Nietzsche read far more widely, and more actively, than he led us to believe. Reading was his most important intellectual stimulus: he lived a very isolated life for most of his career, and particularly in the 1880s. Much of what Nietzche thought and wrote therefore came in response to his reading. This book is an in-depth study of Nietzsche's reading, and his knowledge of philosophy and philosophers. It examines his relation to the major European thinkers and Eastern traditions, as well (...) as his knowledge and reading of intellectual women and journals of philosophy. Author Thomas Brobjer has gathered much previously unpublished information about Nietzsche's reading and library, including a great deal about the annotations he made in his books. Nietzsche's Knowledge and Reading and Philosophy will be useful as a handbook for anyone interested in the philosophical context of Nietzsche's thought. It will become an important reference work for all those interested in Nietzsche's philosophy. (shrink)

Challenging the standard interpretation of Nietzsche's last published work, Ecce Homo, as frivolous autobiography, Thomas H. Brobjer provides an original and detailed analysis of Ecce Homo as fundamental to Nietzsche's unfinished masterwork on the revaluation of all values. Arguing that Ecce Homo laid the foundations for his planned four-volume work on values, Brobjer draws together the intentions and motivations behind Nietzsche's late work to create a new narrative on it. He situates this period in the desire to (...) undermine the system of Christian values that Nietzsche believed were unchecked as the standard moral gauge for his time. To engage in this project, Brobjer shows that it was essential for Nietzsche to explore the self and life-denying qualities of a Christian system of values within a broader framework of ideas about morality, altruism, egotism, pessimism, humility and pride. To do this, Nietzsche used an autobiographical text to define himself and his ideas as a precursor to a more comprehensive revaluation of values, of which only one volume would be completed and finished before his death. By fully outlining the context of Ecce Homo, Brobjer provides a complete corrective to its reception as a self-referential and eccentric text of little philosophical significance, enabling a new understanding within the history of philosophy and Nietzsche's oeuvre. (shrink)

Friedrich Nietzsche was immensely influential and, counter to most expectations, also very well read. An essential new reference tool for those interested in his thinking, Nietzsche’s Philosophical Context identifies the chronology and huge range of philosophical books that engaged him. Rigorously examining the scope of this reading, Thomas H. Brobjer consulted over two thousand volumes in Nietzsche’s personal library, as well as his book bills, library records, journals, letters, and publications. This meticulous investigation also considers many of the (...) annotations in his books. In arguing that Nietzsche’s reading often constituted the starting point for, or counterpoint to, much of his own thinking and writing, Brobjer’s study provides scholars with fresh insight into how Nietzsche worked and thought; to which questions and thinkers he responded; and by which of them he was influenced. The result is a new and much more contextual understanding of Nietzsche's life and thinking. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Nietzsche’s Reading and Private Library, 1885–1889Thomas H. BrobjerOne can easily get the impression that Nietzsche read little, especially later in his life. He criticizes reading because it is not sufficiently life-affirming and Dionysian: “Early in the morning at the break of day, in all the freshness and dawn of one’s strength, to read a book—I call that vicious!...” 1 He also criticizes it for making one reactive and forcing (...) one to be concerned with the thoughts of others rather than with one’s own:My eyes alone put an end to all bookwormishness, in plain terms philology: I was redeemed from the “book,” for years I read nothing—the greatest favour I have ever done myself!—That deepest self, as it were buried and grown silent under a constant compulsion to listen to other selves (—and that is what reading means!) awoke slowly, timidly, doubtfully—but at length it spoke again. 2This impression is strengthened by the fact that in his published books from 1885–88 very few contemporary and minor authors and books are mentioned. [End Page 663] He also explicitly claims that he read little: “It does not perhaps lie in my nature to read much or many kinds of things: a reading room makes me ill.... Caution, even towards new books is rather part of my instinct.” 3 Concretely, he claims in Ecce Homo that, “I have to reckon back half a year to catch myself with a book in my hand. But what was it?—An excellent study by Victor Brochard, les Sceptiques Grecs.” 4 As suggested in a quotation above, and as a major leitmotif in his letters, his health and especially that of his eyes is another reason to assume that he read little. This is also how most philosophers and historians have tended to treat Nietzsche—as an isolated, profound thinker.However, this impression and Nietzsche’s claims here are to a large extent incorrect. Nietzsche was, in fact, a rather substantial reader. This is true not only for his younger days but also for his last four active years, 1885–88. 5 Contrary to his claim that he is hostile to new books, he was very pleased with the large trilingual bookshop Löscher in Turin. He was a frequent and good enough customer to know its “Chef “ and to make contacts through it. 6 Nietzsche frequently used other bookshops, ordered book catalogues, and asked for recommendations of new book titles. 7 Nietzsche found some of the most important books in his life as random discoveries in bookshops, for example, those of Schopenhauer, Stendhal, and Dostoyevsky. Contrary to his claim that a reading room made him ill, he praised Turin for its good libraries, 8 and he wrote to his sister: “one cannot even with ten horses draw me to a place where, if I am correctly informed, not even a good library is to be found.” 9 Libraries were [End Page 664] important for Nietzsche’s reading, and the quality of the libraries was an important determining factor in deciding Nietzsche’s travels and places of residence. He even occasionally wrote to libraries to inquire if they were suitable for his purposes and for deciding if he would visit the town. 10 During the period 1885–88 Nietzsche used the libraries in Nice, Leipzig, Chur, Venice, Turin, and the Hotel Alpenrosen’s library in Sils-Maria. He probably also used the library in Zürich and possibly in other towns, and he planned to visit Stuttgart for the sake of its library.Nietzsche did not have a permanent address during the period discussed in this article and hence travelled frequently. But travelling was difficult for him and almost without exception made him ill, and it was more difficult still with a heavy load of books. During these years Nietzsche lived on a low pension from the University of Basel and constantly worried about his expenses. In spite of this he bought a not insignificant number of books. His private library today contains 60 books published from 1885 to 1888 and in 23 of these Nietzsche has made markings, often extensively, and from several... (shrink)

Nietzsche is generally regarded as a severe critic of historical method and scholarship; this view has influenced much of contemporary discussions about the role and nature of historical scholarship. In this article I argue that this view is seriously mistaken . I do so by examining what he actually says about understanding history and historical method, as well as his relation to the founders of modern German historiography . I show, contrary to most expectations, that Nietzsche knew these historians well (...) and that he fundamentally affirmed their view of historical method. What he primarily objected to among his contemporaries was that historical scholarship was often regarded as a goal in itself, rather than as a means, and consequently that history was placed above philosophy. In fact, a historical approach was essential for Nietzsche’s whole understanding of philosophy, and his own philosophical project. (shrink)

The first part of the book investigates Nietzsche's knowledge and understanding of specific disciplines and the influence of particular scientists on Nietzsche ...

Nietzsche did not write a completed magnum opus, a ‘Hauptwerk’, but he planned to do so during at least the last 5 years of his active life. I will show that during and after the writing of Also sprach Zarathustra this was his main aim and ambition. The projected work passed through a number of related phases, of which the much discussed and controversial ‘Will to Power’ was merely one. This intention to write a magnum opus has been denied or (...) almost completely ignored by almost all commentators . I will bring attention to this intention, discuss why it has been ignored and show that an awareness of it is important for our understanding of the late Nietzsche's thinking and for determining the value and originality of his late notes. It has been a failure of historians of philosophy, intellectual historians and Nietzsche scholars not to have taken this into consideration and account. (shrink)

Friedrich Nietzsche—one of the most read and discussed philosophers of all time—is frequently regarded as a quintessentially German philosopher, yet one who had strong anti-German tendencies and late in his development turned increasingly pro-French. However, his relation to British-American thinking and culture has been largely ignored, although its focus on progress, rationality, empiricism, and science constituted a major tradition during the nineteenth century. This work explores Nietzsche's explicit and implicit relation to this tradition, including utilitarianism, Darwinism, Anglo-American scholarly and scientific (...) work, and culture in general. Based on extensive research in Nietzsche's library and unpublished material in the Goethe-Schiller Archive in Weimar, Germany, historian of science Thomas H. Brobjer demonstrates conclusively that Nietzsche was much more involved with and influenced by "English" philosophy than has previously been realized. His study reveals that Nietzsche passed through two periods of distinctly pro-British sentiment. By examining hundreds of unpublished book-bills, Brobjer is able to reconstruct Nietzsche's possession, and time of acquisition, of British and American books. Tables at the end present detailed chronological and alphabetical listings of Nietzsche's extensive reading of British-American texts. With thorough and detailed discussions of Nietzsche's comments on and reading of English and American works and themes, Brobjer uncovers a different Nietzsche from the high-strung iconoclastic philosopher usually emphasized, providing many new insights into how Nietzsche thought and worked. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Philosophy 41.2 (2003) 251-263 [Access article in PDF] Notes and Discussions Nietzsche's Knowledge of Kierkegaard I. TWO OF THE MOST INTERESTING and influential of nineteenth-century thinkers are Nietzsche and Kierkegaard. There exist many striking similarities between the two: they were both critics of rationality, of idealism, and of the building of philosophical systems. Instead, their approach was more existential and psychological and they both (...) strongly emphasized the central position of the individual, personality, and subjectivity. There also exist important differences and oppositions between their thinking—of which the most important is the fact that Kierkegaard was a profoundly Christian-religious thinker, while Nietzsche regarded Christianity and religion as his main object of attack.Kierkegaard (1813-55) certainly could have had no knowledge of Nietzsche (1844-1900), and it is generally assumed that Nietzsche, apart from the name, had no knowledge of Kierkegaard's thinking. What makes it particularly tempting to discuss Nietzsche's relation to Kierkegaard, apart from their inherent similarities and differences and the fact that they are often discussed together, is that Nietzsche, in a letter to Georg Brandes from February 19, 1888, claims that he intended to study Kierkegaard: Ich habe mir für meine nächste Reise nach Deutschland vorgesetzt, mich mit dem psychologischen Problem Kierkegaard zu beschäftigen, insgleichen die Bekanntschaft mit Ihrer älteren Litteratur zu erneuern. Dies wird für mich, im besten Sinn des Worts, von Nutzen sein,—und wird dazu dienen, mir meine eigne Härte und Anmaaßung im Urtheil "zu Gemüthe zu führen."1 [End Page 251]Nietzsche lived in Nice when he wrote this, and never returned to Germany before his mental collapse in January 1889. Nietzsche's intention to study Kierkegaard was expressed in response to a letter from Brandes, where he recommended Kierkegaard to him. Es giebt ein nordischer Schriftsteller, dessen Werke Sie interessiren würden, wenn Sie nur übersetzt wären, Sören Kierkegaard, er lebte 1813-55 und ist meiner Ansicht nach einer der tiefsten Psychologen, die es überhaupt giebt. Ein Büchlein, das ich über ihn geschrieben habe (übersetzt Leipzig 1879) giebt keine hinreichende Vorstellung von seinem Genie, denn dies Buch ist eine Art von Streitschrift, geschrieben um seinen Einfluss zu hemmen. Es ist wohl aber in psychologischer Hinsicht entschieden das feinste, was ich veröffentlicht habe.2Much has been written about Nietzsche and Kierkegaard. There exist more than thirty studies which extensively treat this topic, 3 and it has been briefly mentioned or discussed by hundreds of commentators. Every commentator so far seems to have assumed that Nietzsche had no knowledge of Kierkegaard—except the little Brandes had mentioned in his letter from 1888. 4It is a common belief that Kierkegaard was internationally discovered first after the turn of the century. This is, however, true only in a very qualified sense. 5 [End Page 252] There existed, counter to Brandes' assumption in the letter quoted above, a fairly large number of works by Kierkegaard in German translation already before 1889 which Nietzsche theoretically could have read. However, with very high probability he had not read any of them, because his statement to Brandes would then have been differently formulated.However, there exist other—until now unknown—sources for Nietzsche's knowledge about Kierkegaard. These sources are books Nietzsche read which contain discussions of, and quotations from, Kierkegaard. I have identified six such books which Nietzsche definitely read, some more and some less important. Together these accounts contain about five full pages of quotations from Kierkegaard and about fifty pages about him. To this can be added other sources such as Brandes' letter where he recommends Nietzsche to read Kierkegaard, and philosophical and theological journals which discuss Kierkegaard and personal relationships to those who had knowledge of Kierkegaard's thinking (such as Franz Overbeck and Lou Salomé).Nietzsche's encounter with Kierkegaard's thinking and writing through secondary sources are, in rough chronological order: 6(1) Nietzsche had already in the 1870s read (or, rather, had read to him) parts of Brandes... (shrink)

Nietzsche's Reading about China and Japan.

Hundreds of books and articles have been written on Nietzsche and anarchism, but the overwhelming number of them concern how later anarchists have viewed and have been inspired by, or have been critical of, Nietzsche. In the present contribution, I will instead emphasize how his views of anarchism changed, why he was so critical of anarchism and what were his main sources of knowledge of anarchism and the stimuli for his statements.