Philologica: A Possible Solution to the Stirner-Nietzsche Question

Abstract

Nietzsche's possible reading, knowledge, and plagiarism of Max Stirner's The Ego and Its Own (1845) has been a contentious question and frequently discussed for more than a century now. the Fall 1999 issue of JNS (73-79), John Glassford skillfully summarizes many of the arguments and judiciously concludes: In short, the evidence as it stands suggests that Nietzsche may have taken the trouble to find out about Stirner at some point in his career; he may even have read some of Stirner's work. But there is no concrete evi dence to suggest that Stirner's ideas influenced his own (78). Glassford therefore assumes, following L?with and Leopold, that the startling simi larities between Stirner and Nietzsche are due to the inevitable logic of post-Hegelian philosophy. Nonetheless, examining the evidence of the case as presented by Glassford? and being aware that there is no symmetry between the arguments for that someone has read a certain book and against such reading (since the latter can only be based on arguments of absence)?seems to me to lead to a con clusion that Nietzsche probably had read (or knew about) Stirner (and this seems to me also to be Glassford's belief). This is also the conclusion most commentators have reached. However, the evidence can be somewhat aug mented and a somewhat different conclusion drawn. The arguments against Nietzsche's knowledge and reading of Stirner (as given by Glassford) is that he never mentions Stirner, that he did not borrow Stirner from the Basel University library, and that Resa von Schirnhofer claimed that Nietzsche never referred to him in conversations with her. The