NIETZSCHE IN THE MAGISTERIAL TRADITION OF GERMAN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY BY JAMES WHITMAN* Nietzsche spent ten years as an advanced student of classical philology and was a prodigious success; he spent the next ten years as a professor of classical philology and was a prodigious failure. Even casual readers of Nietzsche know the story of his meteoric early career in the dramatic terms in which it is usually told: how Nietzsche was called to the Uni- versity of Basel in 1869, at the sensationally young age of twenty-four, and how he scandalized his colleagues in the discipline within three years by publishing the wild and unscholarly Birth of Tragedy, soon thereafter to abandon classical philology altogether and to be cast into disgrace, continuing to hold his professorship in name only. Few Nietzsche scholars have resisted the temptation to exaggerate the drama of these events. The young Nietzsche, as we most often read about him, was a genius whom simple scholarship could not adequately nourish, a visionary who rapidly shook himself free of the grip of ped- antry.' Such is the standard account of Nietzsche's career, and it is badly distorted. For Nietzsche scholars have contented themselves with a care- less caricature of the history of German classical philology. Certainly there was pedantry among Nietzsche's colleagues, but there was also a tradition that could appeal to Nietzsche's most visionary and self-pro- clamatory tendencies, a magisterial tradition that had arisen in the dec- ades between 1790 and 1820 and flourished in the 1830s and 1840s. It is my purpose in this article to show that Nietzsche identified himself * I would like to thank Professors Anthony Grafton, Samuel Jaffe, Arnaldo Momig- liano, Donald R. Kelley, Hans Aarsleff, and John Atwell for their aid and advice in the writing and editing of this paper. All translations are my own, unless indicated otherwise. 1Misleading accounts, among the most widely available, include: R. Hayman, Nietzsche (London, 1980), 150; W. Kaufmann, Nietzsche (Princeton, 1974), 27; J. P. Stem, Nietzsche (Harmondsworth, 1978), 43; R. J. Hollingdale, Nietzsche (London, 1973), 213. Sounder accounts in E. Howald, Friedrich Nietzsche und die klassische Philologie (Gotha, 1920), 22, and esp. M. S. Silk and J. P. Ster, Nietzsche on Tragedy (Cambridge, 1981), 90ff. Other literature on Nietzsche and classical scholarship falls generally into two categories: assessments of Nietzsche's influence on later classicists (see Hugh Lloyd- Jones, "Nietzsche and the Study of the Ancient World," in O'Flaherty [ed.], Studies in Nietzsche and the Classical Tradition [Chapel Hill, 1976] and the literature cited there), and challenges to the originality of The Birth of Tragedy: see, e.g., M. L. Bauemer, "Das " Modere Phanomen des Dionysischen .... in Nietzsche Studien, VI, 1977, and esp. K. Grunder, "Jacob Bernays und der Streit um die Katharsis," in Epirrhosis.Festschrift f. Carl Schmitt (Berlin, 1968), 495-528. Most recently, see J. Figl, "Hermeneutische Vor- aussetzungen der philologischen Kritik," in Nietzsche Studien, XIII, 1984. 453 Copyright 1986 by JOURNALOF THE HISTORYOF IDEAS, INC. 454 JAMES WHITMAN and his first book with this magisterial tradition. A subtler understanding both of Nietzsche and of the history of classical philology should result. I. The Reception of The Birth of Tragedy-Silence. Only recently have M. S. Silk and J. P. Stern given us an accurate account of the events surrounding the publication of The Birth of Tragedy (BT).2 As I will show, Silk and Stern have left a great deal unexplored and unexplained, but they have done long-needed work in setting Nietzsche scholarship straight. For scholars continue to refer to the reception of BT within the philological community of Nietzsche's time as "violent controversy."3 No phrase could be less apt. The professional response to Nietzsche's first book was in fact silence, and the task of historical interpretation is to explain that silence. A brief review of the events is in order. Nietzsche published BT in December of 1871 with a January 1872 imprint. No respectable journal reviewed it. None of the several professionaljournals of classical philology published any response. Nietzsche's friend and young contemporary Er- win Rohde, who had just received his first university appointment, at- tempted to place a review with a general-interestjournal, the Litterarisches Centralblatt. Rohde's review was rejected, and Nietzsche lamented that the rejection had destroyed "the last possibility that a serious voice speak up for my book in a scholarly journal."4 The only philologist to publish a response was the young Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, later perhaps the leading classicist in the German world but at this time still without a university position. Wilamowitz, too, had trouble getting into print: he composed his long denunciatory essay in the hope that the GottingerAnzeigen would accept it. He was told that "it wouldn't do for the Anzeigen" and was reduced to paying for a private printing in pam- phlet form, which appeared only in June, seven months after BT itself.5 As for Nietzsche and Rohde, they had only in late May been able to place a favorable review with the Wagnerian newspaper the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, which Nietzsche described to Rohde as a last resort: "The Norddeutsche is available to us-but doesn't it seem laughable to you? It does to me, at least."6 The Norddeutsche certainly seemed laugh- able to Wilamowitz. He poked fun at it in a second pamphlet, published in February of 1873, in response to an attack by Rohde: "The Dionysian organ is the Sunday Supplement of the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zei- 2 Silk and Stern, Nietzsche on Tragedy, 90ff. 3 Hugh Lloyd-Jones, "Introduction" to Wilamowitz-Moellendorff,History of Classical Scholarship, trans. Harris (London, 1982), xii. Cf. K. Griinder in his introduction to Griinder (ed.), Der Streit um Nietzsches Geburt der Tragodie(Hildesheim, 1969), 7: "Die Fachgenossen schwiegen zunachst, dann erhob sich Streit. Jede Nietzsche-Darstellung verzeichnet diese Vorgange als einen Skandal." 4 Letter to Gersdorf, Feb. 4, 1872. 5 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Erinnerungen (Leipzig, n.d.), 128-30. 6 Letter to Rohde, mid-February, 1872. NIETZSCHE AND CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY 455 tung."7 Thus the philological battle over BT was fought out entirely in the published backwaters of the intellectual world. Only two years after the book was published did a review finally appear in a philological journal. This review has been neglected by Nietzsche scholars, and I shall return to it in Section III below. As for the immediate response of the profession, Nietzsche said repeatedly that he considered it to be silence8-he dismissed Wilamowitz.9 The idea that the profession met the book with "violent controversy" has always been based on the reactions of two philologists: Wilamowitz with his two pamphlets, and Herman Usener of Bonn. On close inspection, little can be made of the reactions of either man. Wilamowitz has been referred to in this connection as "the guild."'0 But he was clearly an unrepresentativevoice: he was a very junior member of the profession, having as yet no academic appointment; he found it impossible in any case, as just discussed, to publish his attack with a scholarly journal and so cannot be said to have broken the profession's publicly silent facade; and he had, according to his biographer, motives of personal animosity for attacking Nietzsche that the whole profession could not have shared.- As for Hermann Usener, Nietzsche reported in two letters that Usener had declared him to be '"wissenschaftlichtot" ("dead as a scholar"). These words have been described as "public censure." 2 But Nietzsche's account of the incident hardly tallies with the description "public censure": In Leipzig,there reigns one opinion about my book:according to this the excellent Usener,whom I so much respect,upon questioningfrom his students,has let slip [verrathen],"it is mere nonsense,of which nothingcan be made:anybody who has written such a thing is dead as a scholar." It is as though I had committeda crime;there has beenten monthsof silencenow, becauseeverybody believeshimself to be so far beyond my book, that there is not a word to be wastedon it. Thus Overbeckrepresents to me the situationin Leipzig.'3 His students prodded Usener into making a pronouncement he never intended to make. The story is, if anything, strong evidence of Usener's intention to maintain silence as a senior member of the profession. Nietzsche understood the response of the profession to his book to be 7 In Griinder (ed.), Streit um Nietzsches..., 114. 8 See, e.g., letter to Rohde, March 16, 1872, and the account of Silk and Stern, Nietzsche on Tragedy, 90ff. 9 See, e.g., letter to Rohde, June 8, 1872, in which Nietzsche suggests that Wilamowitz had been "used, stimulated, incited" by philologists who themselves maintained silence. 10 A. Hentschke and U. Muhlack, Einfiihrung in die Geschichte der classischen Phil- ologie (Darmstadt, 1972), 109. " W. M. Calder, "Introduction" to Wilamowitz, In wieweit befriedigen die Schliisse der erhaltenen griechischen Trauerspiele?(Leiden, 1974), 4 and note. 12 Stem, Nietzsche, 35. 13 Letter to Rohde, Oct. 25, 1872; cf. letter to Wagner, mid-November, 1872. 456 JAMES WHITMAN silence; and with the doubtful exception of Wilamowitz, silence it was. Let us lay the "violent controversy" to rest. But how, then, are we to explain to collective silence of the profession? Silence is not now, and