(Portable Nietzsche, p. 180).
4Both are discussed briefly in my Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist (1950; 2nd rev. ed., 1956; 3rd rev. ed., 1968). Chapter 1, section III. For a much more comprehensive treatment that embodies a vast amount of original research, see Rudolph Binion’s Frau Lou (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1968).
5Cf. p. 714, note 4.
6Crush the infamy.
7Nicomachean Ethics, IV. 3. Most of the description is quoted in my Nietzsche, Chapter 12, section VI; much of it also in my note on Beyond Good and Evil, section 212.
A Note on the Publication of Ecce Homo
Many who have never carefully read any of Nietzsche’s works have read about two German editions of the works that elicited some sensational but uninformed comments in print. The first was Karl Schlechta’s edition of all of Nietzsche’s books and a selection from his notes, fragments, and letters, in three volumes. But Schlechta simply reprinted the previously published versions of Ecce Homo and need not be considered here.
The second was Erich F. Podach’s book, Friedrich Nietzsches Werke des Zusammenbruchs (1961),1 which offered texts of Nietzsche contra Wagner, The Antichrist, Ecce Homo, and the so-called Dionysus Dithyrambs that were said to supersede all previous editions. I have shown elsewhere2 how ill-founded Podach’s strident claims are. Here we need only consider his handling of Ecce Homo. He aims to show that “The hitherto familiar Ecce Homo does not exist” (p. 208). This sensational charge has to be met here, even if some readers should prefer to skim the next six paragraphs.
Podach prints the manuscript with Nietzsche’s editorial directions, such as requests to insert or move passages; he reproduces alternative versions of the same passages, including pages that had been pasted over; and he admits that he has “not indicated where whole sections in the manuscript sent to the printer are crossed out. Here some of the texts show plainly that they are variants or preliminary versions, while in other cases [very few] it cannot be decided whether N or Gast [Nietzsche’s young friend who helped him with editorial chores and proofs] has deleted them” (p. 408).
In fact, Ecce Homo was begun October 15, 1888, on Nietzsche’s forty-fourth birthday, and finished November 4. A few days later Nietzsche sent the manuscript to his publisher, Naumann; but on November 20 he mentioned some additions in a letter to Georg Brandes, the Danish critic who was the first to lecture on Nietzsche at a university (Copenhagen); and then he also mentioned additions to Naumann. On a postcard, November 27, he asked Naumann to return “the second part of the MS … because I still want to insert some things,” and explained that he meant “the whole second half of the MS, beginning with the section entitled ‘Thus Spoke Zarathustra.’ I assume that this won’t delay the printing for even a moment as I shall send back the MS immediately.” On December 1 he acknowledged receipt of the second half but requested the return of the whole MS, including the additions: “I want to give you a MS as good as the last one, at the risk that I have to be a copier for another week.” On December 3 Naumann replied that he was returning the MS, but “copying it once more I do not consider necessary; I merely should especially recommend that you read the proofs carefully although I shall make a point of doing likewise.” This shows plainly how wrong Podach’s claims are: the publisher found the manuscript finished, clear, and printable.
Nor did Nietzsche keep it long. On December 6, he telegraphed Naumann: “MS back. Everything reworked [umgearbeitety].” And on the eighth, Nietzsche wrote Gast: “I sent Ecce Homo back to C. G. Naumann day before yesterday after laying it once more on the gold scales from the first to the last word to set my conscience finally at rest.”
All this information was given by Professor Raoul Richter in his long postscript to the first edition of 1908, and Richter also described the manuscript: “The manuscript is written clearly and cleanly from beginning to end, so that even every untrained person can read it quickly on the whole, without trouble. Changes have been made either by striking things out (with pencil or ink) or by pasting things over. In both cases the editor [Richter] has copied the original version in order to help provide a basis for a later critical edition. For that, ample use would also have to be made of the drafts and variants found in the three