Did Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) Plagiarise from Max Stirner (1806—56)?

Author(s): John Glassford

Source: Journal of Nietzsche Studies, No. 18 (FALL 1999), pp. 73-79
Published by: Penn State University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20717724 .
Accessed: 15/04/2011 01:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=psup. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

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.

http://www.jstor.org
 Did FriedrichNietzsche (1844-1900)
Plagiarise fromMax Stirner (1806-56)?
JohnGlassford

In 1844, the anarchist Max Stirner wrote a now largely ignored treatise
called The Ego audits Own (Stirner 1995). In this book, Stirner's think
ing on a range of subjects appears to anticipate some of Nietzsche's most
memorable utterances. Given this intellectual affinity, it ishardly surprising
thatR. Hinton Thomas concludes in his Nietzsche inGerman Politics and
Society, 1890-1918 (1983) thatNietzsche's first German devotees were
actually radical anarchist feminists and anarcho-syndicalists within the
Wilhelmine SPD. Nietzsche never claims for himself a clear positive politi
cal preference in the conventional sense, so he would have been unlikely to
support any such party.Yet, there is a startling similarity in the basic out
look of Stirner and Nietzsche, which has, on occasion, aroused suspicions
of ungentlemanly conduct. Thus, when we examine the historical record
provided by scholarship on the subject, we find a number of conflicting
claims (Cams 1900, 376-77; L?vy 1904, chap. 1; Lobkowicz 1967;
Kolakowski 1978;Paterson 1971, 145;Hook 1976;L?with 1991;Stirner
1995, xi-xii).
has hinted at something unsports
The Polish scholar Leszek Kolakowski
manlike with reference to this alleged continuity of radical ideas: "a link
between Stirner and modern existentialism throughNietzsche, who had read
Stirner's work though he nowhere expressly refers to it" (1978, 163). In
other words, Kolakowski appears to be saying thatNietzsche plagiarised
from Stirner. Nowhere does Kolakowski explain why he says this or what
information this ideamight be based upon, but he isnot alone inmaking the
charge. Indeed, there has always been a considerable body of prima facie
evidence that is quite suggestive. Very soon afterNietzsche's death, Franz
Overbeck, one ofNietzsche's most trusted friends, said thatNietzsche was
"economical" with regard tohis admissions concerning Stirner (L?with 1991,
187). In contrast, David Leopold, the editor of the recent Cambridge edition
of Stirner's The Ego and Its Own, ismore cautious about the alleged con
nection between Stirner and Nietzsche. He notes that "Stirner has been

Journal ofNietzsche Studies, Issue 18, 1999.

Copyright? 1999 The FriedrichNietzsche Society.

73
 74 John Glassford

... as an
counted important precursor of Friedrich Nietzsche," but he con
tinues, "despite the claims of some commentators, he [Stirner] cannot be
definitively shown to have directly influenced Nietzsche." Leopold, follow
ing L?with, explains the affinity between Stirner and Nietzsche with refer
ence to "certain Nietzschean motifs inmodern political thought" (1995, xi
xii).
Stylistically speaking, Stirner uses hyperbole and metaphor inmuch the
same way as Nietzsche, although most would agree thatNietzsche's tech
nique is themore successful. Compare, for example, Stirner's image of the
state?"the state turns against me with all the force of its lion-paws and

eagle-claws: for it is theKing of beasts, it is lion and eagle" (1995,226)?

with Nietzsche's description of the state in Thus Spoke Zarathustra?the
"State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters" (I "On theNew Idol").
Even allowing for the vagaries of translation, it is clear that Stirner's prose
ismore repetitive and pedestrian thanNietzsche's, and very often, as in the
example just given, Stirner's metaphors just don't work.
More important, and with regard to content, Nietzsche, like Stirner,
denies God (GS 125; Stirner 1995, 6-7), he rejects the traditional bound
aries available tomoral agents (BGE 1-2; Stirner 1995, 282), he undercuts
themore plausible conceptions of truth (BGE Preface; Stirner 1995, 312),
and he glorifies the use of power to settle disputes between competing inter
ests (BGE 6, 186, 197; Stirner 1995, 175). Perhaps even more remarkable
is Stirner's apparent anticipation of a sacred Nietzschean cow, namely, the
critique of themodern account of freedom inwhich autonomy and obliga
tion are reconciled through some mode or other of self-imposed duty.Rather,
Stirner like Nietzsche, appeals to a different conception with a persistent
call to authenticity, whatever the costs (1995, xxii, 177, 149; Nietzsche, ZI
"On the Gift-Giving Virtue" 3). Finally, Stirner and Nietzsche shared an
obsession with the role of language and its potentially tyrannising effects
(Stirner 1995, 312-15; Nietzsche, 77 "Skirmishes").
Thereis also a staggering similarity between Stirner and Nietzsche's
political demonology. Can itbe mere coincidence thatStirner, likeNietzsche,
loathed the state, nationalism, liberalism, socialism, and communism?
Nietzsche called all of these modern isms "little attacks of stupidity," and
Stirner rather typically said of one of these ideologies, "That the communist
sees in you theman, the brother, is only the Sunday side of communism"
(Nietzsche, BGE 251 ;Stirner 1995,110). According to Stirner and Nietzsche,
then, these ideas are all based upon a latent secularised version of Christian
ethics. It seems remarkable, given that only thirtyyears separates the pro
ductive hiatus of these twomen, thatNietzsche never chooses to acknowl
edge, in any of his writings, published or unpublished, what seems an obvi
ous debt to his historical antecedent?
 Did Nietzsche Plagiarise from Stirner? IS

In fact,Nietzsche completely skips over Stirner in his roll call of the

greatandgood of the1830s,1840s,and 1850s,he says inhisTwilight
of the
Idols (written in 1888), for example, that the last great German isArthur
Schopenhauer, who is a "European event" and not just a "local" or "na
tional" one {TI "Skirmishes" 21). Given all of these similarities of style and
content, and Nietzsche's apparent silence on the subject of Stirner, there
does seem tobe some strong circumstantial evidence to supportKolakowski's
view thatNietzsch? may have plagiarised from Stirner.While Nietzsche is
always happy to engage in intellectual cherry-picking of one sort or an
other?indeed, he sees this as his duty, he always appears to do this openly.
The charge thatNietzsche "absorbed," "used," or "reproduced" someone
else's ideas furtively and without acknowledgement must remain a serious
one.

However, Nicholas Lobkowicz, noting that some had suggested that

Stirner's The Ego and Its Own "was an early herald of Nietzsche's 'phi
losophy of the Superman,'" says that now it is "generally agreed that
Nietzsche himself never had the occasion
to read the book" (1967, 392).
Lobkowicz quotes from two sources. On the one hand, there is the evidence
gathered by L?vy at theUniversity of Basel where Nietzsche was professor,
which demonstrates thatbetween 1869 and 1879 Nietzsche never borrowed
Stirner's book from the university library.But given thatNietzsche's most
studious period probably antedates 1869, this is hardly decisive evidence.
On the other hand, Lobkowicz also mentions that,according toNietzsche's
"disciple," Baumgartner, Nietzsche advised him to read Stirner's book. This
suggests thatNietzsche was at least aware of the existence of The Ego and
Its Own. Lobkowicz is unconvinced thatNietzsche ever read this himself,
however, and says that Nietzsche probably knew about Stirner via F. A.
Lange 'sHistory ofMaterialism, & book thatNietzsche regarded highly (letter
to Carl von Gersdorff, Late August, 1866).
It is clear that there is insufficient discussion of Stirner inLange's Ma
terialism to provide Nietzsche with the rich source of positions and objec
tionsmentioned above. Lange devotes only half a page of a three-volume
work to his discussion of Stirner ( 1877,256). Yet, this notion thatNietzsche
absorbed his "Stirnerisms" from Lange's book is also accepted uncritically
by R. W. K. Paterson in his own biography of Stirner (1971, 149). This
"absorption" theory is also accepted by G. S. Stack, who says that "it is
doubtful thatNietzsche actually read Stirner, he was familiar with the sum
mary of the theory found inLange's history" (1983, 276).
L?with, on the other hand, who wrote perhaps the definitive intellectual
history of thisperiod, suggests thatNietzsche knew of Stirner's work from
other sources: "Stirner is nowhere mentioned inNietzsche's writings; but
Overbeck's witness proves thatNietzsche knew of him, and not only through
 76 John Glassford

Lange's history ofmaterialism" (1991, 187). L?with's source isC. A. Ber

noulli (1868-1937), pseudonymofErnstKilchner,theologianand cultural
historianand a studentof FranzOverbeck's (L?with 1991,423). In any
case, L?with himself resists the temptation to join theplagiarism bandwagon,
instead concluding that itwas the inalterable logic of post-Hegelian phi
losophy that drove these two thinkers in the same direction. In the final
analysis, this is perhaps themost plausible theory, since itacknowledges the
possibility that it is but one short step from the death of God to a collective
repugnance with those ideologies that appear to promote some new version
of politics based upon condescending and paternalistic Christian pity (GS
338; Stirner 1995,115?16). However, L?with only demonstrates that some
other explanation is a possibility among others. This in itself does little to
reduce the possibility that plagiarism did take place where concrete allega
tions of plagiarism have already been made.
Bernoulli interviewed Ida Overbeck, wife of Franz Overbeck, follow
ing Franz's death. Thus, the "witness" referred to by L?with is Ida, who,
when reminiscing about a visit made by Nietzsche to their home many years
before recalled, "Once when my husband was out he [Nietzsche] conversed
with me for a while and named especially two odd fellows he was then
studying and inwhose works he detected a relationship with himself." She
continues, "Some time afterwards he [Nietzsche] saw a volume of Klinger
in our apartment. My husband had not found Stirner in the library. 'Ach', he
said, was very disappointed inKlinger. He was a philistine, I feel no
affinitywith him; but Stirner, yes, with him!'" Then in somewhat conspira
torial tones she continues, "While Iwas watching his features intently,his
expression changed again, and he made something like a gesture of dis
missal or defence: 'Now I've told you, and I did not want tomention itat all.
Forget it.They will be talking about plagiarism, but you will not do that, I
know'" (Gilman and Parent 1991, 114).
This partial confession appears to clinch it.Now we have not only vague
accusations of plagiarism, but also a guilty and defensive Nietzsche who
appears to be fully aware of the lineage inwhich he is a humble fellow
traveller.As Ida Overbeck would have it,Nietzsche, in all likelihood, stud
ied Stirner while a border at Schulpforta (1858-64); after all, thiswas the
period when he was reading thework of other Young Hegelian's such as
Strauss. However, Ida Overbeck's testimony is rather ambiguous since she
is suggesting something more complex than appears at first sight because
she is supporting an account inwhich Nietzsche himself claims he has not
plagiarised from Stirner, but in so doing he also admits a level of complicity.
Indeed, for thefirst time,we have evidence thatNietzsche himself admits to
reading Stirner's book, but although he is admitting thathe read it,the claim
 Did Nietzsche Plagiarise from Stirner? 11

his own ideas.This isa propositionthatis

is thatitdid nothingto influence
obviously much weaker than one inwhich he maintains complete ignorance.
The point is that Ida can now claim to be a loyal friend ofNietzsche's, since
she herself generously accepts Nietzsche's testimony, but she can also si
multaneously undermine Nietzsche's claims of complete innocence with this
new and partial knowledge of Stirner's texts. In otherwords, Ida is sticking
the knife inwhile maintaining her own public respectability as a Nietzsche
loyalist. Rather ironically, the faithful Ida Overbeck now appears to be the
kind of dishonest petty bourgeois ofwhich Nietzsche himself was so suspi
cious throughout his career.
From 1888 to 1910, the period inwhich Nietzsche's scheming sister
Elizabeth gained firm control of her brother's intellectual legacy, the
Nietzsche circus split into two opposing groups. The "Weimar" group was
centred on the leadership of Elizabeth, aided and abetted by hagiographers
such as Wilhelm Pinder, Reinhardt von Seydlitz, and Nietzsche's former
amanuensis, Peter Gast. In the critical demythologizing corner, therewas
the equally ruthless "Basel" group, which included Bernoulli and Overbeck
(Gilman and Parent 1991, xviii-xiv). Around the turn of the century, the
alleged similarity between Nietzsche's and Stirner's ideas had become a
shibboleth with which to undermine some of Nietzsche's most dramatic
claims, to the effect that his philosophy was not without equal and that his
writings were most definitely not an original gift tomankind (see, e.g., EH
Preface). Sophisticated readings today now recognise that these outrageous
Nietzscheanisms were rhetorical devices, but in the immediate aftermath of
his decent intomadness, thiswas obviously far from clear (Tanner 1996,
46). Those who were presenting Nietzsche as a misunderstood and neglected
genius required a creatively pure Nietzsche, unsullied by earlier incarna
tions. Yet, the "realists" wanted to demonstrate that theirNietzsche was a

relatively normal, if flawed, part of the intellectual architecture of the pe

riod ofwhich they themselves were a part, and Ida Overbeck's testimony to
C. A. Bernoulli must be viewed in this light.
This polarisation between pro- and anti-Nietzsche camps was certainly
not lost on Elizabeth, who always understood who her enemies were. A
friend ofNietzsche's laterTurin years, Rosa von Schirnhofer, testified that,
on a visit to see Elizabeth and the now-insane Nietzsche in 1897, Elizabeth
vigorously interrogated her on thematter of Stirner. "Had her brother ever
mentioned Stirner?" she asked. When Schirnhofer answered in the negative,
she noted thatElizabeth "seemed very satisfied with this answer" (Gilman
and Parent 1991, 238). Finally, this animosity between the two hostile fac
tions even reached theGerman law courts. Peter Gast successfully took out
a court injunction against Bernoulli's book, Overbeck and Nietzsche, which
78 John Glassford

is the source of the Ida Overbeck memoirs; the result was thatmany of the
hostile passages were eventually removed (xxiv).
Unless new documents emerge, we will probably never be able to es
tablish with complete certaintywhether Nietzsche plagiarised from Stirner.
The circumstantial evidence provided by the published writings is strong,
butonly ifone glosses over themany differencesinthepublishedwritings
as well. Stirner never anticipates Nietzsche's sophisticated sexual econom
ics of the libido. Nevertheless, I know of no other example of two philoso
phers whose works bear such a strong similarity, but where no debt of
acknowledgement took place. Those who attempt to diminish these strong
intellectual ties often have a solid understanding of Nietzsche's work, but
are seldom as knowledgeable about Stirner's thought or of the period con
cerned. Although we cannot hope to answer this question definitively, we
can provide some provisional comments on the whole affair based upon

currently available texts.

Kolakowski gives no real evidence for his suggestion thatNietzsche
knew of Stirner's work, so he should not concern us. L?with almost cer
tainly knew that therewas little inLange's History ofMaterialism to guide
Nietzsche, so he surmises that Nietzsche knew of Stirner from "other
sources." The first assertion is certainly correct, but the second is almost
certainly wrong, since this is based upon the highly partisan testimony given
Ida Overbeck. we
by Having inspected Lange's History ofMaterialism,
can agree with L?with, over Paterson, that this book was certainly not the
source of Nietzsche's "Stirnerisms." Lobkowicz is certainly wrong to say
thatNietzsche definitely did not read Stirner, since this claim is based solely
upon L?vy's evidence that Stirner did not withdraw The Ego and Its Own
from the university library at Basel. Against Lobkowwicz's claim, there is
the remaining outstanding weight of evidence bearing down from the oppo
site direction: the similarities noted between the published works, the fact
thatNietzsche did most of his formative reading before taking up his posi
tion at Basle, and the dubious evidence given by Ida Overbeck.
In conclusion, L?with 's third line of explanation, more recently sup
ported by David Leopold, is probably themost plausible and themost gen
erous toNietzsche. This is the idea that Stirner and Nietzsche's work is
similar because of the inevitable logic of post-Hegelian philosophy and to
certain motifs ofmodern thought. In short, the evidence as itstands suggests
thatNietzsche may have taken the trouble to find out about Stirner at some
point inhis career; he may even have read some of Stirner's work. But there
is no concrete evidence to suggest that Stirner's ideas influenced his own.
There is no doubt, then, that thismust remain the current scholarly position
for the time being. However, this episode may raise a more fundamental
 Did Nietzsche Plagiarise from Stirner? 79

problem about political thoughtmore generally: Are there certain basic po

sitions on religion, power and Being which ineluctably lead toward a singu
lar critique of contemporary norms ofmorality and against all the dominant
ideologies of the present? The surprising similarities in the thought of Stirner
and Nietzsche may suggest that there are.

UniversityofEdinburgh
johnglassford@usa. net

Works Cited

Carus, P. 1900. "Max Stirner, the Predecessor of Nietzsche." The Monist 21.

Gilman, S. L., and D. J. Parent. 1991. Conversations with Nietzsche: A Life in theWords of
His Contemporaries. Oxford.

Hook, S. 1976. From Hegel toMarx. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Kolakowski, L. 1978. Main Currents ofMarxism. Vols. 1-3. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Lange, F. A. 1877. History ofMaterialism. 3 vols. London: T?bner.

L?vy, A. 1904. Stirner et Nietzsche. Paris.

Lobkowwicz, N. 1967. Theory and Practice: History of a Concept from Aristotle toMarx.
Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

L?with, . 1991. From toNietzsche: The Revolution inNineteenth-Century

Hegel Thought.
New York: Columbia University Press.

Paterson, R. K. W. 1971. The Nihilist Egoist: Max Stirner. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stack, G S. 1983. Lange and Nietzsche. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Stirner, M. 1995. The Ego and Its Own. Ed. D. Leopold. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Tanner, M. 1996. Nietzsche. Oxford.