Review: Review
Author(s): Keith Ansell-Pearson
Review by: Keith Ansell-Pearson
Source: Journal of Nietzsche Studies, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Spring 2011), pp. 119-121
Published by: Penn State University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/jnietstud.41.1.0119
Accessed: 27-06-2016 05:06 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Penn State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Nietzsche Studies
This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 05:06:49 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
120
BOOK REVIEWS
the same page a passage from Descartes’s Discourse on Method, which was used in lieu of a preface
celebrating the cultivation of reason and the joy of knowledge.
The book shocked many of its readers, including close friends such as Erwin Rodhe. This is a
shock that is perhaps difficult for us to register today. Such is the extent to which we have assimilated the free-spirited thinking and naturalism Nietzsche espoused in the book. Coming to the book
from the earlier writings, Rohde compared the experience to being chased from the calidarium,
the steamy waters, into an icy frigidarium. As Nietzsche puts it himself in Ecce Homo, one error
after another is calmly laid upon ice so that the ideal is not refuted but made to freeze to death
(EH “HH”). Nietzsche was leaving behind the anchors in his life up to this point and was writing
under the influence of new friend, philosopher, and psychologist Paul Rée, whom he had first met
in 1873. Nietzsche termed Rée’s psychological, materialist-inspired interpretations of religion and
morality “Réealism.”
In this close and detailed reading of the text, the first of its kind in English-speaking scholarship,
Jonathan Cohen aims to show why HH is to be regarded as the crucial watershed in Nietzsche’s
intellectual development. In a wide-ranging treatment he analyzes the role of science and culture
in HH, seeking to show on what precise points the text breaks with the valorization of culture and
illusion over science in the early writings; illuminates the attack on metaphysics; probes the role
and nature of free spirits, including their relation to culture; and brings to light the literary integrity
of the text. Cohen ends with a final chapter on science, culture, and free spirits in the later works,
where he locates structural similarities between HH and Beyond Good and Evil in particular, while
acknowledging that Nietzsche’s conception of free spirits has undergone some important alterations.
He also notes in his final chapter that in some respects Morgenröthe has a claim to being conceived
as the real start of Nietzsche’s philosophical maturation since it is in this text, and not HH, that his
immoralism is announced (“immoralism” understood here as entailing the decisive break with tradition and convention and an attachment to the cause of “evil”). The book offers fresh and instructive
insights into core aspects of Nietzsche’s text, including his changed conception of culture and why
it is that philosophy is so demoted in significance compared to science. Cohen shows himself to
be a reliable guide to the text, with a solid understanding of the corpus as a whole and an intimate
knowledge of HH in particular. His book will surely be adopted as a helpful guide to those wishing
to teach HH: it admirably brings to life many of the tensions and paradoxes of the book and, at least
to my satisfaction, successfully resolves them, or at least shows ways in which they can be resolved.
The author is especially good on the free spirits and their role as part of an avant-garde that will
have a trickle-down effect on culture and its transmutations.
Cohen’s book is part of a new current in Nietzsche studies that focuses on the texts as units of
interpretation, and perhaps no part of the corpus is more in need of this kind of devoted and attentive
study than the texts of the free spirit trilogy. Cohen puts it well when he states that to understand
Nietzsche it is necessary to understand his development, and to understand this development it
is necessary to understand HH. Although HH is typically conceived as the first of Nietzsche’s
“aphoristic” works, Cohen argues that this is not entirely accurate. Instead, he prefers to construe
Nietzsche’s new style as terse and elliptical, the aim of which is to demonstrate a certain coldness of
thought while at the same time inviting the reader into the labyrinth of the text in an effort to become
part of it and be seduced by its free-spiritedness. As Cohen writes: “The era of edifying metaphysics
has left words overblown; scientific knowledge, however, requires precision of words. In a terse
style, each word must be precise because there is no hope the reader will manage somehow to get
the picture amid a cloud of verbiage such as would result from a more prolix style. The contrast
with Schopenhauer could not be clearer” (178–79). As he goes on to note, such a terse style does
not seek to edify or to excite, and the intent was to avoid this. What Nietzsche judged to be most
needed were “ice packs” for a feverish mind.
There are weak points in the book and its core theses. To my mind, Cohen exaggerates the
importance of HH in the admittedly complex story of Nietzsche’s development, failing to adequately
This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 05:06:49 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
JNS 41_10_Reviews.indd 120
4/21/11 12:07:36 PM