My Sister and I

My Sister and I is the title of a book that was first published in New York in 1951 . On the front page, Friedrich Nietzsche was named as the author and the British Nietzsche expert Oscar Levy was named as the translator and author of the introduction . Neither an original manuscript nor a version in German has survived of this writing. So far, the book has had two receptions separated by decades. At the first reception, shortly after publication, everyone involved quickly agreed that the text was a forgery : neither Nietzsche nor Levy had been involved in its creation. Most Nietzsche researchers followed this view, usually tacitly, and have ignored the work ever since. Since the mid-1980s, however, there has been a second reception of the text, which rejects the arguments of the first and considers it likely that more or less extensive passages of the main text are authentic.

content

The text of the book comprises approximately 250 pages and leans in the form of earlier texts such as Nietzsche's The Gay Science on. It is divided into twelve untitled chapters, which consist of sections of very different length. A short epilogue concludes the text.

The book is conceived as a continuation of Nietzsche's Ecce Homo and contains confessions and statements by the author on people and events in his, thus allegedly Nietzsche, circle and general reflections.

Pia Daniela Volz, who wrote the most detailed study to date about Nietzsche's illnesses and especially his last years, sums up the main points of the book: “Nietzsche identifies ... in addition to the bloodthirsty tyrants Nero and Caligula also with the matricide Orestes. In the ... nightmare right at the beginning of the book, he attends his mother's funeral - full of joy at the end of her tyranny. [...] In My Sister and I there are only nasty remarks about the old, hated mother with her 'Medusa eyes'. [She] banned all love from the house out of 'virtue' and thus forced her children to seek support from one another. ”The incestuous relationship between Friedrich and Elisabeth then represents“ the main theme around which everything revolves ”. In the first reception, these two aspects were felt to be so outrageous that the entire text was indignantly rejected as "boring pornography".

prehistory

According to the introduction, Nietzsche wrote the manuscript for My Sister and I, which later appeared in English translation, during his stay in the Jena mental hospital, i.e. in the period from mid-January 1889 to March 1890. Because his Ecce Homo had already been suppressed by his family and because of the sensitive subject, he had to secretly write My Sister and I and have had it smuggled out of the institution. A fellow inmate, whose release was imminent, had helped him with this, albeit without knowing who Nietzsche was and what potential significance the manuscript had. Nietzsche had cherished the hope that the publication of this work would also put pressure on the family to allow Ecce homo to be published.

The released fellow inmate, however, did not take Nietzsche's wish to have the manuscript sent to a publisher seriously and initially left it in his house. His son took it with him later when he emigrated to Canada. Since the boss of the company where he worked there was a former priest who was generally interested in ancient scriptures, he showed him and, knowing from Nietzsche, he recognized the meaning of the handwriting and recognized it to his employee bought off.

On a boat trip from Canada to England, the ex-priest made the acquaintance of a young American who went to London as a correspondent for a large US newspaper. This US journalist later did the ex-priest a major favor in which he “risked his personal freedom”, and as a reward and thanks for this, the ex-priest, as promised, after his return to Canada, gave him that Nietzsche- Mailed manuscript to London. The journalist then turned to Oscar Levy, the editor of an 18-volume English Nietzsche edition, and asked him to translate the text and write an introduction. Since Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche was still living in Germany , he wanted to publish the work in America, where Henry L. Mencken had already done pioneering work with the publication of The Antichrist .

So much for the introduction drawn in March 1927 with the name "Oscar Levy".

The book was only published in 1951, by Boar's Head Books in New York, one of the numerous bookselling ventures of the controversial writer and businessman Samuel Roth , who incidentally was a correspondent for the New York Herald in London in the 1920s . Roth had a bad reputation at the time as a publisher and disseminator of erotic literature - including works by James Joyce or DH Lawrence -, was persecuted by "societies for the suppression of vice" and sentenced to several prison terms. However, he saw himself as a fighter for freedom of expression and freedom of the press and is occasionally recognized as such in retrospect.

Roth, who had good connections to literary circles in England in the 1920s and thus could have got hold of the translated manuscript, had published in 1927 in the magazine Beau under the title The Dark Surmise. Concerning Friedrich Nietzsche and His Sister (The dark suspicion. Friedrich Nietzsche and his sister) announced a reprint of the text in several episodes. This did not happen because the magazine could only last a short time. It only appeared in 1951 after Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche died in 1935 and Oscar Levy died in 1946. Roth only gives the reason for the delay that it was only now that an "safe" appearance was possible.

First reception: Rejection as a forgery

The book was initially ignored by the philosophical professional world and by all major press organs because it was thematically very sensitive and was published by a dubious publisher. A review that finally appeared in the renowned Saturday Review of Literature in early 1952 triggered a heated discussion that took place exclusively among German and Austrian emigrants and mainly in the German-Jewish New York magazine Aufbau . Participants were: the philosopher and librarian Adolf K. Placzek , the journalist Alfred Werner, the writer Thomas Mann and the philosophy professors and Nietzsche experts Ludwig Marcuse and Walter Kaufmann .

Placzek, who claims to have studied Nietzsche "all his life", gave a brief lecture on February 2, 1952 in the Saturday Review about the genesis of the book and its content as described in the introduction. This consists of "incoherent, but surprisingly coherent sections". To what extent the gallant stories about Nietzsche's love life were based on facts or on hallucinations must remain an open question. The description of his own tantrum on the occasion of the death of his mother (who, as a forger must have known, lived until 1897) also requires an explanation. Nevertheless, he judged the content to be "explosive". He concluded the relatively short review with the words: “If this is an authentic Nietzsche work, it must be counted among the greatest literary discoveries of the twentieth century; if all parties, including Dr. Levy, who were deceived, this is the most refined joke in the cultural world since van Meeger's Vermeer . "

This review prompted Werner to write to Thomas Mann, who was then living in the USA and who had emerged as a Nietzsche connoisseur a few years earlier with his works Doctor Faustus and Nietzsche's philosophy, in a letter (March 3) to inform him about the “unfortunate book” to make and to ask whether Nietzsche's admirers should not take a position against this “gross falsification”. A man who did not know the book accepted Werner's offer to have the "concoction" sent by him. He came to the conclusion that it was "an obvious fraud that cannot be countered with scientific discussion, but only with scorn and contemptuous exposure". (Letter to Werner, April 5th) However, he did not want to take the floor himself, but leave it to his friend, Ludwig Marcuse . In letters to the New York Times and the London Observer (both April 8), Mann advocated the reprint of an article by Marcuse. Since none of the big newspapers wanted to tackle the subject, Marcuse's article was finally printed in the German-Jewish emigrant magazine Aufbau . It was entitled A piece from the literary madhouse (two episodes: April 18th and 25th), although it impaled some inconsistencies in the introduction and main text, but according to Thomas Mann's suggestion, it was kept in a mocking tone.

Now Kaufmann spoke up ( construction , May 9th). When Werner called him at the end of February and could hardly believe that the text was a forgery, he pointed out his own review, which had already appeared in the Milwaukee Journal on February 24th . In this review, two months before Marcuse, he had already drawn attention to a number of points that Marcuse had overlooked. As much as he welcomed the discussion, he had to contradict Marcuse's view that the forger had to attend many Nietzsche seminars and have read all of Nietzsche's literature from Riehl to Jaspers; rather, his Nietzsche knowledge is so poor that he could have gained it through a cursory reading of his, Kaufmann's, Nietzsche book (1950). Incidentally, an article by him appears in the May issue of The Partisan Review , in which answers to Marcuse's questions and corrections to his (and an article published by Werner in the meantime) are given.

Werner had criticized Marcuse's article on May 2, also in the structure , and quoted from Thomas Mann's letters to him without the consent of Thomas Mann. In his diary, Mann shows himself angry about the course of the matter: about the "foolish making himself important of A. Werner" (May 5) as well as about the "smug scholarly vanity" of Kaufmann. Incorporated into the public debate by Werner's indiscretions, he felt compelled to give a brief statement on My Opinion on “My Sister and I” ( construction, May 16). He defends his friend Marcuse and points out that “the 'revelation' of the coveted trade item as a silly falsum” is not all; the "pathological joker, he was alive or dead, who fabricated it for the publisher" can still be found.

The latter took a while. Despite the disputes about priority and errors in detail, all parties involved finally agreed that both My Sister and I and, which questions from Levy's daughter confirmed, the introduction was a fake. Only the forger had not been found. Although the learned world after the debate in construction showed no interest in this book and its author, businessman gave sixteen years later the identity of the forger by. The "now deceased" writer David George Plotkin wrote Kaufmann in 1968, had visited him in 1965 and gave him "a long handwritten and signed statement" in which he as the author of My Sister and I called. However, this declaration, made three years late, has never been seen by a third party, and it has not been preserved in Kaufmann's estate.

Despite the general lack of interest in the book and despite the unanimous assessment after initial fluctuations as a forgery by those who had dealt with it, there were later skeptics who considered this blanket rejection of the entire text to be inappropriate and without denying the obvious inconsistencies , tried to find an authentic core of the text bundle, that is, passages that were probably actually by Nietzsche.

Second reception: an authentic core?

There was at least one such vote shortly after the appearance of My Sister and I and before the debate described. It comes from the psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich , who was a lifelong admirer of Nietzsche, who had put a Nietzsche motto in front of his first work and noted in old age that he kept coming back to Nietzsche. Reich ignored the inconsistencies and contradictions of the text and did not regard the sexual confessions therein as defiling Nietzsche, but rather judged that Nietzsche had "finally written the full truth about himself".

Reich's rather casual judgment has since gone unnoticed. The assessment of all those involved in the discussion of 1952 that the book was a forgery led to the fact that it was ignored - despite several new editions - in the professional world and especially in Nietzsche research. Heinz F. Peters, who published a monograph on “Fritz and Lieschen Nietzsche” in 1977, warns shortly before this forgery, but does not discuss it. Later works on Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche, which are always based on her relationship to her brother, no longer mention My Sister and I. This also applies to all known Nietzsche biographies.

For the first time more than three decades after the first reception, in 1986, came back on an author on the subject of My Sister and I say. The American German scholar Walter K. Stewart was skeptical of the previous discussion, which only took place in a few articles in "obscure" newspapers instead of in specialist magazines and was quickly concluded with the sweeping verdict "forgery" and wrote an article in which he wants to show three things:

• that the theses put forward against the book so far are inadequate;
• that the book has clear connections to Nietzsche's published and unpublished writings;
• that Nietzsche's physical and mental well-being at the time when the original manuscript is said to have been created was represented in a significantly falsified manner.

In particular, Stewart wants to show that Kaufmann's supposedly damning criticism of the text is by no means convincing on closer and sober consideration. He does not claim to have solved the questions raised by the book, but he does claim that the earlier arguments are not viable to justify the clear verdict of “forgery”. The case is therefore still open and - because of the consequences for the evaluation of Nietzsche's influence on modern thinking - it is worth reopening and carefully investigating. Stewart's article appeared in a prestigious magazine, Thought , published by Fordham University , but remained without any published echo. One consequence of Stewart's article, however, was the decision of two young publishers to reissue the book in 1990, enriched with documentation on the previous discussion.

The new publication of the book prompted Reginald Hollingdale, a well-known British Nietzsche researcher and translator, to write a short review. He quotes a longer passage from My Sister and I and asks: “Did Nietzsche write that? No of course not; and that is also not a translation from German. ”The style comes from Sade ; the book was written for the porn market. He adds: “Not a single passage shows any resemblance to Nietzsche's well-known work.” Accordingly, he also attacks Stewart's article included in the book.

Another meeting appeared in Telos. Kathleen Wininger, a young philosophy professor who did her doctorate on Nietzsche, is open to the theme of "women and sexuality" that runs through the text. Although the authenticity of the text is difficult to determine and the errors and contradictions are a problem, she calls the whole thing a "possible story". Stewart asked the relevant questions.

Another author who, independently of Stewart's work, raised the question of the authorship of My Sister and I at the same time was the German philosophy professor Hermann Josef Schmidt . Schmidt is well known as a Nietzsche researcher and emerged in 1991 with a monumental, two thousand five hundred pages in four volumes study of Nietzsche's childhood and youth: Nietzsche absconditus. In Part III, Nietzsche absconditissimus , within a chapter on Nietzsche's sexuality - a key to much? he goes into a 35-page digression on our question, "whose potential importance seems to be in an irritating way in inverse proportion to its seriousness". Schmidt subdivides the topic, follows up many leads, discusses the pros and cons and comes to the following (interim) results:

• "First conclusion: in particular the framework conditions that can be reconstructed for Jena not only do not exclude the assumption of Nietzsche's authorship, but make it more likely. [...] "
• “Second conclusion: everything fits together quite impressively, at least in terms of the possibility. [...] "
• "Third conclusion: if at some point in his life, Nietzsche would not only have been able to comment on his erotic life story at the earliest, but especially in the almost one and a half years in Jena ... because he would be too cautious and inhibited beforehand and later probably been too insane. [...] "
• "Fourth conclusion: ... the assumption would now be plausible - and more plausible than its opposite - that there must be more extensive passages in My Sister and I that were not formulated for the first time at the end of the 1940s, and that these passages must precisely what later made My Sister and I famous and infamous: the sibling incest story. [...] "
• "Fifth conclusion: [Oscar Levy's role considerations]."

Schmidt, as one of the world's best connoisseurs of Nietzsche's childhood and youth, attests to the author, if it was a forger, that he was “a very intimate connoisseur of Nietzsche's juvenile”. Admittedly, the numerous obvious inconsistencies contrast with this. Therefore he summarizes his view

• that " My Sister and I is essentially based on a partly shortened, partly drastically expanded text by Nietzsche."

Of course, many puzzles remained open, "Puzzles that would not be unimportant to solve, since Nietzsche's development in life and thought is strongly influenced by his interpersonal problems, and here again the sibling relationship with its depths and shallows takes on an important role."

This revival of the discussion about My Sister and I at the beginning of the 1990s meant that the Viennese publisher Turia & Kant in 1993 advertised the appearance of the first reverse translation of the text, Friedrich Nietzsche: Ich und Meine Sister. The work from the mental hospital announced, because "newer documents make the forgery thesis appear dubious". The project was tacitly discontinued.

The British psychologist Heward Wilkinson came across a copy of My Sister and I by chance in 1994 and was surprised that he had never come across the title in his previous Nietzsche studies. He took a closer look at the book and its strange reception, first wrote a review in 1997 and a lengthy article five years later, in which he justified his conviction that the text was "due to the impressive continuity of the style and the problems dealt with" Connection to Ecce homo very likely comes from Nietzsche. The question raised by Ecce homo “Who is Friedrich Nietzsche?” Dissolves into a sophisticated postmodern dilemma.

The Israeli writer Yeshayahu Yariv wrote an afterword on the occasion of a Hebrew version of My Sister and I published in 2006 . He deals with the inconsistencies of the text and its transmission as well as with Kaufmann's arguments and suggests using only the text as a criterion of authenticity, which he sees not as a book but as a collection of notes and would therefore prefer to name Last Pages . Nietzsche wrote in a state in which clarity and hallucinations alternated. Therefore one will never know in which sense the stories about the mother, the sister and his loved ones are correct. But that doesn't matter at all. Yariv is convinced of Nietzsche's authorship, because a forger would never have been able to keep Nietzsche's diction over 250 pages and would also have endeavored to make the work intentionally similar to the earlier ones. But here someone wrote against the (old) Nietzsche: the (new) Nietzsche. That is why Yariv gave his afterword the title he quotes from the text of the book: "Nietzsche contra Nietzsche" .

The first monograph on the topic was published in 2007, 185 pages, written by Walter Stewart. A reviewer of the 1990 edition of My Sister and I , in which Stewart's 1986 essay is printed, had written that he had not succeeded in refuting Kaufmann's thesis of the forgery. The proof for Stewart's claim that Kaufmann's criticism can be refuted point by point has yet to be provided by him. This is exactly what he wants to do here in eight detailed and extensively documented chapters. As a result, he summarizes:

1. There was no real refutation of My Sister and I [as Nietzsche's work]. The claims of Kaufmann and others are unfounded, imprecise and therefore worthless;
2. Claims that there are anachronisms in the book are wrong;
3. Nietzsche's state of health in the [Jena] institution was misrepresented, which impaired any objective analysis of the book;
4. The author of My Sister and I , allegedly written shortly after Nietzsche's collapse, expresses the same views, writes based on the same memories, and deals with the same subjects as Nietzsche both in the critical year before the collapse and during his time in the institution;
5. The book covers exactly and in detail the same subjects and problems that preoccupied Nietzsche before and shortly after the collapse;
6. Nietzsche's most personal thoughts, his knowledge of people and things as well as his opinions about others are aptly reproduced in the book.

In conclusion, Stewart emphasizes once again that, despite everything, “no Nietzsche researcher, including himself, could say that Nietzsche wrote the book”. But all other hypotheses are based on even less certain ground. In his 1986 essay, Stewart concluded: "If there is any connection between My Sister and I and Nietzsche, it could have significant implications not only for Nietzsche research, but also for the assessment of Nietzsche's contribution to Western thought." from 2007, in which he claims to have established this connection, he only says in the last sentence that My Sister and I deserve far more attention and that he hopes to have taken the first step towards this.

Editions

• My Sister and I by Friedrich Nietzsche. Trans. And intr. By Oscar Levy. New York: Boar's Head Books 1951; numerous new editions, the most common: My Sister and I. Trans. and intr. by Oscar Levy. Los Angeles: Amok Books 1990 ISBN 1-878923-01-3 (contains reprints from the controversy surrounding the book).
• Translations
  • Brazilian: A minha irmã e eu. Trad. de Rubens Eduardo Frías. São Paulo: Moraes 1992 ISBN 85-88208-77-6 .
  • Chinese: 我 妹妹 和 我 [Wo mei mei yu wo]. Translated from Cangduo Chen. Beijing Shi: Wen hua yi shu chu ban she 2003 ISBN 75-0392-355-5 .
  • German: Me and my sister. The work from the mental hospital. Vienna: Turia + Kant 1993 ISBN 3-85132-066-2 (announced, not published).
  • Hebrew: [ My sister and I ]. Translation by Halit Yeshurun. Tel Aviv: Yedioth Ahronoth Books 2006 (with a review Nietzsche contra Nietzsche by Yeshayahu Yariv).
  • Japanese: Hi ni kakenoboru / [Translator:] Rin Jûbishi , Tôkyô, Shiki-sha 1956.
  • Korean: Nich'e-ch'oehu-ŭi-kobaek: na-ŭi-nui-wa-na = My sister & I / P'ŭridŭrihi Nich'e. Yi Tŏk-hŭi omgim. Yi, Tŏk-hŭi [transl.]. Sŏul: Chakka Chŏngsin 1999 ISBN 89-7288-111-2 .
  • Portuguese: A minha irmã e eu. Trad. de Pedro José Leal. Lisboa: Hiena 1990.
  • Spanish: Mi hermana y yo. Trad. de Bella M. Abelia. Buenos Aires: Rueda 1956; Barcelona: Hacer 1980; Madrid: EDAF 1996 ISBN 84-7166-720-7 .

literature

To the first reception

• A [dolf] K. Placzek: Nietzsche Discovery. In: Saturday Review of Literature, 2 February 1952, pp. 19-20 (included in Amok edition)
• Walter Kaufmann: Mr. Nietzsche's 'Lost Confessions'. In: Milwaukee Journal, February 24, 1952
• Margaret Meehan: Rediscovered Nietzsche. In: Saturday Review of Literature, April 5, 1952, p. 22 (included in Amok edition)
• A [dolf] K. Placzek: Letter re: Mrs Meehan's Answer. In: Saturday Review of Literature, April 5, 1952, p. 22 (included in Amok edition)
• Ludwig Marcuse: A piece from the literary madhouse [I]. In: Structure (New York), vol. 18, n.15, April 18, 1952, pp. 11-12
• Ludwig Marcuse: A piece from the literary madhouse II. In: Aufbau (New York), vol. 18, n. 16, April 25, 1952, pp. 11-12
• Alfred Werner: The pseudo-Nietzsche. In: Structure (New York), vol. 18, n.18, May 2, 1952, p. 7
• Walter Kaufmann: Re: Nietzsche's 'My Sister and I'. In: Structure (New York), vol. 19, n.18, May 9, 1952, p. 8
• Ludwig Marcuse: My Nietzsche articles and their 'backgrounds'. In: Structure (New York), vol. 18, n.20, May 16, 1952, p. 5
• Thomas Mann: My opinion about 'My Sister and I'. In: Structure (New York), vol. 18, n.20, May 16, 1952, p. 5
• Alfred Werner: Who wrote 'My Sister and I'? In: Structure (New York), vol. 18, n.22, May 30, 1952, p. 5
• Walter Kaufmann: Nietzsche and the Seven Sirens. In: Partisan Review, vol. 19, n.3, May / June 1952, pp. 372–376 (included in Amok edition)
• Walter Kaufmann: Notice on "My Sister and I" (9th printing 1953). In: Philosophical Review, vol. 65, n.1, Jan 1955, pp. 152–153 (included in Amok edition)
• Thomas Mann: Diaries 1951–1952. Ed. Inge Jens, Frankfurt / M .: S. Fischer 1993 (numerous entries from March 10 to June 3, 1952; comments)

To the second reception

• Walter K. Stewart: My Sister and I. The Disputed Nietzsche. In: Thought, a Review of Culture and Idea, vol. 61, no. 242 (1986), pp. 321–335 (included in Amok edition)
• Pia Daniela Volz: The unknown erotic. Nietzsche's fictional autobiography 'My Sister and I'. In: Karl Corino (ed.): Forged! Nördlingen: Greno 1988, pp. 287-304
• Hermann Josef Schmidt : Nietzsche absconditus or reading traces with Nietzsche. Childhood. Part 3. Berlin / Aschaffenburg: IBDK-Verlag 1991, pp. 629-663 ISBN 3-922601-08-1
• R [eginald] J [ohn] Hollingdale: Review of 'My Sister and I'. (ed. Amok Books). In: Journal of Nietzsche Studies, issue 2, autumn 1991, pp. 95-102
• K [athleen] J. Wininger: The Disputed Nietzsche. In: Telos. A Quarterly Journal of Critical Thought, number 91, spring 1992, pp. 185-189 (Review of My Sister and I )
• Heward Wilkinson: review of My Sister and I. In: International Journal of Psychotherapy, vol. 2, n.1, 1997, pp. 119-124
• Heward Wilkinson: Retrieving a posthumous text message; Nietzsche's fall: the significance of the disputed asylum writing 'My Sister and I'. In: International Journal of Psychotherapy, vol. 7, n.1, 2002, pp. 53-68
• Steffen Dietzsch / Leila Kais: Excursus: “My Sister and I” . In: this: Oscar Levy's European Nietzsche Lesson. In: Oscar Levy: Understanding Nietzsche. Essays from exile 1913-1937. Berlin: Parerga 2005, pp. 271–341 (305–313)
• Yeshayahu Yariv: "Nietzsche contra Nietzsche" . Tel Aviv 2006 (epilogue to the Hebrew edition of My Sister and I )
• Walter K. Stewart: Nietzsche: My Sister and I. A Critical Study. s. l .: Xlibris 2007 ISBN 978-1-4257-6097-7 (185 pp.)
• Walter K. Stewart: Friedrich Nietzsche: My Sister and I. Investigation, Analysis, Interpretation. s. l .: Xlibris 2011 ISBN 978-1-4653-4789-3 (290 pp.)
• Jay A. Gertzman: Samuel Roth: Infamous Modernist. Gainesville FL / USA: U Press of Florida 2013 ISBN 978-0-8130-4417-0 (pp. 233–244)

proof

1. ↑ Pia Daniela Volz: Nietzsche in the labyrinth of his illness. Würzburg: Königshausen and Neumann 1990 (Diss.Tübingen 1988)
2. ↑ Pia Daniela Volz: The unknown erotic. Nietzsche's fictional autobiography 'My Sister and I'. In: Karl Corino (ed.): Forged! . Nördlingen: Greno 1988, pp. 293-295
3. ↑ Cf. Gay Talese: You should desire. On the trail of the sexual revolution. (1980) Berlin: Rogner and Bernhard 2007, chap. 6, pp. 122-145
4. ^ Walter Kaufmann: Nietzsche. Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist. 3rd edition 1968, here quoted from the German edition Nietzsche. Philosopher, psychologist, antichrist. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1982, p. 519
5. ↑ Wilhelm Reich: libido conflicts and delusions in Ibsen's "Peer Gynt". In: ders .: Early writings I. Cologne: Kiepenheuer & Witsch 1977, pp. 19–77
6. ^ Wilhelm Reich: American Odyssey. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux 1999, p. 432
7. ^ Wilhelm Reich: The Murder of Christ. (1953, written June – August 1951), quoted from the German edition: Christ Murder. Olten and Freiburg / Br .: Walter-Verlag 1978, p. 34
8. ↑ Heinz Frederick Peters: Zarathustra's sister. Fritz and Lieschen Nietzsche - a German tragedy. Munich: Kindler 1983 (English orig. 1977)
9. ^ Klaus Goch: Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche. A biographical portrait. In: Luise Pusch (ed.): Sisters of famous men. Frankfurt / M .: Insel 1985, pp. 363-413;
   Carol Diethe: Nietzsche's sister and the will to power. Biography of Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche. Hamburg: Europa-Verlag 2001;
   Dirk Schaefer: On behalf of Nietzsche. Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche and Lou Andreas-Salomé. Frankfurt / M .: Fischer-TB 2001
10. ↑ Denis Dutton: Decontextualized Crab; Nietzsche dreams of Detroit. In: Philosophy and Literature, vol. 16, no. 1 (April 1992), pp. 239-249