# 111. On the Alleged “Battle for the Nietzsche Edition”

The outrageous attacks that have recently been directed against me by the Nietzsche Archive and its friends, in particular the outrageous one by Mr. *Michael Georg Conrad* in the second June issue of the "Gesellschaft", oblige me to add the following to the whole dispute. I was prompted to write the essay that I directed against the "Nietzsche Archive" in Weimar in February of this year (in No. 6 of this weekly) by two facts. The first was the protection given by the "Nietzsche Archive" to the book by the French philosopher *Henri Lichtenberger* "La Philosophie de Nietzsche". This book was published at the end of last year in German translation with an introduction by Mrs. Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche. In this introduction, Nietzsche's sister says quite clearly that she identifies with Lichtenberger's remarks. It is my conviction that the French philosopher's book distorts Nietzsche's ideas into the trivial. Nevertheless, I might never have bothered with it if it had not been declared the official interpretation of Nietzsche's world view by the introduction and explanation of Nietzsche's sister. That I can have a disparaging judgment of the book for no other than factual reasons, I already proved in the above-mentioned attack by the fact that I myself am praised in the book by Lichtenberger. I will add today that not only am I discussed in the course of Lichtenberger's account (on $. 179 of the French edition) in a way that, if I were concerned with personal vanity or the like, could fully satisfy me, but that the following passage is also found on the last page of the French edition: "R. Steiner. F. Nietzsche, ein Kämpfer gegen seine Zeit, Weimar 1895; ouvrage signal& par Mme Foerster-Nietzsche comme exposant le plus fidelement les idees de son frere." The second fact that prompted my attack was the appearance of a brochure by Dr. E. Horneffer, the current editor of the Nietzsche edition, "Nietzsche's Return of the Same and its publication to date." In this pamphlet, Nietzsche's view of the eternal return of all things is the subject of assertions which I consider to be fundamentally false. At the same time, it is said that the former editor of the Nietzsche edition, Dr. Fritz Koegel, made egregious errors in the publication of the "Eternal Return" in the 12th volume, which has since been withdrawn from the book trade by the Nietzsche Archive. These errors are said to consist not only in individual readings; but by compiling the individual aphorisms belonging to the idea of the Second Coming, Dr. Koegel is said to have given a completely false picture of what Nietzsche wanted. I have not doubted the errors in detail, but have tried to defend my view that *despite* them, the picture that the reader gains of Nietzsche's writings from the ı2nd volume corresponds to the true one. Dr. Horneffer sought to maintain his assertion in a reply to my attack in No. ı5 of this weekly. I further defended my conviction in a reply (No. 15 ff. of the "Magazin"). My opinion is that the Nietzsche Archive is not presenting the facts of the case correctly. I am of the opinion, and believe that I have sufficiently proven this in numbers 15-17 of the "Magazin", that Nietzsche's doctrine of the Second Coming is a misguided work, and that Nietzsche himself soon convinced himself of the untenability of the ideas under consideration here. That is why he did not develop the concept any further. What we have in the 12th volume could therefore only give a picture of an *unsustainable train of thought* by Friedrich Nietzsche. The Nietzsche Archive, however, claims that the appearance of untenability is only caused by Dr. Koegel's misguided editing.

There is therefore a completely scientific dispute here. I am of the opinion that I am defending the truth against a distortion. Unfortunately, in my aforementioned essay, I had to add to the factual attack against the current publications of the Nietzsche Archive a characterization of the events that led to Dr. Fritz Koegel's dismissal. For I had to show that this dismissal was not due to Koegel's academic ability, but to a *personal* dispute between Mrs. Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche and Dr. Koegel. To this end, I have simply related the facts that I know from personal experience. From the day I wrote the essay, I was aware that I would be subjected to the sharpest attacks from Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche and her friends. This could not prevent me from speaking the truth in a matter that is as important to me as Nietzsche's cause. Nevertheless, I might have avoided speaking about the character traits and actions of Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche if this woman had not made it necessary by the way she administers her brother's estate. Anyone who pushes herself *personally* to the fore like Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche regrettably makes a purely factual treatment of the matters under consideration impossible. The public should accept what Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche says and does. That is why she also had to be informed about her qualities. There was therefore a *compelling* reason for me to make a personal characterization, *despite* knowing what misinterpretations I was exposing myself to by such an approach. I know two things: firstly, that Mrs. Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche is a charming socialite, captivating through her personal amiability, and that this quality clouds the view of her friends for a truthful assessment of her qualities. I could therefore imagine that her friends would fall all over me. The second is that Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche undeniably has great merits in the administration of her brother's estate. These can always be played off against someone who is forced to act as an opponent of this woman. And I could have no doubt that Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche herself would defend herself in a way that corresponds to the character I have outlined. I therefore understand her outrageous attack in No. 29 of the "Zukunft" (of April 21, 1900), and finally I also understand the defence that Dr. Arthur Seidl sang for her in the first May issue of the "Gesellschaft". This "defense" of Dr. Seidl shows sufficiently what kind of a child the defender is; and I have unraveled his web of incorrect assertions, of frivolous accusations of my person, and, what matters to me above all, of unbelievable logical nonsense, in the second May issue of the "Gesellschaft".

But now comes something completely incomprehensible. In the second June issue of the "Gesellschaft", Mr. Michael Georg Conrad published a short essay entitled "Steiner versus Seidl", which trumps everything incredible that has been achieved by Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche's friends. This essay begins: "For Steiner's manner and behavior in the Nietzsche controversy, I feel that *one* sentence is decisive, which flows from Steiner's pen in "Magazin" as well as in "Gesellschaft". An artist of style like Steiner writes what he *wants* to write, with full consideration of the moments of impression and the suggestive value of each individual word. Everything unconscious and unintentional is excluded. Therefore, Dr. Steiner has to bear full responsibility for the *effect* of his writing. In discussing the effect, I will limit myself to a single sentence. - In the "Society" it is found at $. 201, line 9: "Soon after Dr. Koegel's engagement, Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche used my presence, etc." And now my opponent follows this sentence with the following edifying observation: "Now everything is as clear as day. Now it's obvious why Dr. Koegel has remained silent about the most serious accusations ever since. The persecuted man of honor could not open his mouth out of pure consideration. Of course. Silence is a knight's duty in such a case. Only his faithful squire, Dr. Rudolf Steiner, was allowed to tap on this point with a careful finger. Koegel's engagement! Aha! Poor Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche, out of spurned love you acted so wickedly towards the archive doctor and gave him the slip! Because *she* was not the chosen one! - This is how the uninfluenced, naive reader argues, this is how he must argue. ... The other reader is different, who, with sufficient knowledge of the people and the facts, scrutinizes every word spoken in this dispute with extreme coldness and caution. He receives a completely different impression of Steiner's prose in "Magazin" and in "Gesellschaft" and in "Zukunft" than the good-natured, gullible average reader who is so grateful for ambiguity and scandal. - He reacts to the motif of "Dr. Koegel's engagement", so casually struck, in Steiner's score also with an "aha!" and a "Donnerwetter! But for a substantially different reason. In a flash, this one note has illuminated Dr. Steiner's entire method and attitude to the core. Everything is bright and clear through and through. All the contrapuntal ingenuity, all the contradictory repartee, all the dazzle of syllabic bravura, all the pomposity and snark - poor, ineffective arts! He disrespected the woman and thus stirred up all the dull and evil feelings in the flock to the detriment of Nietzsche's venerable sister. By appealing to the community of bad instincts, Steiner has judged himself."

Now Dr. Arthur Seidl has already reproached me with the same thing in his article in the "Gesellschaft" and found it compatible with his taste and other of his qualities to call my sentence in question an "equally malicious and simple-minded insinuation". I did not owe him the answer. I have provided him with *objective* proof - as objective as it can be - that I did not insinuate anything, but that with this sentence I merely reproduced a passage in a letter from *Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche* (from a letter to me), which reads: "Dr. Koegel was not only to be the editor, but also the son and heir of the archive. However, the latter was only possible if I had a sincere mutual friendship with Dr. Koegel. I felt this lack and had hoped that we could become better friends through his marriage. *But since I was completely mistaken about the bride, the lack of friendship and trust became much more noticeable after the engagement than before*."

I told Dr. Seidl: "Only a *not entirely* pure imagination can see a malicious insinuation in my sentence." And now comes Mr. *Michael Georg Conrad*, ignores my proof, ignores the interpretation that my sentence receives from the fact that it does not come from me, but from Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche, and erects an edifying accusation on this "single" sentence. There are now only two assumptions for me. Either I return Mr. Michael Georg Conrad's compliment and say: "A stylistic artist like Michael Georg Conrad writes what he wants to write, with full consideration of the moments of impression and the suggestive value of each individual word. Therefore, Mr. Michael Georg Conrad has to bear full responsibility for the *effect* of his writing." *Then* I would have to say: Mr. Michael Georg Conrad writes an objectively refuted assertion with the specific intention of suspecting me, of degrading me in public opinion. He uses the means that he hopes many will fall for: he sets himself up as the protector of a "worthy" woman who has been severely insulted in her femininity. He is imputing to me the intention of speculating on the base instincts of the "herd" in the most disgraceful way. Anyone who is reasonably unbiased could form their own opinion of my statements, which reflect objective facts, if I wanted to say that about Michael Georg Conrad. I did not need to put my own here, for - what could I possibly care about the statements of a man who is capable of such things! But I do not believe that this is the case. On the contrary, I am of the opinion that Mr. Michael Georg Conrad writes his plate in good faith. He has not the slightest understanding of the whole matter, of the *content* of the dispute. And because this content is a closed book to him, because he is completely incapable of forming a real judgment, he falls for the marked way out in his childish - basically harmless - manner. Instead, I attach particular importance to another sentence in Conrad's writing. It reads: "The most *blind* must realize today that everything and every right in this dispute is on the side of Nietzsche's sister." I subscribe to this sentence. Yes, I claim to have *proven* precisely *this* sentence through my "contrapuntal resourcefulness" in "Magazin", "Gesellschaft" and "Zukunft". Yes, the "blindest" will realize that everything and every right is on the side of Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche. The sighted, however, must be convinced of the opposite. I do not shorten Mr. Michael Georg Conrad's claim to belong to the "blindest" by one iota. He is fully entitled to this claim. He disregards everything I have said on the matter; he asserts the most childish things from the "personal and factual knowledge" that *he* can muster. When such a man then says: "Dr. Koegel, Dr. Steiner and Gustav Naumann (the author of the silly Zarathustra commentary with the ragamuffin-like naughty and malicious introductions) have severely damaged the reputation of German scholarship, education and chivalry" (on p. 374 of the "Society"), I can only smile pityingly at such a sentence. Moreover, I do not need to prove that Mr. Michael Georg Conrad - whom I appreciate to a certain extent as a poet and novelist - has nothing, nothing at all to do with German scholarship. Because anyone who is at all familiar with "German science" knows that.

I believe Mr. Michael Georg Conrad that it would be right for him if my voice in the Nietzsche controversy could be eliminated with talk as far removed from the *issue* as his is. For then he, who is not entitled to a judgment on the matter, could do something.

It remains sad that an article like *Michael Georg Conrads* is possible at all. You champion a cause, and some random person who happens to have personal connections to the people involved in the cause comes along and dares to write in the most spiteful way - to write upholding an absolutely disproved assertion - without at the same time feeling obliged to somehow address the substance of what matters.

And a man who proceeds in this way also has the naivety to pass judgment on the endangerment of "German education". -- One would have to become quite bitter if the matter were not so boundlessly *ridiculous*. So let's leave Mr. Michael Georg Conrad alone.

With Dr. Arthur Seidl, who in the first May issue of the "Gesellschaft" repeated with as much loquacity as lack of insight what he had been told in Weimar, who does not deny my assertion that Mrs. Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche today calls blue what was red to her yesterday, but explains from the theorem of the old Heraclitus that "everything flows", - with this Dr. Arthur Seidl in my essay "Frau Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche und ihr Ritter von komischer Gestalt" (2nd May issue of "Gesellschaft"). However, since Michael Georg Conrad's omissions again contain a sentence in a slightly different form that Dr. Seidl already dared to write, I will at least repeat here what I replied to this gentleman on p. 208 of the "Gesellschaft". Mr. Seidl had the audacity to write: "And it must not be overlooked that in the whole battle that broke out, the self-interested and *personal* motives lay entirely on the side of her (Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche's) opponents, who, as Nietzsche publishers, wanted to create *pecuniary advantages* for themselves." I replied to this gentleman: "Since you speak of Nietzsche publishers in the plural, you are implying that I have ever sought pecuniary advantages in this matter. I was never a Nietzsche publisher; I never wanted to become one, so I never wanted to gain pecuniary advantages. You will not be able to provide proof for your assertions. So you are putting *slander* into the world."

Mrs. Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche herself objected to my attack in an article entitled "Der Kampf um die Nietzsche-Ausgabe" in No. 29 of "Die Zukunft" (dated April 2, 1900). It simply asserts: "In the autumn of 1896, he (Dr. Rudolf Steiner) had the passionate desire to become Nietzsche editor, as he was without a position after completing his work on the natural science part of the Goethe edition."

"...As long as Dr. Steiner still saw the slightest possibility that I could involve him in the complete edition, he remained silent. Only now, when he sees from Hornefler's writing and has probably also heard that he is completely superfluous and that everything is going well in the Nietzsche Archive, both philologically and philosophically, does he seek revenge." Although I know Mrs. Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche, I would not have assumed that she would try to impute ugly, personal motives to my attack by making assertions that are as completely out of thin air as this one. I never applied for the position of Nietzsche editor, never expressed a wish of Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche in this direction. On the contrary, in the fall of 1896 I had to fend off this woman's continual "strangest attempts" to make me an editor. *Despite this*, today she is able to write sentences like the ones quoted. As much as I would have liked to avoid this, I must now return to Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche's efforts to involve me in some way in the work of the Nietzsche Archive with words that illuminate the situation even more crudely than those I have used so far. For years, this woman kept me busy trying to carve out some kind of position for me in the Nietzsche Archive. She started in the spring of 1895. She wanted me to come to Naumburg for at least a few days - the Nietzsche Archive was there at the time - to organize and catalog Nietzsche's library. I evaded her for as long as I could in every possible way, finally invoking the "weakened state of health" so popular in such cases. Then I complied with her wish and cataloged the library. I thought this would give me peace of mind. I had been mistaken. The molesting didn't stop. When Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche moved to Weimar in the autumn of 1896, where I was also living at the time, I even used a clear sign of rudeness to avoid any further questions. At first I did not pay Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche a visit in Weimar. She wrote to me saying that I would like to come. I have described several times the situation I was in when the quarrel with Dr. Koegel broke out. I would certainly have left Weimar at that time to be safe from Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche if it had not been my heart's desire to complete my final work on "Goethe's Weltanschauung" in the place where I had spent years thinking and researching Goethe's view of nature. I only made one mistake. I allowed the importance of Nietzsche's cause to keep me from putting Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche's chair in front of the door again and again. And this woman is now saying that I wanted to take revenge because I did not get a position in the Nietzsche Archive. Indeed, in No. 33 (May 9, 1900) of the "Zukunft" she manages to write: "It seems insignificant to me that Dr. Steiner wants to prove that I offered him the position, but he did not even consider it. I do not know whether there are people anywhere who think it possible that I am considering an editor who does not want it at all." Yes, of course, one should not think it possible. But Mrs. Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche has done the impossible after all. She claims so many things. For example, she also says (in an omission from May 19 that trumps the one from April 21): "Since the spring of 1894 it had been Dr. Steiner's passionate wish to become Nietzsche editor; and when I, who at that time could not think of choosing him because he was still employed at the Goethe Archive, hired Dr. v. d. Hellen, who was just concluding his work at the Goethe Archive, Dr. Steiner made a terrible scene for Mr. v. d. Hellen and accused him in the most embarrassing way of having taken away this position for which he would have been predestined." Of course, I do not want to draw attention to the glaring contradiction that lies in the fact that Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche claims: she could not have thought of hiring me because I was busy elsewhere, but *I* would very well have thought of seeking the position in the Nietzsche Archive despite being tied up elsewhere. After all, there are more than enough contradictions in everything Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche writes. But this is a good example of how she retells facts. I once had the misfortune of being considered the most suitable Nietzsche editor, not *by me*, but by a number of other people. Dr. von der Hellen also had this opinion at the time. He therefore took a step with quite noble and benevolent intentions, which, from my point of view, I had to resent. He, who had a position at the Nietzsche Archive, came to me to apologize for it. At the time I had not even remotely thought of seeking the position, and felt quite uncomfortable that I was expected to placate myself. The tearful story that Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche also told in the "Zukunft" on May 9 is just as incorrect as the "embarrassing" scene with v. d. Hellen, but a good deal more ridiculous.

For the time being, that should suffice. For with the basic fable that I had the unfortunate wish to become Nietzsche's editor, all other little fibs fall apart by themselves.