a review of

‘Verwandt-Verwandelt’.
Nietzsche’s Presence in Rilke
by Angela C. Holzer, Princeton

Hyperion, Volume II, issue 4, December 2007

 V
e
r

-
a review of

V e rw
w a n d e l t
a
n
d
t
-
‘Verwandt-Verwandelt’. Nietzsche’s Presence in Rilke
Katja Brunkhorst
Iudicium Verlag GmbH, 2006

by Angela C. Holzer
Princeton

1 H y p e r i o n— re v i e w o f ‘ Ve r w a n dt-Ver wandelt’. Nietzsche’s Presence in Rilke

T his study on Nietzsche’s Presence in Rilke focuses on the relationship 1
Brunkhorst considers
this denial a “carefully
between the artist-philosopher and the poet that has not yet been fully
manufactured myth” (p.
explored—despite its importance for literary and philosophical history as 40) that Rilke maintained
well as for Nietzsche studies and Rilke scholarship. “Indeed, misconceptions for a number of reasons
and to which scholarship
abound about the actual amount of work on this topic” (22). Brunkhorst has adhered to blindly
identifies merely 40 contributions on Nietzsche and Rilke in 70 years, some of (11). Material indicating an
which are obscure and unavailable or rely on each other and do not present influence of Nietzsche on
Rilke was until now “virtually
new material. There is only one monograph on this topic (Detsch, 2003). non-existent” (9).

In addition, the theoretical complications that many such studies, beginning 2

p. 37.
with Fritz Dehn’s in 1936, have been confronted with consist not only in Rilke’s 3
Brunkhorst, p.10.
own denial of a Nietzschean influence1 or even knowledge of Nietzsche’s
works, reported by von Salis,2 but also in inadequate theoretical frameworks
that could be usefully brought to bear on such a complicated type of influence.
In this special case, the relationship is ultimately composed of motivic,
rhetorical, thematic, philosophical, personal, zeitgeistliche and psychological
aspects. Thus, assumptions of a Nietzschean influence on Rilke have often
run the risk of being merely speculative and have resorted to metaphors—
such as intellectual “heir” (Margot Fleischer), in order to describe Rilke’s
position vis-à-vis the German philosopher.

The themes of spiritual Verwandtschaft (affinity) and Verwandlung

(transformation), taken from a Nietzsche poem, also apply to the relationship
between Nietzsche and Rilke. Katja Brunkhorst’s study not only engages
these two thinkers and artists, but the general problem of philosophical and
poetic influence at the turn of the century, complicated by Nietzsche’s own
paradoxical advice in Zarathustra, namely that his disciples should turn away
from him. “Hence, the question of influence is itself partly the object of this
study, and its guiding spirit the ‘Antichrist’s very own definition of philology, in
his eponymous work, as ‚die Kunst, gut zu lesen [...], Thatsachen ablesen zu
können, [...] ohne im Verlangen nach Verständnis die Vorsicht, die Geduld, die
Feinheit zu verlieren’ (KSA 6, 233).”3 The question of influence however, is also
part of a methodological challenge this study faces, as I will discuss below.

Prior studies have been restricted to claiming either no Nietzschean influence

or an influence for only parts of Rilke’s corpus and life, variably for the early
(notably Walter Seifert) or the later period (Hillebrand), more or less excluding
the middle phase. Thus far, there is consensus that Rilke read the second
Untimely Meditation, The Birth of Tragedy (on which he wrote Marginalien
zu Friedrich Nietzsche. Die Geburt der Tragödie in 1900),4 as well as the

Hyperion—Volume II, issue 4, December 200 7 2

4
Rainer Maria Rilke: correspondence between Friedrich Overbeck and Nietzsche, which he
Marginalien zu Friedrich
probably became familiar with in 1911 (73). He also knew a letter written by
Nietzsche. ‚Die Geburt der
Tragödie, in: Rainer Maria Nietzsche to Rohde containing his self-assessment as “Dichter bis zu jeder
Rilke: Sämtliche Werke, Grenze dieses Begriffs,” printed in the Insel-Almanach auf das Jahr 1912
Vol. 6, Frankfurt am Main
1966, p. 1163-1177.
(19). It is unclear if Rilke knew parts of Ecce homo that appeared in French
translation in 1909 (39). A copy of Die Fröhliche Wissenschaft (1887) is
5
Scholars such as Alberto
existent in the Rilke archive, and Rilke read parts of it in 1902 (39).
Destro, Detsch, Engel,
Fleischer, Frowen, Görner,
Hawes, Kaufmann, Mason, Due to Brunkhorst’s research, it is an indubitable advance in scholarship that
May, Meyer, Szabó, and it can now be stated with a certain degree of likeliness that some passages of
Heller have also argued
Zarathustra might have influenced Rilke’s works. Brunkhorst not only presents
for this position. However,
the “arguments of those new evidence on which to ground accounts of Nietzsche’s presence in Rilke,
these thirteen scholars are namely the reading traces found in two copies of Also sprach Zarathustra in
mostly based on textual
the Rilke estate in Gernsbach. She also suggests, based on the analysis of
analysis, as evidence of
Rilke’s reading of Nietzsche Nietzsche passages marked by Rilke, a constant influence of Nietzsche on
was largely unavailable Rilke, thereby corroborating various prior theses of continuous influence.5
until very recently,” (27).
Qualifications such
Moreover, she also argues for a philosophical perspective on Rilke that
as mostly and largely, would shed the remainders of a Heideggerian mystification. She additionally
however, are problematic argues against the division of Rilke’s corpus into three different phases. By
in this context, not clearly
stating the situation. If there analyzing the reading traces, “Nietzschean themes which preoccupied the
are other indications and poet must emerge almost automatically, and his ‘Wahlverwandtschaft’ with the
arguments, they should be
philosopher in its continuity throughout his literary career is brought to light.
made clear, otherwise the
originality of the present Thereby, this study hopes to make a contribution not only to the assumption of
study might be, implicitly, the continuity of the Rilkean oeuvre still debated within scholarship, but also to
jeopardized.
the re-discovery of Rilke’s philosophical radicality . . .” (11).
6
Brunkhorst notes in
the text that also “Das The marked passages from the two copies in the Rilke archive, one probably
trunkne Lied” (today: “Das from the possession of Lou-Andreas Salomé, the other definitely read and
Nachtwandler-Lied”) was
marked in the table of
marked by Rilke, are appended to and commented on in the book. Not only
contents (43), but she does the circled and marked parts of Zarathustra are transcribed (according to the
not mention this fact in the KSA), but the handwritten comments, by either Salomé or Rilke, are available
appendix containing the
marks of Z2. to a wider audience for the first time here as well. These passages also form
the material on which the third part of the study relies, containing the major
bulk of interpretative work. This material is limited; seven pages in the book
reproduce text from Zarathustra that was singled out in the Rilke copy (Z 2);
these pages of Zarathustra bear hardly any reading traces but appear to have
been mainly marked through the insertion of either a drawing, a photo, or
dried cyclamen, although the latter could also have been pressed between the
pages arbitrarily. All in all, there are few pencil marks of any decisive intention
in this copy: either underlined chapters in the table of contents (Von Kind und
Ehe; Vor Sonnenaufgang; Vom Vorübergehen),6 or a couple of underlined lines
(in: Vom Vorübergehen (three underlined sentences), Vor Sonnenaufgang
(one marked passage)). Strictly speaking, these are the only indubitable signs
of Rilke’s reception of parts of Zarathustra, although Brunkhorst calls them
“surprisingly many, very neatly executed pencil underlinings” (43).

3 H y p e r i o n— re v i e w o f ‘ Ve r w a n dt-Ver wandelt’. Nietzsche’s Presence in Rilke

The other copy of Zarathustra (Z 1) found in Rilke’s estate was probably 7
She speaks of the
relationship in terms
marked by Lou Andreas-Salomé during her work on Friedrich Nietzsche in
of ‘kindred spirit’ (13),
seinen Werken, which Rilke also owned (there is only the cover left today). It ‘Wahlverwandtschaft’
remains thus unclear, although possible, that Rilke had any contact, directly or (11) Familienähnlichkeit
(10), “intellectual and
through Salomé, with these passages. Salomé’s copy, however, is fragmented, artistic proximity” (20),
consisting only of parts one and two in the 1883 edition by Schmeitzner. ‘Wahlverwandtschaft’ that is
The Rilke copy (Z 2) is complete, comprising all four books (1899 edition, often rather subconscious
(20).
Naumann). This copy was most likely given to Rilke by Clara Westhoff in
1901, according to a dedication in the book. Although Brunkhorst bases her
analysis on the copy owned by Rilke, she also considers Salomé’s copy when
relevant. This is reasonable, given their personal contact. It is also risky, since
ultimate evidence of the way he became familiar, if he did, with this copy
remains unattainable. As Brunkhorst focuses increasingly on “textual analysis”
when considering Rilke’s work and the marked passages in Zarathustra, she
has to admit the insecurity of such an undertaking and resort to metaphors of
affinity or modes of reminiscence and similarity in order to qualify the type of
relationship between ideas, phrases and passages occurring in both corpora.
These metaphors increasingly abound,7 but at times tend to obfuscate rather
than clarify the approach to the questions and modes of influence: “In following
the marked Nietzsche passages with interpretations of Rilke’s works pertinent
to them, such textual analysis has automatically led to a thematic structure
which makes visible Rilke’s relation to, and transformation of, Nietzsche
during the course of his development as a poet. Whether due to a direct
influence or not, the most important point remains that Rilke’s thought is often
reminiscent of Nietzsche’s sentiments...” (46). It might be important to remind
of Nietzsche’s “indifference to the question of influence” (46) in this context,
but this does not necessarily solve the theoretical complications. Problematic
here is not only the implicit assumption that Nietzschean sentiments are
expressed in Nietzsche’s works, most of all in the case of Zarathustra; it is
also the difficulty in dealing with an influence that manifests itself both textually
and through rhetorical transformation—due to the fact that Rilke “soon began
to transform Nietzschean ideas rather than merely resounding them, as he
had done in many of his earlier writings” (66). Thus, an emphasis on extra-
textual factors especially influencing this case of artistic and personal influence
is clearly in order.

Brunkhorst exhaustively discusses the scholarship on the connection between

Rilke and Nietzsche, and devotes a complete chapter to establishing the
literary and personal circumstances of Rilke’s reception of Nietzsche and
Nietzsche’s psychological and personal situation during the composition of
Zarathustra. Her attempt to grasp the importance of Nietzsche as a poet
and philosopher of art for Rilke as well as their psychological affinity and the
comparable circumstances in their social and erotic life during the production
and reception of Zarathustra, however, at crucial points resorts again to

Hyperion—Volume II, issue 4, December 200 7 4

 Nietzsche’s own assessment, in this case his mentioning of Zarathustra as
dionysischem Unhold in the 1886 edition of the Birth of Tragedy. Zarathustra
might have served, according to Brunkhorst, “as a possible projection screen
for the young Rilke, who may have had aspirations to being that chosen
Dichter himself, and the most obvious reason for him, as a reader of Die
Geburt der Tragödie, to revisit the Persian prophet, whose prophecies, unlike
those made in the earlier book, are never fulfilled, but keep on pointing into
the future forever” (72). This suggests that Dionysos and Zarathustra were
interesting to Rilke as figures of artistic hope. However, Rilke’s contact with
Zarathustra did not come about through his own impetus. Both copies of
Zarathustra were given to him. It remains unclear why Salomé and Westhoff
should have considered this book of Nietzsche’s most suitable for Rilke: is it
because it “comes closest to ‘Dichtung’” (72)?

Brunkhorst suggests that Rilke was not only interested in the poetic and
stylistic aspects of Zarathustra but also in what she calls Zarathustra’s “main
message” (72)—insinuating despite the authoritative and didactic tone that to
follow him means not to follow him. This is the paradoxical crux around which
Brunkhorst structures her argument about influence; it then necessarily has
to consider the complexities, absences, and denials as part of this reception
history.

Thus, psychological factors of the reception and its specific aspects are of
crucial importance. Nietzsche might have been, not only in personal terms
with regard to Salomé, but also in intellectual terms, an adversary to Rilke.
This might explain, according to Brunkhorst, that the Birth of Tragedy was “in
its flaws, comparatively less threatening to a budding artist than other, more
stylistically accomplished Nietzsche works” (71). Even though Brunkhorst runs
the risk of accepting Nietzsche’s statements and self-assessments also in the
psychological parts of the interpretation, these psychological aspects of the
reception history are the most speculative of the whole study. “Yet, one can
imagine the young Rilke, still constantly in search of an artistic identity and
voice of his own, to be in awe of such firm authority and self-assuredness in
advertising individualism at all costs” (73). “Thus, it may have been Nietzsche
who helped to give Rilke the right to be true” as a poet, referring to Rilke’s
own poem from 1921. Nietzsche here takes on the function of a therapist,
in addition to being a projection screen, mouthpiece, and motor for Rilke’s
own artistic coming of age as a poet. Nietzsche also served, Brunkhorst
suggests, as social consolation: “Here was a fellow artist and thinker
about human existence who did not fit into perceivedly ‘normal’ bourgeois
Wilhelmine society, either” (73). Although these psychological speculations
can be supported by textual evidence, they might run the risk of generalizing
and banalizing the situation. Other problematic generalizations, like “An
inherent poetics imbues his entire philosophy” (17) with regard to Nietzsche,
or descriptions of Nietzsche at the time of writing The Gay Science as “most

5 H y p e r i o n— re v i e w o f ‘ Ve r w a n dt-Ver wandelt’. Nietzsche’s Presence in Rilke

balanced and psychologically ‘healthy’” (80) also do not necessarily lead to a
better understanding of the topic at hand. Ultimately, they tend to lead away
from a possible quest for direct textual evidence, as Brunkhorst intends it: “A
feeling of affinity must have connected him to Nietzsche, a consciousness of
belonging to the same ‘monumental’ lineage of those whom the latter, in his
second Unzeitgemässe Betrachtung, pathetically refers to as the great ones,
the lonely ones of history.” (75).

Brunkhorst however acknowledges these problems in proving direct textual

influence, especially considering the nature and difficulty of Also sprach
Zarathustra, and adapts her inquiry to this problem. She thus also considers
similarities during the process of production and reception of the work,
ultimately pivoting on the role of Salomé. Psychological and biographical
speculation is moreover problematically, but then again necessarily, advanced
in order to explain Nietzschean ideas like the “Übermensch (92f).”

The themes considered, in which Rilke was most interested in are: friendship,
Fernsten-Liebe as opposed to Nächstenliebe, love, religion, and loneliness.
Brunkhorst circumscribes their function and her methodological choice thus:

“
Most obviously, as I have argued above, those passages may
have functioned as projection screens or sounding boards,
merely triggering or mirroring what was already there within
him, unfinished and dormant until then. The experience of
some of those Zarathustra passages may also have added
genuinely new impulses to the psychic material out of which
Rilke went on to create his poetry. A neat separation of these
themes and topics from one another however proves almost
impossible...Therefore, rather than progressing by topic, I
shall examine selected passages (as representative of the
respective Zarathustra book they belong to) singled out by
Rilke as natural vantage points from which to embark on
analyses of Rilke and Nietzsche’s treatments of their respective
topics; for Rilke was of course not merely an interpreter as
much as a productive transformer of Nietzsche’s thought. (76).

This comparison of themes is undertaken in the third part of the study. These
thematic discussions are apt and, as important, also engage the female points
of view in biographical—but also in thematic—contexts (Rilke’s marriage;
Clara Modersohn-Becker’s comments; Salomé’s role and position). The
question of influence however, it seems to me, is not confronted theoretically
throughout the study, according to the methodological “reader-response”

Hyperion—Volume II, issue 4, December 200 7 6

 approach. Brunkhorst discusses similarities and differences of ideas and
vocabulary. If one looks for explications of modes of Verwandtschaft and
Verwandlung, one ends up with formulations like “directly inspire” (104) or
“testify to the kindredness in spirit of the two writers” (104).

It must be stated that the possibility to claim a direct influence, as Brunkhorst

is able to do due to the copies of Zarathustra in Rilke’s estate, is already
a crucial step forward in the scholarship on the relation between Rilke and
Nietzsche. There remains work to do with regard to the explications of how
this specific and complicated type of influence could be theorized. Motivic
“reminiscence” (105), “analogies” (108), “proximity” (110), and semantic
“correspondence” (105) are here the ultimate instances of influence.
Sometimes, Nietzsche is considered to “anticipate” or “preempt” Rilke. Rilkean
ideas on the contrary “recall” Nietzsche or “resound” (78) in Rilke.

The major indecision, or theoretical tension resulting from the attempt to

prove direct textual influence as well as the modes of its adaptation while also
acknowledging the need to consider biographical, psychological, and other
contextual factors, i.e., the well argued fact that absence of Nietzsche’s name
in Rilke’s correspondence with Salomé “is potentially more telling than silent”
(66) in the context of the current intellectual and personal climate, is present
throughout the remainder of the study. While sharpening our understanding
of the existential and philosophical themes Rilke confronted poetically, the
study sometimes runs the risk of essentializing Nietzsche’s work as well as
of following Nietzsche’s assessments very closely. Finally, it should be noted
that the book, while it is written in English, contains large parts of German
quotations and German appendices.

The book is certainly an indispensable contribution to scholarship. It presents

valuable new material and carefully discusses the possible psychological,
biographical, and artistic correlations—influences—between Nietzsche’s
Zarathustra and Rilke’s oeuvre. With regard to a clear methodological choice
in order to confront the various modes of influence and textual transformation
as crucial moments in the relationship between Nietzsche and Rilke, this study
opens a fertile field for subsequent theoretical discussions.

published in Hyperion: On the Future of Aesthetics, a web publication of

The Nietzsche Circle: www.nietzschecircle.com, Volume II, issue 4, December 2007

7 H y p e r i o n— re v i e w o f ‘ Ve r w a n dt-Ver wandelt’. Nietzsche’s Presence in Rilke