I. Every Year Again: Nietzsche in Naumburg

Every year again, the tranquil little town of Naumburg is haunted by strange guests who don't really want to fit in with the idyll of cathedral and half-timbered buildings: Nietzsche researchers from all over the world come together here to discuss their research results and, as they say, to 'connect. ' The date is traditionally around Nietzsche's birthday on October 15, this year from October 12 to 15. It should be about “battles for Nietzsche,” as explained by the subtitle of the event organized by Carlotta Santini and Hans Ruin, “as the protagonist of European and global culture up to the first post-war period.”

The conference poster designed by artist Michael Girod shows one of Max Klinger's most famous Nietzsche busts being mistreated, kissed, and climbed by small black shadow creatures. The choice of this graphic design has already been explained by Call to the meeting, which called for submissions (cf). It mentions that “the work and person [...] of Nietzsche” “[b] is at the outbreak of the Second World War” were “the subject of passionate debates” “which influenced all areas of culture.” However, this wild period of “Nietzscheanisms,” in which Nietzsche's philosophy served as a “laboratory of thought models,” was fortunately ended “after the Second World War through the establishment of scientific and philological standards.” Unfortunately, by then, a “myth” of Nietzsche had arisen, referring to him “idiosyncratic distortions of his thinking [...], which research is still fighting against today.” The shadowy figures are therefore said to be the first recipients who continue to obscure the true image of Nietzsche and who must continue to scare away “academic research.” Accordingly, the stated objective of the conference was certainly to recognize what was “original, valid and productive” about the “struggles for Nietzsche,” but it was primarily about “[d] to identify and possibly falsify the sources of prejudices that persist to this day.” The “serious research” and the “real Nietzsche” there — the “falsified Nietzsche” of early reception there, distorted by enemies and admirers. — Is it really as easy to separate as, according to Nietzsche, “truth” and “appearance” are not?

The conference began on Thursday afternoon as usual in the large hall of the Nietzsche Documentation Center, a chic post-modern building that was built several years ago next to the actual Nietzsche House (see Figure 1), in the gloomy twilight of a mixed autumn day. Nietzsche grew up in this house from 1858 and lived there again after his mental absenteeism for several years in the care of his mother and sister. Over the course of the evening, the number of participants gradually grew to around 100 people; the hall would not have accommodated more. This is probably also true for the city. “Naumburg is never as crowded as this weekend,” said Lord Mayor Armin Müller in his welcome address. According to the program, the conference comprised just over 50 presentations.

In their opening statements, the organizers somewhat withdrew the dichotomy between reception and 'state of research' that could be gleaned from the call. Santini in particular emphasized the unwavering fascination of those 'wild years' of Nietzsche appropriation. “The history of Nietzsche reception is ours History,” she said and spoke of a return to the “original source when the meadow was still intact.” The “naivety” of early reception was only “alleged” and there was no straight progress towards a “true Nietzsche.” Ruin added that studying early reception should not be an end in itself, but should serve to better understand the present tense. As a decisive characteristic of this “present tense”, all the introductory speakers, including the director of the Documentation Center, Ralf Eichberg, and Marco Brusotti, the chairman of the Nietzsche Society, referred to the wars — whether in Ukraine, in Armenia or recently in Israel — i.e. “struggles” in a very literal sense.

II. From Superman to “New Jew”

The two lectures on the content of that opening by Katharina Grätz and Hans Gerald Hödl therefore largely excluded the question of the 'real Nietzsche. ' Grätz spoke about the Interpretative Struggles for Superman In German-speaking countries between 1890 and 1905, Hödl presented in particular the Nietzsche reception by the largely unknown Austrian writer Anton Kuh (1890—1941). In both presentations, the wide range and creativity of the various interpretations became apparent very quickly. Some saw Nietzsche's philosophy of “superman” as an appeal for a Darwinian breeding program, others for radical individualism, and still others associated it with collective ideas of emancipation or a new religion. Grätz emphasized that this diversity is not due to “too little” but rather to “too much” of meaning in Nietzsche's texts. The different performers therefore rightly picked out individual set pieces from them. Metaphorically speaking, Nietzsche's philosophy is like a well-filled candy jar that is neither empty nor contains any candy, but which comprises many different treats that do not necessarily go together. While Nietzsche's first Viennese readers, according to Hödl, were German-national Jews, Kuh understood him as a critic of all nationalism in the sense of the ideal of the “good European.”

The second day was a lighter autumn day, which could almost be described as 'golden, 'perhaps 'matte gold.' Even today, the hall was full again, around 100 people gathered there, and some spectators even had to stand. The renowned Italian Germanist Vivetta Vivarelli opened the day with a presentation in which she addressed the respective correspondence between Nietzsche and his close friends Erwin Rohde and Franz Overbeck, which were published in the first decade of the 20th century and, according to the judgement of numerous contemporary recipients — Vivarelli named Stefan Zweig, Walter Benjamin and Thomas Mann — showed a completely different Nietzsche than the published writings and those of Nietzsche Fragments of the estate published by Etzsche's sister; man There he thought he saw the 'real Nietzsche, 'the “man” behind his texts. In addition to the — ominous, mystifying — Weimar people, not least as a result of the publication of these correspondence, there was a different Basel tradition, which rather emphasized the enlightenment and fragile elements of Nietzsche's thinking. During the discussion, Vivarelli received much encouragement for these ideas — not least from Eichberg, who spoke of the fact that the Naumburg Research Center also saw itself in this latter tradition — but the question was also raised as to whether the letters really showed an “immediate”, “pure” Nietzsche or not just a new layer of masking.

In his following presentation, Christian Benne addressed in particular the Nietzsche reception of Georg Brandes (1842—1927), who is often regarded as the discoverer of Nietzsche, as he gave lectures on Nietzsche's philosophy at the University of Copenhagen as early as 1888, which were then published as a book a little later. Benne proved in detail from which historical context Brandes discovered Nietzsche and how he brought him into play to intervene in the Scandinavian cultural conflicts of the time, which revolved in particular around the question of whether women's emancipation did not also require strict abstinence before marriage on the part of men — a popular demand that Brandes countered based on Nietzsche's critique of ascetic morality that On the contrary, women should now also have premarital sex. As a result of his encounter with Nietzsches, Brandes did not give up his previous emancipatory ideals, as is often claimed, but understood Nietzsche's “aristocratic radicalism” (Brandes) in the sense of a radical liberal critique of a populist dictatorship of the majority and always maintained a certain distance from Nietzsche. Benne emphasized that at that time, not least young Jewish women in Scandinavia were attracted to Nietzsche and read him as a thinker of their individual emancipation.

Antje Wessels then addressed a completely different aspect of Nietzsche's history of reception, who, in turn, spoke about Nietzsche's effect on classical philology using the example of Walter Friedrich Otto (1874—1958). Nietzsche, especially his early work The birth of tragedy, was one of the most important sources of inspiration for Otto and also authorities for the development of a completely new approach to antiquity, which was no longer about scientifically cataloguing the texts by studying the sources as precisely as possible, but about empathizing with them in order to really essence to understand the ancient way of thinking. Otto, a close companion of Martin Heidegger, understood the ancient myth not as an opinion or idea, but as a direct revelation of the existence of things, which was obscured by a Christian or scientific view of the world. During the discussion, the question was raised as to whether this glorifying, ahistorical view of antiquity was not at least with the late Nietzsche — the one who The genealogy of morality — is incompatible. Unfortunately, neither in the presentation nor in the discussion was the question — all too obvious in view of Otto's life dates — to what extent Otto's transfiguration of ancient myth did not have affinities to National Socialism. In a private conversation, Wessels explained to me that Otto had a similarly ambivalent relationship with the NS as Heidegger and other figures of the 'Conservative Revolution': On the one hand, he had welcomed the NS and carried out important cultural functions during this time — in particular, he was head of the “Scientific Committee” of the Weimar Nietzsche Archive from 1935 to 1945 — but on the other hand he had criticized him as too modernist and was That is why they get into conflicts with the regime.

The following short section talks — four of which took place in parallel so that I could only follow them in very excerpts — also pointed out interesting aspects of Nietzsche's early reception. For example, the musicologist Tilman Williams showed how much Alma Mahler-Werfel (1879—1964), wife and lover of numerous important cultural figures of her time (in addition to Franz Werfel and Gustav Mahler, such as Walter Gropius, Gustav Klimt and Alexander von Zemlinsky — only Lou Andreas-Salomé is comparable in this regard), influenced by Nietzsche in her thinking and in her emancipated, but, as Williams pointed out, a very selfish way of life was reinforced in some cases. Ukrainian researcher Vitalii Mudrakov presented the satirical text He and she his “compatriot” Olha Kobylianska (1863—1942), which was written around 1900 and contains numerous quotes from Nietzsche, thus underlining the international charisma that the philosopher had early on.

The highlight of the day was undoubtedly the performance of Steven Aschheim, author of the standard work Nietzsche and the Germans. Cult career, which comprehensively explains the German-language reception of Nietzsche up to 1945. Due to current events in his native Israel, Aschheim was unfortunately unable to travel in person, but he was connected via Zoom. He did not give an actual presentation, but answered questions from the audience in detail (see Figure 2). In particular, he emphasized that, as a cultural historian, he necessarily looks at Nietzsche's history of reception differently than a philosopher: he must include his own image of Nietzsche and simply explain without judgement how certain actors had appropriated certain aspects of Nietzsche's work. However, he admitted that there was such an 'Aschheim Nietzsche, 'and that he also shows through in his book from time to time. He spoke a lot about the Jewish reception of Nietzsche — both religious and Zionist — but also his National Socialist reception and showed that he considered this interpretation to be entirely plausible in terms of, albeit selective, text-based appropriation. Nietzsche, for example, has repeatedly spoken out in favour of a radical transformation of society in the sense of biological ideas — the eradication of “decadent” and “weak” elements — and, despite his criticism of overly low-level forms of anti-Semitism, has also repeatedly spoken out in a way that could be understood as “deeper”, spiritual anti-Semitism, as Heidegger later represented, for example. This point of view had a visibly provocative effect on some listeners, leaving it with occasional looks, gestures and quiet expressions of displeasure and does not start a controversial discussion in this regard. Aschheim was particularly convincing due to his authentic, humorous manner and looked like a scholar who truly “incorporated” his research subject in the spirit of Nietzsche¹ has.

III. Ambiguous Shadows

Unfortunately, for personal reasons, I was only able to attend these first two days of the conference. As usual, it included numerous extremely exciting and high-level lectures, which covered almost the entire spectrum of the huge topic of Nietzsche's early reception; both the main and more secondary lines. The Scandinavian reception — which, as he himself admitted in his opening statement, may have been due to Hans Ruins's Swedish origin — as well as Andreas-Salomé's Nietzsche reception, to which a total of five lectures were dedicated. In any case, it has been shown that researching Nietzsche's impact history is not just an academic exercise, but a thoroughly lively subject of research that needs to be pursued further. As Eichberg emphasized in his welcome address, the documentation center in Naumburg is still full of “untapped treasures” in this regard.

In particular, it became clear what different connections Nietzsche's oeuvre allows for: He can be read equally as a collectivist biologist and a radical individualist, as an enlightener as as an irrationalist, as an anti-Semite and as an anti-Semite, and you will always find individual texts that support these interpretations. — How to deal with this diversity interpretatively? The described initial problem of opposing “real Nietzsche” and “myths” haunted the conference time and again. Sometimes the presentation of individual interpretations dominated, sometimes the criticism of them in the sense of a “real Nietzsche” — and at the same time it became clear that even performers, who tried to completely conceal their own Nietzsche interpretations, find it very difficult to completely omit their own Nietzsche interpretations; this is probably not least because these interpretations deal with topics that have been contested to this day. Nietzsche is perhaps the first interpreter of his own writings to vacillate between the two poles: As a perspectivist, he denies the possibility of objective interpretation and emphasizes the necessary multiplicity of points of view; as a self-interpreter, he visibly strives to dispel possible 'misunderstandings' — in doing so, of course, only producing new ambiguities.

Everything probably depends on the question of whether you want to dismiss the fascist Nietzsche interpretation as a “myth” or accept it as a plausible interpretation — which then, of course, draws Nietzsche's writings into the wake of the 'brown. ' That this interpretation, in turn, cannot be the only legitimate one, was also made clear at the meeting. It was repeatedly shown that Nietzsche was particularly attractive to outsider figures who derived from his writings a radical questioning of prevailing social norms and a call for an overthrow, whether in the sense of individual or collective change. This is still their potential today. As far as the fascist interpretation is concerned, given its undeniable virulence during the first decades of Nietzsche reception, even philosophical interpreters must allow themselves to be asked how they can deal with it without simply repressing it or dismissing it as a simple mistake. This blocks the path of easy identification with Nietzsche, but that is precisely why it should be in his interest.

In any case, the “battles for Nietzsche” were not just metaphorical “ghost wars,” but on the major fronts of the wars of the early 20th century, not least Nietzscheans faced each other — whether in the trenches of the First World War, in the revolutionary struggles of the interwar period or then during the Second. As Aschheim pointed out, Nietzsche's praise of the “warrior” was often understood very literally. This gives the topic of the conference its spark. If you take into account Nietzsche's tremendous influence on Jewish, not least Zionist, intellectuals, as well as on the ideology of present-day Russia — embodied, for example, in Alexandr Dugin, one of the leading propagandists of this “New Russia” — you can hardly help but see this explosiveness in our present day. In his presentation, Aschheim quoted an early Zionist as saying that Jews could learn from Nietzsche not to turn the other cheek when struck, but to fight back. The unbridled struggle for self-empowerment that Nietzsche — apparently — proclaims, but, as another saying teaches, often enough leaves the world blind. With and against Nietzsche, what could be done intellectually to oppose war in its unmetaphorical brutality? That would probably be the big question of the time, to which the conference certainly had no answers but did provide suggestions.

Footnotes

1 Cf. e. g. The Gay Science, 110.