to frantically preserving the glories of the past. The past
and dead become the only sources of value, while what is to come can only
ever be of lesser worth. His ideal of the classical reveals what, to Nietz-
sche, is a thoroughgoing ‘mummification of life’ (UM II 3, KSA 1, p. 268).
It is no longer inspired by the fresh air of the present, much less the hope
for the future. Nietzsche quips, ‘For it knows only how to preserve life, not
how to engender it; it always undervalues that which is becoming because
it has no instinct for divining it—as does monumental history, for example’
(UM II 3, KSA 1, p. 268).
Though again this is but summary, we turn now briefly to the third
type of historian characterized in ‘On the Uses and Disadvantages’: the so-
called monumental type. Note how Nietzsche, against the philological
tradition, implicitly justifies the type of historicity already displayed in The
Birth of Tragedy:
If you are to venture to interpret the past you can do so only
o u t o f t h e f u l l e s t e x e r t i o n o f t h e v i g o u r o f t h e p r e s e n t : only
when you put forth your noblest qualities in all their strength will you divine
what is worth knowing and preserving in the past. Like to like! Otherwise, you
will draw the past down to you. Do not believe historiography that does not
spring from the head of the rarest minds. (UM II 6, KSA 1, pp. 293–294)
We see once again Nietzsche’s tendency to regard ‘types’ of life rather
than specific scholarly conclusions. Statements such as these rarely inform
us as to how we should carry out the work, but do tell us what sort of
scholar we should or should not be: the historian must be such a ‘master’,
who from his own salutary conglomeration of instincts can intuit what is
worth knowing and preserving in the past. What separates the real philolo-
gist from the mere philological labourer is not a degree of technical apti-
_____________
23 For example, Nietzsche writes about Wolf, ‘Our t e r m i n o l o g y already indicates
our tendency to misrepresent the ancients. For example, the exaggerated taste for
l i t e r a t u r e —or Wolf, who, speaking of the “inner history of classical erudition”,
calls it “the history of l e a r n e d e n l i g h t e n m e n t”’ (Nachlaß Beginning of 1875–
Spring 1876, KSA 8, 3[5]). Nietzsche’s quotation is to F. A. Wolf, Kleine Schriften
(Wolf 2003, vol. 1, p. 844).
tude; rather, it is that essential quality—elusive in the extreme—which

makes one ‘masterly’ or ‘great’ or ‘wise’ (Pöschl 1979, pp. 141–155). This
is the high perspective, the Distanz from which the monumental philologist
does his work, devises his world-view. If antiquity is to be interpreted as a
grand idol of the past which can and must be repeated another time in the
present—something necessary if it is to be employed in the education of
the young—then only the grandest souls of the present are capable of as-
sessing it. In order to evaluate the classical, one must have surpassed the
classical models themselves: the assessor must stand above what he as-
sesses. ‘[H]istory is written by the experienced and superior man. He who
has not experienced greater and more exalted things than others will not
know how to interpret the great and exalted things of the past’ (UM II 6,
KSA 1, p. 294).
Just as the antiquarian scholar discovers in his antiquity the scholarly,
the noble, and the tranquil, and is thereby trapped in that antiquity when all
he sees around him is the worthlessness of the present, so too the ‘monu-
mental’ historian artistically paints his own antiquity with a selective
quality of judgement. ‘The past itself suffers harm: whole segments of it
are forgotten, destroyed, and flow away in an uninterrupted colourless
flood, and only individually exaggerated facts rise out of it like islands’
(UM II 2, KSA 1, p. 262). Like the antiquarian, too, the monumentalist
finds nobility in the past, but only because he knows his evaluation was
actually a legislation of that nobility. ‘[N]ow it would be right to say that
only he who constructs the future has a right to judge the past. If you look
ahead and set yourself a great goal, you at the same time restrain that wan-
ton analytical drive’ (UM II 6, KSA 1, pp. 294–295). For even this young
Nietzsche, still heavily indebted to Schopenhauer’s epistemology, the
claim to represent ‘antiquity in itself’ is nonsense; facts of representation
are never free from our evaluations. The past is only great ‘in fact’ because
the great man has ‘evaluated’ it as such. Because he recognizes his inter-
preting as a creating, and that by interpreting the past as ‘great’ he has in
fact created something ‘great’—‘a chain of moments in the struggle of the
human individual which unites mankind across the millennia like a range
of human mountain peaks’ (UM II 2, KSA 1, p. 259)—the monumentalist
becomes aware of the possibility of further creating such idols and exem-
plars for the future. He too discovers himself in his antiquity. The distinc-
tion drawn between the antiquarian and the monumentalist is thus not
methodological but psychological, that is, not in their tendency to create
holistic portraits of antiquity but in the manner in which they regard this
picture. The present for the monumentalist leads not to the inescapable
feeling of pessimism that characterizes the antiquarian whose optimism
deserts him whenever he walks out of the library door, but to the cheerful
recognition that the eternally becoming allows for the perpetual revaluation
of what is to be considered classical.
Instead of ‘mummifying’ life, the monumentalist engenders it by ac-
knowledging that something great can once again return to the present
through his own activity. ‘As long as the soul of historiography lies in the
great s t i m u l i that a man of power derives from it, as long as the past has
to be described as worthy of imitation, as imitable and possible for a sec-
ond time, it of course incurs the danger of becoming somewhat distorted,
beautified, and coming close to free poetic invention’ (UM II 2, KSA 1, p.
262), but despite the danger, this is where the pedagogical value of histori-
ography lies—how Historie and not just Geschichte can be used for das
Leben, how historians themselves can engender life. Such was the value of
Nietzsche’s own work in philology, a value misunderstood by both sides of
the debate and by the then young Wilamowitz. As the last pages of the The
Birth of Tragedy read, ‘Let no one believe that the German spirit has lost
its mythical home for ever, if it can still understand so clearly the voices of
the birds which tell of its homeland. One day it will find itself awake …
then it will slay dragons, destroy the treacherous dwarfs, and awaken
Brünnhilde—and not even Wotan’s spear itself will be able to bar its path!’
(BT 24, KSA 1, p. 154). Only with ‘On the Uses and Disadvantages of
History for Life’ in mind can we rightly comprehend why a purportedly
philological book about Greek tragedy should conclude with an exhortation
to the German youth: this was a call to give rebirth to Nietzsche’s classical
ideal through the spirit of music. Not only is such a statement consistent
with the monumental ideal of 1874, that ideal demands such a call to re-
birth. And should we ask who the model for this ‘reinvigorating’ historical
impulse is, we would be once again confronted with Nietzsche’s other
great ‘master’: Wagner—the same ‘scholar’ whom Wilamowitz jeered as
the
of Nietzsche’s philology, the same Wagner who re-
sponded to Wilamowitz’s pamphlet with language all too familiar to that of
the ‘monumental’ historian here. ‘We [Wagner and Nietzsche] by our-
selves look out from the mountain top over the wide plain without disturb-
ance from the scuffling peasants in the tavern below us’ (Gründer 1969,
pp. 57–65). And so neither a Wolf, nor a Hermann, nor a Boeckh, nor even
a Ritschl or a Jahn stand as the proper heirs to antiquity, but a Wagner, a
Goethe, and ideally a Nietzsche himself—and these not for reasons of
scholarly method nor styles of interpretation, but for psychological
grounds, for the quality of character these are said to have, which are in-
stinctually driven to value only the healthiest aspects of antiquity for the
sake of reinvigorating culture.
There are both historical and philosophical problems with Nietzsche’s
conception of ‘monumental historiography’, to say the least, and partial
solutions have now and again been proffered. I cannot address these issues
here, and can only restate what I think is an important and overlooked as-
pect of Nietzsche’s essay, namely, his engagement with the scholarly envi-
ronment in which it was written. From what I have said, I hope it is clear
that Nietzsche’s account of the ‘critical’ and ‘antiquarian’ historians was
not a purely theoretical construction, but was his attempt to outline a con-
flict with which he, as a prodigy scholar and philology professor, had up-
close experience. Nietzsche never responded to the attack on his own
philological work, but wrote an essay shortly after whose opening sections
serve to critique both sides of the debate, not on philological grounds, but
from the standpoint of his budding, psychology-laden philosophy. If true
history is done by those who possess a certain greatness of character, as
Nietzsche sought to demonstrate, then a Wilamowitz didn’t qualify to con-
test a Nietzsche—or so at least he convinced himself.24 By positing the
rather fanciful ideal of the ‘monumental’ historian, I believe Nietzsche
hoped to rise above the debate that ensnared his mentor, to thereby not
only silence the grumblings of the petty ‘conspiracy’ against him, but to
show both historians and philologists alike the sort of ends on which they
should be focused. And if his ardour for these historical ideals waned with
time, I think it is further evidence for my position to see that it did so in
proportion to the growing distance that grew between him and his philo-
logical career. In the end, Nietzsche’s resignation was plain: ‘Wort- und
Sach-Philologie—stupid quarrel!’ (Nachlaß Spring–Summer 1875, KSA 8,
5[106]).
References
Brobjer, Thomas, 2000, ‘Nietzsche’s Forgotten Book. The Index to the Rheinisches
Museum für Philologie’, in: New Nietzsche Studies, 4/1, pp. 157–161.
Bursian, Conrad, 1883, Geschichte der klassischen Philologie in Deutschland von den
Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart, 2 vols., Munich, Leipzig: Oldenbourg.
_____________
24 Notes from this period testify to this point. ‘Contemporary philologists have
proven themselves unworthy of being permitted to consider me and my book as
one of their own. It is hardly necessary to affirm that, in this case as well, I leave it
up to them whether they want to learn anything or not. But I still do not feel in the
least inclined to meet them half way. May that which now calls itself “philology”
[Philologie, written without its definite article] (and which I designate only neu-
trally on purpose) ignore my book this time as well. For this book has a manly
temperament and is of no value for castrati. It is more seemly for them to be seated
at the loom of conjecture’ (Nachlaß Summer 1872–Beginning of 1873, KSA 7,
19[58]).
Calder III, William M., 1983, ‘The Wilamowitz-Nietzsche Struggle. New Documents
and a Reappraisal’, in: Nietzsche-Studien, 12, pp. 214–254.
Campioni, Guiliano, 1975, ‘Malattia dell’ideale e antistoricismo nel giovane Nietz-
sche’, in: Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore Pisa, 5/4, pp. 1537–1566.
Fowler, Robert L., 1990, ‘Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff’, in: Ward W. Briggs /
William M. Calder III (eds.), Classical Scholarship: A Biographical Encyclopedia,
New York: Garland, pp. 489–522.
Gerhardt, Volker, 1988, ‘Leben und Geschichte. Menschliches Handeln und his-
torischer Sinn in Nietzsches zweiter “Unzeitgemäßer Betrachtung”’, in: Pathos und
Distanz. Studien zur Philosophie Friedrich Nietzsches, Stuttgart: Reclam Verlag,
pp. 133–162.
Gründer, Karlfried, 1969, Der Streit um Nietzsches ‘Geburt der Tragödie’: Die
Schriften von E. Rohde, R. Wagner, U. v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Hildesheim:
Georg Olms Verlag.
Hermann, Gottfried, 1796, De metris poetarum graecorum et latinorum, 3 vols.,
Leipzig: Fleischer.
Hermann, Gottfried, 1816, Elementa doctrinae metricae, Leipzig: Fleischer.
Hermann, Gottfried, 1818, Epitome doctrinae metricae, Leipzig: Fleischer.
Müller, Carl Werner, 1990, ‘Otto Jahn’, in: Ward W. Briggs / William M. Calder III
(eds.), Classical Scholarship: A Biographical Encyclopedia, New York: Garland,
pp. 227–238.
Petersen, Eugen (ed.), 1913, Otto Jahn in seinen Briefen, Leipzig: Teubner.
Politycki, Matthias, 1981, Der frühe Nietzsche und die deutsche Klassik, Munich:
Donau Verlag.
Politycki, Matthias, 1989, Umwertung aller Werte? Deutsche Literatur im Urteil Nietz-
sches, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Porter, James I., 2000, Nietzsche and the Philology of the Future, Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Pöschl, Viktor, 1979, ‘Nietzsche und die klassische Philologie’, in: Hellmut Flashar, et
al. (eds.), Philologie und Hermeneutik im 19. Jahrhundert. Zur Geschichte und
Methodologie der Geisteswissenschaften, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht,
pp. 141–155.
Ribbeck, Otto, 1879–1881, Friedrich Wilhelm Ritschl. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der
Philologie, 2 vols., Leipzig: Teubner, pp. 332–381.
Salaquarda, Jörg, 1984, ‘Studien zur Zweiten Unzeitgemäßen Betrachtung’, in: Nietz-
sche-Studien, 12, pp. 1–45.
Sandys, John Edwin, 1908, A History of Classical Scholarship, 3 vols., Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Siemens, Herman, 2004, ‘Nietzsche and the “Classical”. Traditional and Innovative
Features of Nietzsche’s Usage with Special Reference to Goethe’, in: Paul Bishop
(ed.), Nietzsche and Antiquity. His Reaction and Response to the Classical Tradi-
tion, Rochester, NY: Camden House, pp. 391–410.
Stambaugh, Joan, 1987, The Problem of Time in Nietzsche, trans. John F. Humphrey,
Philadelphia: Bucknell University Press.
Ulfers, Friedrich / Cohen, Mark Daniel, 2004, ‘Nietzsche’s Ontological Roots in
Goethe’s Classicism’, in: Paul Bishop (ed.), Nietzsche and Antiquity. His Reaction
and Response to the Classical Tradition, Rochester, NY: Camden House, pp. 425–
440.
Vogt, Ernst, 1979, ‘Der Methodenstreit zwischen Hermann und Böckh und seine Be-
deutung für die Geschichte der Philologie’, in: Hellmut Flashar, et al. (eds.), Phi-
lologie und Hermeneutik im 19. Jahrhundert. Zur Geschichte und Methodologie
der Geisteswissenschaften, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, pp. 103–121.
Vogt, Ernst, 1990, ‘Friedrich Ritschl’, in: Ward W. Briggs / William M. Calder III
(eds.), Classical Scholarship: A Biographical Encyclopedia, New York: Garland,
pp. 389–394.
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Ulrich von, 2000, ‘Future Philology! A Reply to Friedrich
Nietzsche’s “The Birth of Tragedy”’, trans. Gertrude Postl, in: New Nietzsche
Studies, 4/1, pp. 1–32.
Wolf, Friedrich August, 2003, Kleine Schriften in lateinischer und deutscher Sprache,
reprint of the Halle 1869 edn, ed. Gottfried Bernhardy, 2 vols., Hildesheim: Georg
Olms Verlag.
Zuckert, Catherine, 1976, ‘Nature, History, and the Self. Friedrich Nietzsche’s Un-
timely Considerations’, in: Nietzsche-Studien, 5, pp. 55–82.
‘An Uncanny Re-Awakening’: Nietzsche’s Renascence of
the Renaissance out of the Spirit of Jacob Burckhardt
Martin A. Ruehl
In the fall of 1895, the Catholic bi-weekly Historisch-Politische Blätter

published a long article on ‘Friedrich Nietzsche’s Intellectual Development
and Philosophy’. At a time when Nietzsche’s writings were rapidly gaining
in popularity and some of his concepts were becoming catchwords of vari-
ous counter-cultural currents in fin-de-siècle Germany, the (anonymous)
author of the article tried to enumerate the various trends in nineteenth-
century thought that had shaped the ideas of the self-proclaimed ‘untimely’
philosopher. One of the intellectual influences he singled out was the Swiss
cultural historian and one-time colleague of Nietzsche at the university of
Basel, Jacob Burckhardt. In particular, he suggested that it was Burck-
hardt’s colourful description of the ruthless, neo-pagan despots of early
modern Italy in his 1860 book The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy
that had inspired Nietzsche’s vision of a future race of ‘violent men’ (Ge-
waltmenschen) beyond the good and evil of Christian morality (‘Friedrich
Nietzsche’s Intellectual Development’ 1895, p. 871). Shortly after the ap-
pearance of the article, the Catholic historian Ludwig Pastor, who had
recently begun to correspond with Burckhardt, told the latter of his dismay
over these ‘unreasonable suppositions’ and proposed a rectification in the
Blätter (Pastor 1950, pp. 289–290).1 In his response of 13 January 1896,
Burckhardt politely declined Pastor’s offer. In view of his advanced age
and poor health, he wrote, he preferred to keep his peace ‘with all the
world’ and would refrain from a correction. His communications with
Nietzsche had been ‘serious and peaceful’, yet infrequent, and about the
Gewaltmenschen they had never actually discoursed. At any rate, he,
Burckhardt, had never been ‘an admirer of the violent men and outlaws
[Gewaltmenschen und Out-laws] in history’ and rather considered them to
_____________
1 On Burckhardt’s late but warm acquaintance with Pastor see Kaegi 1982, vol. 7,
pp. 165–182.
232 ‘An Uncanny Re-Awakening’
be ‘flagella Dei’ (scourges of God) whose psychological construction he

‘gladly’ left to others (Burckhardt 1986, vol. 10, p. 263).2
The letter to Pastor has become a locus classicus in the extensive lit-
erature on what might be called the Burckhardt–Nietzsche problem, that is,
the long-standing scholarly debates about the nature of Nietzsche’s rela-
tionship with Burckhardt during his Basel years (1869–1879); the question
whether there existed a genuine ‘congruence’, as Nietzsche believed,3 be-
tween their aesthetic and political convictions; and, finally, the extent to
which the Swiss historian’s reflections on the interplay of ‘force and free-
dom’ in civilizations past and present affected the philosophizing of his
young German colleague.4 In these debates, Burckhardt’s denunciation of
the Gewaltmenschen in his reply to Pastor almost invariably serves as a
piece of textual evidence for commentators anxious to stress the general
intellectual distance between his ‘classical’, liberal, and humanist world-
view from Nietzsche’s neo-Romantic, anti-bourgeois reflections on trans-
gression and excess, as well as the more specific dissimilarity between
their respective interpretations of the Renaissance.5
This essay, by contrast, takes its cue from the suspicion voiced in the
Historisch-Politische Blätter that Burckhardt shaped Nietzsche’s intellec-
tual development to a considerable extent and that his conception of the
Renaissance in particular had a profound impact on Nietzsche’s philoso-
phy. Its aim is to show that Nietzsche’s understanding not just of the early
modern period, but of history and time as such, drew on the idea of the
Renaissance as formulated by Burckhardt.6 Burckhardt’s reading of the
Renaissance, which will be examined below, conditioned Nietzsche’s
thinking on recurrence and change, the possibility of cultural renewal, and
the sociopolitical parameters for a future overcoming of Christian ‘slave
morality’. Nietzsche’s turn to the Renaissance, as a historical reference
_____________
2 Unless otherwise indicated, all translations from the German are my own.
3 See his letter to Erwin Rohde of 29 May 1869 (KSB 3, p. 13).
4 The most notable contributions are Andler 1926, Barth 1943, von Martin 1947a,
Salin 1948, Rossi 1987, and Heller 1988. For a survey of the literature see
Ruhstaller 1988.
5 See, e.g., von Martin 1947a, p. 139, Gay 1967, p. 198, Janssen 1970, pp. 221–222,
Kaegi 1982, vol. VII, pp. 69–70, and Gossman 1999, p. 904. Gossman 2000, pp.
432–434, while pointing up shared concerns about the ‘social question’ as it posed
itself in Basel since the 1860s, similarly stresses the fundamental differences be-
tween Burckhardt’s altliberal humanism and Nietzsche’s radically anti-democratic
rejection of the masses as well as his ‘excessiveness’ and immoralism.
6 Burckhardt’s influence on the development of Nietzsche’s historical thought has
been largely ignored in the relevant literature: see, e.g., Schlechta 1958, Brose
1973, Pletsch 1977, Maurer 1993, Brose 1994, Gilbert 2000, Brobjer 2007.
Martin A. Ruehl 233
point and cultural ideal,7 in the 1870s allowed him to question a set of
values and notions that had determined his early thought: the Protestant
inheritance from Röcken and Naumburg; the philhellenist belief, instilled
in him at Schulpforta, Bonn, and Leipzig, in the absolute and exclusive
model character of Greek antiquity; Schopenhauer’s radically anti-
historical philosophy of the will; and, most importantly perhaps, the medi-
evalizing, neo-Romantic nationalism of Richard Wagner. However, the
Renaissance also became a crystallization point, especially in the 1880s,
for Nietzsche’s most radically anti-humanist, anti-liberal ideas about tyr-
anny and individuality, war and culture, violence and health. Burckhardt
had good reasons to dissociate himself from the Gewaltmenschen glorified
in Nietzsche’s later writings—but the latter nonetheless bore a striking
family resemblance to the tyrants and condottieri described in his book on
the Renaissance.
1. The Dark Cradle of Modernity: Tyrants and Transgressors in Burckhardt’s

Civilization of the Renaissance
If Burckhardt’s book provided a template for Nietzsche’s reflections on the

meaning of history and the possibilities for cultural revival, its depiction of
the Italian Renaissance as a distinctive period of Western civilization,
characterized by a secular individualism and neo-classical zest for beauty,
was itself determined by previous attempts, both historiographical and
fictional, to uncover the origins of modern subjectivity.8 These attempts
began with one of the foundational texts of the German Sturm und Drang
movement, Wilhelm Heinse’s popular multi-volume novel Ardinghello of
_____________
7 It is one of the contentions of this essay that the Renaissance represented not just
an aesthetic concept for Nietzsche and that he conceived of early modern rulers
like Frederick II and Cesare Borgia, whose image he culled largely from the first
chapter of Burckhardt’s book, as distinctively historical figures, pace Nehamas
1985, pp. 225–227, who interprets them as purely ‘literary’ characters. According
to Nehamas, Cesare was little more than a fictional construct in Nietzsche’s œuvre,
without a genuine historical identity—and thus should not be misread as a model
or type of the superman. As will be argued here, Cesare in particular and the Re-
naissance in general possessed a very definite historical significance for Nietzsche.
8 On the changing interpretations of the Renaissance in Germany before Burckhardt
see Ferguson 1948, pp. 78–179, Stierle 1987 and Körner 1980. On the histori-
ographical associations of the Renaissance with the birth of modern individualism
see Baldwin 2001, esp. pp. 341–345.
1787.9 Heinse’s paean to the sensual, morally uninhibited life of artists and
aristocrats in cinquecento Italy fundamentally shaped the idea of the Re-
naissance in the German literary imagination throughout the long nine-
teenth century.10 In the decades following its publication, Romantic authors
such as Ludwig Tieck glorified the unfettered egoism and ‘aesthetic im-
moralism’ (W. Brecht) of demonic Renaissance princes like the Duke of
Bracciano.11 In contradistinction to Heinse and the Romantics,12 Goethe
and Schiller projected an image of the Renaissance that stressed the ‘re-
sponsibility of power’ (G. Craig) and a classical, harmonious Humanität-
sideal which Goethe saw realized in the works of Raphael, Mantegna, and
even Cellini.13
While the ruthless, overreaching Renaissance despots of Romantic fic-
tion often seemed modelled on Napoleon, the historiographical approaches
to the Renaissance in the early nineteenth century were fundamentally
indebted to the liberal, republican ideals of the Enlightenment and the
French Revolution. Thus in the 1820s and 1830s Heinrich Leo and Carl
Friedrich von Rumohr traced the notion of civic liberty back to the four-
teenth-century Italian city-states which had proudly defended their inde-
pendence against the encroaching Holy Roman Empire.14 In the decades of
_____________
9 See Heinse 1998. On Heinse’s conception of the Renaissance see Rehm 1924, pp.
61–78, and Ferguson 1948, pp. 128–131.
10 See the brief ‘reception history’ of the book in Heinse 1998, pp. 560–600. A num-
ber of literary critics around 1900 read Heinse’s hero Ardinghello as an eighteenth-
century precursor of the Renaissance Herrenmensch idealized by Nietzsche; see
Heinse 1998, pp. 596, 598, 607, 610, 612.
11 See Brecht 1911, Rehm 1924, pp. 159–181, and Weibel 1925, pp. 44–54, 121–127.
12 See Jacobs 1998, p. 900: ‘With its extreme idealization of the sensuous-ecstatic
life, Heinse’s Ardinghello was diametrically opposed to the striving for harmony
and artistic autonomy that informed Goethe’s image of the Renaissance.’ See also
Baeumer’s comments in Heinse 1998, pp. 643–648, and Borcherdt 1949, pp. 149–
166, who distinguishes between Heinse’s ‘Dionysian’ and Goethe’s ‘Apollonian’
conception of the Renaissance (p. 159).
13 See Craig 1967, pp. 125–144. On Goethe’s idea of the Renaissance see Jacobs
1996 and Jacobs 1997. Baron 1960, p. 211 comments: ‘In studying [the cinque-
cento artist Benvenuto] Cellini, Goethe had formed the idea of an age which had
brought forth men of rare passions ... but also [of] higher yearnings: an honest re-
spect for religious and ethical values ... and for noble enterprises.’ According to
Baron, Goethe’s Cellini was an important source for The Civilization of the Re-
naissance, and the force of its psychological interpretation of the artist’s self-
formation ‘is felt throughout Burckhardt’s analysis of the development of the indi-
vidual’. See also Janssen 1970, pp. 217–219.
14 See Leo 1832, vol. 3, pp. 378–387, vol. 4, pp. 1–36; von Rumohr 1920, pp. 126–
222; and Ferguson 1948, pp. 127, 145–146.
Martin A. Ruehl 235
political reaction following the Congress of Vienna (1814–1815), the edu-

cated bourgeois elites of Germany (Bildungsbürgertum) readily interpreted
Leo’s History of the Italian States (1829–1832) as a genealogy of their
own emancipatory hopes.15 The art historian Rumohr, in his Italian Re-
searches (1827–1831), depicted the struggle for independence of the thir-
teenth-century communes as the backdrop both to the genesis of modern
constitutional political theory and the great artistic revival of the Italian
Renaissance.16 The acclaimed History of the Italian Republics in the Mid-
dle Ages (1809–1818) by the Swiss-born political economist and historian
Simonde de Sismondi, similarly, related the énergie de liberté sparked by
participatory politics to the great outburst of cultural activity especially in
the trecento. With the ascendancy of the tyrants and despots in northern
Italy at the end of the fourteenth century, this énergie, according to Sis-
mondi, began to wane and with it the flowering of Italian civilization.17
The cultural vitality of the Renaissance cities, for both Sismondi and Ru-
mohr, was intimately connected with their republican liberty.
Burckhardt’s Civilization of the Renaissance marked a profoundly am-
bivalent intervention in these representations of early modern Italy. On the
one hand, it contributed to and reinforced the liberal idealizations of the
Renaissance typical of the first half of the nineteenth century. Like so
many bourgeois intellectuals of his age, Burckhardt viewed the Italian
quattrocento, which he famously labelled the ‘mother and home of modern
man’ (‘Mutter und Heimat des modernen Menschen’),18 as a dress re-
hearsal for the civil society of contemporary Europe: an energetically meri-
tocratic world of atomized individuals competing with one another on an
equal basis, without regard for traditional religious, social, and moral con-
straints. In that respect, Burckhardt’s Renaissance Men bore a striking
resemblance to the early capitalists described in Marx’s Communist Mani-
festo, published twelve years earlier: both were secularizers, rationalizers,
_____________
15 See Leo 1832, vol. 4, pp. 138–420.
16 See von Rumohr 1920, pp. 178–222.
17 See Simonde de Sismondi 1826, vol. 7, pp. 351–395, and vol. 8, pp. 2–6. On Sis-
mondi’s interpretation of Renaissance culture see Ferguson 1948, pp. 165–168,
and Bullen 1994, pp. 38–59.
18 This is how Burckhardt described the Renaissance in his letter of May 1858 to
King Maximilian II of Bavaria, see Kaegi 1982, vol. 3, p. 664. Burckhardt 1988, p.
3, calls the Renaissance the ‘mother’ of modern civilization. Gilbert 1990, p. 61,
counts thirty passages in which Burckhardt ‘identifies the Italy of the Renaissance
with the modern age’. Baron 1960, p. 213, remarks that ‘[n]o other leitmotif occurs
as often in the text [i.e., The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy] as the conten-
tion that the Italian of the Renaissance “was the firstborn among the sons of mod-
ern Europe”’.
and demystifiers, pioneering self-made men, as efficient as they were ruth-

less.19
On the other hand, The Civilization of the Renaissance was a forceful
critique of the emancipatory, progressivist interpretations of the Renais-
sance formulated by Sismondi, Leo, and Rumohr.20 For Burckhardt, the
sociopolitical corollaries of modernization—initiated and epitomized, in
his eyes, by the French Revolution—had had a fateful effect on contempo-
rary civilization. Writing in the aftermath of 1848, he believed that the
revolutionary unrest of the Fourth Estate posed as much of a threat to the
cultural legacy of ‘old Europe’ (Alteuropa) as the bourgeoisie’s compla-
cent desire for ‘security’ (Sekurität).21 He tried to imagine the Renaissance
as the beginning of an alternative modernity, one quite distinct from his
own mundane, unheroic ‘modern age’, which in his eyes was defined by
the crass materialism, timid acquiescence, and soulless scientism of the
middle class, on the one hand, and the proletariat’s increasingly vociferous
demands for political participation and social justice on the other. As a
consequence, Burckhardt, in contrast to previous liberal historians of the
early modern period, associated the new secular, individualist spirit of the
Renaissance not so much with merchants, scholars, or artists, but with
military leaders and despots like the Sforza and Visconti, whose complete
immoralism both fascinated and disturbed him.
By opening his book with a series of vivid vignettes recounting the
cold-blooded machinations of despotic rulers (Gewaltherrscher) from Ez-
zelino da Romano to Cesare Borgia, Burckhardt made the tyrant the em-
bodiment of what he regarded as the two essential features of Renaissance
civilization: the ‘objective judgement and treatment of ... all the things in
the world’ (objektive Betrachtungsweise und Behandlung ... der sämtlichen
Dinge dieser Welt) and the ‘development of an autonomous personality’
(Entwicklung der auf sich selbst gestellten Persönlichkeit), freed from
_____________
19 Their new, problematic sense of self also resembles that of the early Puritans de-
scribed in Max Weber’s Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904/1905):
see Hardtwig 1996, pp. 170–180.
20 See Kahan 2003. Kaegi 1962, pp. 133–134, argues that refuting Sismondi’s ‘re-
publican’ interpretation of the Renaissance was one of the ‘principal aims’ of
Burckhardt’s book: ‘Burckhardt saw the flowering of the Renaissance not in the
context of the Italian city-states struggling for liberty, but against the dark back-
drop of the demonic concentration of power in the signorie, of liberty lost.’
21 For his critique of bourgeois Sekurität see Burckhardt 1982, pp. 282–283, 236–
237. On Burckhardt’s almost pathological fear of a proletarian revolution see
Wenzel 1967, pp. 25–32. That Burckhardt wrote The Civilization of the Renais-
sance in Italy in response to what he perceived as a time of sociopolitical unrest
and cultural crisis is powerfully argued in Gossman 1994, pp. 409–427.
Martin A. Ruehl 237
medieval corporatism and religious paternalism (Burckhardt 1988, pp. 5,

99). Although he also examined the emergence of this new ‘realist’ politics
and individualist ethos in the context of republican city-states like Florence
and Venice, Burckhardt evidently considered the tyrants to be the first and
foremost incarnations of the new ‘thisworldly’ mind-set of Renaissance
Italy. Thus he remarked of the Hohenstaufen emperor Frederick II (1194–
1250), whom he called a ‘model’ (Vorbild) for the later despots, that he
had accustomed himself early in his life to an ‘utterly objective view of
world’, which made him ‘the first modern man on the throne’. The foreign
policy of Maria Galeazzo and Lodovico il Moro he described in similar
terms, as a ‘completely objective treatment of international affairs, free of
prejudices and moral qualms’ (Burckhardt 1988, pp. 4, 5, 67). What
Burckhardt identified as the distinctive aspect of Renaissance politics was
not so much the brutality as the strictly realpolitisch approach of the con-
dottieri and princes, their uninhibited, yet carefully calculated, deployment
of force. This was ragione di stato—Machiavelli, significantly, featured as
Burckhardt’s chief theoretical witness for the chapters on tyrannical rule—
a perfectly pragmatic form of politics fundamentally at odds with the ab-
stract, ‘artificial’ power structures of feudal northern Europe (Burckhardt
1988, p. 72).22
The new brand of politics practised in the petty despotic states of Italy
set the stage for what Burckhardt considered to be the second great contri-
bution of Renaissance civilization to the genesis of modernity: the emer-
gence of the autonomous individual. Exploding the medieval system of
rank and inheritance, the tyrants, according to Burckhardt, found them-
selves in an unusually volatile predicament. Unable to rely on what Max
Weber would later call ‘traditional authority’,23 princely bastards like Fer-
rante of Aragon and military leaders of humble social origins like Fran-
cesco Sforza had to depend entirely on their own talents in their bid for
political power. They created their state just as they created their own iden-
tity: as if ex nihilo, as a ‘work of art’ (Kunstwerk). The illegitimacy of their
rule and the radical ‘insecurity’ (Garantielosigkeit) of their existence
forced them to develop virtuoso personalities.24 But in the shadow of their
_____________
22 See also Burckhardt 1988, pp. 12–13. But cf. Hale 1973, p. 63, who argues that
Burckhardt greatly overestimated the degree of rationality and centralization in
Renaissance politics.
23 See Weber 1978, pp. 226–241.
24 In his lectures ‘On the Study of History’, which Nietzsche attended in the winter
semester of 1870/1871, Burckhardt described Napoleon in a strikingly similar
fashion as ‘unpredictability incarnate’ (die Garantielosigkeit in Person): Burck-
hardt 1982, p. 397. For Nietzsche’s idealization of Napoleon as a Gewaltmensch
rule, the ‘individualization’ of their courtiers and vassals also received a

powerful ‘stimulus’ (Burckhardt 1988, pp. 4, 7–8, 101). The ‘sovereign
subject’ of modernity thus emerged, paradoxically, against the backdrop of
political unfreedom.
Whereas Sismondi and Rumohr had stressed the connection between
‘liberty and letters’ and praised the republican ethos of the city-states as the
necessary political context for the ‘revival of the arts’, Burckhardt argued
that the productivity and excellence of the Renaissance artists was not only
compatible with, but actually enhanced by, the violent politics of the ty-
rants. Raphael’s early paintings of St George (c. 1504) and St Michael (c.
1505), he remarked, could have been inspired by the bloody street fighting
between the Baglione and their enemies in Perugia, where the young artist
had worked as an apprentice in the 1490s (Burckhardt 1988, p. 24).25 For
Burckhardt, the tyrants were more than just great patrons of Renaissance
art and science. There existed a genuine elective affinity, he believed, be-
tween the despots, with their virtuoso personalities and plastic political
skills, and ‘those who also thrived by dint of their own talent: the scholars,
poets, musicians and artists’. Leonardo da Vinci’s extended stay at the
court of Lodovico il Moro was evidence that ‘a higher element was alive’
in the tyrant. That Leonardo subsequently served Cesare Borgia, similarly,
suggested his appreciation of the latter’s ‘extraordinary nature’ (Burck-
hardt 1988, p. 33).
Insofar as they tore away the medieval ‘veil’ of Christian beliefs and
feudal power structures and helped to launch the laical, scientific ‘discov-
ery of the world and of man’ (Burckhardt 1988, pp. 99, 203),26 Burck-
hardt’s tyrants seem to anticipate the secular, emancipatory ideals of the
nineteenth-century Bürger.27 The values they represent—rationality, prag-
matism, individual talent, competitive struggle—belong to the catechism of
what Adorno termed the ‘bourgeois religion of success’ (Adorno 1970, p.
_____________
and Herrenmensch in the tradition of the Hohenstaufen emperor Frederick II see
von Martin 1947a, pp. 148–160.
25 According to Burckhardt 1988, p. 24, the figure of the heavenly horseman in
Raphael’s Expulsion of Heliodorus from the Temple (1511–1512) was modelled on
Astorre Baglione. For a differing interpretation of the painting cf. Traeger 1971,
pp. 31–34.
26 See also Burckhardt 1988, pp. 16 and 72, where the meritocratic individualism of
the Italian princes is favourably contrasted with the feudal ‘class prejudice’ (Kas-
tenhochmut) of Northern Europe. Burckhardt borrowed the expression ‘the discov-
ery of the world and of man’ (die Entdeckung der Welt und des Menschen) from
Jules Michelet’s Histoire de France, see Michelet 1883, vol. 3, p. 3.
27 See Gay 1967, p. 184, who describes Burckhardt’s Renaissance men as ‘human
types that might be walking through nineteenth-century cities’.
Martin A. Ruehl 239
53). In that respect, they were indeed the ‘first-born among the sons of
contemporary Europe’. Yet Burckhardt also constructed them as anti-types
of the modern bourgeois.28 His lively, detailed descriptions of their ‘colos-
sal crimes’ and ‘endless atrocities’ established a stark contrast between the
violent, immoral universe of the Italian Renaissance and the Biedermeier
propriety of nineteenth-century Central Europe. With an almost Gothic
literary sensibility, he evoked the realm of the tyrants’ courts as one of
constant deception, danger, and dread. Theirs was a ‘monstrous’ (unge-
heuer) and ‘uncanny’ (unheimlich) world far removed from the comfort-
able, orderly life and utilitarian concerns of civil society (Burckhardt 1988,
pp. 6, 99, 11, 10).29
Like the authors of the Sturm and Drang and the Romantic period,
Burckhardt was fascinated by the transgressive elements of Renaissance
civilization.30 His tyrants embodied more than just a ‘worldly’ individu-
alism: they were Faustian overreachers, ‘godless’ (gottverlassen), at times
demonic characters, full of ‘daring profanity’ (Frevelmut) and diabolical
genius. Of Cesare Borgia, whose inhumanity ultimately seems to have
repelled him, he wrote that his cruelty took on a ‘completely satanic char-
acter’ (Burckhardt 1988, pp. 10, 26, 38). Yet Burckhardt largely refused to
apportion moral blame even to the most blasphemous tyrannical deeds. The
apostate son of Basel’s chief Protestant minister, whose ‘anti-Christian
sentiment’ was notorious in his hometown,31 he more or less suspended
judgement on the despots and related their crimes with the same cool ob-
jectivity for which he praised Machiavelli. These crimes, he argued, were
_____________
28 Kaegi 1932, p. xxx, calls them ‘bogeymen of the bourgeoisie’ (Bürgerschrecke).
29 For more instances of the Gothic in his depiction of the Renaissance tyrannies see
Burckhardt 1988, pp. 11, 20, 26, 28, 33. See also Kaegi 1982, vol. 3, pp. 710–711.
30 See Janssen 1970, pp. 11–15, 217–223. In this respect, The Civilization of the
Renaissance echoes not just Heinse’s Ardinghello, but also works of Romantic fic-
tion like Hoffmann’s Elixiere des Teufels (1815) and Tieck’s Vittoria Accorom-
bona (1830); see Rehm 1960, pp. 19, 54–64, and Rehm 1924, p. 69.
31 Gelzer 1907, p. 340, reports that the young Burckhardt was imbued with an ‘al-
most fanatical anti-Christian animus’. It should be noted, however, that in the
1870s, Burckhardt’s attitude to Christianity, and to Catholicism in particular,
changed, partly, it seems, in response to the experience of Bismarck’s Kultur-
kampf; see his letter to Max Alioth of 12 May 1889 (Burckhardt 1986, vol. 9, p.
185). Stadelmann 1930, p. 504, argues that under the impact of the Kulturkampf,
Burckhardt came to ‘appreciate Catholicism as a harbour of liberty’ for all things
intellectual that were threatened by the ‘brutality of state power’. On Burckhardt’s
changing attitude towards Christianity see Ernst 1948, Zeeden 1954, and Howard
2000, pp. 110–170; for a somewhat different view see von Martin 1947a, pp. 131–
133 and von Martin 1947b, esp. pp. 18–22, 39–53, 155–216.
the expression of an essentially ‘naive’ amoralism that was, in the last

instance, beyond ‘ethical judgement’ (Burckhardt 1988, pp. 15, 40). The
development of the new political and individual entities of Renaissance
Italy, for him, was ultimately an aesthetic phenomenon and had to be valu-
ated accordingly.
Burckhardt’s Renaissance Man, thus, was something quite different
from the harmonious, classically gebildet individual idealized by Goethe
and Schiller. In contrast to the Weimar classicists and a number of influen-
tial nineteenth-century historians like Georg Voigt,32 he did not consider
the ‘revival of classical antiquity’ to be the defining feature of the Italian
Renaissance. According to Burckhardt, humanism played but a secondary,
or indeed tertiary, role in the making of modern subjectivity.33 The process
of individualization, for him, was shaped not so much by neo-Platonism or
the Ciceronian ideal of humanitas, but altogether more worldly factors,
chief among them, as we have seen, the violent politics of the north Italian
tyrannies. Burckhardt’s identification of the Renaissance with the birth of a
new ‘autonomous’ personality, consequently, was both a contribution to
the ‘bourgeois religion of success’ and a forceful attack on the neo-
humanist notions of selfhood so dear to the German-speaking Bildungs-
bürger. His idea of ‘tyrannical self-fashioning’, similarly, challenged the
traditional liberal associations between individualism and political partici-
pation, autonomy and security, self-cultivation and the private sphere—just
as his depiction of the despots as congenial patrons and catalysts of the
Renaissance artists called into question the ‘civic humanist’ association of
‘liberty and letters’.34
_____________
32 See Voigt/Lehnerdt 1893. On Voigt’s conception of the Renaissance see Ferguson
1948, pp. 159–163, and now Todte 2004.
33 It is telling that Burckhardt turns to the revival of arts and letters at the hand of the
humanists only in the third part of his Renaissance book, that is, after the long
opening section on ‘The State as a Work of Art’ and the treatment of ‘The Devel-
opment of the Individual’ in section 2. He begins his survey of Italian humanism—
see Burckhardt 1988, p. 171—with a categorical qualification of the significance
hitherto attached, in histories of the Renaissance, to the revival of antiquity, insist-
ing that all the major cultural and intellectual transformations in early modern Italy
would have taken place ‘without it’.
34 This interpretation of the Italian Renaissance, which goes back to Adam Fergu-
son’s Essay on the History of Civil Society (1767), is now generally associated
with the work of Hans Baron, who developed his notion of ‘civic humanism’ or
Bürgerhumanismus partly in response to Burckhardt’s claim that Renaissance cul-
ture had first flourished at the tyrannical courts. For Baron, it was born out of the
politically engaged, republican spirit of certain Florentine humanists in the period
around 1400, when the city-state struggled against the Visconti of Milan: ‘The
Martin A. Ruehl 241
The Civilization of the Renaissance, while continuing earlier master-

narratives of emancipation and secularization, hence marked an interven-
tion not just in the interpretations of the Renaissance since Heinse and
Goethe, but also in topical, post-revolutionary debates about the nexus
between Geist (intellect) and Macht (political power), morality and great-
ness, culture and violence. In the age of ‘blood and iron’ and especially
after the foundation of the Second German Empire in 1871, this interven-
tion would take on a new significance for bourgeois intellectuals wonder-
ing about the fate of the German Kulturnation in Bismarck’s recently es-
tablished Nationalstaat.
2. ‘The Golden Age of the Millennium’: Nietzsche’s Uses of the Renaissance

contra Wagner and Luther
One of these intellectuals was Friedrich Nietzsche. While Nietzsche’s bit-

ter attacks on the culture of Bismarck’s Reich have received much schol-
arly attention,35 relatively little is known about the impact that Burck-
hardt’s conception of the Renaissance had on his Kulturkritik.36 And yet
throughout the 1870s and 1880s, the ‘idea of the Renaissance’, which he
selectively adopted, as we shall see, from Burckhardt’s book, proved to be
a powerful inspiration for Nietzsche’s denunciation of the liberal, kultur-
protestantisch ethos of the Second Empire which he regarded as one of the
main reasons for the decadence of contemporary German culture.37 But
Burckhardt’s Renaissance also prompted him to challenge the Germanic
ideology underlying Wagner’s music dramas, to overcome Schopenhauer’s
ahistorical pessimism and to rethink the sociopolitical framework within
which the future transvaluation of values and the revival of European
civilization could come about.
_____________
places which held cultural predominance in the first decades of the Quattrocento
were not as yet the seats of the tyrants, later to become famous, but rather the re-
maining city-state republics led by Florence’: Baron 1966, p. xxv. On the genesis
of Baron’s concept of ‘civic humanism’ see Fubini 1992, Hankins 1995, Hankins
2000, and Ladwig 2004, pp. 278–360.
35 See, e.g., Schieder 1963, Kaufmann 1974, pp. 121–178, Bergmann 1987, pp. 81–
107, and Gossman 2000, pp. 413–439.
36 Even an otherwise astute analysis of the various factors contributing to the forma-
tion of Nietzsche’s anti-modern Geschichtsbild in Basel like Cancik 1995, pp. 23–
34, largely ignores Burckhardt’s role in this process. But see the perceptive com-
ments in Ross 1980, pp. 312–319, Hofmann 1971, and Large 2000.
37 On Burckhardt as a critic of the Second Empire and its culture see Ressing 1951,
Zeeden 1963, and Gossman 2000, pp. 439–442, 445–447.
That Nietzsche was familiar with Burckhardt’s conception of the Re-

naissance is beyond doubt. His personal library contained two copies of
The Civilization of the Renaissance, both second editions of 1869, the year
he arrived in Basel to take up the chair in classical philology at the city’s
distinguished university.38 One of these copies must have been a present
from Burckhardt himself: its title page bears a short but amicable inscrip-
tion ‘to Prof. Dr. Nietzsche’ by the author.39 Both are heavily marked in
Nietzsche’s hand, especially the first three sections, entitled ‘The State as a
Work of Art’, ‘The Development of the Individual’, and ‘The Revival of
Antiquity’. An entry in the diaries of Cosima Wagner reveals that Nietz-
sche sent the Wagners a copy of the book as early as December 1870.40 In
the summer semester of 1871, at any rate, he presented a series of lectures
on ‘The History of Classical Philology’ (Enzyclopaedie der klassischen
Philologie), the first of which, entitled ‘The Discovery of Antiquity in
Italy’, drew heavily on Burckhardt’s Civilization of the Renaissance. The
lecture manuscript shows that Nietzsche adopted—often verbatim—some
of Burckhardt’s central arguments, for instance the notion that it was the
‘Italian national genius’ (italienischer Volksgeist) that had corroded the
feudal ties of the Middle Ages or that there existed ‘innermost affinities’
_____________
38 See Brobjer 1997, pp. 691–692.
39 The copies are preserved in Nietzsche’s private library, which is now part of the
Herzogin Anna Amalia Bibliothek in Weimar. They are listed as items C482a and
C482b, respectively. The former bears the following inscription on the title page:
‘Herrn Prof. Dr. Nietzsche in Verehrung dargebracht vom Verf.[asser]’. For Nietz-
sche’s markings see C482a, esp. pp. 106–110, 112, 421; and C482b, pp. 136–139,
141, 147, 149, 154–155, 163, 171, 174, 197–198, 212–215. Nietzsche’s library
contains a number of other works on the Italian Renaissance, most notably Émile
Gebhart’s Études méridionales. La Renaissance italienne et la philosophie de
l’histoire, Paris 1887, and Albert Trolle’s Das italienische Volkstum und seine Ab-
hängigkeit von den Naturbedingungen, Leipzig 1885. That his conception of the
Renaissance was nonetheless indebted primarily to The Civilization of the Renais-
sance is suggested not just by the much more expansive markings and marginalia
in the latter, but also by the fact that Gebhart’s book itself drew heavily on Burck-
hardt. Brobjer 1995, p. 81, n. 37 argues that Nietzsche’s later transvaluation of vir-
tue as Machiavellian virtù or ‘virtue free of moralistic acid’ (moralinfreie Tugend,
A 2) was inspired by Gebhart, not Burckhardt. In a footnote to the first section of
his book, however, Burckhardt describes Machiavelli’s notion of virtù in a way
that is perfectly congruous with Nietzsche’s subsequent use of the concept,
namely, as a ‘synthesis of force and talent’ that is ‘compatible with sceleratezza’:
Burckhardt 1988, p. 409.
40 See Wagner 1977, vol. 1, p. 320 (4 December 1870): ‘Prof. Nietzsche sends
Burckhardt’s book on the Renaissance.’ See also Borchmeyer/Salaquarda 1994,
vol. 1, p. 109.
Martin A. Ruehl 243
(die innersten Beziehungen) between the despots and the scholars residing
at their courts (KGW II.3, pp. 348, 350).41
Although Nietzsche was thus evidently well acquainted with Burck-
hardt’s interpretation of the Renaissance in the summer of 1871, he con-
cealed this knowledge very skilfully in his first major philosophical work.
The Birth of Tragedy, in fact, presented an image of the Renaissance that
was decidedly at odds with Burckhardt’s. It was indebted almost entirely to
Richard Wagner, who in the early 1870s exerted a strong influence on
Nietzsche’s ideas about ancient Greece and its cultural legacy. For Wag-
ner, Renaissance Italy was a ‘corrupt’ world, imbued with a superficial
aestheticism whose dissemination into the north proved ‘detrimental’ to the
development of a genuine German Kultur.42 The Renaissance humanists’
attempt to revive classical antiquity had been an abject failure, according to
Wagner, because they lacked a true understanding of the tragic nature of
ancient Greek civilization and their thinking was perverted by the villain-
ous rulers they served.43 In The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche denounced the
Renaissance in very similar terms, dismissing quattrocento humanism as a
shallow ‘theoretical’ imitation of antiquity and Renaissance civilization in
general as a ‘false idyll’ constructed by ‘Socratic’ men (BT 19).44 It may
_____________
41 On Nietzsche’s liberal borrowings from The Civilization of the Renaissance in his
lecture manuscript see Campioni 1998, pp. 96–102, and Volpi 1999.
42 See Wagner 1977, vol. 1, p. 506 (2 April 1872): ‘At table, he [i.e. Richard Wagner]
rails against the Renaissance, saying that it did enormous damage to the Germanic
development; this age showed as little appreciation of antiquity as of Christianity;
men of prodigious talent placed themselves in the service of a power that corrupted
everything; and as always, the naïve Germans let themselves be so impressed by a
foreign civilization that their own feeling nearly perished’. See also Wagner 1977,
vol. 2, p. 617 (3 November 1880), where Cosima mentions further ‘invectives
against the Renaissance’, and vol. 2, pp. 836–837 (2 December 1881), where she
reports Wagner’s ‘disgusted’ reaction to the ‘pernicious’ eagerness of Renaissance
artists to ‘make everything look beautiful’ and to ‘avoid harshness’ (das Herbe).
On Wagner’s repudiation of the Renaissance see Campioni 1998, pp. 88–91.
43 See Wagner 1977, vol. 2, p. 287 (10 January 1879): ‘A modern man like Machia-
velli ... cuts a poor figure in comparison [to the ancient Greeks]; what a corrupt
world formed the background to his being!’
44 ‘Imitative’ and ‘decorative’ are typical terms of abuse in Wagner’s diatribes
against Renaissance art and civilization; see, e.g., Wagner 1977, vol. 1, p. 1002,
and vol. 2, pp. 621, 682, 867, 933. That Nietzsche was aware of Wagner’s distaste
for the Renaissance is evidenced by his notes for the fourth Untimely Meditation
(Nachlaß Beginning of 1874–Spring 1874, KSA 7, 32 [58]), in which he meditates
on the composer’s ‘ambition’ to measure himself against great figures of the past
like Goethe, Beethoven, Luther, and the Greek tragedians: ‘only to the Renaissance
could he not relate’ (nur zur Renaissance fand er kein Verhältnis).
have been out of consideration for Wagner, who closely followed the com-
position of the book, that Nietzsche refrained from using the Latinate term
‘Renaissance’, referring instead to the imminent revival of Greek culture
through Wagner’s music as a Wiedergeburt or ‘rebirth’ (BT 16).45 In ac-
cordance with Wagner’s nationalprotestantisch and profoundly anti-
Roman views, Nietzsche identified the great moment of spiritual emanci-
pation in European history not with the Renaissance, but with the Reforma-
tion. It was out of Luther’s choral, he remarked, that the music of Bach,
Beethoven, and Wagner was born (BT 23).
These critical remarks contrast with Nietzsche’s altogether more posi-
tive, ‘Burckhardtean’ assessment of the Renaissance in the lectures on
classical philology. The fact that the latter were delivered just as he was
completing the manuscript of The Birth of Tragedy suggests a certain ten-
sion in his view of early modern Italy. While officially paying tribute to
Tribschen, Nietzsche had already obtained a different perspective on the
quattrocento, thanks to his new Basel associate. Basel, which had been a
‘focal point for contact between German intellectuals and Italian ideas’ in
the early sixteenth century (Tracy 1968, p. 282), when the city hosted nu-
merous renowned Renaissance scholars drawn to the circle around Eras-
mus and the humanist publisher Johann Froben, was still a vibrant centre
of cultural exchange between northern and southern Europe in the 1870s.
For Nietzsche, it provided an alternative geistige Lebensform (mode of
intellectual existence),46 a corrective to the heady mix of Nordic myths,
Romantic medievalism, and patriotic pathos in Wagner’s operas, which
had cast a powerful spell on the young German classicist since he first
heard the prelude to the Mastersingers in the fall of 1868.47 Other resident
Italophiles like Johann Jakob Bachofen also played a part in this emancipa-
tory process,48 but the major impulse came from Burckhardt, a sharp-
_____________
45 Nietzsche consistently speaks of a Wiedergeburt der Tragödie, Wiedergeburt des
griechischen Alterthums, Wiedergeburt der hellenischen Welt, and so on; see
Campioni 1998, p. 93. Gerhardt 1995, p. 153, remarks: ‘Already in his first philo-
sophical work [i.e., The Birth of Tragedy] Nietzsche expressed hope in a rebirth of
tragedy out of the German spirit of music and thus—even though he refrained from
using the term, out of respect for Wagner—a renaissance.’ See also Hinz 1989.
46 The phrase is borrowed from Thomas Mann’s 1926 lecture ‘Lübeck als geistige
Lebensform’; see Mann 1953.
47 On Nietzsche’s early ‘Wagnerianism’ see Love 1963, Ross 1980, pp. 168–177,
Janz 1978, vol. 1, pp. 246–252, and Borchmeyer/Salaquarda 1994, vol. 2, pp.
1278–1295. Kaegi 1982, vol. 7, p. 52, maintains that Burckhardt represented ‘the
most dangerous ferment’ of Nietzsche’s discontent with Wagner in the middle of
the 1870s.
48 On Nietzsche’s relation to Bachofen see Cesana 1994 and Cancik 1995, pp. 25–26.
Martin A. Ruehl 245
tongued critic of German chauvinism (at least since the Wars of Unifica-
tion) and Wagnerian music,49 who quickly became a revered colleague,
mentor, and ersatz master for Nietzsche.50 Throughout the 1870s, while
transforming himself into a proselyte of the philosophes and a cosmopoli-
tan ‘free spirit’ (HA II 87),51 Nietzsche used Burckhardt’s Renaissance as a
compass and signpost on his gradual retreat from Bayreuth. Wagner was
aware of the role that Burckhardt had played in the apostasy of his former
disciple.52 ‘People like Nietzsche’, he remarked to Cosima in 1881, ‘via the
Renaissance man Burckhardt’ (durch den Renaissance-Mann Burckhardt),
had revealed their true colours when they identified themselves with ‘odi-
ous’ figures such as Erasmus and Petrarch (Wagner 1977, vol. 2, p. 837).53
_____________
49 Burckhardt reveals his dislike of Wagner in a letter to Max Alioth (24 July 1875),
which alludes to the composer’s ‘lurid’ (grell) and ‘formless’ (herrenlose) fantasy:
Burckhardt 1986, vol. 6, pp. 42–43. Burckhardt 1986, vol. 5, pp. 43 and 183 and
vol. 6, pp. 48–49, 81, 151–152, 192, denounces Wagner’s music as a ‘romantic
swindle’ and describes its oppressive, domineering effects on the listener, antici-
pating some of Nietzsche’s later arguments contra Wagner, e.g., in HA II 3.
Bergmann 1987, p. 95, misreads Burckhardt’s letter to Friedrich von Preen of 31
December 1872 (see Burckhardt 1986, vol. 5, p. 183) as an expression of support
for Wagner’s Bayreuth project. For a more accurate assessment of his attitude to-
wards Wagner and Wagnerianism see Kaegi 1982, vol. 7, pp. 40, 54, von Martin
1947a, pp. 44–45, 212–213, and Salin 1948, p. 54.
50 Even Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche, a one-time associate of Bayreuth and one of the
most influential propagators of the ‘German’ Nietzsche in the first third of the
twentieth century, acknowledged the moderating impact that Burckhardt’s franco-
phile, cosmopolitan outlook had on her brother in the early 1870s (Förster–
Nietzsche 1928, p. 38): ‘Jakob [sic] Burckhardt surely exerted a great influence on
my brother who always considered him [i.e. Burckhardt] a representative of Latin
culture. Especially during the time of the [Franco-Prussian] War, when intellectual
arrogance prompted many Germans to put down their victories ... to their “Bil-
dung”, Burckhardt was an excellent counter-weight [and allowed my brother] to
view the world-historical events with a certain detachment, beyond German sensi-
bilities. My brother had always embraced such supra-national views, but found it
hard to hold on to them in those days, when even Richard Wagner (who at the time
was his greatest and closest friend) got so carried away by the incredible euphoria
in the wake of the proud victory... that he [i.e. Wagner] spoke out with bitterness
and condescension against Latin civilization’.
51 See Campioni 1976.
52 See Ross 1980, p. 316: ‘they [i.e., Richard and Cosima Wagner] knew who their
opponent and rival was in Basel’.
53 See also the Wagners’ objection to the ‘arrogant, coldly critical tone’ of Burck-
hardt’s art-historical judgements in the Cicerone (à propos the duomo in Florence),
in which they discerned ‘traces’ of his ‘influence on Nietzsche’: Wagner 1977, vol.
2, p. 589 (30 August 1880). A little less than a year later, Wagner decried ‘the ad-
mirers of the Renaissance’ as ‘Jew lovers’ (Juden-Freunde)—a curious charge,
Nietzsche’s little essay on ‘The Greek State’, composed in 1871 and

originally intended for inclusion in The Birth of Tragedy,54 already hinted
at his imminent departure from the Wagnerian evaluation of the Renais-
sance as a falsely optimistic, ‘idyllic’ revival of Greek antiquity. In this
early piece, Nietzsche put the ‘men of the Renaissance in Italy’ on a par
with the ancient Hellenes as ‘political men par excellence’ (CV 3, KSA 1,
p. 771), imbued with violent, agonal instincts which he presented—this,
too, was an implicit challenge to Wagner’s more Winckelmannian, ‘civic
humanist’ conception of ancient Greece—as necessary preconditions for
the establishment of a great culture.55 A few years later, in the second Un-
timely Meditation (1874), he went a step further and held up the men of the
Renaissance as the exact opposite of cerebral Socratism. Far from being
theoretical men, they were a powerful elite of practical individuals who
had lifted the culture of early modern Italy on their strong ‘shoulders’ (UM
II 2). In a little aside, he acknowledged the scholar who had drawn his
attention to this first successful rebirth of the ancient world. The Renais-
sance, he remarked, had awakened ‘once again the ancient Italian genius’,
thus producing ‘a “wondrous echo of the ancient string-instruments”, as
Jacob Burckhardt puts it’ (UM II 3).56
With the publication of Human, All Too Human (1878–1880), Nietz-
sche made his break with Wagner explicit. In this work, significantly, he
offered his first sustained commentary on the historical and, to some ex-
tent, the personal import of the Renaissance. Redefining his own philoso-
phy as a continuation and execution of the Enlightenment project, Nietz-
sche presented the Enlightenment as an extension of the Renaissance. The
Renaissance, which he now hailed, quite unambiguously, as ‘the golden
age of the millennium’, had comprised ‘all the positive forces to which we
_____________
and one quite misplaced at least with regard to Burckhardt who was a convinced (if
conventional) anti-Semite: Wagner 1977, vol. 2, p. 763 (16 July 1881). Burck-
hardt’s hostility towards Jews and Jewish emancipation, which was intimately
connected with his anti-modern anxieties, is evident in Burckhardt 1986, vol. 3, p.
69, vol. 6, p. 214, vol. 7, pp. 190, 204, vol. 8, p. 228, vol. 9, p. 90, vol. 10, pp. 26,
251. On Burckhardt’s anti-Semitism see Mattioli 1999.
54 See von Reibnitz 1992, pp. 43–46, and Ruehl 2003, pp. 67–69.
55 On the anti-Wagnerian force of this little essay see Kaegi 1982, vol. 7, p. 47, and
Ruehl 2003. That Wagner also had a more ‘civic humanist’ perspective on the poli-
tics and culture of late medieval and early modern Italy is suggested by his great
appreciation of Sismondi, see Wagner 1977, vol. 1, pp. 1005–1009, 1011–1012,
1019.
56 Nietzsche is quoting Burckhardt 1988, p. 183: ‘a partial reawakening of the ancient
Italian soul ... a wondrous echo of ancient string-instruments’ (ein wundersames
Weiterklingen eines uralten Saitenspiels). See Kaegi 1982, vol. 7, p. 51.
Martin A. Ruehl 247
owe modern culture’. Nietzsche’s description of these forces reads like a

keyword synopsis of Burckhardt’s book: ‘the liberation of thought, disre-
gard for authority, the triumph of education over the presumption of lin-
eage, a passion for science ... the unchaining of the individual ... a disdain
for appearances and mere effect’ (HA I 237).57 Just as he himself set out to
revive the secular world-view of the philosophes and the ethical scepticism
of the moralistes, most notably Montaigne and La Rochefoucauld,58 the
latter had ‘carried on’ the secularizing and rationalizing ‘task’ of the Re-
naissance. In doing so, they had revived not just the ideas, but the actual
psychological disposition of classical antiquity to which Nietzsche now,
significantly, apportioned Rome:
Reading Montaigne, La Rochefoucauld, La Bruyère ... one is closer to an-
tiquity than with any other group of authors ... —together, they form an im-
portant link in the great continuing chain of the Renaissance ... With their re-
surrection of the great stoic world of ancient Rome, the French have continued
the task of the Renaissance in a most honourable fashion ... —they began with
the creative imitation of ancient forms and ended up having splendid success
in recreating ancient characters. (HA II 214, 216)
If these remarks suggest a new attitude towards rationalism and ‘Latin’
culture, they also reflect a changed conception of history. The interpreta-
tion of Greek tragedy in The Birth of Tragedy had been informed, to a large
extent, by Schopenhauer’s irrational metaphysics of the will and his syn-
chronic-pessimistic vision of the world as aimless suffering and striving.
Nietzsche’s reference now to a developmental ‘chain’ of enlightenment,
from the ancients, via the Renaissance humanists and the philosophes, to
present-day sceptics like himself, indicates a more diachronic, optimistic
perception of the past. For Schopenhauer, the notion of history as meaning-
ful change or indeed progress had been one of the most pernicious effects
of what he called the ‘stultifying Hegelian Afterphilosophie’. As he com-
mented in the second volume of The World as Will and Representation:
The Hegelians, who regard the philosophy of history as the aim of all philoso-
phy, ought to be taught some Plato, who untiringly repeats that the object of
philosophy lies in the unchangeable and in what lasts, and not in the things
which are now like this, and now like that. All those who make such claims
about the world in motion, or as they call it, history, have not grasped the
_____________
57 See Andler 1926, pp. 151–152. On Nietzsche’s early ‘uses’ of Burckhardt’s idea of
the Renaissance see Farulli 1990, pp. 54–58.
58 See Molner 1993, Vivarelli 1993, Vivarelli 1998, and Donnellan 1979. Kaegi
1982, vol. 3, p. 540, reminds us that Burckhardt greatly contributed to Nietzsche’s
discovery of La Rochefoucauld’s Maximes et pensées in the 1870s. See also Ross
1980, pp. 316–317.
fundamental truth of philosophy: that, philosophically speaking, what really is

is the same at all times. (Schopenhauer 1988, vol. II, pp. 514–515)59
While in The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche had still largely embraced this
‘fundamental truth’, in the second Untimely Meditation and, even more
emphatically, in Human, All Too Human, he discarded most of Schopen-
hauer’s ahistorical metaphysics. Though staunchly opposed to Hegel’s
progressivist philosophy of history (in this respect at least, he remained a
faithful disciple of his former ‘educator’), he began to think more histori-
cally. Ironically, it was Jacob Burckhardt, a self-professed Schopenhau-
erian,60 who more than anyone else effected this historical turn.61 The
Civilization of the Renaissance seems to have played a dual role in this
process. On the one hand, its glowing depiction of the autonomous person-
alities emerging from and shaping, in turn, the culture of the quattrocento
furnished Nietzsche with a counter-weight to Schopenhauer’s philosophi-
cal deconstruction of the principium individuationis and led him to rethink
the significance of individual agency in history. It thus provided a histori-
cal precedent and an inspiration for one of the central ideas underlying his
Kulturkritik in the 1870s: the belief that the great task of cultural renewal
could be carried out by a small group of superior human beings. On the
other hand, Burckhardt’s account of the Renaissance gave Nietzsche a
broader and more complex understanding of European cultural history and
made him question earlier absolutes, most notably the belief in the inimi-
table greatness and timeless model character of ancient Greece. It con-
tained ample evidence that Western civilization had not lain dormant since
the fifth century BC, waiting to be awoken from its Socratic slumber by the
kiss of Richard Wagner, the ‘most German man’ (Wagner 1975, p. 86).62
_____________
59 On Schopenhauer’s critique of Hegel’s philosophy of history (and its influence on
Nietzsche) see Gottfried 1975, esp. pp. 337–338.
60 His allegiance to Schopenhauer’s philosophy is expressed in Burckhardt 1986, vol.
5, pp. 105, 112, 119, 129, 139; vol. 6, pp. 30, 55, 134, 276; and vol. 7, p. 83. See
also von Martin 1947a, pp. 27–28, Kaegi 1982, vol. 5, pp. 280–283, 491–497, vol.
6, pp. 109–113, and Jung 1991. But cf. Joël 1918, pp. 62, 245–246, who argues
that Burckhardt was not ‘an orthodox Schopenhauerian’.
61 Nietzsche’s exposure to The Civilization of the Renaissance was as important, in
this context, as his attendance of Burckhardt’s lectures ‘On the Study of History’ in
the winter semester of 1870/1871. Burckhardt’s influence on Nietzsche’s concep-
tion of history in the second Untimely Meditation is discussed in Bauer 2001, pp.
213–222.
62 For Wagner, by contrast, the ‘excavation’ of classical antiquity by the Renaissance
humanists was a mere ‘misfortune’; unlike his own Gesamtkunstwerk, Renaissance
art was ‘not destined to be redemptive’: Wagner 1977, vol. 2, p. 1041 (7 November
1882).
Martin A. Ruehl 249
The ‘Italian genius’, as Burckhardt put it, had already achieved a first re-
vival—and not just of the (cultural) glory that was Greece, but also of the
noble, martial values that Nietzsche would later identify with the label
‘Rome’ (see, e.g., GM I 16). For those contemporary Europeans seeking a
second revival, there were important lessons to be learnt from the Renais-
sance, with regard both to its enabling factors and the reasons for its ulti-
mate failure. In his reflections on the latter, Nietzsche soon came to single
out Martin Luther.
Nietzsche’s critical reassessment of Luther and the Reformation since
the mid-1870s went hand in hand with his ideological emancipation from
Wagner, who had recently taken a Protestant turn.63 Wagner’s new-found
religiosity—‘Incredible! Wagner had become pious’, as Nietzsche put it,
many years later, in Ecce Homo (EH III HA 5)—found expression in his
last opera, Parsifal, the libretto of which was completed in the spring of
1877.64 The Birth of Tragedy, as we have seen, had posited a close connec-
tion between the composer and the reformer, hailing Wagner as a product
of that ‘glorious, internally healthy, primordial force’ of the German ‘es-
sence’ (Wesen), which had also manifested itself in the Reformation (BT
23). In his second lecture ‘On the Future of Our Educational Institutions’,
delivered in Basel on 6 February 1872, he still expressed his commitment
to this German essence which had inspired the ‘German Reformation [and]
German music’ (EI 2, KSA 1, p. 691). The preparations for the fourth and
the (unfinished) fifth Untimely Meditation, written in the first half of 1875,
however, already betrayed a more ambivalent relation to Luther. On the
one hand, Nietzsche, evidently with an eye on his Wagnerian friends, ap-
plauded the Reformation as a ‘protest against the d e c o r a t i v e c u l t u r e of
the Renaissance’; on the other hand, he conceded that it had ‘separated us
from antiquity’ (Nachlaß Spring 1875–Summer 1875, KSA 8, 5[28]). In
another fragment from 1875, he remarked that the Renaissance showed ‘an
awakening of t r u t h f u l n e s s in the south, as did the Reformation in the
north’, but added that the anti-Christian approach to classical antiquity
_____________
63 On Nietzsche’s changing attitude towards Luther in those years see Hirsch 1998,
Bluhm 1950, Bluhm 1953, Bluhm 1956, and Orsucci 1996, pp. 352–364. For a dif-
ferent reading see Bertram 1921, pp. 42–63.
64 See Gregor-Dellin 1980, pp. 739–740. On Wagner’s increased interest in and
admiration for Luther during the 1870s see Wagner 1977, vol. 1, pp. 741, 744,
748–753, 756, 775–777, 805, 1014, and vol. 2, pp. 206–210. See also Gregor-
Dellin 1980, pp. 763–764, and Ross 1980, p. 519: ‘In the meantime [i.e., the mid-
1870s], she [i.e., Cosima Wagner] had become a good Protestant, the Kulturkampf
was in full swing, and Wagner considered himself a descendant of Luther.’
taken by the Italian humanists had been ‘purer’ than that of the German
reformers (Nachlaß Spring 1875–Summer 1875, KSA 8, 5[107]).
As he moved further away from Bayreuth in the second half of the
1870s, Nietzsche began to concentrate on the negative effects of the Re-
formation. In the first volume of Human, All Too Human (1878), a book
that he retrospectively stylized as his response to Parsifal (see EH III HA
5),65 he made Luther responsible for delaying the ‘full awakening and sup-
remacy of the sciences’ and for preventing the ‘complete synthesis [In-
Eins-Verwachsen] of the ancient and the modern spirit’ attempted in the
Italian Renaissance. Insofar as it caused the Counter-Reformation, the
Reformation, which he now decried as ‘a vociferous protest of reactionary
minds who had not yet had their fill of the medieval world-view’, helped to
re-establish a ‘self-defensive Catholic Christianity’ (HA I 237). It was
Luther, Nietzsche contended in The Gay Science (1882), who had launched
the fateful ‘peasants’ revolt of the north’ against the ‘noble’ (vornehm)
values and institutions of the south, a revolt that brought the ‘common’,
‘plebeian’ instincts back to the fore, ‘emaciated’ German culture and ‘flat-
tened’ the European mind for centuries to come (GS 358).
Nietzsche’s polemical juxtapositions of the Renaissance and the Re-
formation became more pronounced in his so-called ‘transvaluative’ writ-
ings. They reached a climax in The Antichrist (completed in September
1888), which included a lengthy counterfactual speculation about what
might have ensued had Cesare Borgia ascended the papal throne in the
early 1500s. Taking his cue from Burckhardt’s redolent conjectures about
the imminent decline of the papacy and the possible ‘secularization’ of the
Papal States in Cesare’s hands (see Burckhardt 1988, pp. 85, 87), Nietz-
sche mused that such an attack on the Church ‘from within’ would have
brought about the realization of the Renaissance project, which he identi-
fied squarely with the ‘transvaluation of Christian values’. What under-
mined this project, in the end, was not so much Cesare’s premature death
in 1507 as the intervention of a certain ‘German monk’:
To attack at the decisive place, at the seat of Christianity itself, and there to en-
throne the noble values ... I see before me the p o s s i b i l i t y of a ... heavenly ...
spectacle ... C e s a r e B o r g i a a s p o p e ! ... Am I understood? ... Well then,
that would have been the only sort of victory that I desire today: with that,
Christianity would have been a b o l i s h e d !—What happened? A German
monk, Luther, came to Rome. This monk, with all the vengeful instincts of a
_____________
65 On the completion of Nietzsche’s break with Wagner in 1878 and the significance
of Human, All Too Human in this context see Borchmeyer/Salaquarda 1994, vol. 2,
pp. 1316–1333.
Martin A. Ruehl 251
failed priest, rebelled a g a i n s t the Renaissance in Rome ... Luther saw the
d e p r a v i t y of the papacy when in fact the exact opposite was becoming ap-
parent: ... Christianity no longer occupied the papal chair! Instead there was
life! The triumph of life! The great yea to all lofty, beautiful and reckless
things! ... And Luther r e s t o r e d t h e c h u r c h : he attacked it... The Renais-
sance—an event without meaning, a great ‘i n v a i n ’ [ein großes U m s o n s t ].
(A 61)66
That Burckhardt had influenced the revision of Nietzsche’s formerly un-
critical Protestant view of history is suggested by a letter to Heinrich
Köselitz from October 1879, in which Nietzsche confessed that ‘for a long
time’, he had been ‘incapable of saying anything respectful’ about Lu-
ther.67 He put this down to the recent perusal of ‘a huge collection of ma-
terial’ to which Jacob Burckhardt had drawn his attention. ‘Here, for once,’
he commented, ‘we don’t get the falsified Protestant version of history we
have been taught to believe in’ (KSB 5, p. 451). The ‘material’ in question
was the second volume of the History of the German People since the End
of the Middle Ages (published a little earlier in 1879) by the Catholic his-
torian Johannes Janssen, which offered a fiercely partisan account of the
confessional struggles in sixteenth-century Central Europe.68 While Jans-
sen’s History evidently contributed to his reassessment of Luther in the
1880s,69 Nietzsche’s particular conception of the Reformation as a fateful
interruption of and lasting impediment to the secularization and rationaliza-
tion of the Western world was shaped more directly by his reading of The
Civilization of the Renaissance. In the section on ‘Morality and Religion’,
Burckhardt had speculated that the Renaissance would have ‘swiftly done
away with’ outdated Christian institutions like the Mendicant orders, ‘if the
German Reformation and the Counter-Reformation had not interfered’. To
_____________
66 For a brilliant analysis of this passage see Sommer 2000, pp. 627–646. Nietzsche
repeats his critique of the Reformation as a tragic interruption of the secularization
process begun in the Renaissance in EH III CW 2.
67 On the Protestant values that determined Nietzsche’s education in Röcken and
Naumburg see Bohley 1987, Bohley 1989, and Pernet 1989.
68 On Burckhardt’s deep respect for Janssen’s scholarship see Kaegi 1982, vol. 5, pp.
56–58. Ludwig Pastor, who was Janssen’s pupil and friend, reports that Burckhardt
called Janssen’s History of the German People ‘essential’ for the understanding of
the ‘end of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth century’, because it
‘finally told us the truth about the so-called Reformation’; ‘up to now, we have
only had uplifting stories [Erbauungsgeschichten] by Protestant pastors’: Pastor
1950, p. 276.
69 See Hirsch 1998, pp. 175–179, and Orsucci 1996, pp. 353–364; but cf. Benz 1956,
pp. 73–79, who rightly points out (p. 75) that, unlike Nietzsche, Janssen viewed
Renaissance humanism as an ally of Protestantism.
the secular eyes of his Renaissance men, these orders appeared ‘either
comical or disgusting’. ‘And who knows’, he remarked ambiguously,
‘what would have been in store for the papacy then, if the Reformation had
not saved it’ (Burckhardt 1988, pp. 337–338).70
3. The Makings of Renaissance Man: Individualism without Humanism
If Burckhardt prompted Nietzsche to reflect critically on the reasons for the

failure of the Renaissance, he also made him consider the ‘causes and con-
ditions’ for the ‘superiority of Renaissance Man’ (Nachlaß November
1887–March 1888, KSA 13, 11[133]) as well as the possibilities for a sec-
ond cultural renewal. The first one, as he learnt from Burckhardt, was
brought about by a new breed of men, who actively dismantled the values
and institutions of the Middle Ages. Burckhardt’s insistence that the mak-
ers and shapers of Renaissance culture were not humanist scholars like
Coluccio Salutati or Lorenzo Valla left an impression on the young Ger-
man philologist, who soon came to despise the pedagogical and method-
ological assumptions of his profession.71 The humanists’ revival of learn-
ing—this was made abundantly clear in the first three sections of
Burckhardt’s book—was little more than an epiphenomenon, an effect,
rather than the cause or the essence, of the Renaissance (see Burckhardt
1988, pp. 127–128). Nietzsche adopted this reinterpretation of the Renais-
sance for his own speculations about the coming rebirth of antiquity, a
task, he believed, that required a certain practical, activist disposition rather
than classical training and scholarly erudition. The agonal, aristocratic
spirit of ancient Greece and Rome would be restored not by men who had
studied the ancient texts, but by men who embodied the values of the an-
cients. He already suggested as much in the second Untimely Meditation
(1874) à propos the uses of monumental history:
_____________
70 Other remarks about the Reformation—see, e.g., Burckhardt 1988, pp. 93–94—
reiterate the same idea, viz. that Luther prevented the secularization of the Church
‘from within’ (von innen heraus). They seem to confirm David Norbrook’s conten-
tion that Burckhardt shared Nietzsche’s later ‘unease with Protestantism’ and his
conviction that ‘Renaissance Italy was fortunate to maintain an aristocratic free-
dom from this extreme form of slave religion’ (Norbrook 1989, p. 109). Benz
1956, p. 77, claims that more than anyone else, Burckhardt conditioned Nietz-
sche’s anti-Protestant turn in the 1870s. But cf. Janssen 1970, p. 61, who argues
that Burckhardt’s comments on the Reformation in The Civilization of the Renais-
sance ‘are, on the whole, appreciatory’.
71 See, e.g., his scathing remark on the ‘ c a s t r a t e d ’, ‘philistine’ empiricism of
German classical philology (Nachlaß Spring–Summer 1875, KSA 8, 5[109]).
Martin A. Ruehl 253
Let us assume that somebody believes it would take no more than a hundred
productive men, effective people brought up in a new spirit, to put an end to
the superficial culture [Gebildetheit] that has become fashionable in Germany
right now, how must it strengthen him to see that the culture of the Renais-
sance raised itself on the shoulders of such a group of a hundred men. (UM II
2)
The Civilization of the Renaissance, as we shall see, provided a blueprint
for Nietzsche’s reflections on the psychological make-up of this new breed
of ‘productive’ men and the sociopolitical conditions that enabled the
growth of their personalities.72
Like Burckhardt, Nietzsche regarded the development of a secular in-
dividualism as a defining characteristic of the Renaissance, which he de-
scribed as a ‘return to a heathen and profoundly personal ethos’ (Anlauf
in’s Heidnisch-stark-Persönliche zurück) (Nachlaß Summer–Autumn
1873, KSA 7, 29[132]). Like his senior colleague, who belonged to one of
the oldest families of the Basel patriciate, he viewed this new personal
ethos of the Renaissance as the privilege of a new elite. In one of his drafts
for the unfinished fifth Untimely Meditation, to be entitled ‘We Philolo-
gists’ (Wir Philologen), he cited Burckhardt’s remark about the ‘sophisti-
cated’ nature (d a s U n v o l k s t h ü m l i c h e ) of Renaissance civilization
(Nachlaß Spring–Summer 1875, KSA 8, 5[108]).73 He had already elabo-
rated this thought in an earlier draft, arguing that the sovereignty of the
individual in Renaissance Italy produced an aristocratic culture which no
longer drew on the forces of the people: ‘The new education [Bildung] of
the Renaissance ... also sought a corresponding art form ... The soil of the
new art is no longer the p e o p l e ... The i n d i v i d u a l dominates, that is, he
_____________
72 On Nietzsche’s reliance on Burckhardt in his psychological reconstruction of
Renaissance Man see Farulli 1990b, esp. pp. 42–49.
73 It should be emphasized, however, that while Nietzsche considered the elitism of
Renaissance civilization a ‘terrible fact’ (eine furchtbare Thatsache) (Nachlaß
Spring–Summer 1875, KSA 8, 5[108]), Burckhardt 1988, p. 128, coolly accepted
the ‘separation of the cultivated from the uncultivated’ (Scheidung von Gebildeten
und Ungebildeten) brought about by the new humanistic education as a ‘necessary’
and indeed immutable aspect of cultural evolution. The young Nietzsche, arguably
under the influence of Wagner’s democratic ideal of a new ‘music for the masses’,
still assessed this development more sceptically. See also his remarks in the lec-
tures on the ‘History of Classical Philology’ (1871), KGW II.3, p. 348: ‘This [i.e.,
the pedagogical reforms of the Renaissance humanists] immediately transposed the
central division of medieval culture, that between priest and layman, into the new
education which became elitist [unvolksthümlich] and thus produced a rift from
which all of us suffer today: from now on, there are cultivated and uncultivated
men [Gebildete und Ungebildete] in Europe.’
contains within himself the forces that previously lay dormant in great
masses. The individual as the extract of the people: withering away for the
sake of one blossom’ (Nachlaß 1871, KSA 7, 9[107]).
Implicit in these observations on the aristocratic individualism of the
Renaissance was the condemnation of what Nietzsche regarded as a level-
ling of education and culture in contemporary European society. Both
Nietzsche and Burckhardt constructed an image of early modern Italy that
could be held up as a mirror to present-day Northern Europe whose schools
and universities invoked the legacy of Renaissance learning and yet failed
miserably to produce the kind of individuals that inhabited quattrocento
Italy. Renaissance individualism, for both, was diametrically opposed to
the bourgeois, liberal individualism that informed the pedagogical as well
as the political ideals of Germany and Switzerland in the second half of the
nineteenth century.74 Both men believed that these ideals—the Rous-
seauean faith in the natural goodness of man, universal rights, equality of
opportunity, the promotion of general welfare, and so on—would open the
door to various forms of ‘massification’ and eventually usher in a ‘great
rabble- and slave-rebellion’ (Nachlaß Summer–Autumn 1884, KSA 11,
26[324]) that was bound to destroy the last remnants of individual au-
tonomy and genuine Bildung.75 Both, accordingly, rejected universal suf-
frage, the shortening of working hours—in Basel from twelve to eleven
hours per day—the abolition of child labour, and the broadening of human-
istic education, in particular the establishment of ‘educational associations’
(Bildungsvereine) for workers.76 As Nietzsche observed in the notes for his
lectures ‘On the Future of Our Educational Institutions’, delivered in 1872
to a packed auditorium in Basel’s Aula,‘universal education’ was a ‘pre-
liminary stage of communism … the precondition for communism’ (Nach-
_____________
74 On the modernization, in particular the expansion and ‘democratization’, of the
German educational system in the second half of the nineteenth century see Jeis-
mann/Lundgreen 1987, pp. 71–250, 317–362, and Berg 1991, pp. 147–371, 411–
473. On educational reform in nineteenth-century Basel see Gossman 2000, pp.
69–77 .
75 See Burckhardt’s letter to Heinrich von Geymüller of 27 December 1874 (Burck-
hardt 1986, vol. 5, pp. 261–262): ‘Since the Paris Commune, anything is possible
anywhere in Europe, mainly because there are well-meaning, splendid liberal peo-
ple everywhere who do not rightly know where justice ends and injustice begins ...
They are the ones opening the gates and paving the way for the dreadful masses
everywhere.’ On Nietzsche’s fear of the masses see Marti 1993.
76 On Nietzsche’s attitude to these contemporary sociopolitical issues see Naake
1985, esp. pp. 61, 86, 89, and Cancik 1995, pp. 23–24, 27–31; on Burckhardt’s
standpoint see Bächtold 1939, esp. pp. 286–299, and Bauer 2001, pp. 87–101.
Martin A. Ruehl 255
laß Winter 1870/1871–Autumn 1872, KSA 7, 8[57]).77 Like Burckhardt,

Nietzsche hailed the Renaissance as the harbinger of a modern sense of
self, while dismissing all modern attempts to universalize and democratize
its humanist legacy of self-formation.
Nietzsche’s conception of Renaissance individualism, however, was
more radically anti-democratic, anti-liberal, and anti-humanist than Burck-
hardt’s.78 The latter, after all, though he acknowledged the new division
into ‘educated’ and ‘uneducated’ people brought about by humanism,
nonetheless stressed the competitive, meritocratic aspects of Renaissance
civilization, the foundation of which, he believed, was a ‘universal society’
(allgemeine Gesellschaft) characterized by an ‘equality of estates’ (Burck-
hardt 1988, p. 106).79 Nietzsche, by contrast, exclusively dwelt on the
‘noble’, aristocratic elements of the Renaissance. While Burckhardt con-
ceded that, alongside the tyrannical courts, republican city-states like Flor-
ence also allowed for the growth of ‘individuality’ and cultural produc-
tivity (Burckhardt 1988, p. 10),80 Nietzsche chose to ignore this republican
alternative. The tyrants, he observed in The Gay Science (1882), were not
just the ‘first-born’ of the new individuals (Erstlinge der Individuen), they
were the only raison d’être for a people. True self-fashioning, for him, was
only possible in the radically insecure, violent sphere of tyranny (GS 23). It
_____________
77 On the anti-modern animus and elitist ethos of Nietzsche’s lectures see Gossman
2000, pp. 423–424, 427–430. Cf. Burckhardt 1982, p. 182: ‘The latest thing in our
world: the demand for culture [Cultur] as a human right, which is a veiled desire
for a life of luxury [Wohlleben].’ On Burckhardt’s anti-democratic conception of
Bildung in particular see Schmidt 1976, pp. 18–22. Wagner, by contrast, enthusias-
tically welcomed the 1880 Schulreform in Basel city, which made secondary
school education free of charge and thus (at least in principle) accessible to the
lower orders; see Wagner 1977, vol. 2, p. 570.
78 The anti-democratic and anti-humanist Weltanschauung underlying Nietzsche’s
vision of a reborn humanity is almost completely overlooked in Boeschenstein
1982.
79 See also Burckhardt 1988, p. 262, which contains a brief eulogy on the new social
mobility and general disregard for lineage in early modern Italy. All of this,
Burckhardt observed, ‘gave the impression’ that the Renaissance ushered in an
‘age of equality’ (Zeitalter der Gleichheit). Janssen 1970, pp. 202–203, rightly
points out that Burckhardt hailed Renaissance society as meritocratic and homoge-
nous insofar as it exploded the feudal, hierarchical structures of the Middle Ages,
while highlighting those new forms of (cultural) stratification and elitism that had
unfortunately been eroded, he believed, in the ‘mass societies’ of modern Europe.
80 It is nonetheless significant that Burckhardt’s discussion of the political context of
Renaissance individualism is devoted first and foremost to the tyrannies: only
twenty of the roughly one hundred pages that make up the first section of The
Civilization of the Renaissance are dedicated to the republican city-states.
is significant that in his otherwise very warm response to the Gay Science,
a complimentary copy of which had been sent to him by the author im-
mediately after publication,81 Burckhardt expressed mild concern over
Nietzsche’s ‘possible propensity towards tyranny’ (Anlage zu eventueller
Tyrannei) which he thought was revealed in aphorism 325 of the book
(Burckhardt 1986, vol. 8, p. 87). Entitled ‘What Belongs to Greatness’,82
the aphorism in question reads: ‘Who is going to achieve great things if he
does not feel within himself the force and the will to cause great pain? The
ability to suffer is the least ... But not to perish by dint of inner distress and
uncertainty when one inflicts great suffering and hears the cry of this suf-
fering—that is great, that belongs to greatness’ (GS 325).
But tyrannical self-fashioning, according to Nietzsche, did not just
produce great individuals with stony hearts and Machiavellian minds; it
also aided the growth of culture. Under a tyranny, he argued, ‘the individ-
ual is usually most mature and “culture”, consequently, most developed
and fertile’. The tyrant was a catalyst for the creation of ‘bold’, ‘transgres-
sive’ individuals as well as artists (GS 23). Again and again, Nietzsche
returned to this juncture between oppression and individualization, destruc-
tion and cultural production, the ‘mysterious connection’, as he called it in
his essay on the ‘Greek State’, ‘between political greed and artistic cre-
ation, battlefield and work of art’ (CV 3, KSA 1, p. 772). Even if the ‘ari-
stocratic radicalism’ that informed his later writings went far beyond
Burckhardt’s more conservative ‘cultural pessimism’,83 there can be little
_____________
81 Nietzsche sent copies of all his books to Burckhardt, whom he considered his most
discerning reader, and continued to do so long after the latter had stopped even ac-
knowledging receipt of the shipments from his young friend and admirer (that is,
after the publication of The Genealogy of Morality in 1887); see KSB 8, pp. 80,
187, 205, 489, 547.
82 Note that Burckhardt’s lecture series ‘On the Study of History’ contained a long
segment on the nature of ‘historical greatness’, in which Burckhardt proffered a—
qualified—‘dispensation’ of the ‘great man’ from the ‘normal moral law’ (Dispen-
sation von dem gewöhnlichen Sittengesetz): Burckhardt 1982, pp. 401–402. His
observation (p. 396) that the ‘first task of the great man is to assert and to increase
his power’ and the categorical statement (p. 401) that ‘power has never been estab-
lished without crime; yet the most important material and spiritual possessions of a
nation can develop only when they are protected by power’ suggest that Nietz-
sche’s ‘tyrannical’ definition of greatness in The Gay Science was not complete
anathema to him. Kaegi 1982, vol. 8, p. 63, remarks that Burckhardt ‘knew his
Machiavelli well enough not to be too perturbed’ by the aphorism in question.
83 The Danish critic Georg Brandes first coined the expression ‘aristocratic radi-
calism’ to describe the strange mixture of revolutionary and elitist elements in the
thought of Nietzsche, who emphatically embraced it; see his letter to Brandes of 2
December 1887 (KSB 8, p. 206). See also Detwiler 1990. On Burckhardt’s more
Martin A. Ruehl 257
doubt that the author of The Civilization of the Renaissance, who had de-
tected an aesthetic quality in the steely state-building of the tyrants and
condottieri, drew his attention to this connection in the first place. Nietz-
sche’s slightly obscure observation, in a note of August 1881, that the Pitti
Palace in Florence represented a renunciation of everything that was
‘pretty and pleasing’ and expressed the sublime ‘contempt for the world’
typical of a Gewaltmensch (Nachlaß Spring 1881–Autumn 1881, KSA 9,
11[197]) was a quotation from Burckhardt, who had reverently described
the creators of the palace as ‘superhuman beings’ (übermenschliche
Wesen).84
4. Radicalizing the Renaissance: the Borgia versus the Bürger
Following Burckhardt, the later Nietzsche glorified Renaissance Man, even

more than the ancient Greeks, as a synthesis of the will to power and the
will to form, the incarnation of an entirely amoral plastic instinct for self-
creation and self-assertion. If in 1878 he had still insisted that the new
‘artistic natures’ of the Renaissance possessed ‘the highest moral purity’
and that the quattrocento was a golden age ‘despite its flaws and vices’
(HA I 237), he successively inverted this judgement over the next ten
years, extolling the very ‘flaws and vices’ of early modern Italy as signs of
a new pagan master-morality. Beginning with Beyond Good and Evil
(1886), he embarked on a fundamental transvaluation of various Renais-
sance figures who had been traditionally decried as demonic, corrupt, or
blasphemous. He held up these figures in a decidedly ‘monumental’ fash-
ion: as ideals and incentives for the ‘new ruling caste’ of a post-Christian
_____________
conservative brand of Kulturkritik see Mommsen 1986. For a comparative assess-
ment of their positions see Löwith 1966, pp. 31–34, and Sautet 1981, pp. 138–142.
84 Nietzsche is paraphrasing Burckhardt’s Cicerone, or Guide to the Enjoyment of the
Artworks of Italy (1855), a book that greatly shaped his own experience and as-
sessment of Renaissance art; see Burckhardt 2001a, p. 151. It is not clear whether
Burckhardt meant to attach the label Gewaltmensch to the patron of the palace,
Luca Pitti, or its architect, Luca Fancelli (or indeed Filippo Brunelleschi, whom
Burckhardt, following Vasari, erroneously credited with the original plans for the
building). Note that in The Civilization of the Renaissance, he reserved the epithet
‘Gewaltmensch’ for the uomo universale Leon Battista Alberti whose fame rested
on his extraordinary talents in art and architecture (as well as poetry and philoso-
phy), not on any ruthless political actions; see Burckhardt 1988, p. 104. That
Nietzsche was familiar with Burckhardt’s portrait of the artist as Gewaltmensch is
suggested by the marginalia in his copy of The Civilization of the Renaissance; see
C482a, p. 110.
Europe, exempla all the more inspiring because of their concrete historical
identity (Nachlaß May–July 1885, KSA 11, 35[73]). Nietzsche invoked a
number of early modern characters in this context, including the Hohen-
staufen emperor Frederick II, Michelangelo, and Machiavelli,85 but his
favourite Renaissance ‘monument’ by far was Cesare Borgia.
Burckhardt’s assessment of Cesare, as we have seen, was ambivalent.
On the one hand, he depicted him, not without some appreciation, as the
most ruthless of the new breed of quattrocento tyrants. His callousness,
Burckhardt wrote, was as extreme as his ‘talent’ and his attempts to cen-
tralize the Papal States had ‘great prospects’. Like Leonardo, Burckhardt
evidently saw something ‘extraordinary’ in his character. On the other
hand, he recoiled from the extremity of Cesare’s crimes, observing, quite
unambiguously, that the monstrosity of the means outstripped ‘the actual
as well as the imaginable ends’ of his actions—and thus ceased to be com-
prehensible, even within a purely ‘objective’, Machiavellian frame of re-
_____________
85 Nietzsche mentions Frederick II on a number of occasions, generally as a great
antagonist of the medieval papacy and an early European free spirit; see, e.g., EH
III Z 4, where he calls Frederick ‘an atheist and enemy of the church comme il faut
... one of my closest relatives’. That Nietzsche’s understanding of Frederick II was
conditioned by Burckhardt’s Civilization of the Renaissance is argued in Hampe
1925, p. 51. See also Janssen 1970, pp. 104–109. Nietzsche’s portrait of Michelan-
gelo (see Nachlaß April–June 1885, KSA 11, 34[149]) as the revolutionary creator
of new artistic norms and forms seems equally indebted to Burckhardt and the
marginalia in his copy of the Cicerone, also preserved at the Herzogin Anna Ama-
lia Bibliothek (see C483 pp. 667, 669), evidence his familiarity with Burckhardt’s
views on Michelangelo. However, by explicitly placing Michelangelo above the
‘Christian’ Raphael, who ‘faithfully’ adhered to the classic standards of the an-
cients, Nietzsche went against one of Burckhardt’s most fundamental verdicts on
early modern art. In his art-historical writings as well as his correspondence,
Burckhardt emphatically and repeatedly exalted Raphael’s ‘classicism’ over
Michelangelo’s ‘Titanism’. What Nietzsche hailed as Michelangelo’s ‘yearning in-
stincts’ for a new art and new artistic ‘values’, Burckhardt denounced as ‘de-
monic’, ‘arbitrary’, and ‘reckless’; see Burckhardt 2001a, pp. 267–269, 273, 276,
and Burckhardt 1986, vol. 8, p. 192. But Burckhardt’s judgement of Michelangelo
was not entirely negative. His comments on Michelangelo’s paintings, for instance,
notably those in the Sistine Chapel, betray a certain reluctant admiration for the
Promethean aspects of his art, which he repeatedly describes as ‘superhuman’
(Burckhardt 2001b, pp. 124–129). Wölfflin 1934, pp. xxiv–xxv, and von Martin
1947a, pp. 140–142, overstate his traditionalism and classicism in this respect.
Gossman 1999, pp. 904–905, and Kaegi 1982, vol. 3, pp. 510–513, offer a more
balanced account. In their assessment of Machiavelli, at any rate, both men were in
broad agreement again: like Burckhardt, Nietzsche praised Machiavelli primarily
on account of his political ‘realism’; see, e.g., TI ‘What I Owe to the Ancients’ 2.
On Nietzsche’s ‘Machiavellianism’ see Dombowsky 2004, pp. 131–168, and Va-
cano 2007.
Martin A. Ruehl 259
ference (Burckhardt 1988, pp. 84–85).86 Nietzsche, by contrast, uncondi-

tionally hailed Cesare as the incarnation of the wholly secular, ‘noble way
of evaluating all things’ (der vornehmen Werthungsweise aller Dinge)
which he regarded as typical of Renaissance civilization in general (GM I
16). When Nietzsche defended Cesare’s aggressive and transgressive traits
against modern detractors who had judged them depraved and degenerate,
he also challenged Burckhardt’s judgement:
One altogether misunderstands the beast of prey and the man of prey (Cesare
Borgia for example), one misunderstands ‘nature’, as long as one looks for
something ‘sick’ at the bottom of these healthiest of all tropical monsters.
(BGE 197)87
In The Civilization of the Renaissance, Burckhardt had related the malefac-
tions of Cesare and his father Alexander VI in the style of Gothic horror
stories, as manifestations of a darkly demonic force in the otherwise trans-
lucent world of Renaissance ragione di stato. Nietzsche listed Cesare
amongst the ‘great v i r t u o s i of Life’ (Nachlaß November 1887–March
1888, KSA 13, 11[153]) and the main representatives of the ‘brilliant-
uncanny re-awakening of the classical ideal’ (glanzvoll-unheimliches
Wiederaufwachen des klassischen Ideals) in early modern Italy (GM I 16).
For Burckhardt, whose conception of antiquity differed in many important
ways from that of Winckelmann, Goethe, and Schiller, this ‘classical ideal’
nonetheless implied humanitas, harmony and Bildung as defined by ‘We-
imar classicism’.88 For Nietzsche, it meant the ‘noble’, pagan values of
ancient Rome, a pre-Christian ‘master morality’ that imbued the ancient
elites with warlike ardour and a ‘pathos of distance’ towards lesser beings
(BGE 257). After having lain dormant in the Middle Ages, these values, he
believed, had come to life again in Cesare Borgia. Within the historical
framework underlying The Genealogy of Morality, Cesare thus occupied a
central place as the originator and driving force of the first ‘transvaluation
of Christian values’—and although eventually stopped short by the Refor-
mation, his transvaluation bore the promise of a second, more complete
reversal. His strategic significance for the entire transvaluative project is
highlighted at the very end of The Antichrist where Nietzsche identified
him with the Renaissance war against Christianity, a war, he contended,
that had to be continued at all costs:
_____________
86 See also Burckhardt 1988, p. 331.
87 See also A 46, where Nietzsche approvingly cites Domenico Boccaccio’s assess-
ment of Cesare —‘è tutto festo’—which he translates as ‘immortally healthy, im-
mortally cheerful [heiter] and well-turned out [wohlgerathen].’
88 See von Martin 1947a, pp. 40–43, 139–141.
So far there has been only t h i s one great war, so far there has been no more
decisive question than that of the Renaissance—m y question is its question.
(A 61)
The extent to which Nietzsche equated Cesare’s historical ‘task’ with his
own is evidenced by a late letter to Georg Brandes, dated 20 November
1888, in which he compares the anti-Christian polemics of Ecce Homo
with Cesare’s ‘overcoming’ of Christianity by dint of his superior ‘vital
instincts’ (KSB 8, pp. 482–483). These remarks suggest that in the late
1880s at least, Nietzsche viewed himself as a kind of Cesare redivivus, a
continuator of his work and the harbinger of a new, more complete attack
on Christendom.89
This new attack, of course, would roll back not just the religious insti-
tutions of Christianity, but Christian ‘slave morality’ in all its laical nine-
teenth-century permutations. Cesare’s noble values were Gegenwerthe
(counter-values) to the ‘life-denying’ ascetic doctrines of the Christian
Church as much as to the universalist humanitarian ideals underlying con-
temporary ideologies like liberalism and socialism. In The Gay Science,
Nietzsche had already suggested that these latter ideologies were born out
of the ‘plebeian’, egalitarian doctrines formulated in the Reformation. He
returned to this narrative of decline in The Twilight of the Idols (completed
in September 1888), where he condemned the modern demands for ‘hu-
manity’ (Humanität) as signs of cultural as well as physical decay, con-
trasting them sharply with the vital, agonistic instincts of Cesare’s Italy:
We moderns, very delicate, very vulnerable ... really have the conceit that our
tender humanity, our unanimous c o n s e n s u s to be merciful, helpful, and
trusting, is a positive advance, that with this we have gone far beyond the men
of the Renaissance ... What is certain is that we may not place ourselves in
Renaissance conditions, not even by an act of the imagination: our nerves
would not endure it, let alone our muscles. But such incapacity is not a sign of
progress ... Let us not doubt that we moderns, with our thickly padded hu-
manity [mit unsrer dick wattirten Humanität] ... would have provided Cesare
Borgia’s contemporaries with a comedy at the sight of which they would have
laughed themselves to death. (TI ‘Reconnaissance Raids’ 37)
Whereas in earlier works like Human, All Too Human, Nietzsche had
posited a trajectory from the Renaissance to the rationalist, scientific
world-view of modern Europe, the later, transvaluative writings largely
capped these positive links. In the 1880s, Nietzsche dwelt almost exclu-
sively on those elements of Renaissance civilization that stood in diametri-
_____________
89 See Gerhardt 1989, p. 109, and Gerhardt 1988.
Martin A. Ruehl 261
cal opposition to the modern bourgeois world and its ‘de-vitalizing’ ethics
of weakness:
Strong ages, noble cultures all consider pity, ‘neighbourly love’, and the lack
of self and self-assurance as something contemptible. Ages are to be measured
by their positive strength—and if we apply this yardstick, the lavish, fateful
age of the Renaissance [jene so verschwenderische und verhängnissreiche Zeit
der Renaissance] emerges as the last great age. We moderns, by contrast ...
with our virtues of ... modesty, legality, and scientism [Wissenschaftlichkeit] ...
emerge as a weak age. (TI ‘Reconnaissance Raids’ 37)
Like Burckhardt, Nietzsche criticized the bourgeois satisfait, with his ideal
of legal Sekurität and his utilitarian concerns, by holding up the Renais-
sance as an era of ruthlessness, violence, and ‘dangerous living’.90 How-
ever, where Burckhardt suspended judgement, Nietzsche offered explicit
praise.91 His Renaissance Men, most notably Frederick II and Cesare, were
unscrupulous, immoral beings, splendid ‘criminals’ (Nachlaß Fall 1887,
KSA 12, 10[50]),92 who thought and acted in blissful disdain for the moral
precepts of the Christian slave religion. They possessed a new, superior
type of moral fibre, ‘virtue in the Renaissance style, virtù, that is: virtue
free of moralistic acid’ (moralinfreie Tugend), which allowed them to in-
crease their ‘power’ (A 2).93 For Burckhardt, as we have seen, Cesare’s
crimes transcended the calculus of cruelty that characterized the Machia-
vellian politics of early modern Italy. For Nietzsche, such an excess of
cruelty was in complete accordance with the amoral virtù of those ‘higher
_____________
90 See Burckhardt’s letter to Nietzsche of 26 September 1886 (Burckhardt 1986, vol.
9, pp. 50–51), which indicates his sympathetic interest in Nietzsche’s reflections
on the ‘antithesis between the great security and comfort of well-being [Assecu-
ranz des Wohlbefindens] and the desirable education through danger’. Even Kaegi,
who generally emphasizes their ideological differences, concedes that Burckhardt
shared Nietzsche’s critical perspective on ‘contemporary European man’; see
Kaegi 1982, vol. 7, p. 67.
91 See Janssen 1970, pp. 32–33, 153–156, 215–216.
92 In his History of the Popes (1834–1836), Leopold von Ranke had called Cesare a
‘virtuoso of crime’ (Virtuos des Verbrechens): Ranke 1890, p. 34.
93 The lines from A 2: ‘What is happiness?—The feeling that power increases, that a
resistance is being overcome. N o t contentment, but more power; n o t peaceful-
ness, but war; n o t virtue [Tugend], but efficiency [Tüchtigkeit] (virtue in the Re-
naissance style, virtù, virtue free of moralistic acid’ echo the following observation
in the Nachlaß (Autumn 1887, KSA 12, 10[50]): ‘in the age of the Renaissance,
the criminal flourished and acquired his own type of virtue — virtue in the Renais-
sance style, of course, virtù, that is: virtue free of moralistic acid’. On Nietzsche’s
neologism moralinfrei and its anti-Semitic connotations see Sommer 2000, pp. 98–
99. There is some evidence that Nietzsche adopted the notion of ‘criminal virtue’
from Burckhardt; see the marginalia in C482a, p. 12, n. 3.
men’ destined to destroy the Christian idols and to proclaim, once again,
the ‘great yea to all lofty, beautiful and reckless things’ (A 61). Burckhardt
regarded Cesare as an extreme, Nietzsche as an exemplary embodiment of
the features that, in the eyes of both, defined the civilization of the Renais-
sance in Italy: secular individualism, remorseless Realpolitik, and a ‘pre-
moral intensity’ that sought its ‘most permanent expression in art’ (Nor-
brook 1989, p. 109). Within the dramatic-allegorical subtext of Burck-
hardt’s Renaissance book, Cesare played the role of transgressor and over-
reacher, but ultimately he remained a historical figure, a deeply
contradictory product of the new, morally ambiguous world that was the
cradle of modern man. Nietzsche, by contrast, used Cesare primarily as a
symbol and type: the iconic negation of all the sickly instincts, the ‘thickly
cushioned humanity’ and ‘herd animal morality’ of those ‘last men’ popu-
lating contemporary Europe. This does not mean, however, that his Cesare
was an arbitrary, ‘literary’ construct, as some recent critics have claimed
(see Nehamas 1985, pp. 225–227). When Nietzsche referred to Cesare as a
model of the superman and, indeed, ‘a kind of superman’ (TI ‘Reconnais-
sance Raids’ 37),94 he had in mind a very specific moment in the history of
Western civilization, a turning point that, ultimately, failed to turn, but that
nonetheless held rich promise for the future.95 Given the centrality of Ce-
sare in particular and of early modern Italy in general to Nietzsche’s vision
of a transformation of European culture, one might justifiably describe the
essence of this vision as a renascence of the Renaissance.
5. Legacies: A Language of Blood and Beauty
The notion of Cesare Borgia as a neo-pagan superman became one of the

most prominent emblems of the first wave of German Nietzscheanism in
the 1890s,96 when hosts of eager new disciples celebrated the Renaissance
as an age of unrestrained subjectivity and a Dionysian zest for life.97 Look-
_____________
94 See also Nietzsche’s letter to Malwida von Meysenbug of 20 October 1888 (KSB
8, p. 458), in which he explains that a ‘figure like Cesare Borgia’ comes a ‘hundred
times’ closer to his idea of the ‘superman’ than ‘the figure of Christ’.
95 Sommer 2000, pp. 630–631, points out that it is the very failure of the Renaissance
that necessitates and legitimizes Nietzsche’s own transvaluative efforts.
96 This important feature of the early ‘Nietzsche legacy’ in Wilhelmine Germany is
curiously overlooked in Aschheim 1992.
97 See Rehm 1929, O’Pecko 1976, Ritter-Santini 1974, and especially Uekermann
1985, who demonstrates (pp. 55–67) the profound influence that Nietzsche’s ideas
had on fin-de-siècle Renaissancismus.
Martin A. Ruehl 263
ing back at this time in 1918, Thomas Mann listed the ‘modish mass ef-
fects’ of Nietzsche’s philosophy, beginning with Renaissancismus, ‘the
cult of the Superman’, ‘Cesare Borgia aestheticism’ (Cesare-Borgia-
Ästhetizismus) and ‘the loudmouthed language of blood and beauty’.98 Like
Mann, Burckhardt recoiled from this language and it may have been the
‘loudmouthed’ glorifications of Renaissance evildoers by fin-de-siècle
playwrights such as Rudolf Lothar and Oscar Panizza that prompted his
explicit dissociation from Nietzsche’s Gewaltmenschen in the letter to von
Pastor.99
To be sure, Nietzsche—and the dramatists of the fin de siècle after
him—radicalized the secular, transgressive elements of Renaissance cul-
ture to such an extent that their representations of early modern Italy
seemed like a ghastly distortion of Burckhardt’s. At the same time, there
can be little doubt that their ‘language of blood and beauty’ drew its vo-
cabulary from Burckhardt’s evocative descriptions of all the Sforza, Malat-
esta, Visconti, and their Machiavellian machinations.100 Whoever penned
the 1895 article for the Historisch-Politische Blätter was not the only con-
temporary observer to discern a connection between the first section of The
Civilization of the Renaissance and the aestheticization of violence in
Nietzsche’s later writings, which shaped the Renaissance cult of ruthless-
ness around 1900.101
_____________
98 Mann 1918, pp. 553–560. On Mann’s ambivalent relation to Renaissancismus see
Ruehl 2004.
99 See Lothar 1893, Panizza 1894, and Berthold Weiß’ drama Caesar Borgia, which
premiered in Zurich in 1893. On the scandal provoked by Panizza’s Liebeskonzil in
1894 see Jelavich 1985, pp. 54–74.
100 Uekermann 1985, pp. 42–55, shows that the major playwrights of Renaissancismus
did not just borrow their dramatis personae and plot-lines from Burckhardt’s book,
but adopted its very terminology, for instance the concept of the state as a ‘work of
art’.
101 Writing in 1917, the literary historian Franz Baumgarten called Burckhardt the
‘historian’ and Nietzsche the ‘prophet’ of Renaissancismus; see Baumgarten 1917,
p. 5. The cultural historian Aby Warburg, who was better acquainted than most
with the literature on early modern Italy, similarly believed that it was Burckhardt
who had triggered the fin-de-siècle craze for the ruthless Renaissance hero; see
Roeck 1991, p. 66. Fubini 1992, p. 563, remarks that Hans Baron’s emphasis on
the civic, urban, and ‘proto-liberal’ elements of Renaissance political thought in
the early 1920s was an attempt to ‘suppress’ a line of interpretation that, ‘through
Burckhardt and Nietzsche, hailed the individualism of the Renaissance as the fore-
runner of the antibourgeois radical currents, both on the Left and the Right, that ran
through Germany at the time’. See also Reinhardt 2002.
Pace Pastor, von Martin, and a host of later commentators,102 it is not

unreasonable to establish such a connection. The Civilization of the Re-
naissance in Italy, as we have seen, had a profound and lasting impact on
Nietzsche’s ‘intellectual development and philosophy’. It fundamentally
altered his view of European history and made him question the Protestant,
philhellenist ideals that underwrote his early hopes for a German cultural
renewal out of the spirit of Wagner’s Gesamtkunstwerk. The central ideas
that Nietzsche adopted from Burckhardt’s book—about secularization and
individualization, the redemptive power of science and moral scepticism,
southern form and clarity, the ‘Italian genius’—were important discursive
weapons in his struggle for liberation from Bayreuth in the 1870s. But
these weapons were double-edged.103 Inspired by Burckhardt, Nietzsche
reinvented the Renaissance as the cradle of tyrannical self-fashioning and
dangerous living as well as the model for a future rebirth of European
civilization under the sign of the Antichrist. As a kulturkritisch construct
and historical reference point, Burckhardt’s Renaissance contributed to his
discovery of the moralistes, his reassessment of the Enlightenment and
‘Latin’ culture as well as his self-invention as a ‘good European’. At the
same time, it paved the way for his radically anti-humanist reflections on
culture, politics, and the self in the 1880s. Burckhardt’s book was thus not
just a benign antidote to the Wagnerian enthusiasm of Nietzsche’s youth. It
also provided new stimulants that would fuel some of his most transgres-
sive thoughts.
References
Adorno, Theodor W., 1970, ‘Glosse über Persönlichkeit’, in: Theodor W. Adorno,
Stichworte: Kritische Modelle, Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp, pp. 51–57.
_____________
102 See, e.g., Baron 1960, pp. 207–209, who highlights the ‘difference in spirit’ be-
tween Burckhardt’s more Goethean, conservative conception of Renaissance indi-
vidualism and Nietzsche’s ‘reinterpretation’ which according to Baron helped to
create a ‘false image of the unscrupulous, ruthless, and lusty “superman” of the
Renaissance’.
103 Ross 1980, pp. 313, 317, captures this ambivalence with characteristic acumen in
his description of Burckhardt’s struggle with Wagner over Nietzsche’s allegiance
as a metaphysical tug-of-war: ‘Wagner was tugging at Nietzsche in order to drag
him over to his side, just as in the Middle Ages demons were [believed to be] tug-
ging at the disembodied souls of the recently deceased. Jacob Burckhardt was the
guardian angel pulling [Nietzsche] in the other direction ... But one can also inter-
pret the fight over Nietzsche’s soul in a different way: with Wagner as the noble
Germanic angel and Burckhardt as the sceptical Mephisto.’
Martin A. Ruehl 265
Andler, Charles, 1926, Nietzsche und Jakob Burckhardt, Basel: Rhein-Verlag.

Aschheim, Steven E., 1992, The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany, 1890–1990, Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Bächtold, Hermann, 1939, ‘Jacob Burckhardt und das öffentliche Wesen seiner Zeit’,
in: H. Bächtold, Gesammelte Schriften, ed. Eduard Vischer, Aarau: Sauerländer,
pp. 266–300.
Baldwin, Geoff, 2001, ‘Individual and Self in the Late Renaissance’, in: The Historical
Journal, 44/2, pp. 341–364.
Baron, Hans, 1960, ‘Burckhardt’s “Civilization of the Renaissance” a Century after its
Publication’, in: Renaissance News, 13/3, pp. 207–222.
Baron, Hans, 1966, The Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance: Civic Humanism and
Republican Liberty in an Age of Classicism and Tyranny, 2 vols. [1955], 2nd edn,
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Barth, Hans, 1943, ‘Der konservative Bürger und der revolutionäre Dynamiker (Burck-
hardt und Nietzsche)’, in: Hans Barth, Fluten und Dämme: Der philosophische
Gedanke in der Politik, Zurich: Fretz und Wasmuth, pp. 125–152.
Bauer, Stefan, 2001, Polisbild und Demokratieverständnis in Jacob Burckhardts
‘Griechischer Kulturgeschichte’, Basel: Schwabe.
Baumgarten, Franz F., 1917, Das Werk Conrad Ferdinand Meyers. Renaissance-
Empfinden und Stilkunst, Munich: O. Beck.
Benz, Ernst, 1956, Nietzsches Ideen zur Geschichte des Christentums und der Kirche,
2nd edn, Leiden: E. J. Brill (= Beihefte der Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistes-
geschichte no. 3).
Berg, Christa (ed.),1991, Handbuch der deutschen Bildungsgeschichte, vol. 4, Munich:
C. H. Beck.
Bergmann, Peter, 1987, Nietzsche, ‘The Last Antipolitical German’, Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
Bertram, Ernst, 1921, Nietzsche: Versuch einer Mythologie, 5th edn, Berlin: Georg
Bondi.
Bluhm, Heinz, 1950, ‘Nietzsche’s Idea of Luther in Menschliches, Allzumenschliches’,
in: Proceedings of the Modern Language Association, 65/6, pp. 1053–1068.
Bluhm, Heinz, 1953, ‘Nietzsche’s View of Luther and the Reformation in Morgenröthe
and Die Fröhliche Wissenschaft’, in: Proceedings of the Modern Language Asso-
ciation, 68/1, pp. 111–127.
Bluhm, Heinz, 1956, ‘Nietzsche’s Final View of Luther and the Reformation’, in:
Proceedings of the Modern Language Association, 71/1, pp. 75–83.
Boeschenstein, Hermann, 1982, ‘Nietzsche und das Problem der Humanität’, in: Mod-
ern Language Notes, 97/3, pp. 636–655.
Bohley, Reiner, 1987, ‘Nietzsches christliche Erziehung’, in: Nietzsche-Studien, 16, pp.
164–196.
Bohley, Reiner, 1989, ‘Nietzsches christliche Erziehung’, in: Nietzsche-Studien, 18, pp.
377–395.
Borcherdt, Hans Heinrich, 1949, Der Roman der Goethezeit, Urach: Port.
Borchmeyer, Dieter, and Jörg Salaquarda (eds.), 1994, Nietzsche und Wagner. Sta-
tionen einer epochalen Begegnung, Frankfurt a. M.: Insel.
Brecht, Walther, 1911, Heinse und der ästhetische Immoralismus: Zur Geschichte der
italienischen Renaissance in Deutschland. Nebst Mitteilungen aus Heinses Nach-
laß, Berlin: Weidmann.
Brobjer, Thomas H., 1995, Nietzsche’s Ethics of Character: A Study of Nietzsche’s
Ethics and its Place in the History of Moral Thinking, Uppsala: Uppsala University
Press.
Brobjer, Thomas H., 1997, ‘Nietzsche’s Reading and Private Library’, in: Journal of the
History of Ideas, 58/4, pp. 663–693.
Brobjer, Thomas H., 2007, ‘Nietzsche’s Relation to Historical Methods and Nineteenth-
Century German Historiography’, in: History and Theory, 46/2, pp. 155–179.
Brose, Karl, 1973, Geschichtsphilosophische Strukturen im Werk Nietzsches, Bern:
Peter Lang.
Brose, Karl, 1994, Nietzsche: Geschichtsphilosoph, Politiker und Soziologe, Essen:
Verlag Die blaue Eule.
Bullen, Barrie, 1994, The Myth of the Renaissance in Nineteenth-Century Writing,
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Burckhardt, Jacob, 1982, Über das Studium der Geschichte. Der Text der ‘Welt-
geschichtlichen Betrachtungen’ nach den Handschriften, ed. Peter Ganz, Munich:
C. H. Beck.
Burckhardt, Jacob, 1986, Briefe. Vollständige und kritisch bearbeitete Ausgabe, ed.
Max Burckhardt, 10 vols. (1949–1986), Basel: Schwabe.
Burckhardt, Jacob, 1988, Die Kultur der Renaissance in Italien. Ein Versuch [1860],
11th edn, ed. Konrad Hoffmann, Stuttgart: Kröner.
Burckhardt, Jacob, 2001a, Der Cicerone. Eine Anleitung zum Genuss der Kunstwerke
Italiens I. Architektur und Sculptur [1855] = Jacob Burckhardt, Werke (Kritische
Gesamtausgabe), 29 vols., ed. Andreas Cesana et al., vol. 2, ed. Bernd Roeck et al.,
Munich: C. H. Beck.
Burckhardt, Jacob, 2001b, Der Cicerone. Eine Anleitung zum Genuss der Kunstwerke
Italiens II. Malerei [1855] = Jacob Burckhardt, Werke (Kritische Gesamtausgabe),
29 vols., ed. Andreas Cesana et al., vol. 3, ed. Bernd Roeck et al., Munich: C. H.
Beck.
Campioni, Giuliano, 1976, ‘Von der Auflösung der Gemeinschaft zur Bejahung des
“Freigeistes”’, in: Nietzsche-Studien, 5, pp. 83–112.
Campioni, Giuliano, 1998, ‘Il Rinascimento in Wagner e nel giovane Nietzsche’, in:
Rinascimento, 38, pp. 81–121.
Cancik, Hubert, 1995, Nietzsches Antike: Vorlesung, Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler.
Cesana, Andreas, 1994, ‘Bachofen und Nietzsche’, in: David M. Hoffmann (ed.),
Nietzsche und die Schweiz. Katalog der Ausstellung im Strauhof Zürich, Zurich
1994, pp. 55–64.
Craig, Gordon, 1967, ‘Friedrich Schiller and the Problem of Power’, in: Leonard Kri-
eger / Fritz Stern (eds.), The Responsibility of Power: Historical Essays in Honour
of Hajo Holborn, New York: Doubleday & Co., pp. 125–144.
Detwiler, Bruce, 1990, Nietzsche and the Politics of Aristocratic Radicalism, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Dombowsky, Don, 2004, Nietzsche’s Machiavellian Politics, Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Martin A. Ruehl 267
Donnellan, Brendan, 1979, ‘Nietzsche and La Rochefoucauld’, in: The German Quar-
terly, 52/3, pp. 303–318.
Ernst, Joachim, 1948, ‘Die Rolle der Religion bei Jacob Burckhardt’, Zeitschrift für
Religions- und Geistesgeschichte, 1, pp. 335–344.
Farulli, Luca, 1990a, ‘Nietzsche und die Renaissance. Die Reflexion über “Grenze” und
“Grenzüberschreitung”’, in: August Buck (ed.), Renaissance und Renaissancismus
von Jacob Burckhardt bis Thomas Mann, Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, pp. 54–70.
Farulli, Luca, 1990b, ‘Nietzsche e l’uomo italiano della Rinascenza’, in: Franca Janow-
ski / Ennio Bispuri (eds.), Nietzsche und Italien. Ein Weg vom Logos zum
Mythos? Tübingen: Stauffenburg-Verlag, pp. 41–59.
Ferguson, Wallace K., 1948, The Renaissance in Historical Thought: Five Centuries of
Interpretation, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Förster-Nietzsche, Elisabeth and Henri Lichtenberger, 1928, Nietzsche und sein Werk,
Dresden: Carl Reissner Verlag.
‘Fried.[rich] Nietzsche’s Geistesentwicklung und Geistesphilosophie’, 1895, in: His-
torisch-Politische Blätter für das katholische Deutschland, 116, pp. 823–832; 865–
873.
Fubini, Riccardo, 1992, ‘Renaissance Historian: The Career of Hans Baron’, in: Journal
of Modern History, 64, pp. 541–574.
Gay, Peter, 1967, ‘Burckhardt’s Renaissance: Between Responsibility and Power’, in:
Leonard Krieger / Fritz Stern (eds.), The Responsibility of Power: Historical Es-
says in Honour of Hajo Holborn, New York: Doubleday & Co.
Gelzer, Heinrich, 1907, Ausgewählte kleine Schriften, Leipzig: Teubner.
Gerhardt, Volker, 1988, ‘Die Rache des Phantoms. Nietzsche und die Renaissance’, in:
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (7 December 1988).
Gerhardt, Volker, 1989, Die Renaissance im Denken Nietzsches, in: August Buck /
Cesare Vasoli (eds.), Die Renaissance im 19. Jahrhundert in Italien und Deutsch-
land, Bologna: Il Mulino, pp. 93–116.
Gerhardt, Volker, 1995, Friedrich Nietzsche, 2nd edn, Munich: C. H. Beck.
Gilbert, Felix, 1990, History: Politics or Culture? Reflections on Ranke and Burckhardt,
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gilbert, Merlio (ed.), 2000, Nietzsche et l’histoire: contributions présentées au colloque
scientifique international sur la ‘Seconde Intempestive’ de Nietzsche = Études
Germaniques, 55/2.
Gossman, Lionel, 1994, ‘Cultural History and Crisis: Burckhardt’s “Civilization of the
Renaissance in Italy”’, in: Michael S. Roth (ed.), Rediscovering History: Culture,
Politics and the Psyche, Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 404–427.
Gossman, Lionel, 1999, ‘The Existenzbild in Burckhardt’s Art Historical Writing’, in:
Modern Language Notes, 114/5 (Comparative Literature Issue), pp. 879–928.
Gossman, Lionel, 2000, Basel in the Age of Burckhardt: A Study in Unseasonable
Ideas, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gottfried, Paul, 1975, ‘Arthur Schopenhauer as a Critic of History’, in: Journal of the
History of Ideas, 36/2, pp. 331–338.
Gregor-Dellin, Martin, 1980, Richard Wagner. Sein Leben—Sein Werk—Sein
Jahrhundert, Munich: Piper.
Hale, John R., 1973, Renaissance Europe, 1480–1520, London: Fontana.
Hampe, Karl, 1925, Kaiser Friedrich II. in der Auffassung der Nachwelt, Stuttgart:
Deutsche Verlagsanstalt.
Hankins, James, 1995, ‘The “Baron Thesis” after Forty Years and some Recent Studies
of Leonardo Bruni’, in: Journal of the History of Ideas, 56/2, pp. 309–338.
Hankins, James (ed.), 2000, Renaissance Civic Humanism: Reappraisals and Reflec-
tions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hardtwig, Wolfgang, 1996, Jacob Burckhardt and Max Weber: Two Conceptions of the
Origin of the Modern World, in: Reginald Lilly (ed.), The Ancients and the Mod-
erns, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 170–180.
Heinse, Wilhelm, 1998, Ardinghello und die glückseligen Inseln. Eine italiänische
Geschichte aus dem sechszehnten Jahrhundert [1787] (Kritische Studienausgabe),
ed. Max L. Baeumer, Stuttgart: Reclam.
Heller, Erich, 1988, ‘Burckhardt and Nietzsche’, in: Erich Heller, The Importance of
Nietzsche, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 39–55.
Hinz, Manfred, 1989, ‘Nascita, rinascita e ripetizione nella “Nascita della tragedia”’, in:
August Buck / Cesare Vasoli (eds.), Die Renaissance im 19. Jahrhundert in Italien
und Deutschland, Bologna: Il Mulino, pp. 117–131.
Hirsch, Emanuel, 1998, ‘Nietzsche und Luther’ [1921], in: Emanuel Hirsch, Luther-
studien, vol. 2 = Emanuel Hirsch, Gesammelte Werke, 48 vols. (1998ff.), ed. Hans
Martin Müller, Waltrop: Spenner, vol. 2, pp. 168–206.
Hofmann, Hasso, 1971, ‘Jacob Burckhardt und Friedrich Nietzsche als Kritiker des
Bismarckreiches’, in: Der Staat. Zeitschrift für Staatslehre, öffentliches Recht und
Verfassungsgeschichte, 10, pp. 433–453.
Howard, Thomas A., 2000, Religion and the Rise of Historicism: W. M. L. de Wette,
Jacob Burckhardt, and the Theological Origins of Nineteenth-Century Historical
Consciousness, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jacobs, Angelika, 1996, ‘Frühe Formen des Historismus in Goethes Renaissance-
Rezeption. Zur ästhetisch-historischen Genese moderner Subjektivität’, in: Harald
Tausch (ed.), Historismus und Moderne, Würzburg: Ergon, pp. 81–97.
Jacobs, Angelika, 1997, Goethe und die Renaissance. Studien zum Konnex von his-
torischem Bewußtsein und ästhetischer Identitätskonstruktion, Munich: Fink.
Jacobs, Angelika, 1998, ‘Renaissance’, in: Bernd Witte / Theo Buck et al. (eds.),
Goethe Handbuch, 5 vols., vol. 4/2, Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, pp. 898–905.
Janssen, Evert Maarten, 1970, Jacob Burckhardt und die Renaissance, Assen: van
Gorcum.
Janz, Curt P., 1978, Friedrich Nietzsche. Biographie, 3 vols., Munich: Hanser.
Jeismann, Karl-Ernst, and Peter Lundgreen (eds.), 1987, Handbuch der deutschen Bil-
dungsgeschichte, vol. 3, Munich: C. H. Beck.
Jelavich, Peter, 1985, Munich and Theatrical Modernism: Politics, Playwriting, and
Performance, 1890–1914, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Joël, Karl, 1918, Jacob Burckhardt als Geschichtsphilosoph, Basel: Helbing und
Lichtenhahn.
Jung, Matthias, 1991, ‘Das Unbehagen an der Geschichte. Arthur Schopenhauer und
Jacob Burckhardt’, in: Matthias Jung / Klaus-Jürgen Grün (eds.), Idee, Natur und
Geschichte. Alfred Schmidt zum 60. Geburtstag, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, pp.
171–192.
Martin A. Ruehl 269
Kaegi, Werner, 1932, ‘Über die Renaissanceforschung Ernst Walsers’, in: Ernst
Walser, Gesammelte Studien zur Geistesgeschichte der Renaissance, Basel:
Schwabe, pp. xi–lx.
Kaegi, Werner, 1962, ‘Niederländische Blütezeit und italienische Klassik’, in: Werner
Kaegi, Europäische Horizonte im Denken Jacob Burckhardts, Basel: Schwabe, pp.
115–151.
Kaegi, Werner, 1982, Jacob Burckhardt. Eine Biographie, 7 vols. (1947–1982), Basel:
Schwabe.
Kahan, Alan, 2003, ‘The Burckhardt–Sismondi Debate over the Meaning of the Italian
Renaissance’, in: Yannick Portebois / Nicholas Terpstra (eds.), The Renaissance in
the Nineteenth Century/Le XIXe siècle renaissant, Toronto: Publications of the
Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies Series, pp. 159–171.
Kaufmann, Walter A., 1974, Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist [1950],
4th edn, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Körner, Elisabeth, 1980, ‘Das Renaissancebild der Aufklärung’, in: Richard Toellner
(ed.), Aufklärung und Humanismus, Heidelberg: Niemeyer, pp. 23–34.
Ladwig, Perdita, 2004, Das Renaissancebild deutscher Historiker 1898–1933, Frankfurt
a. M.: Campus Verlag.
Large, Duncan, 2000, ‘“Our Greatest Teacher”: Nietzsche, Burckhardt, and the Concept
of Culture’, in: International Studies in Philosophy, 32/3, pp. 3–23.
Leo, Heinrich, 1832, Geschichte der italienischen Staaten, 5 vols. (1829–1832), Ham-
burg: Perthes.
Lothar, Rudolph, 1893, Cäsar Borgias Ende. Trauerspiel in einem Akt, Dresden: E.
Pierson.
Love, Frederick R., 1963, Young Nietzsche and the Wagnerian Experience, Chapel
Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Löwith, Karl, 1966, Jacob Burckhardt. Der Mensch inmitten der Geschichte [1936],
Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Mann, Thomas, 1918, Betrachtungen eines Unpolitischen, Berlin: S. Fischer.
Mann, Thomas, 1953, Lübeck als geistige Lebensform [1926], in: Thomas Mann, Altes
und Neues. Kleine Prosa aus fünf Jahrzehnten, Frankfurt a. M.: S. Fischer, pp.
290–314.
Marti, Urs, 1993, ‘Der große Pöbel- und Sklavenaufstand’. Nietzsches Auseinander-
setzung mit Revolution und Demokratie, Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler.
Martin, Alfred von, 1947a, Nietzsche und Burckhardt. Zwei Repräsentanten einer
Epoche, 4th edn, Munich: Erasmus-Verlag.
Martin, Alfred von, 1947b, Die Religion in Jacob Burckhardts Leben und Denken. Eine
Studie zum Thema Humanismus und Christentum, 2nd edn, Munich: Erasmus-
Verlag.
Mattioli, Aram, 1999, ‘“Odiose Kerle, Judenpack”. Der schöngeredete Antisemitismus
des Jacob Burckhardt’, in: Die Zeit, 40 (30 September 1999), p. 82.
Maurer, Reinhart, 1993, ‘Nietzsche und das Ende der Geschichte’, in: Thomas Nipper-
dey / Anselm Doering-Manteuffel / Hans-Ulrich Thamer (eds.), Weltbürgerkrieg
der Ideologien. Antworten an Ernst Nolte. Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag, Berlin:
Propyläen, pp. 421–439.
Michelet, Jules, 1883, Histoire de France [1833–1862], 5 vols., Paris: Hetzel.
Molner, David, 1993, ‘The Influence of Montaigne on Nietzsche: A Raison d’Être in

the Sun’, in: Nietzsche-Studien, 22, pp. 80–93.
Mommsen, Wolfgang J., 1986, ‘Jacob Burckhardt (1818–1897): Defender of Culture
and Prophet of Doom’, in: John A. Hall (ed.), Rediscoveries: Some Neglected
Modern European Political Thinkers, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 47–63.
Naake, Erhard, 1985, ‘Friedrich Nietzsches Verhältnis zu wichtigen sozialen und poli-
tischen Bewegungen seiner Zeit’, Diss. Jena.
Nehamas, Alexander, 1985, Nietzsche: Life as Literature, Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Norbrook, David, 1989, ‘Life and Death of Renaissance Man’, in: Raritan, 8/4, pp. 89–
110.
O’Pecko, Michael T., 1976, ‘Renaissancism and the German Drama, 1890–1910’, Diss.
Baltimore.
Orsucci, Andrea, 1996, Orient-Okzident. Nietzsches Versuch einer Loslösung vom
europäischen Weltbild, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Panizza, Oskar, 1894, Das Liebeskonzil. Eine Himmels-Tragödie in fünf Aufzügen.
Zurich: J. Schabelitz.
Pastor, Ludwig, 1950, Tagebücher, Briefe, Erinnerungen, ed. Wilhelm Wühr, Heidel-
berg: F. H. Kerle.
Pernet, Martin, 1989, Das Christentum im Leben des jungen Nietzsche, Opladen:
Westdeutscher Verlag.
Pletsch, Carl, 1977, ‘History and Friedrich Nietzsche’s Philosophy of Time’, in: His-
tory and Theory, 16/1, pp. 30–39.
Ranke, Leopold von, 1890, Die römischen Päpste in den letzten vier Jahrhunderten, vol.
1 = Leopold von Ranke, Sämtliche Werke, 54 vols., Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot
(1867–1890), vol. 37.
Rehm, Walther, 1924, Das Werden des Renaissancebildes in der deutschen Dichtung
vom Rationalismus bis zum Realismus, Munich: C. H. Beck.
Rehm, Walther, 1929, ‘Der Renaissancekult um 1900 und seine Überwindung’, in:
Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie, 54, pp. 296–332.
Rehm, Walther, 1960, Jacob Burckhardt und Eichendorff, Freiburg im Breisgau: E.
Albert.
Reibnitz, Barbara von, 1992, Ein Kommentar zu Friedrich Nietzsche ‘Die Geburt der
Tragödie aus dem Geiste der Musik’ (Kapitel 1–12), Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler.
Reinhardt, Volker, 2002, Jacob Burckhardt und die Erfindung der Renaissance. Ein
Mythos und seine Geschichte, Bern: Schweizerische Akademie der Geistes- und
Sozialwissenschaften.
Ressing, Gerd, 1951, ‘Jacob Burckhardt und Bismarck. Der Reichsgründer im
zeitkritischen Bilde des Historikers’, Diss. Cologne.
Ritter-Santini, Lea, 1974, ‘Maniera Grande. Über italienische Renaissance und
deutsche Jahrhunderwende’, in: Roger Bauer et al. (eds.), Fin de Siècle. Zu Litera-
tur und Kunst der Jahrhundertwende, Frankfurt a. M.: Klostermann, pp. 170–205.
Roeck, Bernd, 1991, ‘Aby Warburgs Seminarübungen über Jacob Burckhardt im Som-
mersemester 1927’, in: Idea (Jahrbuch der Hamburger Kunsthalle), 10, pp. 65–89.
Ross, Werner, 1980, Der ängstliche Adler. Friedrich Nietzsches Leben, Munich: Deut-
scher Taschenbuch Verlag.
Martin A. Ruehl 271
Rossi, Roberto, 1987, Nietzsche e Burckhardt, Genoa: Tilgher.

Ruehl, Martin, 2003, ‘Politeia 1871: Nietzsche contra Wagner on the Greek State’, in:
Ingo Gildenhard / Martin Ruehl (eds.), Out of Arcadia: Classics and Politics in
Germany in the Age of Burckhardt, Nietzsche and Wilamowitz, London: Institute
of Classical Studies, pp. 61–86.
Ruehl, Martin, 2004, ‘Death in Florence: Thomas Mann and the Ideologies of Renais-
sancismus at the Fin de Siècle’, in: Suzanne Marchand / David Lindenfeld (eds.),
Germany at the Fin de Siècle: Culture, Politics, and Ideas, Baton Rouge: Louisiana
State University Press, pp. 186–227.
Ruhstaller, Peter, 1988, ‘Burckhardt und Nietzsche: Deutungen einer vieldeutigen
Beziehung’, Diss. Zurich.
Rumohr, Carl Friedrich von, 1920, Italienische Forschungen [1827–1831], ed. Julius
Schlosser, Frankfurt: Frankfurter Verlagsanstalt.
Salin, Edgar, 1948, Jakob Burckhardt und Nietzsche [1938], 2nd edn, Heidelberg: L.
Schneider.
Sautet, Marc, 1981, Nietzsche et la Commune, Paris: Le Sycomore.
Schieder, Theodor, 1963, ‘Nietzsche und Bismarck’, in: Historische Zeitschrift, 196,
pp. 320–342.
Schlechta, Karl, 1958, ‘Nietzsches Verhältnis zur Historie’, in: Karl Schlechta, Der Fall
Nietzsche, Munich: Hanser, pp. 44–72.
Schmidt, Martin, 1976, ‘Der Liberalismus als Problem für die Kirche und
Kirchengeschichte im 19. Jahrhundert’, in: Martin Schmidt / Georg Schwaiger
(eds.), Kirchen und Liberalismus im 19. Jahrhundert, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und
Ruprecht, pp. 9–32.
Schopenhauer, Arthur, 1988, Werke in fünf Bänden, ed. Ludger Lütkehaus, 6 vols.,
Zurich: Haffmans.
Simonde de Sismondi, Jean-Charles Léonard, 1826, Histoire des républiques italiennes
du moyen age, 16 vols. (1809–1818), Paris: Treuttel & Würtz.
Sommer, Andreas Urs, 2000, Friedrich Nietzsches ‘Der Antichrist’. Ein philosophisch-
historischer Kommentar, Basel: Schwabe.
Stadelmann, Rudolf, 1930, ‘Jacob Burckhardt und das Mittelalter’, Historische
Zeitschrift, 142, pp. 457–515.
Stierle, Karlheinz, 1987, ‘Renaissance. Entstehung eines Epochenbegriffs’, in: Reinhart
Herzog / Reinhart Koselleck (eds.), Epochenschwelle und Epochenbewußtsein,
Munich: Fink, pp. 453–492.
Todte, Mario, 2004, Georg Voigt (1827–1891). Pionier der historischen Humanismus-
forschung, Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag.
Tracy, James D., 1968, ‘Erasmus Becomes a German’, in: Renaissance Quarterly, 21/3,
pp. 281–288.
Traeger, Jörg, 1971, ‘Raffaels Stanza d’Eliodoro und ihr Bildprogramm’, in: Römisches
Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte, 13, pp. 29–99.
Uekermann, Gerd, 1985, Renaissancismus und Fin de Siècle. Die italienische Renais-
sance in der deutschen Dramatik der letzten Jahrhundertwende, Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter.
Vacano, Diego A. von, 2007, The Art of Power: Machiavelli, Nietzsche and the Making
of Aesthetic Political Theory, Lanham, MD: Lexington.
Vivarelli, Vivetta, 1993, ‘Montaigne und der “Freie Geist”’, in: Nietzsche-Studien, 23,
pp. 79–101.
Vivarelli, Vivetta, 1998, Nietzsche und die Masken des freien Geistes. Montaigne,
Pascal und Sterne, Würzburg: Königshausen und Neumann.
Voigt, Georg, and Maximilian Lehnerdt, 1893, Die Wiederbelebung des classischen
Alterthums oder das erste Jahrhundert des Humanismus [1859], 2 vols., 3rd edn,
Berlin: G. Reimer.
Volpi, Franco, 1999, ‘Nietzsche ora si scopre che plagiava Burckhardt’, in: La Repub-
blica (17 June 1999), pp. 40–41.
Wagner, Cosima, 1977, Die Tagebücher, 1869–1883, ed. Martin Gregor-Dellin / Diet-
rich Mack, 2 vols. (1976–1977), Munich: Piper.
Weber, Max, 1978, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, 2
vols., ed. Guenther Roth / Claus Wittich, vol. 1, Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Weibel, Oskar, 1925, Tiecks Renaissancedichtung in ihrem Verhältnis zu Heinse und
C. F. Meyer, Bern: Paul Haupt.
Wenzel, Johannes, 1967, Jacob Burckhardt in der Krise seiner Zeit, Berlin: Deutscher
Verlag der Wissenschaften VEB.
Wölfflin, Heinrich, 1934, ‘Einleitung’, in: Jacob Burckhardt-Gesamtausgabe, ed. Emil
Dürr, Werner Kaegi / Albert Oeri / Hans Trog / Felix Staehelin / Heinrich Wölf-
flin, 14 vols. (1929–1934), Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, vol. 3, pp. i–xxv.
Zeeden, Ernst W., 1954, ‘Die Auseinandersetzung des jungen Jacob Burckhardt mit
Glaube und Christentum’, in: Historische Zeitschrift, 178, pp. 493–514.
Zeeden, Ernst W., 1963, ‘Zeitkritik und Gegenwartsverständnis in Jacob Burckhardts
Briefen aus den Jahren der Reichsgründung (1859/1872)’, in: Hans Rothfels /
Waldemar Besson / Friedrich Hiller von Gaertringen (eds.), Geschichte und
Gegenwartsbewußtsein. Historische Betrachtungen und Untersuchungen. Fest-
schrift für H. Rothfels, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, pp. 86–105.
Part V
Tragic and
Musical Time
Metaphysical and Historical Claims in The Birth of Tragedy
Katherine Harloe
What is The Birth of Tragedy about? From a contemporary critical perspec-

tive, the very attempt to pose this question may appear hopelessly naive.
Even if the furthest reaches of the complex and varied history of the recep-
tion of Nietzsche’s first book are ignored, debates among scholars over its
coherence, content, and significance within Nietzsche’s thought have
shown no signs of abating, and Montinari’s comment twenty-five years
ago that ‘the entire problem of interpretation of Nietzsche’s philosophical
firstling is still wide open’ appears equally apposite today (Montinari 1980,
p. 5). In this essay I wish to question an assumption which I believe has
come increasingly to guide interpretation of The Birth of Tragedy, and
which is common to many who hold very different substantive views of its
content. This is the idea that it should be read primarily as a contribution to
what was, admittedly, one of the major debates of German philosophy after
Kant: that of the possibility of metaphysics. If this assumption is granted,
the most important question to ask about Nietzsche’s first book becomes
whether or not he there asserts or denies the possibility of ‘transcendent’
knowledge of the ultimate nature of the world. Regardless of the substan-
tive differences between the answers scholars have given to this question
over the past few decades, agreement that The Birth of Tragedy is essen-
tially an exercise in metaphysics has informed many influential readings.
Sometimes the assumption is very much a background presence in a
discussion which focuses on different themes. Consider, for example,
Alexander Nehamas’ views as put forward in his book Nietzsche: Life as
Literature (Nehamas 1985). His interpretation of Nietzsche places the doc-
trine of perspectivism centre-stage and is primarily concerned with the
writings of the 1880s rather than the 1870s. The Birth of Tragedy is, how-
ever, mentioned in order to support the following observation:
Nietzsche seems to have believed that there are some ultimate facts, some non-
interpretive truths, concerning the real nature of the world ... he denied that
these facts could ever be correctly stated through reason, language, and sci-
ence. Yet he also believed (and here the influence of Schopenhauer became
dominant) that tragedy, primarily through the musically inspired, ‘Dionysian’
chorus, can intimate the final truth that the ultimate nature of the world is to
276 Metaphysical and Historical Claims in The Birth of Tragedy
have no orderly structure: in itself the world is chaos, with no laws, no reason,
and no purpose. (Nehamas 1985, pp. 42–43)
The Birth of Tragedy is here invoked as a document of Nietzsche’s early
faith in the possibility of metaphysics, and is thereby distinguished from
the later writings, in which ‘Nietzsche comes to deny the very contrast
between things-in-themselves and appearance which was presupposed by
his discussion of tragedy’ (Nehamas 1985, p. 43). The assumption does
rather more work in motivating the influential, deconstructive readings of
The Birth of Tragedy offered by Paul de Man and Philippe Lacoue-
Labarthe (de Man 1979, pp. 79–102; Lacoue-Labarthe 1971). As Henry
Staten has convincingly shown, it is because de Man interprets The Birth of
Tragedy as an attempt to depict an ‘ontological hierarchy’, according to
which the Dionysian is genetically prior to the Apollonian, that his verdict
on it as a text that is logocentric—and his consequent deconstruction—can
operate (de Man 1979, pp. 83, 85; Staten 1990, pp. 187–216). More re-
cently, James I. Porter has argued against the view that any metaphysical
thesis is asserted in The Birth of Tragedy and in favour of reading it as an
attempt ‘to mimic and challenge—through a mixture of parody, irony,
implausibility, and logical circularity—the metaphysical banalities that the
work superficially conveys’ (Porter 2000a, p. 87). While his reconstruction
of the content of Nietzsche’s argument could not be more opposed to that
of Nehamas or de Man, his reinterpretation of Nietzsche as an anti-
metaphysician nevertheless leaves the question of metaphysics in the fore-
ground.
This first interpretative question is usually thought to be bound up
closely with a second contested issue: the Schopenhauerianism of Nietz-
sche’s first book. The connection seems straightforward enough: The Birth
of Tragedy’s elaboration of the Apollonian-Dionysian polarity conspicu-
ously deploys Schopenhauerian language, and Schopenhauer’s magnum
opus, The World as Will and Representation (Schopenhauer 1969 [Eng-
lish]; 1949a and b [German])1, offers a systematic metaphysics in the tradi-
tional sense of a set of interconnected claims about the ultimate nature of
the world. We might, therefore, take The Birth of Tragedy’s Schopenhau-
erianism as an indicator of its metaphysical commitment: insofar as Nietz-
sche’s position there may justly be characterized as Schopenhauerian, he is
defending a metaphysical thesis. It is my contention that this apparently
plausible inference is in fact mistaken, and rests upon an oversimplification
of what ‘Schopenhauer’ could have represented for Nietzsche at the time of
_____________
1 Translations from Schopenhauer’s and Nietzsche’s Nachlaß and letters are my
own.
Katherine Harloe 277
writing The Birth of Tragedy. Appreciating this leads us to recognize that

The Birth of Tragedy may be ‘Schopenhauerian’ yet not ‘metaphysical’ in
any straightforward sense.
My argument to this effect will proceed by means of a critique of one
of the most recent attempts to give an overarching interpretation of The
Birth of Tragedy: the aforementioned reading of Porter. Porter’s discussion
is important as it exposes of some of the puzzles and difficulties that arise
when the interpretative question with which I began is answered in the
affirmative. He is correct to insist that certain aspects of The Birth of Trag-
edy’s ‘narrative structure’—its language, imagery, and train of argument—
call into question the notion that its author is ‘uncritically enthralled to a
metaphysics that ... [he] later abandoned’ (Porter 2000a, p. 20). In reinter-
preting The Birth of Tragedy as an ‘attack on metaphysics’ (ibid., p. 28),
however, and equating this with an attack on Schopenhauer, Porter repeats
what I suggest are a mistaken interpretative assumption and attendant over-
simplification. By responding to his arguments, then, I hope to be able to
indicate why both ways of answering the question of metaphysics in rela-
tion to The Birth of Tragedy miss what is really at issue.
It would, of course, be impossible to provide an adequate response to

Porter in the course of this essay. This is not just because his reading of
The Birth of Tragedy is based on an detailed and broad-ranging consider-
ation of Nietzsche’s notebooks and early philological writings,2 but also
because he attributes to Nietzsche a deliberate strategy of what Quentin
Skinner has termed ‘oblique reference’ (Skinner 1969, pp. 32–35). Put
crudely, this is the writing of something one does not believe in order to
disguise as well as to set out what one means to say. As Skinner points out,
oblique strategies pose particular problems of interpretation, assessment of
which requires close attention to the possible linguistic (textual) contexts
of a particular work in order to decide whether its author is subverting or
sustaining the ideas, generic conventions, topoi and so on, of his predeces-
sors and contemporaries. Porter interprets The Birth of Tragedy as a sub-
versive text; the immediate target of its critique is Wagnerian and
Schopenhauerian metaphysics. My comments here are intended to draw
attention to some aspects of the Schopenhauerian and Wagnerian linguistic
_____________
2 In addition to Porter 2000a, the focus of my discussion here, this reading is ex-
tended in Porter 2000b.
context, overlooked by Porter, which I believe support a different interpre-

tation.
One of the cornerstones of Porter’s reading is his interpretation of the
Dionysian as a ‘pleat in the texture of appearance’ (2000a, p. 49; see pp.
33–50, passim) and hence of metaphysics as something ‘generated from
within’ appearance itself. Repeatedly in The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche
seems to claim that the Dionysian is ontologically prior to the Apollon-
ian—‘the eternal and original artistic power that first calls the whole world
of phenomena into existence’ (BT 25, quoted in Porter 2000a, p. 36). This
message is, however, undermined by passages such as the allusion to
Lucretius in The Birth of Tragedy 1, which implies that all divinities, Dio-
nysus included, are the product of dreams. Just as much as Apollo, then,
who is explicitly associated with dreams and deception, the opening sec-
tion of The Birth of Tragedy provides a hefty hint that Dionysus is illusory:
an aspect of human psychology rather than a constituent of the deeper re-
ality behind appearances. Nevertheless—and this is the flip-side of Porter’s
reading—Nietzsche tells us that such illusions cannot simply be done away
with. They are the product of the deep-seated human need to project some
higher meaning onto existence.
These are noteworthy observations, but do they, as Porter thinks,
amount to a decisive move away from a Schopenhauerian or Wagnerian
position? Let us consider the crucial passage where Nietzsche states that
‘As Lucretius envisages it, it was in dream that the magnificent figures of
the gods first appeared before the souls of men’ (BT 1, KSA 1, p. 26). The
sentence continues by quoting Wagner:
In dream the great image-maker saw the delightfully proportioned bodies of
superhuman beings; and the Hellenic poet, if asked about the secrets of poetic
procreation, would likewise have reminded us of dream and would have given
an account much like that given by Hans Sachs in the Meistersinger:
My friend, it is the poet’s task
To mark his dreams, their meaning ask.
Trust me, the truest phantom man doth know
Hath meaning only dreams may show:
The arts of verse and poetry
Tell nought but dreaming’s prophecy. (ibid.)
In the following paragraph, which continues the theme of dreaming, we are
referred to Schopenhauer:
Philosophical natures even have a presentiment that hidden beneath the reality
in which we live and have our being there also lies a second, quite different
reality; in other words, this reality too is a semblance, and Schopenhauer actu-
ally states that the mark of a person’s capacity for philosophy is the gift of
feeling occasionally as if people and all things were mere phantoms or dream-
images. (ibid.)
Porter is, I think, correct to interpret these passages as implicating the Dio-
nysian and the supposedly higher reality it symbolizes in ‘appearances’,
but how are we to read the specific allusions to Wagner and Schopenhauer
in this context?
The immediate Schopenhauerian allusion is to a passage from his
Nachlaß,3 but the theme is treated at greater length in volume 2 of The
World as Will and Representation, in a chapter tellingly titled ‘On Man’s
Need for Metaphysics’ (Schopenhauer 1969, vol. 2, pp. 160–187/1949b,
pp. 175–209). There Schopenhauer talks of man as an animal metaphysi-
cum, permanently afflicted by the desire for metaphysical knowledge. In
the face of the evident suffering and misery of life, humans are compelled
to wonder why the world exists. The desperate need for an answer to this
question is, Schopenhauer says, the origin of all ‘metaphysical’ thought,
both religious and philosophical:
Temples and churches, pagodas and mosques, in all countries and ages, in
their splendour and spaciousness, testify to man’s need for metaphysics, a
need strong and ineradicable, which follows close on the physical. (1969, vol.
2, p. 162/1949b, p. 177)
The difference between religion and philosophy does not consist in the
claim, common to both, to embody a truth beyond appearances, but rather
in their mode of presentation. Religions provide a ‘popular metaphysics’
resting upon revelation, and can be true solely sensu allegorico. Philoso-
phy, by contrast, appeals to thought and conviction and claims to be true
sensu proprio (1969, vol. 2, pp. 166–168/1949b, pp. 183, 185). Neverthe-
less, both arise from humans’ need, faced with the misery of life, to make
‘metaphysical assumptions’ about the existence of another world whose
real character is separated by ‘a deep gulf, a radical difference’ from any-
thing of which they can conceive (1969, vol. 2, p. 178/1949b, pp. 197,
198). Belief in metaphysical doctrines is, then, a human cognitive response
to misery and helplessness in the face of existence, and both religion and
philosophy, as forms of metaphysics, gain their content by a projection of
the antithesis of the world of ‘appearances’ into an assumed beyond. In this
_____________
3 ‘He who does not feel occasionally as if people and all things were mere phantoms
or dream-images has no gift for philosophy. For it arises out of the contrast of in-
dividual things with the Idea of which they are the appearance’ (Schopenhauer
1864, p. 295). An annotated copy of this work survives among Nietzsche’s per-
sonal effects, although the date at which he purchased it is unknown (see Oehler
1942, p. 21).
chapter of The World as Will and Representation, Schopenhauer presents a

view of the origins of metaphysical thought which is surprisingly similar to
Porter’s interpretation of the hidden message of The Birth of Tragedy 1.
The heavily annotated copy of The World as Will and Representation
which survives among Nietzsche’s personal possessions is part of the Col-
lected Works edited by Julius Frauenstädt and published in 1873–1874,
after the appearance of The Birth of Tragedy (Oehler 1942, p. 21). While
there can be no doubt that Nietzsche read The World as Will and Represen-
tation extensively in the years 1865–1872, it is impossible to prove which
chapters he studied most attentively. It is, however, extremely likely that
he was familiar with the chapter discussed above, as it contains Schopen-
hauer’s problematic and much-commented-upon claim that, unlike the
systems of his predecessors, his metaphysics is not transcendent:
And although no one can recognize the thing-in-itself through the veil of the
forms of perception, on the other hand everyone carries this within himself, in
fact he himself is it; hence in self-consciousness it must be in some way acces-
sible to him, although still only conditionally. Thus the bridge on which meta-
physics passes beyond experience is nothing but just that analysis of experi-
ence into phenomenon and thing-in-itself in which I have placed Kant’s
greatest merit. For it contains the proof of a kernel of the phenomenon differ-
ent from the phenomenon itself. It is true that this kernel can never be entirely
separated from the phenomenon, and be regarded by itself as an ens extramun-
danum; but it is known always only in its relations and references to the phe-
nomenon itself. The interpretation and explanation of the phenomenon, how-
ever, in relation to its inner kernel can give us information about it which does
not otherwise come into consciousness. Therefore in this sense metaphysics
goes beyond the phenomenon, i.e., nature, to what is concealed in or behind it
( μ
), yet always regarding it only as that which appears in the
phenomenon, not independently of all phenomenon. Metaphysics thus remains
immanent, and does not become transcendent; for it never tears itself entirely
from experience, but remains the mere interpretation and explanation thereof,
as it never speaks of the thing-in-itself otherwise than in its relation to the
phenomenon. This, at any rate, is the sense in which I have attempted to solve
the problem of metaphysics, taking into general consideration the limits of
human knowledge which have been demonstrated by Kant. (Schopenhauer
1969, vol. 2, pp. 182–183/1949b, pp. 203–204)
This claim was interrogated by Rudolf Haym in his 1864 essay on
Schopenhauer, which Nietzsche read in 1866.4
_____________
4 Nietzsche to Hermann Mushacke, 27 April 1866, KGB I 2, pp. 126–129; Nietzsche
to Carl von Gersdorff, end-August 1866, KGB I 2, pp. 156–161 (see Barbera
1994).
The likely linguistic contexts of the appeal of The Birth of Tragedy 1 to

Wagner complement this picture of congruence between Nietzsche’s ar-
guments and Schopenhauerian themes. The passage Nietzsche quotes cen-
tres around the paradoxical notion of the ‘truest phantom’ or ‘illusion’
(wahrster Wahn), and is taken from Act III of Die Meistersinger, in which
Wahn is a prominent theme.5 It is therefore relevant to consider Wagner’s
letter to Ludwig II of Bavaria (Wagner 1911 [German]/1995 [English]),
published in 1873 under the title Über Staat und Religion, which Nietzsche
read in manuscript in 1869.6 In this letter, Wagner combines a Schopen-
hauerian metaphysical standpoint with a lengthy analysis of political and
religious ideas as forms of Wahn, necessary illusions:
Blindness is the world’s true essence, and not Knowledge prompts its move-
ments, but merely a headlong impulse, a blind impetus of unique weight and
violence, which procures itself just so much light and knowledge as will suf-
fice to still the pressing need experienced at the moment. So we recognize that
nothing really happens but what has issued from this not far-seeing Will that
answers merely to the momentarily-expressed need. (1995, p. 10/1911, p. 8)
Humans are the unwitting instruments of this blind striving for existence,
and both patriotism (which induces them to place the ends of state above
their own egoistic goals) and religion (which counsels resignation in the
face of the wretchedness of existence) are ruses by which they are induced
to serve the ends of Will. This outlook leads Wagner to give the following
analysis of religious feeling:
Its inmost kernel is denial of the world—i.e., recognition of the world as a
fleeting and dreamlike state reposing merely on illusion—and struggle for Re-
demption from it, prepared-for by renunciation, attained by Faith. In true Reli-
gion a complete reversal thus occurs of all the aspirations to which the State
had owed its founding and its organising: what is seen to be unattainable here,
the human mind desists from striving-for upon this path, to ensure its reaching
by a path entirely opposite. To the religious eye the truth grows plain that there
must be another world than this, because the inextinguishable bent-to-
happiness cannot be stilled within this world, and hence requires another
world for its redemption. What, now, is that other world? So far as the concep-
tual faculties of human Understanding reach, and in their practical application
as intellectual Reason, it is quite impossible to gain a notion that shall not
_____________
5 I am thinking in particular of Hans Sachs’ famous Wahn-monologue at the end of
act III, scene 1. The passage Nietzsche cites is from the beginning of act III, scene
2.
6 See Barbera 1994, p. 219 (no. 4). As late as 1873, Nietzsche thought fit to praise
this work of Wagner’s as ‘in the highest sense “edifying”’ (Nietzsche to Gersdorff,
2 March 1873, KSB II 3, p. 131).
clearly show itself as founded on this selfsame world of need and change:
wherefore, since this world is the source of our unhappiness, that other world,
of redemption from it, must be precisely as different from the mode of cognis-
ance whereby we are to perceive that other world must be different from the
mode which shews us nothing but this present world of suffering and illusion.
(1995, pp. 23–24/1911, pp. 20–21, emphasis mine)
Religious feeling is awesome in nature—Wagner calls it ‘wonder-working’
(wunderwirkend) and ‘sublime’ (erhaben) (1995, p. 25/1911, p. 21), but is
nonetheless illusion for all that. In explicitly associating religious thought
with illusion and dream, Wagner goes further than Schopenhauer does in
the passages I have quoted, but both the language and the content of this
recognizably Schopenhauerian train of thought foreshadow those aspects
of The Birth of Tragedy 1 that Porter emphasizes.7
If Porter’s argument that the Dionysian or the metaphysical originates
as the compensatory fantasy of needy and suffering human beings is
granted, it seems nevertheless that the elaboration of these thoughts in the
opening sections of The Birth of Tragedy draws considerably on Schopen-
hauer’s treatment of the same theme. It is, moreover, not merely Nietz-
sche’s account of the origins of metaphysics that is Schopenhauerian in
tenor. His discussion of the resurgence of the need for metaphysics in his
contemporary era is also redolent of Schopenhauer. According to Nietz-
sche, this need is provoked anew by the eventual bankruptcy of the opti-
mistic, ‘Socratic’ belief that science can provide a fully satisfactory ex-
planation of the world (see especially BT 15, 18). The second half of
Schopenhauer’s chapter ‘On Man’s Need for Metaphysics’ is likewise
devoted to an extensive and scathing discussion of the ambitions of science
to explain the world:
Naturalism, or the purely physical way of considering things, will never be
sufficient, it is like a sum in arithmetic that never comes out. Beginningless
and endless causal series, inscrutable fundamental forces, endless space, be-
ginningless time, infinite divisibility of matter, and all this further conditioned
by a knowing brain, in which alone it exists just like a dream and without
which it vanishes—all these things constitute the labyrinth in which naturalism
leads us incessantly round and round ... In fact, even if a man wandered
through all the planets of all the fixed stars, he would still not have made one
step in metaphysics. On the contrary, the greatest advance in physics will only
_____________
7 The connection between metaphysical ‘knowledge’ and dreams is treated at length
in Schopenhauer’s essay on spirit-seeing (Schopenhauer 1960 [German]/1974
[English]). This discussion inspired Wagner’s 1870 centenary essay on Beethoven,
which Nietzsche praises in the Preface to BT and in section 16 (KSA 1, pp. 23,
104).
make the need for a system of metaphysics felt more and more, since the cor-
rected, extended, and more thorough knowledge of nature is the very know-
ledge that always undermines and finally overthrows the metaphysical as-
sumptions that till then have prevailed. (Schopenhauer 1969, vol. 2, pp. 177–
178/1949b, pp. 196–197)
Like Nietzsche, Schopenhauer is disdainful of the ambitions of science,
and believes that it will eventually refute itself, provoking a return to meta-
physical speculation. Not only are there general thematic parallels, but the
very terms in which Nietzsche expresses the cultural importance of Soc-
ratism echo the cosmic imagery of Schopenhauer’s contemptuous dis-
missal.8
An element of continuity with Schopenhauerian ideas is also, I would
argue, implied by the imagery of veiling that Nietzsche uses to depict the
insight offered by the Dionysian state:
Now, hearing this gospel of universal harmony, each person feels himself to
be not only united, reconciled or merged with his neighbour, but one with him,
as if the veil of maya had been torn apart, so that mere shreds of it flutter be-
fore the mysterious primordial unity. (BT 1, KSA 1, pp. 29–30; see too BT 15,
KSA 1, pp. 98–99; BT 24, KSA 1, p. 150)
Porter points out that the veracity of this vision is far from assured, sug-
gesting that the subjunctive character of the ‘as if’-clause and the continued
fluttering of the tattered veil imply that the Dionysian vision does not pro-
vide immediate insight into the beyond (2000a, pp. 51–52). He concludes
that this represents a critique of Schopenhauer; but again, there are
Schopenhauerian precedents. We have already seen Schopenhauer speak of
‘the veil of the forms of perception’ in The World as Will and Representa-
_____________
8 ‘For the first time, thanks to this universality, a common network of thought was
stretched over the whole globe, with prospects of encompassing even the laws of
the entire solar system’ (BT 15, KSA 1, p. 100). They also contain echoes of Wag-
ner. Nietzsche characterizes the Socratic instinct for scientific knowledge as a
‘sublime metaphysical illusion’ (BT 15, KSA 1, p. 99) and comments that without
its influence, human energy would have been ‘applied instead to the practical, i.e.,
egotistical goals of individuals and nations’. The ‘wars of extinction’ that would
have ensued would have led to a generalized and suicidal pessimism of the kind
which, Nietzsche claims, ‘has existed throughout the entire world, wherever art has
not appeared in one form or other, especially as religion or science, to heal and to
ward off the breath of that pestilence’ (BT 15, KSA 1, pp. 100; see also p. 102).
Wagner had likewise argued that patriotic or political Wahn is still too close to in-
dividual egoism to be stable, and will collapse into war unless supplemented by the
illusions of faith (1995, pp. 15–19/1911, pp. 12–14). Nietzsche’s account of the
way science functions as a form of illusion is thereby aligned with Wagner’s dis-
cussion of religion.
tion II, chapter 17, when wrestling with the thorny issue of human beings’
‘inner’ experience of the thing-in-itself (1969, vol. 2, pp. 182–183, quoted
above). He resorts to this metaphor again in the following chapter, this
time to confess the impossibility of an unshrouded view:
Meanwhile it is to be carefully noted, and I have always kept it in mind, that
even the inward observation we have of our own will still does not by any
means furnish an exhaustive and adequate knowledge of the thing-in-itself ...
in this inner knowledge, the thing-in-itself has indeed to a great extent cast off
its veils, but still does not appear quite naked ... Accordingly we have to refer
the whole world of phenomena to that one in which the thing-in-itself is mani-
fested under the lightest of all veils, and still remains phenomenon only insofar
as my intellect, the only thing capable of knowledge, still always remains dis-
tinguished from me as the one who wills, and does not cast off the knowledge-
form of time even with inner perception. (Schopenhauer 1969, vol. 2, pp. 197,
9
198/1949b, pp. 220–221)
These passages are taken from the second volume of The World as Will
and Representation, which was added in the second edition of 1844 and
forms a supplement to volume 1. There is no question that such statements
are hard to reconcile with the confidence with which the thesis that the
world is Will is presented in the first edition of Schopenhauer’s work. It is
nevertheless evident that the terms of what Porter sees a radical critique of
Schopenhauer are available from Schopenhauer himself.
I have, I hope, succeeded in showing that allusions to these particular chap-

ters of The World as Will and Representation are prominent at several
points in The Birth of Tragedy. Nietzsche’s selective allusions may fairly
be said to emphasize this self-critical moment in Schopenhauer, but do
they thereby amount to a wholesale rejection of whatever he may have
understood the elder philosopher to stand for? An alternative interpretation
is suggested by yet another apologia for the use of metaphysical lan-
guage—this time from Nietzsche’s own notebooks. The passage is from an
early draft of Fragment 10[1], which survives labelled by Nietzsche as
_____________
9 The imagery of the veil has a long pedigree in German philosophical aesthetics,
evoked by Kant Goethe, Schiller, Novalis, Hegel, and others. See Gombrich 1985
for some examples. The implication is always double-edged: a veil conceals as
much as it reveals. It is this tradition that Nietzsche taps into with his remarks
about the veiling and unveiling in BT 15 and in The Gay Science (GS Preface to
the second edition 4, KSA 3, pp. 351–352; GS 57, KSA 3, pp. 421–422).
‘Fragment of an extended form of “The Birth of Tragedy” written in the

first weeks of the year 1871’ (KSA 7, pp. 333ff.):
If I ventured in passing to speak of genius and of appearance as if a knowledge
that exceeded every bound stood at my disposal and as if I were able to see out
of the pure, great eye of the world, in what follows it will be explained that in
using this figurative language [Bildersprache] I do not believe that I have
stepped beyond anthropomorphic bounds. But who could endure existence
without such mystical possibilities? (KSA 14, p. 541)
Porter states that Nietzsche’s position in The Birth of Tragedy is ‘not only
that metaphysics is a fictional enterprise worthy of being shattered once
and for all but also that its resurrection is an inescapable and constitu-
tional need deeply implanted in human nature’ (Porter 2000a, p. 9; em-
phasis mine). Although he recognizes that Nietzsche portrays metaphysical
speculation as a matter of human need, his overall discussion of The Birth
of Tragedy suggests that its argument is weighted heavily towards critique.
In the passage above, however, we see Nietzsche underlining in poignant
terms a conclusion that we have also seen Schopenhauer and Wagner em-
phasize: the need for a myth such as the metaphysical provides in order to
endure existence. Nietzsche’s acknowledgement of this need, together with
its Schopenhauerian precedent, raises the possibility that The Birth of
Tragedy deploys Schopenhauer not in parodic fashion, as a weapon with
which to shatter all such illusions, but rather as a means of developing
them in a new and superior form.10
This interpretation also coheres with Nietzsche’s comments about the
work of Friedrich August Lange. Porter argues that it was reading Lange
that caused Nietzsche to apostatize from Schopenhauer (Porter 2000a, pp.
5, 9–16). Yet, in the same August 1866 letter to Gersdorff in which he
praises Lange’s History of Materialism as ‘splendid and highly instructive’
(KGB I 2, p. 159), Nietzsche draws a different conclusion: ‘You see that
even in the face of this most exacting critique our Schopenhauer remains
for us, indeed, he almost becomes us even more.’ What Lange’s arguments
show is, according to Nietzsche, that philosophy can only be a form of art,
of which none other than Schopenhauer furnishes the highest example:
If philosophy is art, then even Haym may hide from Schopenhauer; if philoso-
phy should be edifying, then I at least know no philosopher who edifies more
than our Schopenhauer. (KGB I 2, p. 160)
My suggestion is therefore that Nietzsche draws upon Schopenhauer in The
Birth of Tragedy as part of his attempt to foster a new form of Wagnerian
_____________
10 Note the echo in Nietzsche’s 1873 praise of Wagner’s ‘On State and Religion’ as
‘highly “edifying”’, quoted in n. 6 above.
Wahn: an acknowledgement and indulgence of the need to find a higher

meaning in existence, however illusory that meaning may be. This project
may seem opposed to Schopenhauer’s goal of presenting a system of
metaphysics in the grand style, yet there are sufficient counter-currents in
The World as Will and Representation to enable Nietzsche to enlist his
predecessor in the service of this enterprise. Schopenhauer claims that his
philosophy embodies a set of ‘truths’ (1969, vol. 2, p. 185/1949b, p. 206),
yet not in the sense that it presents a system of conclusions derived deduc-
tively from true premises, nor because it relies on some form of privileged
intuition. Rather, it is true in virtue of providing, in contrast to science, an
‘understanding’ (Verständniß), ‘interpretation’ (Auslegung), or ‘decipher-
ing’ (Entzifferung) of the world of phenomena which is, so he claims, rich,
satisfying and complete (1969, vol. 2 pp. 184–186/1949b, pp. 204–205). It
is such a humanly satisfying interpretation of existence that, according to
the arguments of The Birth of Tragedy, only art can provide. Nietzsche
picks up on those elements of The World as Will and Representation which
can be redeployed creatively in order to support this insight. The presenta-
tion of Schopenhauer which results from his refashioning is, admittedly,
partial and one-sided. It may nevertheless be concluded that The Birth of
Tragedy extends Schopenhauerian themes and concerns in order to ham-
mer its message home.
The Birth of Tragedy’s co-option of Schopenhauer extends further than
this, however. Nietzsche does not stop at drawing upon his predecessor’s
arguments in order to announce the crisis of science; he also dramatizes
this crisis and casts Schopenhauer in a leading role. He does so by con-
structing a narrative which has its beginnings in sixth-century Greece, and
which locates Schopenhauer—along with Aeschylus, Sophocles, Eurip-
ides, Socrates, Kant, and Wagner—at points along a cultural development
that will culminate in a new form of tragic art.11 This chronology is puta-
tively historical, but insofar as it may be characterized as a form of illusion
that aims, via a representation of the past, to generate a constellation of
_____________
11 This comment assumes that the ‘rebirth’ of tragedy Nietzsche envisages in The
Birth of Tragedy is, indeed, a Wagnerian Renaissance. Although this has some-
times been questioned, it still seems to me the best way to make sense not only of
The Birth of Tragedy but of the references to Wagner in Nietzsche’s notes and let-
ters of the early 1870s. The scope of the rebirth Nietzsche has in mind is, however,
far too broad and indeed open-ended to encompass Wagner alone. Although Wag-
ner is identified with the fulfilment of this ideal in The Birth of Tragedy, this is
compatible with the view that he later retracted this association and, as occurred in
Ecce Homo, disavowed The Birth of Tragedy’s Wagnerianism without disowning
the ‘hope’ that speaks out from the work (EH III BT 1 and 4).
beliefs and attitudes that legitimate a particular form of cultural activity, it

might more aptly be termed ideological. Its function is to alert its readers to
the climacteric shift taking place in European culture and to raise their
hopes for tragedy’s rebirth.
Nietzsche’s most general verdict on Schopenhauer’s significance
within this narrative comes in The Birth of Tragedy sections 18 and 19,
when he is describing the disintegration of the Socratic-optimistic outlook:
The catastrophe slumbering in the womb of theoretical culture is gradually be-
ginning to frighten modern man ... Meanwhile great natures with a bent for
general problems have applied the tools of science itself, with incredible de-
liberation, to prove that all understanding, by its very nature, is limited and
conditional, thereby rejecting decisively the claim of science to universal va-
lidity and universal goals. Thanks to this demonstration it has been recognized
for the first time that it is a delusion [Wahnvorstellung] to believe that we can
penetrate to the innermost essence of things by following the chain of cau-
sality. The hardest-fought victory was won by the enormous courage and wis-
dom of K a n t and S c h o p e n h a u e r , a victory over the optimism which lies
hidden in the nature of logic and which in turn is the hidden foundation of our
culture ... This insight marks the beginning of a culture which I now dare to
describe as a tragic culture. Its most important feature lies in putting wisdom
in place of science as its highest goal. (BT 18, KSA 1, pp. 117–118)
Let us recall then, how Kant and Schopenhauer made it possible for the spirit
of G e r m a n p h i l o s o p h y ... to destroy scientific Socratism’s contented
pleasure in existence by demonstrating its limits, and how this demonstration
ushered in an incomparably deeper and more serious consideration of ethical
questions and art, one which can be defined as the conceptual formulation of
D i o n y s i a c w i s d o m . In what direction does this mysterious unity of Ger-
man music and German philosophy point, if not towards a new form of exist-
ence, the content of which can only be guessed at from Hellenic analogies?
(BT 19, KSA 1, p. 128)
In these remarks, Schopenhauer is lauded (alongside Kant) for having
demonstrated the bankruptcy of the Socratic attempt to view the world as
amenable to human understanding. The philosophers are not praised for
their residual hope for a form of knowledge that transcends the bounds of
experience, but rather because of the demonstration their arguments furnish
of those very bounds. Although it is Socrates whom Nietzsche dubs ‘the
vortex and turning point of so-called world history’ (BT 15, KSA 1, p.
100), in The Birth of Tragedy 18 and 19, Kant and Schopenhauer appear
almost as important as actors on the world-historical stage. In finally dis-
crediting Socratism, they clear the way for the replacement of corrosive
scientism with a ‘new form of existence’: a renewed kind of artistic orien-
tation to the world. Schopenhauer is significant in this story not as the last
metaphysician, but rather as the philosopher who demonstrates the need for
a new myth and who anticipates its form.12 In doing so, he merits praise as
an augur of the rebirth of tragedy. His successor, both in this prophesying
and in this anticipating, is Nietzsche himself.
This paper has tried to rehabilitate some claims about The Birth of Tragedy
which may seem rather traditional: namely, the positive character of its
appropriation of Schopenhauer and Wagner, and the importance of the
(quasi-)historical structure of its argument. Being traditional does not, of
course, amount to being mistaken, and I hope I have shown that such
claims can be supported by crediting Nietzsche with a less naive reception
of Schopenhauer than has sometimes been suggested. Nietzsche famously
warns philosophers to be vigilant about the unnoticed and subtle commit-
ments inherent in the grammar of our language (BGE 2, KSA 5, p. 54; TI
‘“Reason” in Philosophy’ 5, KSA 6, p. 78), but the manner in which the
areas and positions of long-running debates come to be defined may occa-
sionally be just as insidious.13
References
Barbera, Sandro, 1994, ‘Ein Sinn und unzählige Hieroglyphen. Einige Motive von
Nietzsches Auseinandersetzung mit Schopenhauer in der Basler Zeit’, in: Tilman
Borsche / Federico Gerratana / Aldo Venturelli (eds.), Centauren-Geburten. Wis-
_____________
12 As Nietzsche emphasizes in BT 16, it is Schopenhauer’s analysis of the representa-
tional and expressive capacity of music which also provides an intimation of the
kind of art by means of which the crisis can be overcome. Schopenhauer’s writings
suggest that a work of art which combines music with images or action can repre-
sent ‘the innermost kernel preceding all form, or the heart of things’ (Schopen-
hauer 1949a, p. 311, quoted by Nietzsche, BT 16, KSA 1, p. 106). This is, of
course, the kind of representation Nietzsche characterizes as myth: ‘the symbolic
image ... with the h i g h e s t d e g r e e o f s i g n i f i c a n c e ’ (BT 16, KSA 1, p. 107).
Regrettably, space considerations preclude any further discussion of this aspect of
Nietzsche’s appropriation of Schopenhauer here.
13 The research for this paper was begun when I was a Junior Postdoctoral Fellow in
the Institute of Greece, Rome and the Classical Tradition at the University of Bris-
tol, UK. I am grateful to the Institute Board for funding my research and to the
Bristol Classical Seminar for their responses to an early presentation. I also owe
thanks to Martin Ruehl, Raymond Geuss, Mike Levene, and Thomas Brobjer for
their comments and questions on my initial conference paper, and to Nicholas Jar-
dine and Dawn Phillips for subsequent constructive criticism.
senschaft, Kunst und Philosophie beim jungen Nietzsche, Berlin: Walter de

de Man, Paul, 1979, Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche,
Rilke, and Proust, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Gombrich, E. H., 1985, ‘The Symbol of the Veil: Psychological Reflections on Schil-
ler’s Poetry’, in: Peregrine Horden (ed.), Freud and the Humanities, London:
Duckworth, pp. 75–109.
Lacoue-Labarthe, Philippe, 1971, ‘Le detour’, in: Poétique, 5, pp. 53–76.
Montinari, Mazzino, 1980, Nietzsche lesen, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Nehamas, Alexander, 1985, Nietzsche: Life as Literature, Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Oehler, Max, 1942, Nietzsches Bibliothek, Weimar: Gesellschaft der Freunde des
Nietzsche-Archivs.
Porter, James I., 2000a, The Invention of Dionysus: An Essay on The Birth of Tragedy,
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Porter, James I., 2000b, Nietzsche and the Philology of the Future, Stanford, CA: Stan-
Schopenhauer, Arthur, 1864, Aus Arthur Schopenhauer’s handschriftlichem Nachlaß.
Abhandlungen, Anmerkungen, Aphorismen und Fragmente, ed. Julius Frauenstädt,
Leipzig: F. U. Brockhaus.
Schopenhauer, Arthur, 1949a, Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung, Erster Band, in:
Arthur Schopenhauer, Sämtliche Werke. Nach der ersten, von Julius Frauenstädt
besorgten Gesamtausgabe neu bearbeitet, ed. Arthur Hübscher, vol. 3, Wiesbaden:
Eberhard Brockhaus Verlag.
Schopenhauer, Arthur, 1949b, Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung, Zweiter Band, in:
Arthur Schopenhauer, Sämtliche Werke, ed. Arthur Hübscher, vol. 4, Wiesbaden:
Eberhard Brockhaus Verlag.
Schopenhauer, Arthur, 1960, ‘Versuch über das Geistersehn und was damit zusammen-
hängt’, in: Arthur Schopenhauer, Parerga und Paralipomena. Kleine philoso-
phische Schriften, Erster Band, in: Arthur Schopenhauer, Sämtliche Werke, ed. Ar-
thur Hübscher, vol. 5, Wiesbaden: Eberhard Brockhaus Verlag, pp. 239–329.
Schopenhauer, Arthur, 1969, The World as Will and Representation, trans. E. F. J.
Payne, 2 vols., New York: Dover.
Schopenhauer, Arthur, 1974, ‘Essay on Spirit-Seeing and Everything Connected
Therewith’, in: Arthur Schopenhauer, Parerga and Paralipomena: Short Philo-
sophical Essays, trans. E. F. J. Payne, vol. 1, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 225–
309.
Skinner, Quentin, 1969, ‘Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas’, in: His-
tory and Theory, 8, pp. 3–53.
Staten, Henry, 1990, Nietzsche’s Voice, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Wagner, Richard, 1911, ‘Über Staat und Religion’, in: Richard Wagner, Sämtliche
Schriften und Dichtungen. Volksausgabe, Sechste Auflage, vol. 8, Leipzig: Breit-
kopf und Härtel, pp. 3–29.
Wagner, Richard, 1995, ‘On State and Religion’, in: Richard Wagner, Art and Politics,
trans. William Ashton Ellis, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, pp. 5–34.
Translations
The Birth of Tragedy, ed. Raymond Geuss, trans. Ronald Speirs, Cambridge: Cam-
Nietzsche’s Musical Conception of Time
Jonathan R. Cohen
1. Time in Music
My title is ‘Nietzsche’s Musical Conception of Time,’ but in order to say

something about that, I must first discuss Nietzsche’s conception of musi-
cal time.
I will approach this topic by way of a passage in which Nietzsche
criticizes Wagner. Nietzsche’s psychological, political, and cultural criti-
cisms of Wagner are fairly well-known, but his musicological criticisms
are not. What I will do is examine closely one passage in which Nietzsche
criticizes Wagner for musical reasons, and use that passage (and in particu-
lar one sentence in it) as a point of entry for Nietzsche’s view of musical
time.1
The passage appeared originally in ‘Assorted Opinions and Maxims’
(1879) as section 134. It is reprinted in the anthology Nietzsche contra
Wagner (1895) as part 1 of the section entitled ‘Wagner as a Danger’;
however, the later version is slightly shortened, in what I shall argue is a
revealing way. Here is the original version, entire, in the Hollingdale trans-
lation:
H o w m o d e r n m u s i c i s s u p p o s e d t o m a k e t h e s o u l m o v e . —The
artistic objective pursued by modern music in what is now, in a strong but
nonetheless obscure phrase, designated ‘endless melody’ can be made clear by
imagining one is going into the sea, gradually relinquishing a firm tread on the
bottom and finally surrendering unconditionally to the watery element: one is
supposed to s w i m . Earlier music constrained one—with a delicate or solemn
or fiery movement back and forth, faster and slower—to d a n c e : in pursuit of
_____________
1 The musicological discussion in this essay is heavily indebted to Dr Steven Pane, a
musicologist at my university with whom I’ve been studying nineteenth-century
music the past few years in order to better understand Nietzsche’s comments about
music. I have repeatedly offered Dr Pane co-authorship of the articles which have
resulted but he has so far always refused, saying that the only keyboard he wants
anything to do with is the one with 88 keys.
292 Nietzsche’s Musical Conception of Time
which the needful preservation of orderly measure compelled the soul of the
listener to a continual s e l f - p o s s e s s i o n : it was upon the reflection of the
cooler air produced by this self-possession and the warm breath of musical en-
thusiasm that the charm of this music rested. —Richard Wagner desired a dif-
ferent kind of m o v e m e n t o f t h e s o u l : one related, as aforesaid, to swim-
ming and floating. Perhaps this is the most essential of his innovations. The
celebrated means he employs, appropriate to this desire and sprung from it—
‘endless melody’—endeavours to break up all mathematical symmetry of
tempo and force and sometimes even to mock it; and he is abundantly inven-
tive in the production of effects which to the ear of earlier times sound like
rhythmic paradoxes and blasphemies. What he fears is petrifaction, crystalliza-
tion, the transition of music into the architectonic—and thus with a two-four
rhythm he will juxtapose a three-four rhythm, often introduce bars in five-four
and seven-four rhythm, immediately repeat a phrase but expanded to two or
three times its original length. A complacent imitation of such an art as this
can be a great danger to music: close beside such an over-ripeness of the feel-
ing for rhythm there has always lain in wait the brutalization and decay of
rhythm itself. This danger is especially great when such music leans more and
more on a wholly naturalistic art of acting and language of gesture uninflu-
enced and uncontrolled by any higher plastic art: for such an art and language
possesses in itself no limit or proportion, and is thus unable to communicate
limit and proportion to that element that adheres to it, the a l l t o o f e m i n i n e
nature of music. (AOM 134)
‘Endless melody’ (sometimes ‘infinite melody’; the German is unendliche
Melodie) is defined by contemporary musicologists as melody which
‘avoids, or bridges, caesuras and cadences’ (Sadie 1980, p.121). Caesuras
are the rests that come at the end of completed musical phrases, and caden-
ces are the harmonic resolutions at the ends of phrases by which the music
returns to the tonic, or home key. Endless melody, then, is music which
just keeps going, without resolving in the way in which we are accus-
tomed. The result is (i) harmonically, a loss of a sense of home key and
harmonic resolution to it, (ii) rhythmically, a loss of a sense of regular
rhythm and the sense of resolution created when a phrase fills out its allot-
ted measures, and (iii) structurally, a loss of distinction between aria and
recitative: unlike traditional ‘number’ opera, in which choral parts, solos,
and narrative sections are distinct, the music in classical Wagnerian operas
flows along endlessly.
Thus, for example, Tristan und Isolde—considered the locus classicus
for endless melody—has rests, but not caesuras; that is, the rests don’t
represent resolutions (see, e.g., the Prelude, Fig. 1). For comparison,
Bizet’s Carmen—an appropriate foil given Nietzsche’s deployment of it
against Wagnerian opera in The Case of Wagner (1888)—features classic
cadences, making it always easy to tell when the phrase is done (see, e.g.,
the Overture, Fig. 2).
Jonathan R. Cohen 293
Figure 1. Richard Wagner, Tristan und Isolde, Prelude, measures 1–19

(New York: Dover Publications, 1973)
Figure 2. Georges, Bizet, Carmen, Prelude, measures 1–16

The contrast is clear: whereas traditional music features a finite rhythmic

structure which repeats, a strong sense of home key, unmistakable cadence,
etc., endless melody has none of these.2 Clear too, I think, is Nietzsche’s
point that endless melody invokes in us the sensation of floating, while
more traditional cadences are appropriate for dancing, even if they don’t
always make us want to get up and dance right then and there. Nietzsche’s
criticism of Wagner on this head is that Wagner’s music leads us to an
abandonment of ourselves. We give ourselves over to pure feeling, losing
our sense of structure. While Nietzsche seems often to be promoting such a
loss—‘I am no man; I am dynamite’ (EH ‘Why I Am a Destiny’ 1)—at
least as often he in fact praises structure, and even argues that structure is
necessary for a flourishing and creative life:
Every morality is, as opposed to l a i s s e r a l l e r , a bit of tyranny against ‘na-
ture’; also against ‘reason’; but this in itself is no objection, as long as we do
not have some other morality which permits us to decree that every kind of
tyranny and unreason is impermissible. What is essential and inestimable in
every morality is that it constitutes a long compulsion ... one should recall the
compulsion under which every language so far has achieved strength and free-
dom—the metrical compulsion of rhyme and rhythm ... What is essential ‘in
heaven and on earth’ seems to be, to say it once more, that there should be
o b e d i e n c e over a long period of time and in a s i n g l e direction: given that,
something always develops, and has developed, for whose sake it is worth
while to live on earth; for example, virtue, art, music, dance, reason, spiritu-
ality—something transfiguring, subtle, mad, and divine. (BGE 188, trans.
Kaufmann)
Nietzsche’s praise of structure takes different forms at different times in his
career; while this passage from Beyond Good and Evil (1885) evinces a
certain monomania, The Gay Science (1882) displays an appreciation of
multifarious structures. There Nietzsche praises what he calls ‘brief habits’,
a habit that ‘nourishes’ one for a time but then is discarded and replaced
with the next one. ‘Enduring habits I hate,’ he says, but ‘Most intolerable,
to be sure, and the terrible p a r e x c e l l e n c e would be for me a life en-
tirely devoid of habits, a life that would demand perpetual improvisation’
(GS 295). This last phrase describes endless melody almost exactly.
_____________
2 The reader may want to pause at this point long enough to listen to recordings of
the relevant pieces, in order to have the music in his/her ears. It only takes a minute
for the point to become obvious. I have chosen to focus on the orchestral begin-
nings of both operas, since in both cases the beginning sets the tone for the rest.
Since opera is ultimately vocal music, however, the reader may want to hear the
contrast also in vocal passages from the two works; if so, I recommend the Trans-
figuration from Tristan (and see Fig. 3) and the act II ‘Chanson’ from Carmen.
At any rate, our issue here is not whether Nietzsche is right about the ne-
cessity of structure for life to flourish, nor about the justice of his criticism
of Wagner. (For example, we might defend Wagner, at least within the
context of Tristan, by pointing out that music which never resolves is per-
fectly appropriate for a story about unfulfilled love.) Rather, we will return
to the issue of Nietzsche’s conception of musical time by analysing the
aspect of endless melody which Nietzsche criticizes in ‘Assorted Opinions
and Maxims’ 134, namely, rhythm.
This is already an idiosyncratic way for Nietzsche to approach the
question, for it is not at all obvious that rhythm is the defining character-
istic of endless melody. As just noted, current musicology defines endless
melody in terms of lack of caesura and cadence, and consequently lack of
resolution. However, the musicological analysis is ambivalent, since reso-
lution has both a harmonic and a rhythmic component. And thus Bryan
Magee, for example, can ignore rhythm entirely and account for the effect
of Tristan on the listener solely in terms of harmonics:
The first chord of Tristan ... contains within itself not one but two dissonances,
thus creating within the listener a double desire, agonizing in its intensity, for
resolution. The chord to which it then moves resolves one of these dissonances
but not the other, thus providing resolution-yet-not-resolution ... And this car-
ries on throughout a whole evening. (Magee 2001, pp. 208–209)
For that matter, Wagner himself introduced the term ‘endless melody’ (in
his essay ‘Zukunftsmusik’, written in 1860, at about the same time he was
composing Tristan) in neither rhythmic nor harmonic terms. For him, the
term ‘melody’ connotes music which is expressive and significant; the rest
of what is included in a piece of music—harmonies, connecting passages,
etc.—is formulaic and says nothing. So for Wagner, the point about end-
less melody is that it describes music which is always saying something
and has no gratuitous padding. Thus he avoids cadences primarily because
they are formulaic (Sadie 1980, p. 121).
For Nietzsche, however, musical formulae, if successful, are to be
cherished, representing as they do the fruit of many years of work by many
hands on problems of musical composition. As noted above, Nietzsche
finds traditions acceptable if they allow one to flourish, and some sort of
structure is necessary if one is to flourish. So Nietzsche looks at the music
itself and asks about its effect—does it allow one to flourish? In the case of
endless melody, Nietzsche does not explore it harmonically, as critics such
as Magee do, but rather turns the conversation to rhythm. In other words,
even if the musicologists and Wagner himself disagree, Nietzsche makes
endless melody be about rhythm, and thus by the same token about time.
The crux, then, of the criticism of endless melody in ‘Assorted Opin-
ions and Maxims’ 134 is this sentence in the middle of the passage:
What [Wagner] fears is petrifaction, crystallization, the transition of music

into the architectonic—and thus with a two-four rhythm he will juxtapose a
three-four rhythm, often introduce bars in five-four and seven-four rhythm,
immediately repeat a phrase but expanded to two or three times its original
length.
Rhythms are described here in terms of time signatures. A time signature
consists of two numbers, the top one indicating the number of beats per
measure, and the bottom one indicating the denominator of the fraction
defining the musical note which counts as a single beat. Thus 2/4 time
means two beats per measure, with a quarter note counting for a single
beat; 6/8 mean six beats per measure, with an eighth note counting for a
single beat; and so on. The image one gets from the sentence just quoted,
then, is that endless melody consists of a jumble of incongruent time signa-
tures which produces rhythmic chaos.
However, when we actually look at Wagner’s scores we find nothing
of the kind. The Tristan Prelude, for example, is in 6/8, while the Trans-
figuration is in 4/4—both perfectly traditional time signatures which hold
sway in the score for a perfectly traditional length of time (Figs. 1 and 3).
The image of a jumble of time signatures in fact describes some later com-
posers such as Stravinsky. In Les Noces, an irregular jumble of 3/8 and 2/8
time signatures does indeed produce a sense of floating, which surely could
not be danced to (see Fig. 4).3 However, Wagner does not use a jumble of
time signatures. And Nietzsche must have known this, since he was fa-
miliar with (at least) the piano score of Tristan.4 So what is Nietzsche talk-
ing about in this sentence?
_____________
3 Again, the reader is encouraged to find and listen to the first minute of Les Noces
(and again, that’s all it will take to understand the point) before reading on. It
should be noted that Stravinsky does sometimes write pieces featuring a jumble of
time signatures which are nonetheless (at least titled as) dances, such as the ‘Rus-
sian Dance’ from Petruschka. As I will argue below, Nietzsche’s point is not really
about time signatures but rather about the rhythm of the piece as the listener ex-
periences it, and the ‘Russian Dance’, which I think is indeed danceable in a way,
proves his point quite nicely.
4 See EH ‘Why I Am so Clever’ 6, and Storr 1994, p. 215.
Figure 3. Richard Wagner, Tristan und Isolde, Transfiguration, measures 1–8

Figure 4. Igor Stravisky, Les Noces, Part I, scene I, measures 1–18

(London: J. & W. Chester Music Ltd., 1922)
Part of the difficulty is that Hollingdale’s translation is wrong.5 The origi-

nal German for the sentence under examination is as follows:
[Wagner] fürchtet die Versteinerung, die Krystallisation, den Übergang der
Musik in das Architektonische,—und so stellt er dem zweitactigen Rhythmus
einen dreitactigen entgegen, führt nicht selten den Fünf- und Siebentact ein,
wiederholt die selbe Phrase sofort, aber mit einer Dehnung, dass sie doppelte
und dreifache Zeitdauer bekommt.
The words zweitactigen, dreitactigen, Fünf- und Siebentact mean literally
just ‘two-beating, three-beating, five- and seven-beat’. So in fact all Nietz-
sche is doing is simply giving the numbers of beats in a measure. If these
were the top numbers of time signatures, bottom numbers (indicating the
length of note taking one beat) would be necessary, and since the most
common bottom number is four, Hollingdale supplies ‘four’ each time. But
Hollingdale has assumed Nietzsche means the two, three, five, and seven
to indicate time signatures, whereas this is not necessarily so. In Holling-
dale’s version of the passage, the criticism of endless melody is that it con-
sists of a jumble of time signatures, and, in the case of 5/4 and 7/4, unusual
ones at that. But in fact Nietzsche is complaining about a jumble of clusters
of beats: now two, now three, now five, now seven.
So the anachronistic confusion of Wagner with the later Stravinsky
turns out to be a translator’s error. However, correcting the error does not
make the passage all that much clearer. Even retranslated, the problematic
sentence still cries out for explication: where and how does Wagner com-
bine two beats with three, and five with seven, in a piece in which the time
signature remains constant?
At one time I had hoped to find a particular passage in Tristan which
would manifest some explicit combination of two, three, five, and/or seven
beats, but so far I have not been able to find one that does. Apparently,
then, the reason Nietzsche lists two, three, five, and seven as the number of
beats in Wagnerian endless melody is to expressly leave out four, six, and
eight, the most common numbers used in time signatures, and the actual
numbers in the time signatures for the Prelude and Transfiguration in Tris-
tan (Figs. 1 and 3). But what is Nietzsche getting at?
_____________
5 Criticizing the Hollingdale translation, as I am about to do, seems impertinent, if
not sacrilegious, in the context of this conference of which Reg Hollingdale was a
founder and guiding light. The last time I saw him was the last time this conference
was held in Cambridge, four years ago, and he died less than a month afterwards.
So I feel bound to express here my respect for his work—I lived with his transla-
tion of Human, All Too Human while writing my dissertation—and to temper my
criticism with gratitude.
What he seems to be pointing to is the way Wagner’s melodies don’t

reside comfortably within their measures—they ‘overflow’ their measures,
as it were. Traditional composers situate their melodies nicely within musi-
cal measures, acknowledging the downbeat and accepting the natural cae-
sura at the end of a phrase. Thus the Overture to Carmen features classic
‘four-by-four’ structure consisting of four measures of four beats each, and
because the musical phrases sit comfortably within their measures, they
also sound like four measures of four beats each (Fig. 2). Wagner, on the
other hand, denies the listener the satisfaction given by the traditional
structure. The opening phrase of the Tristan Prelude, though set in 6/8
time, in fact starts with five beats of rest leading up to one beat of music at
the end of the first measure, then two full measures of six beats each, then
four beats of music in a fourth measure before two beats of rest (see Fig.
1).6 This is what Nietzsche seems to be referring to when he says that
Wagner puts two beats in a space where the measure makes one expect
three or vice versa, or introduces a phrase of five or seven beats even
though measures never (ordinarily) accommodate those numbers of beats.
His point is that there is no match between the number of beats in the
musical phrase and the number of beats in the underlying measures.
In addition (so the rest of the crucial sentence quoted above continues),
when a phrase seems to repeat, Wagner deliberately extends it so that the
second hearing’s length does not match the first. Thus while the part
played by the woodwinds in the Prelude’s opening theme maintains its
length (in measures 3–4, 7–8, and 11–12), the cello’s part does not (com-
pare measures 1–3 and 5–7 with 9–11—the theme starts earlier in measure
9 than it does in measures 1 and 5). In other words, despite the putative
regularity of the 6/8 time signature in the score, in fact ‘endless melody’ as
played and heard is entirely irregular. The internal rhythm of endless
melody does not match the structure set up by the musical measures and
thus overrides the listener’s own internal sense of structure.
Thus when Nietzsche says Wagner combines differing numbers of
beats and repeats the same phrase at different lengths, he is referring not to
the time signature (which remains constant) but to the successive length of
musical phrases which one would expect to be matched both to each other
and to the downbeat. Wagner, Nietzsche asserts, deliberately mismatches
_____________
6 It’s true that this musical phrase totals seventeen beats (1 + 6 + 6 + 4), and that
seventeen equals two plus three plus five plus seven, but I think that’s only coinci-
dence: (1) The seventeen aren’t broken up into sets of two, three, five, and seven
beats, (2) later phrases in Tristan contain more than seventeen beats (or fewer), and
(3) Nietzsche does not list the four numbers together as a sum but rather in two
pairs.
so as to detach the listeners from their secure anchors and set them adrift
on a sea of endless melody. This Nietzsche objects to as making impos-
sible the sort of keeping-one’s-feet-on-the-ground which he regards as
necessary for the dance of life.7
What does all this tell us about Nietzsche’s view of musical time? One
ordinarily thinks of musical time in terms of the time signature or of the
tempo meted out by the conductor or the metronome. But this is to take the
view of the musicians, whereas Nietzsche in this passage takes the perspec-
tive of the listener. In this way, Hollingdale’s mistranslation is actually
instructive. It is indeed natural to assume that when Nietzsche begins
throwing around numbers, he must be talking about time signatures—those
are the numbers of which music seems to be made. As we have just seen,
however, the only way to make sense of ‘Assorted Opinions and Maxims’
134 is to understand it in terms of the music’s effect on the listener. What-
ever it looks like in the score, endless melody is played and heard in such a
way as to provoke chaos in the listener.8
The only feature of musical time which matters, then, in Nietzsche’s
view, is the perceived rhythm of the musical phrases. The score and its
time signature represent time ‘in itself’, as it were; to the listener, however,
there is only time as perceived—i.e., the number and frequency of beats in
the musical phrase itself as played and heard. In Wagner’s music, not only
are there irregular beats, by this standard—the two, three, five, and seven
Nietzsche lists—but even then, these combinations recur in Wagner’s
music irregularly, so that the listener has no purchase, no structure. The
melodic rhythm differs from the harmonic rhythm, and both differ from the
underlying rhythm the musicians are counting out. The musicians are
(presumably) counting out a stable six beats per measure, but to Nietzsche
the beats heard by the listener are the only things that matter. They have an
effect on the listener, not only during the time the music is actually being
played but, Nietzsche clearly worries, afterwards as well. The jumble of
rhythms cultivate a jumble in the soul. Thus musical time is a matter of the
perception of, and the effect on, the listener. Its own intrinsic features—
what’s written in the score and what’s counting in the musicians’ heads—
might as well not exist.
_____________
7 The metaphor of dance as being necessary for life can be found in the first volume
of HA as section 278. And criticism of endless melody as incompatible with dance
can be seen again—without the musicological details—in book II of GS (see espe-
cially sections 80, 84, and 86).
8 This marks Nietzsche’s break from Wagner in yet another way—in his early pe-
riod, as Wagner’s ally, he took the point of view of the composer; now, as Wag-
ner’s enemy, he speaks solely as a listener.
2. Time as Music
When we turn to Nietzsche’s view of time itself, it seems to me we can do

no better than extrapolate from his view of musical time.
In the first volume of Human, All Too Human (1878), Nietzsche ad-
mits that there could be things-in-themselves, but denies that they could
matter to us (HA I 9). And once one has shown that they do not matter to
us, one has in effect ‘refuted’ them (HA I 21). This should apply, then, to
time: the possible existence of time-in-itself, though undeniable, is irrel-
evant to us. But this is as much as to say that there is no time-in-itself for
us—the only time that matters is time as we experience it. What this means
is captured nicely by the musical criticism of endless melody in ‘Assorted
Opinions and Maxims’ 134: the time signature in the score (‘time-in-
itself’) is irrelevant to us; all that matters is the music’s rhythm as we ex-
perience it (‘time for us’). The musical analysis of time serves both to con-
cretize the abstract metaphysics and to provide one of its most telling il-
lustrations.
Music continues to be a useful avenue for discussing time, both as
metaphor and as foremost example, in the later works. In his later period,
Nietzsche denies categorically the existence of things-in-themselves, and
so time-in-itself is no longer acceptable even as a mere supposition.9 Musi-
cally, the result is an entirely intuitive analysis of music’s effect. The Case
of Wagner (1888) is the newly written late text employing this method, but
Nietzsche also repackaged several earlier passages about Wagner in Nietz-
sche contra Wagner. And when it came time to revise ‘Assorted Opinions
and Maxims’ 134 for this purpose, the sentence we have focused on in this
essay was excised. The reason, I suggest, is that by then Nietzsche has
moved beyond the half-hearted positivism of his middle period in which
‘Assorted Opinions and Maxims’ is situated to a full rejection of the thing-
in-itself. The crucial sentence, however, envisages a contrast between an
underlying ‘real’ musical time—the time recorded in the musical score—
and musical time as perceived by the listener. The later Nietzsche rejects
this distinction outright, and thus when ‘Assorted Opinions and Maxims’
_____________
9 Although most of the passages in which Nietzsche explicitly denies the existence
of things-in-themselves are in the notebooks (many of them included by Nietz-
sche’s sister in The Will to Power), the view can be seen clearly at such published
loci as GM I 13, TI ‘How the “Real World” Finally Became a Fable’, and TI ‘The
Four Great Errors’ 3.
134 is re-used in Nietzsche contra Wagner he wants to draw no attention to

the existence of the musical score and so leaves out this sentence.10
In both versions, Nietzsche’s criticism of endless melody employs a
view of musical time which provides insight as to the nature of our experi-
ence of time as a whole. Time, that is, is far more important than just an-
other instance of a supposed thing-in-itself. The implication of this pas-
sage, that certain experiences of time are deleterious, suggests that, for
Nietzsche, we each have our own internal rate of living, our own tempo,
derived, presumably, from our internal physiological rhythms—breathing
rate, heart rate, metabolism, etc.11 A structured tempo connotes a body
functioning well; presumably this is the condition we must be in in order to
flourish creatively. Our internal tempo can change, as the tempo of a piece
of music changes from section to section, and then time itself is indeed
different for us than it was. However, internal chaos, lack of consistent
tempo, means nothing gets done.
Our experience of music, then, can help or harm us. It can help struc-
ture our internal rate of time—either directly or by providing a contrasting
rhythm to serve as a beneficial tonic—or it can harm it. Nietzsche himself
finds Wagner always harmful:
My objections to the music of Wagner are physiological objections ... My
‘fact’ is that I no longer breathe easily once this music begins to affect me; that
my foot soon resents it and rebels; my foot feels the need for rhythm, dance,
march; it demands of music first of all those delights which are found in g o o d
walking, striding, leaping, and dancing. But does not my stomach protest, too?
my heart? my circulation? my intestines? Do I not become hoarse as I listen?
(GS 368 = NCW ‘Where I Offer Objections’)
Nietzsche believes this music to be harmful because there is in it a deliber-
ate undermining of temporal structure. And with no time-in-itself to fall
back on, such undermining can be utterly destructive. It requires great
strength to resist it and maintain one’s own tempo. And thus The Gay Sci-
ence 368 concludes with a Wagnerian responding to Nietzsche’s criticism,
‘Then you really are merely not healthy enough for our music?’ In Nietz-
sche’s shocked silence we hear the unspoken retort that it is the Wagneri-
_____________
10 It is also possible, of course, that he simply wanted to avoid requiring the reader of
NCW to engage in the sort of involved interpretation to which that sentence has
driven us in this essay. (Interestingly, the canard about the ‘all too feminine’ in
music which closes the AOM version is left behind as well in NCW—one can only
speculate why.)
11 For a similar view of the relation between musical and physiological rhythms, see
Langer 1953, pp. 126–129, 328–330.
ans who are unhealthy, and that resisting this music is precisely a proof of
health in Nietzsche’s view.12
3. Time as the Music of our Lives
Nietzsche is often categorized as an existentialist, or a proto-post-

modernist, or something of the sort. But he seems to me best categorized
(if categorization be necessary) as a post-Kantian. Most of his views can be
explained as ‘like Kant—but with a twist’. So it is, in my view, with time. I
will close by briefly characterizing Kant’s understanding of time and the
twist Nietzsche applies to Kant’s conception.
For Kant, time is a form of sensibility. That is, rather than being a fea-
ture of the external world, time is a feature of our minds. Our minds are
constructed—the contemporary metaphor of hardwiring is convenient—so
as to arrange sense experience in a sequential order. We experience events
in the world as happening before, simultaneously, or after each other. We
cannot say how they ‘really’ happen, since what they are in themselves is
not accessible to us. All we can say is that we experience them as happen-
ing in a regular, sequential order, and that is reality for us.
Though this seems to be a radically subjectivist position, Kant insists
that it does not deny the objectivity of time. Since the hardwiring of our
minds is not subject to our wills, time is still out of our control, and thus
confronts us as a brute fact. To be sure, since Kant says time is a feature of
our minds, which might well be different from those of other rational crea-
tures, he should probably have described time as intersubjective rather than
objective. Still, time is the same for all of us, and functions equally for all
of us as a brute fact we must adapt ourselves to, just as if it were a feature
of the external world.
Kant’s conception of time is parallel to his conception of space—space
is a form of sensibility by which our minds organize sense experience into
a three-dimensional world. In the case of space, it is somewhat easier to
imagine how other beings might perceive the world differently. For exam-
ple, if one covers an eye one loses the parallax effect of having two eyes,
and one now sees the world two-dimensionally. One can thus get a sense of
what the world might seem like to a creature that has no visual parallax
_____________
12 This line too is missing from the NCW version—why? I suspect that by then
Nietzsche had become nervous about another way to interpret his silence and lack
of retort—perhaps his recurrent, debilitating illnesses actually gave the Wag-
nerian’s gibe at him some credence.
(frogs, say), and also get some very vague sense of how there could come
to be creatures that perceived in four dimensions. However, there is no
similar way to conceive of how time might appear to creatures whose
brains were hardwired differently from ours. In a way, this only proves
Kant’s point that for us the world simply is this way, i.e., that three-
dimensional space and uni-directional time are indeed features of reality
for us. But it does make it hard to understand the other side of Kant’s posi-
tion, that time is ideal.
Nietzsche, I think, can help here. On the one hand, by denying the ex-
istence of things-in-themselves, Nietzsche blocks the contrast between how
time might be in itself and how we perceive time. That is, Kant must main-
tain that time is a hard and fast feature of reality, yet also say that there
might well be other ways to perceive it. But what is the ‘it’ that other crea-
tures are perceiving differently? While we might have an inkling of what
that might mean in the case of space, in the case of time it’s quite mysteri-
ous. For Nietzsche, however, time is our perception, and there’s no time-
in-itself that other creatures might have a different perception of, so the
difficulty disappears.
But there is more: while Nietzsche follows Kant in asserting that it is
our minds that structure reality, rather than reality impressing itself directly
on our blank mental wax tablets, he makes one crucial adjustment. Kant
assumes that our minds all function the same way, that we are hardwired in
the way he describes. Nietzsche, however, asserts that our minds are all
different. For Nietzsche, it is the individuality of perception that is crucial,
not its intersubjectivity. While he does not deny that our perceptions can
and do overlap—allowing us to live in some sort of concert with each
other—he emphasizes our perspectival differences. He agrees that it is our
minds which structure our reality, but sees the differences between our
minds as sufficient to make our realities perspectival rather than intersub-
jective (and thus make it necessary to use ‘realities’ in the plural).
The result of Nietzsche’s line of thought is that the best way to de-
scribe our perceptions of time is to resort to the realm and language of
music.13 Each musical piece sets its own tempo—that is, it determines its
own temporal reality. There is no time-in-itself against which to compare
these various tempos—they establish temporal reality for the world of that
piece of music. We too live, think, and function at our own tempo—we
_____________
13 It is surely instructive that, whereas Nietzsche was obsessed with music and wrote
about it extensively throughout his career, Kant did not appreciate music very
much, and his otherwise magisterial aesthetic theory does not work very well in the
case of music (see Higgins 1991, pp. 55–67).
establish the reality of time for us. There is no absolute time to measure
ourselves against, or by which to criticize our individuality. At the same
time, we can compare our own inner tempo, and challenge it, with that of
others. Thus the experience of music can be a tonic for us, giving our souls
rest, or perhaps a new rhythm to live by. It is either beneficial or harmful
depending on its complementarity or conflict with the music of our lives.
Wagner’s use of endless melody to destroy the listener’s sense of time,
then, constitutes the most pernicious form of his nihilism.14
References
Higgins, Kathleen, 1991, The Music of our Lives, Philadelphia: Temple University
Press.
Langer, Susanne, 1953, Feeling and Form, New York: Scribner’s.
Magee, Bryan, 2001, The Tristan Chord: Wagner and Philosophy, New York: Metro-
politan.
Sadie, Stanley (ed.), 1980, The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, vol. 20,
London: Macmillan.
Storr, Anthony, 1994, ‘Nietzsche and Music’, in: Royal Institute of Philosophy Sup-
plement, 37, pp. 213–227.
Translations
Beyond Good and Evil, trans. Walter Kaufmann, New York: Vintage Books, 1966.
The Gay Science, trans. Walter Kaufman, New York: Vintage Books, 1974.
Press, 1986.
Nietzsche contra Wagner, in: The Portable Nietzsche, ed. and trans. Walter Kaufmann,
_____________
14 In this context, an old joke passed on to me by Dr Pane—‘A Wagnerian opera
starts at 8:00, three hours pass, you look at your watch, and it’s 8:15’—takes on an
uncanny double meaning.
Index rerum et nominum
Index 311
amoral, 257, 261

A amoralism, 239
Abel, G., 10, 18, 122, 132–134, 142– anaesthesia, 124
143 anarchists, 174
Absichtlichkeit, 130 Anaxagoras, 137
absolute, V, 3–4, 10, 77, 114, 123– Anderson, R. L., 176, 189
124, 128–129, 137–138, 155, 233, Andler, C., 232, 246, 264
306 anglo-analytic, 11
Abstammungslehre, 28, 32 anomalous, 102, 120
abstraction, 49 anomaly, 14, 113
absurd, 69, 122, 155, 164–167, 187 anthropocentric, 135
acquaintance, 23, 214, 231 anthropological, 1, 8
activity, 53, 65, 72, 130, 179, 198, anthropomorphic, 285
223–225, 235, 286 anti-humanist, 16, 233, 255, 264
acts of intending, 95 Antike, 266
actuality, 3, 79, 158 anti-liberal, 16, 233, 255
adaptation, 13, 28, 68, 70–72 antiquarian, 16, 51, 213–226
adaptive-pragmatic, 9 antiquity, 16, 43, 44, 215–226, 233,
Adorno, Th. W., 238, 264 240, 243, 246–249, 252, 259
adualism, 113–146. Antisemitismus, 269
adualistic-dialetheic, 2, 9, 10–11 antistoricismo, 227
Aeschylus, 215, 219, 286 Apollonian, 159, 234, 276–278
aesthetic, 160, 186, 199, 218, 232, appearance, 3–4, 24, 45, 79, 85, 120,
234, 239, 256, 306 125, 151, 155, 164, 193, 201, 220,
aestheticism, 243 231, 276–280, 284
affect, 71–72, 84, 97, 129, 304 approximation, 41, 121
affirmation, 14–15, 113, 139, 149, Ardinghello, 233–234, 239, 267
151–155, 161, 166–167, 180, 183– argument from anxiety, 8
184, 195, 199–202 aristocratic, 16, 139, 251–256
afterlife, 25, 165 Aristophanes, 38
Afterphilosophie, 247 Aristotle, 40, 47, 222
agency, 10, 16, 85, 96, 102, 108, 125, art, 45, 103, 122, 140, 159, 160, 177,
248 201–202, 220, 234, 237–238, 243,
aggressive, 99, 258 248, 253, 256, 257, 258, 261, 263,
agon, 203–209 283, 285, 286, 287, 292, 295
agonal law, 209 artist, 55, 77, 121, 159, 201, 234, 238,
agonistic, 15, 17, 151, 153–154, 161, 257
260 artistic, 15, 38, 55, 104, 159, 160, 201,
ahistorical, 241, 247 222, 234–235, 256–258, 278, 287,
Ajax, 39 291
alchemy, 140 artworks, 122
Alcibiades, 37 ascetic, 15, 54–56, 97, 100–101, 107,
alienation, 196 138, 152, 164–166, 169–175, 181–
alternatives, 9, 12, 136–137, 142 182, 260
Altertumswissenschaft, 16, 213, 214 asceticism, 15, 26–27, 154, 166
Alteuropa, 236 Aschheim, S. E., 262, 264
altruism, 68, 136 Asian, 30
ambiguity, 1, 196–199 asymmetrical, 132
amor fati, 150 atemporal, 2, 80
312 rerum et nominum
atheist, 257 Bewusstsein, 198

Athenians, 42, 44 Biedermeier, 238
atom, 127, 129 Bildungsbürger, 240
atomistic, 196, 202, 209 Bildungstrieb, 123
Aufklärung, 269 Bildungsvereine, 254
Auflösungsprozess, 116 binary thinking, 3, 151
Augustine, 26–27, 155 biology, 23, 67, 71–72
Aunger, R., 72–73 Bismarck, 239, 241, 270–271
autopoesis, 3 Bizet, 37, 292–294
auto-sensitization, 4 Blackmore, S., 70–73
awareness, 8, 79, 83, 106, 127, 133, blame, 239
189 blasphemous, 239, 257
Bluhm, H., 249, 265
B
body, 25, 32, 101, 125–126, 131, 160,
Bächtold, H., 254, 264 167, 194, 209, 304
backwards-willing, 185–188 Boeckh, A., 213–217, 221, 223, 226
Baldwin, G., 233, 264 Boeschenstein, H., 255, 265
Barbera, S., 198, 210, 280–281, 288 Bohley, R., 251, 265
Barkow, J., 64, 73 Borcherdt, H., 234, 265
Barth, H., 232, 265 Borchmeyer, D., 242, 244, 249, 265
Bauer, S., 248, 254, 265, 270 Borgia, C., 233, 236, 238–239, 250,
Baumgarten, F. F., 263, 265 257–263
Baumkultus, 25, 32 Boscovich, R., 82
beauty, 24, 199, 233, 262–263 both-and, 11
becoming, 3–8, 14, 75, 85, 91, 113– bourgeois, 234–240, 254, 260
142, 151–155, 161, 164, 170, 191, Bowie, A., 121, 143
198, 200, 217, 224–226, 231, 250 Boyd, R. 72, 74
Beeckman, T., IX, XI, 13, 18, 63–74 Brahmanistic, 28
Beethoven, 243, 244, 282 brain, 11, 13, 75–80, 282
being, 3–7, 14, 25, 42, 52, 54, 57, 64, Brecht, 234, 265
67–68, 71, 75–76, 78, 81, 83, 85, Brobjer, IX, XI, 13, 18, 51–60, 219,
89, 91, 102–103, 106, 108–110, 227, 232, 241–242, 265, 288
113–142, 151, 154, 159, 161, 167, Brose, K., 232, 265
169, 172, 173, 176–178, 182, 184, Brown, G., 67, 73
186, 187, 191–194, 197–200, 203, brutality, 237, 239
215, 217, 227, 243, 246, 261, 278, Buddhism, 28, 127, 182
285, 288, 302, 305 Bullen, B., 235, 266
benevolence, 109 Burckhardt, J., X, 16, 19, 30–32, 52,
Benz, E., 251, 265 58, 200, 231–272
Berg, Ch., 254, 265 Bürgerhumanismus, 240
Bergk, Th., 215 burials, 25
Bergmann, P., 241, 244, 265 Bursian, C., 216, 227
Berkeley, 35, 49, 50, 82, 84, 264, 272 Byzantium, 91
Berkowitz, P., 181, 189 C
Berlin, I., 40
Bernhardy, G., 216, 229 cadence, 295, 296
Bertram, E., 249, 265 Calder III, W. M., 227–228
besinnen, 4–5 Callebaut, W., 71, 73
Bewegungen, 269 Campioni, G., 213, 227, 242–245, 266
Index 313
Camus, A., 15, 163–168, 171, 183, compassion, 139

186–189 competing powers, 207
Cancik, H., 241, 244, 254, 266 competition, 101, 205
Carmen, 292–295, 301 complementarity, 307
Cartesian, 8, 10, 48, 123 completeness, 204
Catholic, 231, 250–251 complexity, 14, 26, 29, 67, 114, 131,
causal, 8, 42, 46, 93, 97, 129, 132, 135, 217
152, 155, 185, 282 composition, 3, 243, 296
causality, 75–76, 84, 97, 125, 130, 287 Conant, J., 195, 210
Cavell, S., 195, 210 conceptual, V, 28, 114, 150, 160, 281,
centripetal, 202 287
Cesana, A., 244, 266 condottieri, 233, 237, 256
Cesare Borgia aestheticism, 262 confederation, 127
C-fibres, 11 conflict, 12, 35, 42, 48, 88, 111, 115,
chaos, 2–3, 140, 178, 276, 297, 302, 153, 196, 199, 202, 208, 209, 217,
304 307
chemical, 9, 125 conformity, 194, 201
Choephoren, 219 conscience, 92, 99, 136, 193
choral, 160, 244, 292 conscious, 4, 54, 69, 79, 92, 95, 99,
chorus, 222, 275 106, 129, 130–134, 142, 159, 165–
Christentum, 269–270, 272 167, 185, 187–188
christianisme, 25, 33 consciousness, 4, 10, 11, 46, 72, 76,
Christianity, 12, 24–31, 47, 94, 239, 93, 123, 124, 128, 134, 165–166,
243, 250, 259–260 181, 185, 187, 280
chronophile, 7 conspirieren, 126
chronophobia, 4 contentious contentment, 140
Cicero, 44 contest, 151, 203–207, 227
circularity, 155, 185, 276 continental, 11, 135
civilization, 12, 24, 25–30, 170, 233– continuum, 30, 125, 131–132
264 continuum-relations, 134
Clark, M., 33, 111, 124, 143, 144, 188, contradiction, 5, 9, 15, 52, 65, 73, 91,
189 105–106, 166, 191, 207
classic, 47, 71, 258, 292, 301 Conway, D., 195, 204, 210
classical philology, 89, 213, 241, 244, Corcyra, 44–45
252 Cosmides, L., 73
coercive, 207–208 cosmological, 14–15, 149, 154, 160,
coexistence, 12, 31–32 185
cognition, 10, 48, 78, 80, 81, 82, 93, cosmos, 59, 82, 186
95, 96, 99, 134, 154, 156, 279 counter-force, 14, 113, 117–118, 135,
Cohen, J. R., X–XI, 17–18, 33, 291– 141, 151, 209
307 counter-ideal, 15, 57, 169, 171–172,
Cohen, M. D., 215, 228 180, 182
cohesion, 94, 139 Craig, G., 234, 266
comedy, 260 creative, 17, 127, 156–159, 175–176,
commands, 99, 165, 185, 189 180, 192, 196, 201, 205, 208, 223–
communism, 254 224, 247, 295
Communist Manifesto, 235 creativity, 73, 156, 206
community, 16–17, 25–27, 97, 135– creator, 85, 258
136, 139, 201, 209 creator-god, 48
crime, 198, 256, 261 destructive, 18, 40, 119, 170, 182, 196,
critical history, 51 198, 222, 304
crystallization, 16, 233, 292, 297 Detwiler, B., 256, 266
cultivation, 46 Deussen, P., 28, 32
cult, 25–26 diachronic, 127, 192, 247
culture, 16, 26, 31–32, 39, 45, 47, 51, dialectical, 3
53, 58, 63–65, 70–72, 90, 104, 119, dialetheic, 10
150, 158, 196, 199, 201, 203, 222, Dialetheism, 9
226, 233, 235, 240–249, 252–256, difference-preserving, 11
262–264, 286, 287 differential, 70, 138
custom, 94, 97, 99, 170, 191 dilemma, 103, 135–136
cycle, 188–189 Dionysian, 76, 124, 141, 159–160,
cyclic repetition, 154–157 219, 234, 262, 275–283
Dionysus, 38, 278, 289
D directednesses, 95
da Romano, E., 236 diremption, 196
dancing, 65, 159, 295, 304 disembodied, 185, 264
Danto, A. C., 123, 128, 143 disgregation, 129, 135, 196, 209
Darwin, Ch., 13, 28, 64–73, 89, 93 disjunction, 3, 15, 120–121
Darwinism, 53, 66–72, 87, 92–93, 111 dissatisfaction, 156, 164
Darwinizing, 73 diversity, 15, 202–206
de Man, P., 17, 276, 288 Dodds, E. R., 47, 49
death, 38, 40, 45, 104, 138, 150–152, dogmatic, 12, 48, 123
155, 164–170, 175, 181–188, 250, Dombowsky, D., 258, 266
260 Donnellan, B., 247, 266
death of God, 104, 151–152, 175 doubleness, 138
death of Socrates, 38 doubt, 5, 56, 79, 122, 126, 170, 187,
decadence, 41, 85, 119, 172, 174, 241 241, 256, 260, 263, 280
decadent, 15, 58, 124, 138, 168–169, Draper, J. W., 24, 32
172 dream, 177, 278, 281, 282
decay, 85, 209, 260, 292 Dries, IX, XI, 1–19, 14, 18, 19, 113–
deconstruction, 16, 173, 248, 276 145, 114, 135, 143, 144, 189
deferral, 209 drives, 32, 54, 66, 92–110, 131, 152,
degenerating, 15, 119, 167, 169–171 194, 222
deity, 85 dualism, 14, 114, 120–123, 130
Deleuze, G., 69, 73, 125, 143 dualistic, 113, 137, 138
democratic, 208, 253 duality, 49, 137, 139
democratization, 254 Dühring, 56
Demokratie, 269 duration, 65, 114, 123, 133–134
Dennett, D., 68, 71–73 dwarf, 105, 182, 187
Derrida, J., 139, 143 dynamic, 120, 126, 129, 151, 191,
desire, 3, 5, 40, 54, 69, 73, 88, 94, 97, 195–196, 203, 205–206, 207
117, 124, 164, 170, 175, 179, 199, E
201–202, 209, 222, 236, 250, 254,
279, 292, 296 early modern, 231–236, 240, 244, 246,
despotic rulers, 236 253, 255, 257–259, 261, 263
destruction, 41, 44, 80, 85, 141, 156, earth, 56, 89, 153, 170, 174–175, 186,
205, 222, 256 201, 295
ecstatic nihilism, 116, 119, 183
Index 315
educators, 197 Europe, 7, 43, 56, 235–238, 244, 251,

efficacy, 94, 116, 123–124, 132, 222 253–255, 257, 260, 262, 267
egalitarian, 52, 203, 260 evolution, 28, 53, 63–67, 69–72, 92,
ego, 91 97, 253
egocentric, 203 evolutionary history, 133
egoism, 234, 283 evolutionary psychology, 64, 68, 73
Egypt, 91 exaptation, 68
Egypticism, 85 excellence, 4, 35, 193, 238, 246, 295
Einheit, 128, 132, 202 excess, 232, 261
einverleibt, 6, 133 excitation, 11, 56
either-or, 10, 135–140 exhaustion, 167, 170
elitism, 253, 255 existence, 2–3, 6, 48, 53, 67, 69, 70,
emancipation, 194, 200, 202, 240, 77–82, 88, 92, 98, 114, 126, 137,
244–245, 249 150–151, 153, 155, 165, 167, 169,
embodied, 25, 160, 167, 183, 239, 252 174–176, 178, 180–181, 184–186,
Emden, Ch. J., 115, 143 189, 194–195, 198–199, 237, 244,
Emerson, W., 15, 195, 197, 210 278–279, 281, 285, 287, 303, 306
emotional force, 159 existentialist, 165, 167, 183–184, 305
emotions, 42 exogenous, 115
empirical, 10, 47, 75, 78, 81–82, 150 experiential, 10–11, 124
empirically real, 81 experiment, 117, 149
empiricism, 252 externalism, 95
encounters, 117, 125
endless melody, 17, 291–292, 295– F
297, 300–304, 307 factual, 42, 149, 157
Enlightenment, 196, 234, 246, 264 factuality, 58, 158
epiphenomenal, 9, 252 faculties, 281
epistemological, 53–54, 152, 157, 223 fallacy, 8, 68
equality, 208, 254–255 falsehood, 198, 218
Erasmus, 244, 271 falsification, 15, 77, 82, 121, 131, 178
Ernst, J., 239, 266 Farulli, L., 246, 253, 266
error, 4–10, 36, 95, 102, 121, 157, 300 fatalism, 137
error theory, 4–5 fate, 43, 46, 115, 175, 187, 188, 201,
essence, V, 3–4, 27, 54, 65, 114, 122, 241
125–126, 182, 186, 213, 249, 252, fatigue, 117, 119, 169, 171
262, 281, 287 Faustian, 239
essentialism, 132 feeling, 1, 27, 29, 41, 90, 95, 98–99,
eternal novelty, 156 118, 136, 181, 195, 203, 225, 243,
eternal recurrence, 14–15, 56–57, 127, 261, 279, 281–282, 292, 295
141, 149–161, 174, 180–189 Ferguson, W. K., 233–235, 240, 266
eternal return, 87–90, 105, 110–111, fiction, 8, 10, 127, 157, 160, 234, 239
183 fictionalist, 9
eternity, 105, 151, 186, 189, 204, 207 Figal, G., 125, 143
ethical, 6–7, 16, 37, 39, 42, 47–48, 66, fighter, 201, 204
204, 206, 209, 234, 239, 246, 287 fighting, 238
ethics, 47–48, 191, 260 Figl, J., 128, 143
etiological, 93 figurative, 158, 284
Euclideans, 77 finitude, 152, 155, 193
Euripides, 38, 160, 286 first-person perspective, 9–10, 142
fitness, 70, 94 genealogy, 4–7, 14, 63–71, 88, 92, 95–

fixation, 87, 89 96, 98, 102–110, 119, 124, 193, 234
fixed, 1, 102, 118, 126, 151–152, 179, genius, 26, 37, 135, 199–202, 204,
197, 282 239, 242, 246, 248, 264, 284
fixity, 158 genotype, 72
flourishing, 17, 171, 295 Gerechtigkeit, 202
flow, 83, 91, 123, 186, 225, 292 Gerhardt, V., 121, 143, 192, 195, 200,
flux, 119–120, 123, 128, 133, 138, 202, 204, 210, 213, 228, 243, 260,
141, 152, 158, 209 267
force, V, 15, 29, 64, 68–71, 77, 82, 93, German culture, 204, 241, 250
107–109, 116–118, 121, 125, 127, German Darwinism, 67
129–154, 156, 159, 161, 166, 178, Germanen, 25, 32
183, 191, 197, 201–204, 207, 223, Germanic, 241, 243, 264
232, 234, 237, 242, 246, 249, 256, Germany, 28, 91, 218, 231–234, 252,
259, 282, 292 254, 262–264, 270
Ford, A., 41, 49 Geschichte, X, 16, 18, 24, 32, 213,
forgetfulness, 88 216, 226–228, 265–272
forgetting, 103, 179 Geuss, R., VII, IX, XI, 12, 18, 35–50,
formless, 244 63, 73, 142, 288, 289
Förster-Nietzsche, E., 245, 266 Gilbert, F., 235, 267
Foucault, M., 31, 32, 63, 69, 73 Gilbert, M., 232, 267
foundation, 51, 56, 124, 151, 233, 241, Gleichheit, 136, 208, 255
255, 287 Gleichmachung, 208
Fowler, R., L., 220, 227 goal, V, 1, 13, 28, 52, 92, 119, 125,
fragility, 135 126, 129, 137, 174–178, 181, 185,
framework, 7, 9, 10, 11, 135, 177, 179, 188–189, 209, 215, 222, 225, 285,
191, 206, 241, 259 287
Frank, M., 121, 127, 143 godless, 155, 172, 239
free spirit, 199, 209, 245, 257 Goethe, J. W. von, 16, 136, 143, 214–
freedom, 87, 95, 105, 108–110, 156, 215, 226, 228, 234, 239, 243, 259,
165, 175, 184, 194, 199, 201–202, 268, 284
208, 232, 251, 295 Gombrich, E. H., 284, 288
Freeman, A., 10, 18, 19, 131, 143 Gomme, A. W., 43, 50
Frege, G., 124 Gossman, L., 232, 236, 241, 254, 258,
Freigeist, 266 267
Freiheit, 144 Gottfried, P., 267
Freud, S., 37, 183, 288 Gould, S., 68, 73
Froben, J., 244 Greece, 41, 91, 158, 220, 243, 246,
Frühromantik, 143 248, 252, 286, 288
Fubini, R., 240, 263, 267 Greek, XIV, 9, 12, 16, 24–25, 28, 43–
fundamental-duality, 11 47, 59, 79, 155, 157–160, 174, 192,
203, 220–222, 226, 233, 243, 245,
G 247, 256, 270–271
Ganze, 115, 135 Gregor-Dellin, M., 249, 267, 271
Gay, P., 232, 238, 267 Grey, J., 18
Gegenkraft, 113, 116, 117, 141 Gründer, K., 220, 226, 228
Gegensatz, 10 guilt, 47, 99, 102, 165
Gelzer, H., 239, 267
Index 317
H 85, 87, 96, 99, 101, 103, 157–158,

213, 216, 221–222, 226, 232–233,
Habermas, J., 196, 210 246, 248, 256–257, 259, 261, 264,
habituated, 8, 10 286, 288
Hale, J. R., 237, 267
historicist, 85
Hales, S., 127, 143 historicity, 5, 221, 224
Hampe, K., 257, 267 historiography, 55, 213, 220, 224–226
Hankins, J., 240, 267 history, V, 1–3, 7, 10–11, 13, 16, 23,
happiness, 5–6, 12, 39, 48, 88, 150, 28– 31, 36, 40, 42–47, 49, 51–59,
173, 194, 261 63, 65–68, 72, 87, 89, 91, 94, 96–
Hardtwig, W., 235, 267 101, 121, 157–158, 161, 170, 174,
Harloe, X, XI, 17, 18, 275–289 184, 186, 191, 201, 213–215, 219,
harmonic, 292, 296, 302 223–224, 227, 231–234, 244, 247–
Harnack, A. von, 27, 31–32
248, 251–252, 262–263, 275, 287,
Hatab, L. J., IX, XI, 10, 14, 18, 65, 73, See ahistorical, critical history,
149–162, 168, 185, 190 evolutionary history, historian,
Haupt, M., 215–217, 220, 272 historicism, historicity,
health, 39, 54, 57, 88, 104–105, 172, historiography, overhistorical,
174, 181, 183, 199, 223, 249, 259, prehistoric, prehistory,
304 superhistorical, suprahistorical,
Hector, 39 time, unhistorical.
hedonist, 55
Hofmann, H., 241, 268
Hegel, G. W. F., 2–4, 18, 37, 64, 115, Hölderlin, F., 215
120, 124, 139, 143, 196, 247, 284 holistic, 161, 216, 225
Heidegger, M., 31, 32, 210 Homer, 42, 203
Heinse, (J. J.) W., 233–234, 239–240, homogeneity, 29, 94
265, 267, 272 homogenization, 136
Hellene, 13, 48, 160 homogenous, 30, 255
Hellenic, 25, 38, 58, 203, 246, 278, hope (), 40
287
Houlgate, S., 120, 143
Heller, E., 232, 267
human animal, 15, 164, 170–171, 174,
Heraclitean, 7, 10, 121, 137, 202
176, 178–183, 186–188
Heraclitus, 134, 137–138, 203
human existence, 151, 175–176, 179,
hereditary, 28
186
heredity, 70
humanism, 232, 240, 243, 251, 255
hermeneutics, 122
humanitas, 240, 259
heterogeneous, 23–25, 29
humanity, 64–66, 92, 94, 96, 116, 119,
heteronomy, 195, 204
201, 255, 260, 262
hierarchical, 255
humankind, 94, 170–175, 182, 184
hierarchy, 102, 276
Humboldt, A. von 214
Higgins, 306, 307
hypostases, 125
Hill, R. K., IX, XI, 13, 18, 75–85, 269
Hinz, M., 244, 268 I
Hippocrates, 42, 45
Hirsch, E., 249, 251, 268 idealism, 76, 79–80, 82, 104
historian, 25, 51, 54–58, 216, 221– idealization, 234, 237
227, 231–234, 251, 263 identity, 27, 102, 106, 114, 120, 126,
historical, 12–13, 16–17, 23–24, 28– 127, 135, 233, 237, 257
32, 38, 43, 47–48, 51–59, 67–69, illness, 138, 169, 174
illogical, 136
illusion, V, 1, 5, 43, 51, 102–103, 119, Janz, C. P., 244, 268

199–200, 223, 281–283, 286 Jeismann, K.-E., 254, 268
illusory, 3, 7, 121, 124, 199, 278, 285 Jelavich, P., 263, 268
imagination, 47, 233, 260 Jensen, A. K., X, XI, 16, 18, 213–229
immanence, V, 1, 155, 175, 198, 201, Jewish, 27, 31, 174, 245
280 Joël, K., 248, 268
immoral, 85, 238, 261 Judeo-Christian, 7, 85
immoralism, 172, 232–236 judgement, 37, 44, 46, 96, 132, 195,
impermanence, 3, 113 198–199, 220, 223, 225, 236, 239,
impulse, 49, 65, 195, 201, 213, 223, 257–258, 261
226, 244, 281 Jung, M., 248, 268
incoherent, 36, 81, 82 justice, 15, 29, 83, 115, 173, 202, 223,
inconsistency, 8, 118, 119–122, 141 236, 254, 296
incorporated, 6, 10, 109–110, 131,
133, 140 K
indeterminacy, 3, 123 Kaegi, W., 231–239, 244–248, 251,
indetermination, 120, 128 256, 258, 261, 268, 272
indifferent, 29, 39, 136 Kahan, A., 236, 268
individualism, 17, 193, 233, 238–240, Kant, I., 13, 47–48, 75–85, 89, 110,
253, 255, 261, 263 135, 143, 160, 275, 280, 284–287,
inheritance, 67, 70–71, 77, 233, 237 305–306
innocence of becoming, 115, 119 Kantianism, 77, 79
inorganic, 131–134 Katsafanas, P., 127, 143
instinct, 93–94, 97, 104, 140, 164, Kitcher, P., 64, 73
167, 171, 175, 222, 224, 257, 283 Knobe, J., 10, 18, 132, 143
instinctive, 58 knowability, 8
intellectual, 53, 172, 231–232, 239– knowable, 81
240, 244–245, 263, 281 knowledge, 11, 35, 39–40, 48–49, 52,
intelligence, 36 75, 79, 83, 92, 100–101, 106, 150,
intentionality, 92–93, 105, 122, 130– 209, 215, 242, 275, 279–284, 287
131 Körner, E., 233, 269
interconnected, 35, 276
interdetermination, 128 L
interpretationism, 132 La Rochefoucauld, F. de, 247, 266
intersubjectivity, 306 Lachmann, K., 213, 216–218, 221–
interweavings, 23, 30 222
intoxication, 124 Lacoue-Labarthe, P., 276, 289
intuition, 76–77, 134, 224, 286 Ladwig, P., 240, 269
involuntary, 47, 161 Laland, K., 67, 73
irony, 276 Lamarck, J.-P. de, 13, 64–71
irrational, 247 Lange, F. A., 285
irreducibility, 160–161 Langer, S., 304, 307
isomorphic, 129 language, 11, 14, 26, 44, 65, 93, 114,
J 120–123, 125, 128–130, 133, 142,
157–159, 201, 209, 214, 226, 262–
Jacobs, A., 234, 268 263, 275–277, 282, 284, 288, 292,
Jahn, O., 213–228 295, 306
Janssen, E. M., 232, 234, 239, 251– Large, D., 145, 241, 269
252, 255, 257, 261, 268
Index 319
laughter, 185 Mannhardt, W., 25, 32

law, 10–11, 15, 25, 67, 98, 127, 191– Marti, U., 254, 269
209, 256 Martin, A. von, 232, 237, 239, 245,
law-givers, 198, 204–206 248, 258–259, 263
Lecky, W. E. H., 25, 27, 32, 66, 74 martyrdom, 27
legislator, 192, 199, 203–204 Marx, K., 235
legislators, 192, 204, 209 mask, 54, 135
legislator-types, 192 mass, 171, 255, 262
Leiter, B., 10, 18–19, 33, 132, 143, massification, 254
144, 166, 169, 183–184, 190 master, 125, 130–131, 170, 224, 226,
Leo, H., 234, 236, 269 259
leveller, 206 materialism, 236
levelling synthesis, 138 mathematical symmetry, 292
liberalism, 260 Mattioli, A., 245, 269
liberty, 172, 234, 236, 238, 239, 240 Maurer, R., 232, 269
Lichtenberger, H., 266 McGinn, C., 10, 18
life as lived, 15, 156 meaning, 3, 13–14, 28, 41–44, 48, 57,
life-affirmation, 15, 26, 150–156, 161, 59, 63, 65, 68, 83, 91, 94–95, 117–
168–169, 171–172, 180–181, 184, 118, 120–121, 130, 149–157, 160–
188, 199, 200, 203 161, 164–166, 169, 171–188, 192,
life-as-becoming, 15, 191 194, 197–198, 200, 207, 221, 233,
life-denying, 152–154, 166, 169, 171, 250, 278, 285, 307
260 measures, 17, 151, 292–301
listen, 295, 297, 304 mechanism, 66, 78, 91, 94
listener, 17, 160, 244, 292, 296–297, medievalism, 244
301–303, 307 Melodie, 292
literal, 5, 149, 154, 156–162 melody, 17, 292, 295–296, 301
literality, 14, 149, 158 meme, 70, 72
Loeb, P. S., IX, XI, 15, 18, 163–190 memetics, 64, 72–73
logic, 7, 9–10, 117, 127, 134, 137– memory, 87–90, 97–102, 105, 179–
142, 165, 167–168, 188, 287 180, 188, 197
logic of alternatives, 137 meta-belief, 7
logocentric, 276 metabolism, 304
Lothar, R., 262–263, 269 metaphor, 27, 157, 283, 302–305
love, 27, 116, 135, 139, 142, 154, 164, metaphysician, 123, 219, 287
172–173, 177, 197, 201, 207–209, metaphysics, 7, 17, 55, 77, 84–85,
260, 296 120, 123–124, 127–129, 139, 142,
Löwith, K., 256, 269 197, 200, 247, 275–285, 303
Luther, M., 16, 241, 243–244, 248– Methodenstreit, 228
251, 265, 268 methodological, 13, 16, 68, 216, 225,
252
M Meyer, E., 30, 32, 272
Machiavelli, N., 237, 239, 242–243, Michelangelo, B., 257–258
256–258, 271 Michelet, J., 238, 269
Macht, 142–144, 200, 210, 241 micrologists, 222
macro-teleological, 3–4 micro-teleological, 3
Magee, B., 296, 307 Middle Ages, 235, 242, 251–252, 255,
maladaptive, 68 259, 264
Mann, Th., 244, 262, 266, 269–270 Mill, J. S., 53
mimetic, 158–161 mutually exclusive, 5–6, 9, 12, 136–

mind, 10–13, 43, 66, 75, 78, 80, 82– 137, 140, 142
84, 92, 98, 100, 115, 127, 131–132, mysterious, 201, 256, 283, 287, 306
137, 154, 163, 165, 184, 199, 226, mystery, 26
250, 262, 281, 284, 286 mystical, 285
mind-brain-world state, 11 myth, 39, 140, 160, 186–188, 285–288
Mithras, 26 mythopoetic, 157
mixing, 12, 29, 31, 32
mixture, 108, 256, 276 N
mnemonic, 179, 182, 185 Naake, E., 254, 269
mnemotechniques, 89, 179 Nägeli, K. W., 28, 32
modern, 29, 32, 40, 45, 47, 52–55, 58, Nancy, J.-L., 10, 18
70, 87, 160, 171, 174, 192, 196, narrative, 17, 41, 43–44, 64, 131, 176,
199, 213, 233, 235–238, 240, 243, 185, 260, 277, 286, 292
246, 250, 254–255, 257–261, 287, nationalism, 233
291 nations, 11, 91, 283
modernity, 31, 52, 196, 201–202, 209, natural science, 4, 52–53, 55, 65, 72,
236–237 76, 78, 81, 115, 117–118
modesty, 96, 260 naturalisation, 194
Molner, D., 247, 269 naturalism, 13, 63–65, 73, 75, 78–79,
moment, V, 3, 69, 71, 91, 102, 109, 151, 282
126, 132, 136, 176, 179–180, 185, Nehamas, A., 15, 17, 176–180, 190,
187–189, 244, 262, 281, 284 233, 262, 269, 275–276, 289
momentum, 107 neither space nor time, 77
Mommsen, W. J., 51, 256, 269 neither-nor, 11, 138
Mongolian, 24 neo-Romantic, 232
monism, 11, 113, 134, 137 neurobiological, 11
monstrosity, 258 neuroscience, 11
Montaigne, M. E. de, 247, 269, 271 Newtonian physics, 76
monument, 104, 257 Niebuhr, B. G., 51
monumental, 16, 51, 213, 221, 224– Nietzscheanism, 262
226, 252, 257 nihilism, 7, 9, 11, 14, 52, 57–58, 104,
Moore, G., 115, 123, 143 107, 113–119, 127–129, 135, 137,
morality, 7, 15, 36, 53, 59, 65–68, 72– 140–142, 170, 172, 181, 196, 204,
73, 95, 98–99, 102–103, 108, 114, 307
165, 191, 194–196, 204–206, 209, nobility, 29, 225
231–232, 241, 259, 260, 262, 295 noble, 196, 223, 225, 234, 248, 250,
moralization, 39 255, 258–260, 264
mosquito, 136 nomadic, 91
motion, 1, 130, 247 non-Christian, 3
Müller, C. W., 213, 217, 228, 268 non-circularity, 39
Müller-Lauter, W., XIII, 125, 144 non-contradiction, 10
multiplicity, 32, 73, 120, 135, 139, nondualist, 11
194, 202–203 non-literary, 12, 42
mummification, 7, 121, 224 non-mythic, 12, 42
music, 17, 27, 37, 159, 178, 201, 218, non-permanent, 7
226, 241–244, 249, 253, 287, 291– non-reductive, 13–14, 114, 132
292, 295–296, 297, 301–304, 306 non-sensory, 5–6
non-static, 7
Index 321
non-theological, 12, 42 Ottmann, H., 31–32

non-traditional, 12 Overbeck, F., 27, 31–33, 184
Norbrook, D., 251, 261, 269 overcoming, 6, 29, 109–110, 114–115,
Nordic, 244 141, 151, 155, 173–174, 182, 192–
norm, 170 193, 196, 207, 222, 241, 261, 287
normative, 152 overhistorical, 51
nothingness, 155–156, 164, 172, 176,
181–182, 187 P
noumenal, 81, 85, 124 pagan, 25, 27, 30, 257, 259
novelistic model, 156 pain, 6, 11, 89, 99, 117, 207, 256
O painful, 6, 118, 197, 221
painter, 57
objectivity, 4, 52–54, 58, 104, 117, painting, 238
239, 305 Panizza, O., 262–263, 270
observable facts, 42 panlogicist, 3
observation, 38, 157, 256, 261, 275, panpsychism, 83, 131
284 papacy, 250–251, 257
observer, 138, 263 paradigm of becoming, 116, 128, 130,
Odysseus, 24 133, 138–140
Oehler, M., 279–280, 289 paradigm of being, 4, 114, 116, 129,
Oldenberg, H., 28, 32 134, 137
Olympus, 160 paradigm shift, 117–119
omnipotence, 203 paradoxical, 76, 129, 166, 281
omnipresent, 179 Parmenides, 4, 79, 85, 137
oneness, 115, 135–139 parody, 276
ontological, 3, 5–7, 121, 123–124, particle, 215, 221
127, 276 particularism, 15, 194–195, 206, 209
ontology, 7, 14, 75, 113–114, 117, partisanship, 45
122, 128, 134, 142, 191, 194 passion, 101, 202, 222, 246
oppositional, 136, 151 passive, 72, 205, 207
optimism, 12, 17, 39, 41, 47, 49, 225, Pastor, L., 231–232, 251, 263, 270
287 paternalism, 236
optimistic, 3, 39–40, 246–247, 282 pathological, 45, 236
orality, 158 pathos, 118, 126, 244, 259
orderliness, 24 Patroclus, 39
orders, 251, 254 peace, 202, 231
organic, 3, 29, 91, 93, 95, 117, 131– peacefulness, 261
134 Peloponnesians, 42, 44
organism, 10, 68, 71, 94–95, 132, 134, penalty, 40
142 perception, 71, 84, 131, 203, 209, 247,
organs, 92–93, 134 280, 283–284, 302, 306
originality, 36, 89 perfection, 64, 66, 155, 185, 195–197,
origins, 23–25, 31, 48, 65, 68, 90, 233, 215
237, 280, 282 perfectionism, 15, 195
Orsucci, A., IX, XI, 12, 19, 23–33, performative sense, 158–159
249, 251, 270 permanent, 3–7, 113, 118, 261, 279
oscillation, 3 Pernet, M., 251, 270
Osiris, 26 perspectival, 10, 130–132, 142, 154,
otherness, 139, 153 306
perspective, 10–11, 17, 32, 71, 104, Porter, J. I., 17, 125, 144, 220, 228,
127, 130–133, 137, 142, 158, 167, 276–285, 289
168, 194, 199, 206, 221, 224, 244, Pöschl, V., 224, 228
246, 261, 275, 302 positivism, 14, 42, 46, 55–58, 104,
perspectivism, 75, 83, 131, 150, 275 154, 215, 222, 303
pessimism, 3, 12, 39, 47, 124, 155, power, 13–14, 25, 27, 29, 40–41, 66–
183, 225, 241, 256, 283 71, 84, 92–94, 98–110, 117, 123,
pessimist, 12, 48, 57, 168 125–131, 151, 153, 160, 170, 179,
Petersen, E., 217, 228 184, 186, 189, 191–192, 196, 200–
petrifaction, 292, 297 208, 225, 234–243, 256, 261, 264,
phantasmal, 1, 126 278
phantasms, 137 powerless, 187
phantom, 278, 281 pragmatic, 237
phenomena, 12, 23–24, 28–31, 63, 65, prayer, 27
72, 75, 123, 138, 278, 284, 286 predictability, 6, 49
phenomenal, 76–81, 85, 125, 128 prediction, 222
phenomenalism, 82 prehistory, 25, 89
phenomenological, 11, 123–124, 126– prehuman, 179
127, 135, 139, 141 presence in us, 104
phenomenology, 123–125, 135, 139 pre-Socratic, 41, 46, 191
phenotypic, 71 pride, 88, 103, 107, 109
philhellenist, 233, 263 priest, 58, 90, 97, 171, 174, 250, 253
Philistius, 44 Priest, G., 10, 19, 90, 97, 140, 144,
philologist, 23, 57, 59, 219, 222, 224, 171, 250, 253
252 primeval times, 94
philology, 16, 29, 214–227 primeval training to remember, 100
physical, 81, 126, 128, 132, 138, 174, primitive, 12, 24–28, 35, 47, 88, 97
260, 279, 282 primordial, 13, 76–77, 99–100, 120,
physicalism, 131 249, 283
physiological, 18, 70, 123–124, 166, primordial unity, 76, 283
170, 304 principium individuationis, 16, 75, 248
physis, 198, 200 prison, 40
plants, 25, 91 prisoner, 175
Plato, 12, 35–49, 58, 89, 96, 137, 159, processes, 11, 28, 75, 80–82, 92–96,
164, 198, 247 103, 108, 126, 128–131, 142, 205
Platonic-Aristotelean-Kantian productivity, 16, 136, 238, 255
tradition, 48 profanity, 239
Platonism, 26 progress, 52–53, 57, 64, 66, 70, 155,
pleasure, 287 171, 247, 260
Pletsch, C., 232, 270 progressus, 28
pluralism, 15, 191, 194–195, 203–207 proletarian revolution, 236
Poellner, P., 123–124, 126, 144 promise, 53, 88, 97–98, 106, 108, 259,
poetry, 12, 41, 128, 159, 257, 278 262
polemic reversal, 8, 10 properties, 2, 9, 81, 84
political, 43, 45–46, 49, 52, 151, 202, propositional, 40, 67, 128, 150, 177
204, 217, 232, 234, 236–240, 246, protension, 7
254–258, 263, 281, 283, 291 proto-human, 102
Politycki, M., 215, 228 proto-intentional, 14
protoplasm, 131
Index 323
protozoan, 126 reductionism, 65, 73, 222

providence, 155, 177–178, 180 reductive, 10, 63–64, 132, 137, 151
psyche, 37 Reformation, 91, 244, 249, 250–251,
psychoanalysis, 73 259–260, 265, 268
psychological, 16, 37, 78, 89, 94, 129, Reformator des Lebens, 199
149, 159, 173, 221, 223, 225–226, Reginster, B., 10, 19, 181, 190
231, 234, 247, 252–253, 291 regulative fiction, 8, 10
psychologist, 66 regulative rule, 10
psychology, 10, 39, 47, 66, 80, 95, Rehm, W., 233–234, 239, 262, 270
149, 159, 167, 278 Reibnitz, B. von, 245, 270
punishment, 25, 53, 89, 92, 95, 171, Reinhardt, V., 263, 270
186–187 relational, 126, 209
purposeless, 76 relations, 8, 13–14, 30, 81, 84, 113–
purposive, 47 114, 122–130, 138, 142, 154, 157,
purposiveness, 93, 104 191–192, 202, 209, 280
relativism, 135–136
Q religion, 92, 98–99, 102–103, 151,
quale, 11 238, 240, 251, 261, 279, 281, 283
qualitative, 11 religious, 25–27, 30, 40, 46, 52, 104,
quality, 222, 224–226, 256 150, 155–156, 196, 234–236, 260,
quanta, 126–130 279, 281–282
quantum, 117, 130 religious ceremonies, 27
quarks, 81 remedy, 6, 117–119
quasi-staticism, 9 remember, 87–88, 96–102, 106, 182,
quattrocento, 16, 235, 243–244, 248, 197
254, 257–258 Renaissance, X, 16, 19, 30–32, 53, 91,
Quine, W. V., 10, 135, 138, 144 117, 174, 231–271, 286
Renan, E., 25–27, 33, 56
R repetition, 149, 154–156, 180, 187,
radical becoming, 120, 128, 151 189
radicalism, 256 replicative, 93–94
radicalization, 116–117 replicator, 70
Ranke, L. von, 51, 261, 267, 270 republican, 17, 234, 236, 238, 240,
ratiocination, 41 255
rational, 3–4, 6, 39, 41, 113, 151, 153, republics, 240
159, 305 resentful, 90, 92
rationalism, 38, 40, 49, 247 resentment, 57
Rausch, 124 resistance, 47, 64, 151, 207–209, 261
reactive, 13, 52, 72–73, 95 responsibility, 48, 95, 103, 108–109,
realism, 36, 45, 78, 122, 127, 132, 258 194, 234
reality, 2, 4–5, 10–11, 36, 46, 54, 58, Ressing, G., 241, 270
81–82, 84–85, 113, 118, 120, 123, restlessness, 221
127, 132, 138, 140, 159, 160, 179, retension, 7
189, 223, 278–279, 305–306 retrospective stance, 14, 98–110
recitative, 292 revaluation, 52, 56–57, 59, 140, 150–
recurring, 119, 181 151, 225
redemption, 14, 26, 28, 152, 175, 177– revenge, 27, 88, 98, 153, 181
281 revolution, 52
revolutionary, 68, 184, 236, 256, 258
rhetorical, 36, 44, 139, 158 Schiller, F. von, 135, 143, 196, 215,
rhetorician, 45 234, 240, 259, 266, 284, 288
rhyme, 295 Schlechta, K., 232, 271
rhythm, 17, 292, 295–297, 301–307 Schlegel, F. von, 121, 214
Ribbeck, O., 217, 228 Schlegel, A. W. von, 214
Richardson, IX, XI, 13, 19, 78, 85, Schmerzbringerin, 117–118
87–111, 125, 130–133, 143–144, Schmidt, M., 254, 268, 271
176, 190 scholastic factions, 16, 220
Richerson, P., 72, 74 Schopenhauer, A., 2–3, 13–19, 40, 75,
rigidity, 137, 205, 207 77, 79, 82, 89, 115, 121, 124, 155,
Ritschl, F., 58, 213, 216–218, 220, 160, 167–168, 171, 190, 192–204,
226, 228 209–210, 225, 233, 241, 247, 248,
Ritter-Santini, L., 262, 270 267–268, 271, 275–289
rituals, 25 science, 4, 7, 10, 13, 17, 36, 42–43,
Rockwell,W. T., 10, 11, 19 46–48, 52, 54, 59, 65, 72, 76, 78,
Roeck, B., 263, 266, 270 81, 91, 96, 99, 103, 106, 110, 117–
Rohde, E., 33, 214, 220, 228, 232 118, 220, 238, 246, 264, 275, 282–
Roman, 221, 234, 244, 265 283, 286, 287
Romantic, 121, 128, 219, 234, 239, scientism, 236, 260, 287
244 scriptural, 155
Romanticism, 104 secularization, 240, 250–251, 264
Ross, W., 241, 244–245, 247, 249, secularized world-views, 114
264, 270 secularizers, 235
Rossi, R., 232, 270 security, 236, 240, 261
Ruehl, X, XI, 16, 19, 231–272, 288 sedimented layers of the past, 91
Ruhstaller, P., 232, 270 Sein, 4, 6, 28, 32, 122, 137, 197, 267
ruling caste, 257 Sekurität, 236, 260
Rumohr, C. F. von, 234–236, 238, 270 Selbstbewusstsein, 133
Rumsfeld, D., 41 Selbstmord, 37
Russian, 297 selected-designed, 95, 97
selection, 64, 67, 69–71, 93–94, 96–
S 99, 108, 131, 133, 141, 183, 213
Sach-Philologie, 16, 215, 227 selective, 16, 72, 77, 93, 97, 107, 109,
sacred, 158 139, 153, 162, 184, 225, 284
sacrifice, 137, 165 self, 8, 17, 54, 99, 102, 106, 127, 131,
sacrilegious, 300 133, 137–138, 176, 180, 185, 189,
Sadie, S., 292, 296, 307 191, 197, 202, 235, 255, 260, 264
Salaquarda, J., 213–214, 228, 242, self-knowledge, 91, 197
244, 249, 265 self-legislation, 15, 192–197, 200,
Salin, E., 232, 245, 271 204, 207–209
salvational, 14, 154–155 self-reflection, 4, 100
sameness, 136, 208 semantic, 5, 129
Sandys, J. E., 215–218, 228 semblance, 137, 278
Sautet, M., 256, 271 sensation, 92, 95, 201, 295
sceptic, 40, 78, 122 senses, 4–6, 26, 79, 85, 98, 117, 119,
scepticism, 48, 77, 246, 264 121, 124, 137, 157–158, 164
Scheidekunst, 140 sensorium, 115
Schein, 3, 39, 137 sexual, 133
Schieder, Th., 241, 271 shame, 47, 201
Index 325
shamelessness, 219 spectrum, 36, 134

sick, 89, 95, 108, 167, 170–171, 174, Spencer, H., 13, 67–68, 72
259 Spengler, O., 30, 33
sickness, 170, 177 Spir, A., 79–80
Siemens, H. W., IX, XI, 15, 19, 191– spirit, 14, 29, 37, 44, 59, 149, 151,
210, 215, 228 215–216, 222, 226, 236, 240, 244,
Simmel, G., 181, 190, 195, 210 250, 252, 263, 287
Simonde de Sismondi, J.-Ch. L., 235, spiritual, 25, 30, 101, 104, 151–152,
271 173, 178, 244, 256
simplicity, 24, 195 spirituality, 295
simplification, 131 Sprache, 229
simulation, 159 Staat, 268, 281, 289
simultaneity, 10, 12, 114, 130, 133, stability, 1, 29, 115, 126, 133–134
140, 142 stable, 3, 7, 15, 135, 151, 283, 302
simultaneity-thinking, 113, 134, 140, Stack, G. J., 115, 144
142 Stadelmann, R., 239, 271
Sisyphus, 15, 163, 186–189 Stahl, H.-P., 40, 43, 50
Sittengeschichte, 32 Stambaugh, J., 123, 144, 213, 228
Sittengesetz, 195, 256 Staten, H., 126, 144, 276, 289
Sittlichkeit der Sitte, 97 static, 1, 6, 8, 15, 127, 137
Skinner, Q., 35, 45, 50, 277, 289 staticism, 1–11
slave, 95, 108, 232, 251, 260–261 staticist worldview, 2–6, 11
slavish, 92, 206 Stierle, K., 233, 271
Smith, J. H., 125, 144 Stilkunst, 265
sociability, 39 stimulant, 207–208
social, 14, 26, 43, 49, 64, 67, 73, 88, stimulus, 207, 237
93–109, 174, 208, 232, 235–237, stoic, 117, 247
255 stomach, 304
socialism, 260 Storr, A., 297, 307
socialists, 174 Stravinsky, I. F., 297, 300
socialization, 89, 97 Strawson, G., 10–11, 18–19, 131–132,
sociobiology, 68 143
sociology, 49 strength, 7, 18, 65, 94, 141, 160, 164,
sociopolitical, 232, 236, 241, 253–254 208, 224, 260, 295, 304
Socrates, 13, 36, 38–42, 49, 79–80, 89, structuration, 38
135, 150, 163, 167, 286–287 structureless, 128
Socrates who makes music, 49 struggle, 42, 69–70, 73, 98, 154, 170,
Socratic, 17, 38, 42, 45, 49, 243, 248, 191, 199–200, 204, 208, 214, 220,
282–283, 287 225, 235, 238, 264, 281
Soll, I., 181, 188, 190 Sturm und Drang, 233
Sommer, A. U., 250, 261–262, 271 style, 1, 44–45, 259, 261, 285
Sophocles, 41–42, 45, 219, 286 subconscious, 54, 185
sorrow, 88, 90, 187 subjection, 205–207
soul, 8, 27, 35, 104, 165, 171, 173, subjective, 77, 84, 127
197, 223, 225, 246, 264, 291, 302 subjectivism, 137
soulless, 236 subjectivity, 84, 127, 233, 240, 262
sovereign, 97, 202, 237 sublime, 172, 256, 282–283
sovereignty, 103, 109, 253 substance, 3, 8, 35, 84, 123, 127, 129
spatiotemporal, 80 substantiality, 125
substratum, 77, 84, 135 theological, 48, 65, 156

subterranean, 26 theology, 84
subtext, 261 theoretical, 10, 36–37, 81–82, 99–101,
suffering, 5–6, 70, 87–88, 95, 108, 103, 109, 177–179, 188, 192, 199,
118, 137, 150, 159, 164–175, 180– 213–214, 226, 237, 243, 246, 287
183, 247, 256, 279, 282 theory, 9, 14, 26, 28, 39, 43, 63, 66,
suicidal instincts, 15, 169, 182 70–79, 82, 90, 100–102, 109, 111,
suicidal nihilism, 15, 153, 166, 169 123, 127, 131–134, 142, 158, 182,
suicide, 15, 25, 27, 153, 163–172, 181, 220, 235, 306
184, 187 therapy, 117
superhistorical, 31 thing, 1, 3, 8, 28, 40, 44, 49, 53, 56,
superhuman, 15, 181, 183–186, 189, 67, 77, 83–87, 115, 126, 127, 168,
257–258, 278 172, 197, 254, 284
superman, 233, 262–263 thing-in-itself, 3–4, 17, 54, 75, 77, 78,
superstitious, 25–26 81–84, 280, 283–284, 303–304
suprahistorical, 103 Thompson, E., 10, 19
suspicion, 27, 99, 208, 232 Thucydidean, 12, 37, 41, 44–47
swimming and floating, 291–292 Thucydides, IX, 12, 18, 35–50, 58–59
symbol, 26, 151, 173, 182, 187, 262 tightrope, 173
symbolic, 150, 160, 288 time. See absolute time, adaptation
symmetrical, 208 over time, aporia of time,
symphonic, 202 atemporal, becoming, circular time,
symptom, 85, 164 conscious time, cyclic repetition,
system, 4, 7, 67, 71, 121, 133, 237, cyclical, diegetic time, eternal
254, 282–283, 285 recurrence, eternal return, flux of
systematic, 3, 12, 48, 113, 121, 192, time, historical time, ill-will
276 towards time, infinite time, linear,
non-circularity, novelistic model,
T permanent, pessimistic model,
taming, 7, 89, 170 positivistic, power over time, reality
tautology, 152 of time, revenge against time and
teleological, 14, 115, 130, 152, 154, becoming, salvational, teleological,
155 time for us, time itself, time
teleology, 55, 64, 92, 115, 121, 130 signatures, time-atom theory.
telos, 197 time-atom theory, 7
temperate zone, 53 time-in-itself, 18, 303–306
temporal, 8, 12, 14, 80, 95, 114, 131– timeless, 7, 23, 142, 248
132, 142, 152–156, 191–193, 200, Todte, M., 240, 271
304, 306 togetherness, 139
temporal movement, 152–155 tonic, 18, 292, 304, 307
temporality, V, 3, 17, 114, 130–133, Tooby, J., 73
140, 142, 201 torture, 171, 187
tension, 9–13, 29, 91, 126, 138, 166, totality, 125, 133, 177
199, 209, 244 towardness, 93
testimony, 157 Tracy, J. D., 244, 271
theatre, 38, 131 Traeger, J., 238, 271
theatrical, 159 tragedians, 243
Theognideian, 215 tragedy, 12, 37, 45–47, 160, 219, 222,
theologian, 27, 31 226, 244, 247, 275–276, 286, 288
Index 327
tragic, 150, 152, 155–156, 159–160, unhealthy, 221, 305

187, 219, 243, 250, 286, 287 unhistorical, 56, 103
tragic finitude, 152, 155 unidirectional, 186
transcendence, 150–152, 155, 196, unification, 15
197 unified, 136, 186
transcendent, 85, 115, 125, 175, 198, unifying, 196, 202, 209
275, 280 union, 139
transcendental, 78–81, 110 uniqueness, 194
transcendentally ideal, 77, 80–81, 85 unitary, 26, 49
transconsistent, 140 unity, 28, 76, 114–115, 121, 135, 136,
transformation, 6, 70, 155, 159, 199, 139, 142, 193, 202, 207, 287
219, 262 universal, 48, 76, 92, 127, 191, 195,
transgressive, 239, 256, 258, 263–264 204, 207–208, 254–255, 283, 287
transient, 137 universe, 48, 114, 131, 238
transvaluation, 191, 209, 241–242, univocal, 157
250, 257, 259 unobservable, 81–82
transvaluative, 250, 259, 260, 262 unperceived posits, 82
trauma, 153, 155 Unschuld, 115
Tristan, 292–301, 307 Unsinn, 6
Troeltsch, E., 29–30, 33 unsinnlich, 6
trope, 157 unveiling, 174, 284
tropical, 259 Usener, H., 23, 30, 33
truth, 4–6, 9, 11, 36, 46, 48, 59, 77, utilitarian, 239, 260
100–102, 104, 106–107, 110–111, utility, 64, 66–68, 108
114, 116, 119, 122, 124, 131, 142,
151, 155, 159, 165–167, 174, 178, V
185, 194, 199, 221, 223, 247, 251, Vacano, D. A. von, 258, 271
275, 279, 281 vague, 9, 305
truthfulness, 39, 41, 48, 199, 249 value, 3–10, 13, 29, 32, 36, 42, 45, 53,
Tugend, 242, 261 55, 63–68, 78, 96, 108, 110–115,
two-world metaphysics, 7, 121, 135 119, 121, 132, 139, 150, 154, 163–
tyrannical, 203, 208, 237, 239–240, 165, 168, 198, 199, 208, 214, 222–
255–256, 264 227
tyranny, 16, 78, 203, 207, 233, 255– value of life, 163–164, 198
256, 295 Vattimo, G., 122, 144
Ü vector, 129
veil, 84, 117, 238, 280, 283–284
überflüssig, 138 veiled, 197, 254
Übermensch, 135, 190 vengeful, 250
Uekermann, G., 262–263, 271 Versteinerung, 300
Ulfers, F., 215, 228 vice, 97, 129, 195, 223, 257, 301
ultimates, 9 violence, 16, 208, 223, 233, 241, 261,
uncertainty, 6–7, 222, 256 263, 281
unconscious, 11, 93, 129, 130–131, violent, 139, 141, 175, 231, 238, 240,
133 246, 255
undecidability, 158 virtue, 3, 41–42, 78, 93, 96, 168, 173,
undefinable, 28 242, 261, 286, 295
unfreedom, 178, 208, 237 visual, 305
unhappiness, 281 vital, 116, 139, 259–260
vitality, 235 willing, 14–15, 79–80, 88, 90, 95, 100,

Vivarelli, V., 247, 271 101–111, 118, 137, 154, 164, 176–
Vogt, E., 217, 228 187
Voigt, G., 240, 271 wills, 14, 91–94, 132, 167, 186, 284,
volition, 47, 129 305
Volpi, F., 242, 271 Winckelmann, J. J., 246
voluntary, 2, 15, 25, 27, 47 Wirklichkeit, 18
vornehm, 250 Wolf, F. A., 51, 213–216, 223, 226,
Vrba, E., 68, 73 229
Wölfflin, H., 258, 272
W world-disclosive, 14, 149, 160
Wagner, R., XIII, XIV, 15–17, 37, world-negating, 3
144, 192–193, 199, 200–204, 218, worldview, 2, 118
220, 226, 228, 233, 241–254, 263– worthlessness, 199, 225
271, 278–307 Wort-Philologie, 16, 215
Wahn, 281–287 Wotan, 226
Waldenfels, B., 10, 19, 138, 144 Y
war, 16, 41–46, 196, 202, 233, 245,
259, 261, 283 Young, J., 123, 144, 168, 177–180,
warmth, 27 187, 190, 269
water, 9, 100
weak, 36, 41, 80, 108, 119, 169, 171, Z
260 Zeeden, E. W., 239, 241, 272
weakness, 36, 94, 135, 154, 260 Zeit, 199–200, 260, 264, 269, 272, 288
Weber, M., 30, 33, 235, 237, 267, 272 Zeitalter, 255
Wechselbestimmung, 128 Zeitdauer, 300
Weibel, O., 234, 272 Zuckert, C., 213, 229
Welshon, R., 118, 127, 129, 143–144 Zugleich-Denken, 113, 134
Wenzel, J., 236, 272 Zukunft, 192
Werden, 6, 113, 121, 133, 144, 270. Zukunftsmusik, 296
See also becoming. Zukunftsphilologie, 214, 218
West, M. L., 30, 40, 50, 151
Wheeler III, S. C., 10, 19
whole, V, 1, 3, 8, 40, 43, 54, 56, 65,
79, 82, 89–90, 97, 101, 104, 115,
122, 125, 130–142, 165, 169, 177,
187, 193, 200, 216, 220–221, 225,
252, 278, 283–284, 296, 304
wholeness, 185
Widerfahrnis, 138
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von,
214, 216, 218, 220, 227–229
will to power, 14, 27, 64, 69–70, 72,
83, 92, 111–115, 123–134, 141–
142, 150–153, 167, 171, 184, 195,
257
Wille, 144, 289
Williams, B. IX, 12, 18, 33–50, 64, 66,
74, 145

Nietzsche On Time and History - Dries PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nietzsche On Time and History - Dries PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nietzsche On Time and History - Dries PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the book about?

What is the book about?

What information is provided about the publication of the book?

What information is provided about the publication of the book?

Nietzsche on Time and

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

We are still growing continually, our sense of time and place,

‘Timeless’ to be rejected. At a particular moment of a force,

Nietzsche’s Critique of Staticism

Nietzsche’s Cultural Criticism and his Historical Methodology 23

Nietzsche’s Timely Genealogy: An Exercise in Anti-Reductionist

Shocking Time: Reading Eternal Recurrence Literally 149

Part IV: Nietzsche’s Contemporaries

Geschichte or Historie? Nietzsche’s Second Untimely Meditation

Metaphysical and Historical Claims in The Birth of Tragedy 275

Index rerum et nominum 309

A The Anti-Christ, cited by section number.

KSA Sämtliche Werke. Kritische Studienausgabe, ed. Giorgio Colli and

Note on Translations of Nietzsche’s Works

The contributors to this volume have used different translations of Nietz-

Why are we still intrigued by Nietzsche? One might think of a number of

Becoming in History, and then questions almost obsessively in his later

(i) The world is best conceived as a world of relatively easily distin-

Nietzsche’s Predecessors: Schopenhauer and Hegel

Nietzsche believed most if not all homines mensurae to be in thrall to the

thing-in-itself’ (WWR II 18), and an illusory actuality of becoming that has

If every success is in itself a rational necessity, if every event is the victory of

Against the Rejection of Time: Nietzsche’s Error Theory

In note 9[60] of autumn 1887 Nietzsche presents a mini-genealogy of the

(i) ordinary human discourse is ineliminably committed to the

(iv) human beings hold the staticist worldview because it allows

The explanatory step can be unpacked as follows: perceiving something as

Staticism and Nihilism

First, Nietzsche acknowledges that staticism and the Judeo-Christian mo-

The Staticist Picture: Nietzsche’s Staticist Fictionalism?

In addition to Nietzsche’s ‘argument from anxiety’ he repeatedly argues

life. Any interpretation that is not in hermeneutic denial needs to account

The Dialetheic Status of Staticism

satz] typical for human beings’ (Nachlaß Spring–Autumn 1881, KSA 9,

tions, some regulative fictions and ‘habituated practices’ might no longer

Geuss finds at the heart of Nietzsche’s fascination with Thucydides and

Hatab identifies six: positivistic, salvational, teleological, cyclical, pessi-

an individual morality that ‘cannot … be achieved in isolation’ with a mo-

Abel, Günter, 2004, Zeichen der Wirklichkeit, Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

Time, History, Method

Friedrich Nietzsche adopts a notably ‘untimely’ approach to historical

In this essay, I will attempt to substantiate these claims with particular

larly its seventh volume, Marc-Aurèle et la fin du monde antique.5 In The

strongest, most life-affirming drive, even if in the most cautious of doses—

These treatments of ancient Greek civilization and primitive Christian-

Also in the 1920s, Oswald Spengler similarly concerned himself with

claims regarding historical studies are revealed to be decidedly ‘untimely’:

In conclusion, I would suggest that such understandings of Nietzsche’s

Who is a better guide to human life, Plato or Thucydides? Given this

structure of the argument, although, of course, he wishes to reverse Plato’s

On the question of optimism or pessimism, there are two different