On the Prejudices of Philosophers: French Philosophical Discourse on Nietzsche, 1898-1908 Author(s): Christopher E.

Forth Reviewed work(s): Source: Theory and Society, Vol. 23, No. 6 (Dec., 1994), pp. 839-881 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/657979 . Accessed: 11/11/2011 04:42
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp 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.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Theory and Society.

http://www.jstor.org

On the prejudices of philosophers: French philosophical discourse on Nietzsche, 1898-1908

E. FORTH CHRISTOPHER
University of Memphis

Havingsacredtasks, such as improving,saving,or redeeming mankind - carrying the deity in his bosom and being the mouthpiece of imperatives fromthe beyond- with such a missiona mannaturally stands outside all merely intellectualvaluations: he himself is sanctified by such a task, he himselfis a type of a higherorder! Nietzsche
The Antichrist'

Scholarshave typicallyfound it necessaryto examinethe receptionof Nietzsche by writersinvolved in self-consciouslycreativeprojects on the intellectualfield, those agents who by inclinationor by necessity operated within that sphere of culturalproductionidentifiedwith the free inquiry and expression of the artist. Hence the proliferationof excellent scholarship devoted to the appropriationof Nietzsche by Georges Bataille, Andr6 Gide, Andre Malraux, and other notable Frenchwriters.However,to restrictone's analysisto this literarysector of intellectuallife ignores the importantrole played by academics in culturalproduction,for the "freedom" of the artist can only exist in relationto its opposite - that is, againstthe backgroundof rules, conventions, and institutionsthat define the sphere of the university.In France, this tension between the literary world and the university sphere became exacerbated during the 1890s as representativesof both experiencedcrises of identityand purpose, leading to significant transformations that would inevitablystructurethe manner in which each would perceivethe other.Just as avant-garde writersshiftedfrom the academiccommunitycame to redefinethe meaningof the profesfor its own reproduction, sion, as well as the requirements accordingto
Theory and Society 23: 839-881, 1994. ? 1994 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

the detached and "decadent" position of lart pour l'art during the 1880s to the more committed stance of l'art social by the early 1890s,

840 the liberalsocial perspectiveof the ThirdRepublic.Ratherthan paralleling the movements of the literary avant-garde,the universitaires effected a polarizationof the intellectualworld between themselves, the dominantand culturallyconsecratedacademics,and the culturally dominatedliteratiof the artisticsphere.2 This strugglemanifesteditself as a conflict of classificationsand of the rightto speak legitimatelyin intellectuallife. The field of Frenchacademicphilosophyat the turnof the centurywas structured to anticipateand deter the intrusionof its other - thatis, the literary within its borders and among its constituents.By excluding the literaryas such,individualphilosophersaffirmedtheirmembership in a communityfounded on the collectivebelief in a particulardefinition of acceptablephilosophicaldiscourse.In short, the philosophical corps dependedupon the exclusionof its other,in orderto maintainits own identity.This pre-existingopposition between literary and academic classificationsof philosophy most succinctlyexplains the problematicsof Nietzsche'sreceptionby academicphilosophers: while the in France had of Nietzsche the ideas literaryavant-garde championed throughout the turn of the century,3academic philosophers would resist and finallycondemn what they perceivedas yet anotherdangerous "seduction"of the literary world. These professors constructed Nietzscheas an objectof knowledgeto legitimateand facilitatethe projects in which they held the greatestinterest,not least of which concerned the reproductionof the corps of those accorded the right to profess philosophy.Hence, despite the rhetoric of scientific detachment and rigor so predominanton the universityfield, the various readings of Nietzsche by academic philosophers were more apt to reveal the objectivesocial relationsand stakes in a complicatedintellectual contest than any disinterestedconsiderationof the texts themselves.4 In this essay,whichconstitutespart of a largerstudyof the receptionof Nietzsche in France between 1891 and 1918, I have drawnupon the sociology of academicand culturallife practicedby PierreBourdieu.I have found Bourdieu'snotions of the habitusand the field to be useful analyticaltools with which to investigatethe dynamicsof intellectual productionwithoutresortingeither to the rigid objectivismof a structuralist analysis or the subjectivismof the philosophy of consciousness.5 It was therefore with great interest that I read the exchange among Fritz Ringer, Charles Lemert, and Martin Jay in Theoryand Society (June 1990, 269-334) concerning the efficacy of employing

841 Bourdieu's methodology for intellectual history. My own position on this issue is situated between that of Ringer, who in his advocacy of Bourdieu also defends the notion of rational reconstruction and the regulative ideal of objectivity, and that of Jay, who stresses the constructivist or "narrative"element in historical representation. Although I certainly concur with Jay's assertion of the multiple readings that a text may yield, I add that the possibility of such multiplicity is itself conditioned by the field(s) within which one operates. That is, as Jay himself might concede, the reading eye is the product of historical and social conditions that highly structure visual perception and intellectual production. As Bourdieu has noted:
The ideology of the inexhaustable work of art, or of "reading"as re-creation, masks, by the quasi-disclosure which is often observed in matters of faith, that the work is really made not two times, but one hundred times, one thousand times, by all those who are interested in it, who find a material or symbolic interest in reading, classifying, deciphering, commenting on, reproducing, criticizing, combatting, knowing, and possessing it.6

Bourdieu's reflexive sociology should encourage us to examine critically the space within which our reading gaze is constituted and reproduced, especially when that gaze operates under the assumption (and often the professional imperative) of infinite interpretations. Deconstructive strategies of "reading,"like other social strategies, are inculcated and reinforced through participation in definite academic communities with their own agendas and tacit assumptions. The interpretive "freedom" of the reader - as well as the "narritivizingmoment" of the historian - often articulate rather than elude these social conditions. "The writer occupies a position in the space described: he knows it and he knows that his reader knows it."7 Nevertheless, in what follows I hope to illustrate what Martin Jay has justly observed about cultural products: "texts can be seen as the site of contesting impulses, they may well be understood as emerging out of several competing or overlapping fields rather than merely instantiating one unified habitus."8 The various representations of Nietzsche in France at the turn of the century were the products of struggles both within specific fields and between competing fields. There is no single field to which social practices may be reduced, but rather a plurality of relatively autonomous spaces that nevertheless stand in homologous relationships to one another. The illusion of the complete autonomy and coherence of individual fields is repeatedly called into question by those with an interest in subverting established definitions of intellec-

842 tual activity.Examiningthe reception of Nietzsche by the academic philosophicalcommunitythus provides an illustrationof the ways in which invisible boundaries become reinforced and policed by those with a vestedinterestin being disinterested. The structuraltransformation of the philosophicalfield
Every philosophy also conceals a philosophy; every opinion is also a hideout, every word also a mask. Nietzsche
Beyond Good and Evil9

The history of Nietzscheanthoughtamong French academicphilosophers can be understoodby referenceto the highlystructured space of power relationsconstitutingthe philosophicalfield, which itself must be explainedby a brief history of French philosophy in general.The teachingof academicphilosophyin Franceowes its shape to the efforts of Victor Cousin (1792-1867), whose disciples controlledphilosophical discoursethroughthe end of the nineteenthcentury. Excludedfrom the universitycurriculumunder Napoleon I, in 1809 philosophy was re-instituted in its medieval categories of logic, metaphysics, and To these divisionsCousin added in 1830 the subfieldsof psymorality. and the history of philosophy,innovationsthat would remain chology intact until the suppressionof philosophy under the Second Empire. Re-establishedonce again by Victor Duruy in 1863, academic philosophy would retainthe fundamentalstructureconferredby Cousin, and would remain largely unchangeduntil the sweeping pedagogical reformsof 1902.10 of the ThirdRepublicpromptedthe governmentto The establishment reconsider the purpose of education. With the strugglebetween the monarchyand the republica moot issue by the early 1870s, the related Francewas stillvery much conflictbetween Catholicand revolutionary for the next threatened to underminethe stability and alive, thirtyyears of the liberalrepublic.The primaryintellectualweapon of the liberals againstthe Catholicswas rationalism,which appealed to many in the intelligentsia.This elite proved too small a minority upon which to found a lastingpoliticalregime,however,and, as the liberalsgradually admitted,the social basis of liberalismhad to be expandedif they were to persevere, an objective most fully realized through the wholesale and expansionof publiceducation.1 restructuring

843 Cast as the central discipline of the educational system by Victor Duruy,academicphilosophy representeditself not merely as the conscience of all scientific and university activity, but as the decisive agency for the promotion of public morality.Shaped by the longstandingconflict in Francebetween the CatholicChurchand the secuthis drive towarda moralelaiquewas lar thrustof the Enlightenment, demonstratedtime and againby the most pivotalfiguresin the history of French academicphilosophy.The legacy left by Victor Cousin, for example, was not merely the institutional structure of nineteenthcentury philosophicalpedagogy but its ethical content as well. While drawing upon a variety of intellectual traditions (hence, the name 'eclecticism'),Cousin was most intrigued by the work of Immanuel Kant, which provided the foundation for French moral philosophy throughthe end of the century.Cousin adoptedthe predicatesof Kant's moral theory and fashioned them into a philosophy that, because it
This neodepended upon ideal moral goals, was called "spiritualism."12

Kantianphilosophywas meant to bypass religionby groundingmorality on a purely human basis, contributingin no small manner to the Church's censureof Cousin'sefforts and the eliminationof philosophy frompubliceducationduringthe Second Empire. and the specter of Kant would dominatemuch of French Spiritualism academic philosophy throughthe First World War,and was encouraged significantlyby the efforts of Charles Renouvier (1815-1903). While reformulating certain aspects of the Cousinian heritage, after 1871 Renouvierpressedto makemoralphilosophythe foundationof a broad-basedand republicaneducationalsystem. To this end, Renouvier foundedwith his associateFrancoisPillon the journalCritique philosophique in 1872 (which would later become LAnnee philosophique).13 By the turn of the century,however,the influenceof Renouvier and his revue d'ecole waned as academics searched for broader modes of expression.14 Academics in generalduringthe ThirdRepublicaccepted as an article of faith that the progressof "science"was closely linked with the advance of "democracy." As Ringer notes, the "reformsthat ultimately French academics brought significantincreases of income and status were the work, after all, of a left liberal regime that came closer to a democracy than its predecessors."15 Democracy and all specifically values to be had founded republican upon rationalchoice, and therefore upon science;hence the need to expungefrom serious philosophical discourseall taintof subjectiveand literarydistortion.Althoughit is

844 true that spiritualism retainedits influenceon the philosophicalfield, a noticeable trend towards positivism, abetted by the efforts of Smile Littre,occurredamong academicphilosophersduringthe 1890s that, ratherthan necessarilyundermining neo-Kantianism, proved to be its moral and politicalcomplement:both strandsmaintainedthat humankind has and will continue to progress toward the agreementof all those upon which people upon certainrationalprinciples- primarily, institutions had been based. The Republican competitionbetweenneoKantiansand positivists circumscribed,accordingto the logic of the philosophical field, the space of acceptable philosophical discourse withinthe confinesof the academy.16 Coexistent with the project of securing a moral, cohesive, and wellorderedpublic spherewas the reductionof whatthe Frenchcall individualisme.A legacy of the Enlightenmentemphasison the use of individual reason, the exaltationof the individualego over and above the superiorinterestsof society was even thoughtto have caused the Revolution itself,and thereforethreatenedto disruptall futuresocial formations. As a result, individualismeto this day carries the primarily In negativeconnotationsof the uncivil,the antisocial,and the egoistic.17 was perceivedas the cause of such social disaddition, individualisme whichmanifesteditself duringthe early 1890s turbancesas anarchism, of the presidentof the Republic. and culminatedwith the assassination Hence the popularepithet of the turn of the century,anarchieintellectuelle, a conceptual disorder often invoked to discredit marginal writersattemptingto break into the sanctifiedcircles of academe.As such, liberals and conservativesalike perceived a one-to-one correlation between intellectual individualismand social dissolution, and would use this correspondenceas an object of critiqueand a rationale for exclusion. French academic philosophers at the turn of the century described their past in negativeterms, stressingthe intellectualrenaissancethat was linked to the development of a republicaneducational system. Alphonse Darlu noted how before the ThirdRepublic"thephilosophy of the lycees and even of the facultiestended to be literary."
[After 1870] little by little, in the classes, in the academic chairs, a new philosophy penetrated, which went to the heart of the problems of the present, and touched all things to the core.'8

FredericPaulhanlikewisecontrastedthe contemporaryscene with the of the formerschools, previoustwo decades, citing "thedisappearance

845 the calmer spirit of discussion, the diminution of polemic, and the decrease of general discussionswithout criticismlosing any of its real The turn of the century thus proved a "goldenage" for efficiency."19 academic philosophy, for under the Republic's educational reforms philosophy professors enjoyed increases in prestige and income. Significantlythe very profile of the philosopherhad changeddramatically towardthe end of the century,with the enterpriseitself becoming the business of specialized professors. Before 1850, many philosophers, including Comte, Maine de Biran, and Renouvier,were "amateurs" who operatedoutside of the university; yet the developmentof a liberal of the philosophyclass as a republican pedagogyand the establishment requirement during the final year at the lycee conferreda new social functionupon the professors.No longer a group of detachedintellectuals circulatingamong the literati,professors of philosophy became the executors of a distinct social mission:to educate French youth in the republicanvirtues of reason, morality,and social responsibility.20 This autodefinitioncontributedgreatlyto, and in fact depended upon, the polarizationof the intellectualfield between academicsand gens de lettres,for much that was posited as a virtue of academiaimplied the rejectionof its literaryopposite. The acceptanceof this ratherheady social duty had a significanteffect upon the dynamicsof the philosophicalfield both inside and outside the classroom. Jean-Louis Fabiani notes the predominance of the which abounded in the self-justifying metaphor of "couronnement," discourseof academicphilosophy:Alfred Fouillee,for example,spoke of "the necessity of crowningeducation, for students of all sections, with a year of serious philosophy," and Alphonse Darlu defined the class as the "class which crowns,which perfects secondary philosophy education."21 The crowningposition of philosophyin the lyc6e was at once a prize to be jealously guarded, a symbol of past academic of futureconflicts,as well as a bold statestrugglesand a prefiguration ment of the superiorityof philosophyin the hierarchy of public education. Regardless of the truth of this vision, as Fabiani observes, the essentialfact is that the philosophersfirmlybelieved in this hierarchy, the conviction of which served as a defense mechanismfor the reproductionof the corps of university philosophers. The Third Republic was also the occasion for the emergence of the academicphilosophicalauthor,an intellectualcategorythatwas greatly facilitatedby supportivepublishingfirms and the founding of specifically academic philosophicaljournals.While the publishinghouse of

846 Jean-BaptisteBailliereprovided a forum for many academicphilosophers and other professionalintellectuals,the efforts of the publisher Felix Alcan helped form the formalpublic image of the universityphilosopher. A normalien agrege and close friend of the psychologist TheoduleRibot and the historianGabrielMonod, Alcan possessed the same type of culturalcapital as any philosopherof the epoch, and as
publisher permitted the universitairesto have a degree of influence over

the diffusionof their ideas throughoutthe intellectualfield. At Alcan, academic philosophers could contribute to the collection "Bibliotheque de philosophie contemporaine,"where a successful book became an importantelement in the career of the universityphilosowhichconferredlegipher.Above all, writerssoughtthe 'Alcan-effect," within the their philosophicalfield, thereby scholarship timacy upon the on dominant them firmly pole of the intellectualfield and situating of securingthe legitimacy academicphilosophy on the broadersocial field.22The accumulationof these distinctivesigns was requiredfor to speakof philosophywithinthe sphereof academe. those venturing Before 1876, there were no journalsdevoted exclusivelyto university philosophy;insteadphilosopherswrote eitherfor revuesd'ecolesuch as Renouvier's LAnnee philosophique, or for politico-literaryreviews such as the Revuedes deux mondes.In responseto this need, Theodule traditionsof spiritualism Ribot sharplycriticized the extra-university and positivismas representedby Renouvierand Littre,and planned a journalthat would be non-sectarianand open to a varietyof philosophical currents.Thus, La Revuephilosophiquewas founded in 1876, devoted to presenting"a complete and exact account of the current which included,however,an importantprophilosophicalmovement,"
vision:
The Revue will only exclude articles from outside the philosophical movement, that is to say which, being devoted to doctrines already known, rejuvenated only by a talent for literary exposition, will have nothing to teach the readers.23

was importantfor the delimitation As Fabianiobserves,this restriction of the field of philosophicaldiscourse:the Revuephilosophiquewould publish only the works of authors situated within the philosophical field (thus emphasizingresearchand rigor as philosophicalnovelties), of and would exclude those of purelyliterarywriters.As an instrument its the professionalizationof philosophy,then, the Revue would use moveown discretionwhen deciding the limits of the "philosophical ment,"even thoughthis appellationcould easily referto a collection of writingsbroaderthanthose producedby philosophesde profession.24

847 By the early 1890s, a group of young academic philosophers, Elie Halevy, Xavier Leon, and Leon Brunschvicg,founded the Revue de et de moraleas a vehiclefor the neo-spiritualism and acametaphysique demic rationalismthen emergingon the universityfield. The founders paid an ironic homage to the two existing philosophicalreviews:the Renouvierist Critiquephilosophique, they claimed, had played an while the Revuephilosophique importantrole but "todayis secondary," "in reflected its eclecticism the movementof phifaithfully hospitable This ideas." latter was losophical praise only ironic, however,for the new journal had something very different in mind, something that wouldbe more purely"philosophical":
Here, we would like to do something else. In a more circumscribed framework, we would like to emphasize the properly so called philosophical doctrines; we would like to leave the side of the special sciences, [which are] more or less neighbors of philosophy, to restore to public attention the general theories of thought and action from which it has turned away for a period and which have nevertheless always been, under the currently discredited name of metaphysics, the only source of rational beliefs.25

The eclectic Revuephilosophiquethus became somewhatmarginalized by the young professorsof La Revue de metaphysique, therebyestabKantian as the dominant of the field of lishing epistemology pole sanctionedphilosophy.In an articleon Germanphilosophy,J. Benrubi
noted - perhaps with some reference to his own position - that "meta-

physics is a problem for man, a science for the Overman."26 By the 1890s, then, the philosophicalfield had been constitutedto structure the legitimacyof its content and constituentsalong strictlyprofessional and scientificlines, and featuredmechanismsto ensurethe exclusionof those who were not fit to participatein legitimatephilosophicaldiscourse. This process of professionalization served as well to impose a of academic while informedby the social which, uniformity perception of the would dynamics philosophicalcorps, greatly structureits perof Nietzsche and those who ception championedhis thought.
Philosophy and the literary field: A struggle of classifications
The "journalist," the paper slave of the day, triumphs over the professor in all matters pertaining to culture. Nietzsche The Birth of Tragedy27

848 Of the highest priorityfor these vessels of republicanideals was the need to combat the irrationalist, and individualist anti-intellectualist, - thusformingone of the currentsflowingfromthe literaryavant-garde crucial oppositional axes between the professeurand the homme de In fact, a major source of the lettres,between science and literature.28 continuingautodefinitionof these academicsdepended upon the strict descriptionof what they were not. While the structureof the intellectual field itself became polarized along such rigid lines, the central between universitaires opposition of concern here is the disagreement and ecrivains over the dominant definition of philosophy. Despite attempts to ensure the professionalizationof the discipline, many agentson the literaryfield wereveryinterestedin philosophy,and literary journals typically included a section of reviews of philosophical texts, often contributed by intellectuals pursuing double-existences withinthe literaryrealmand the academicfield. Universityphilosophyfound an appreciativeaudience among the culjournals,such as La Revuedes deux turallydominantpolitico-literary mondes and La Revue bleue, which experienced a shift in emphasis from neo-Kantian spiritualismduring the 1880s to psychology and sociology during the 1890s. This apparentproximityand unofficial affiliationdid not represent,however,a space of peacefulreprievefrom the strugglefor recognition: university philosopherstended to markthe boundariesof acceptablediscourse,especiallywhen it came to issues somethatexternalto the field itself but about which,nevertheless,they felt most qualifiedto speak. Alphonse Darlu, for example,framed his the literarycriticFerdinandBrunetierein the spacomplaintregarding tial metaphorsof the field: "the literarycritic of the Revue des deux mondes, he wrote,"progressively enjoysmakingexcursions,one could of social questions."29 into domain the Perhaps in say incursions, with concern response, the noted critic Imile Faguet arguedthat the to philosophers,but to greatphilosophicalissues is "notonly particular all distinguishedminds at this moment,"after which, as an obvious affront to the autodefinitionof the mostly Dreyfusardphilosophical corps, he proceeded to laud the philosophicalcontributionsof such literarycritics as Brunetiere,Jules Lemaitre,and E. anti-Dreyfusard
Melchior de Vogii.30 Even among the dominant literary reviews,

therefore, the conflict between acceptable philosophy and literature remaineda source of tension, and often became a battle over intellectualpositions.

849 The structurally dominatedjournalsof the literaryavant-garde clarify the disjunctionbetween academicphilosophyand its literarycounterpart.While the Mercurede Franceand La Revue blancheindeed featured philosophy sections, the number of books reviewed remained small and these were usually contributedby non-academiccommentatorswho often challengedthe legitimacyof universityphilosophy.In the case of the Mercure, for example,from the 1890s throughthe First World War philosophical texts were reviewed primarily by Louis Weber (anti-positivist), and Jules de Georges Palante (anti-solidarist), Gaultier (anti-positivistand anti-Kantian), while La Revue blanche, closely associated with the anarchismof the early-1890s, featured reviewsby such opponents of universityphilosophyas Leon Belugou, MauriceBarres,and CharlesPeguy.31 As Fabiani and Ringer note, certain representativesof the literary had been bitter opponents of universityphilosophy.The avant-garde protagonistof Paul Bourget'spsychologicalnovel Le Disciple (1889), for example,attributeshis moral deviance to the influenceof his lycee philosophy professor.After being employed as a tutor by an aristocraticfamily,Robert Greslou seduces the already-engaged daughterof the house and, havingagreedto commit suicidejointly,allowshis lover to die alone. While awaitingtrial for her death, Greslou notifies his lyc6e professor Adrian Sixte that his teachings indirectlyled to the moral aberrationsof his "disciple." Sixte, whose philosophy is associated with those of Kant, Herbert Spencer, Hippolyte Taine, Ernest Renan, Emile Littre, and the psychologistTheodule Ribot, asserted that concepts such as God and Good and Evil are mere conventions, for humanvolition itself is determinedby naturallaws. Hence against the "nihilistic" dangersof science and "positivism," Bourgetarguedfor free will and religiousfaith.32 This conservativeliterary attack on the teaching of philosophy was rearticulated in 1897 in MauriceBarres'snovel Les Deracines; yet here the authorwidened his scope to cite the links between academicphilosophy and the Third Republic. Seven youths from Nancy, Barres's tale begins, were profoundlyaffected by the philosophy class during their last year at the lyc6e; yet only three of these young men would emergewith theirmoralhealthintact.Their philosophyprofessor,Paul Bouteiller,was an enthusiastof Kantianphilosophyas well as the Radical Republic,and corruptedhis pupils by instillingin them a desire for cosmopolitan intellectual distinction rather than pursuing useful careersin their own provinceof Lorraine.Thus "uprooted" from their

850

"soil"and "milieu" they moved to Paris, where four succumb to vice, even murderas a resultof theirfaultymoraleduand dishonesty,theft, cation. In an importantessay on this novel, the conservativeamateur philosopher Jules de Gaultier stressed how "Le Kantismeunder the form of moralityis nothingother than a religion... an attitudeof utility for a social groupwhichis not our own."33 It is apparent,then, that many on the literaryfield resentedthe monopoly of academics over the establisheddefinition of philosophy,and soughtto subvertthis dominancewhen possible:this is aptlyillustrated by the surveys conducted by the Mercurede France on the German influencein France.The first enquete,conductedby Alfred Vallettein 1895, featuredresponses by twenty-fournotable Frenchwritersfrom acrossthe intellectualfield, thoughclearlythe majorityhailedfrom the When reproducing this surveyin 1902 JacquesMorliterarysphere.34 was an admirerof Nietzsche)greatlyexpanded land (who, incidentally, the base of contributorsbeyond the literaryfield, and even divided lines as he perceivedthem.Significantthem roughlyalong disciplinary made no distinction between professional and amateur Morland ly, philosophers, grouping both under the rubric "Philosophie,Litterathus reinforcing the proximityand inherentrelation,as perceived ture," on the literaryfield, of the two spheres.Here one finds the by agents and opponents of the University committed litterateurs of opinions such as Barres,Leon Daudet, and Pierre Lasserreappearingnext to such consecrated academics as Alfred Binet, Alfred Espinas, and Alfred Fouillee.In additionto the inclusionof such polar opposites in the enqueteone finds severalintellectualswho straddledthe fields of literature and the academy, those writers like Jules de Gaultier, Georges Palante, and Louis Weber who functioned on the nebulous and often arbitrarily-invoked perimeter between the two warring Much to the chagrinof the philosophyprofessors,then, Morcamps.35 land blurred the distinction between literatureand philosophy altogether,a gesture that partly illustratesthe ways in which the ideas of Nietzsche could be accepted on the literaryfield as philosophy and rejectedby the academicsas mereliterature. used this survey as of the literaryavant-garde Several representatives an opportunityto blast the dominantKantianparadigmin Frenchacademic philosophy,and to laud the growinginfluence of Nietzsche on the intellectual field.36According to Jules de Gaultier,"againstthe German influence of Kant, we must accept the German influence of Nietzsche as sovereignlyefficaciousand beneficial."37 Remy de Gour-

851

mont declared with obvious pleasure that "[f]orphilosophy,the influence of Kant declines; that of Nietzsche augments.... Thus our philosophy, Germansince Kant, will no doubt remainGermanthanksto Nietzsche."
do not seem to have the servile spirit of the Kantians; But les nietzscheens Beyond Good and Evil is for them less a gospel than an introductionto and bold in its contradictions. futuregospels, multifarious UnderstoodcorThe categorrectly,Nietzscheis a principleof libertyand intellectualroyalty. ical imperativeof Kant has made of philosophyfor one hundredyears the servantof Christianity; besides, we teach identicalmoral truthsin the lycees and seminars.38

Against this attackfrom the literaryfield, two academicphilosophers also raised the subjectof Nietzsche. For FredericPaulhan,"Nietzsche is today in the process of becoming influential,and this will not be an evil if we know how to makehis ideas serve us."39 Th6oduleRibot, the editor of La Revue philosophique, was less charitable:"Nietzsche, whose influenceon contemporariesis very great,can [only]with difficulty count as a Germangenius:moreoverhe is rathera penseurthan a
systematique."40

When consideringthe powerrelationsof the intellectualfield, however, it is apparentthis enqueteoperatedon a second and more fundamental thanthe classification of level, for the actualresultsare less illuminating those called upon to judge. Although it is tempting to accept this taxonomyat face-valueand concludethatthe literaryfield was generally a more open-mindedand inclusivecommunityof free intellectuals, such an assessmentis only possible if one accepts the illusion of the literaryfield itself. Ever awareof the dominanceof academicson the field, these writersemployedthis classificationof intellectualsin order to take advantageof the prestige and culturalcapital of the universitairesby levellingthe science/literature distinction- thus elevatingthe statusof literaryopinion to that of the academic,and even reducingthe statusof the academicto the literary- maintaining throughoutthe illusion of inclusivenessand freedom of the literaryfield. If the space of culturalproductionis to be conceived as the field of positions of power relations among intellectuals competing for cultural legitimacy,the 1902 enquetemay be seen as a subversionor effacement(for a time, at least) of the hithertoaccepted structureof the intellectualfield. Individualspossessingvastlydifferentpositionson the actualfield of intellectual activityappearnext to each other only by virtue of the apparently objective and scientific gesture of alphabeticalorder. The academic philosopherFredericPaulhanthus appearedbetween the amateurphi-

852 losopher/sociologist Georges Palante and the spiritualistwriterJosephin Peladan, while under the heading of "Sciences"the freelance crowd psychologistGustaveLe Bon appearedbetween C. A. Laisant, examinateura l'EfcolePolytechnique,and Edmond Perrier,directeur du Museum d'HistoireNaturelle.This strategyis even more obvious given the inclusion of the poet and essayist Henri Mazel, who had sociale, alongsidePEmile recentlypublisheda work entitledLa Synergie Durkheim and Charles Gide under the category of "Sociologie et economie politique."This enquete, then, directed and published by membersof the literaryavant-garde, was a bold assertion(in the face of the culturallydominantacademics)of the rightof the dominatedclass to posit legitimatejudgmentsof the intellectualfield. It was of ecrivains at once a recognitionof the legitimacyof the game of culturalproducin it. tion and a reminderof the literati's rightto participate It is not surprising that academicphilosophersgenerallydid not solicit the opinions of those intellectualsoccupyingpositions withinthe literary realm when conducting specificallyphilosophical (and therefore internal)enquetes;nor did writers and poets typicallycall upon academics when conductingopinion polls of a specificallyliterarynature. As Fabianidemonstrates,academicphilosopherstended to transform all disciplinarydebates into a simple choice: one was either for or as they defined it.41Aside from this apparently against "philosophy" in a simple provision,most academicssaw themselvesas participating field of free inquiry:"thereare no longer compact schools,"Paulhan remarked in 1900, "but sympathetic groups."42The psychologist Alfred Binet conducted a surveyof the academicphilosophicalcomthe persistenceof the above-citedoppomunityin 1908 thatillustrated and the literature sitions between Accordingto Binet'sfinduniversity. ings many professorsnoted a sharp decline of metaphysicsin favor of the ascendent positivist method. Generally,they observed that the and "morescientific" teachingof philosophyhad become "lessliterary" And yet one may as it became for students "a preparationfor life."43 discern the presence of an illusion that had hitherto operated on the literaryfield, namely,that of the intellectualfreedomof the professors. "Whatstrikesme,"noted one respondent,"isthat at this momentthere is no academic orthodoxy... the most diverse systems are representAnother echoed this sentiment: ed."44
The exposition of ideas is less dogmatic, the professor has more liberty, there is no State philosophy anymore, and the educative function of philosophy is of greater interest.45

853 This theme of intellectualfreedom was a foundingmyth of republican philosophy,the result of the autonomizationof the philosophicalfield as it became, according to Fabiani, the site of "competitionfor the Into monopoly of the legitimatedefinitionof philosophicalactivity."46 the midst of this long-standingstruggleenteredthe ideas of Nietzsche, whichposed a significant challengeto establishedmodes of philosophical thinking. Classifications and constructions
Nietzscheanism has been subjectedto the same test as Hegelianism.And no doubt here and there philosophical themes have served especially as pretexts to cover up a new offensive on the part of barbarism. Leon Brunschvicg47 The madness of Nietzsche is an argumentneither against his literary genius nor his philosophical genius.The philosophers,the eternalprofessorsof and Taine, philosophy,scoffed at by Schopenhauer concede the firstpoint,but not the second. Remyde Gourmont48

The tacit classificatorysystem of French academic philosophy,motivated as muchby the differential conductedwith the literrelationships field as the need to and ary by preserve reproducethe corps of professional philosophers, prefigured the manner in which the ideas of Nietzsche would be received and appropriated. It will be shown that, giventhe power conditionsand specificlogic of the philosophicalfield, Nietzsche was never an epistemologicalobject given in any definite sense to academicphilosophers.On the contrary,it was necessary to constructNietzsche as an object of inquiryin order to make him function strategicallyon the field of discourse. This is not to assert that Nietzsche was for these professors a purely imaginaryfigure;rather, given the social tension between writers and scholars,Nietzsche was perceivedby academicphilosophersas alreadybearingthe markof the Nietzsche'sown iconoclastic poetic language- a literaryavant-garde. assault stylistic upon acceptable philosophicalwriting - only heightened the general association of the philosopherwith the avant-garde. An academic appraisalof Nietzsche thereforeusually carried an imsocial commentaryon the state of the intelplicit and supplementary
lectual world.49

854 In the previous pages, I have sketched the parametersof French philosophical discourse as it was structuredbefore the introductionof Nietzsche, a schema that illustratesthe various levels of the game of culturalproductionand the numerousintellectual,professional,social, and political stakes involved. In this section, I map the field of phiby its most celelosophicaldiscourseon Nietzsche as it was articulated brated representatives and by lesser-knownacademicsof the time. By restrictingthe analysis to those philosophers operating within the republicanuniversity,I do not treat the numerous neo-Thomistphilosopherswho, because they were clerical,were generallyexcluded(or excluded themselves) from the modern republicanacademy.Hence, while Catholic philosophers clearly rejected the works of Nietzsche, they did so from a very differentposition in the intellectualfield. In addition,while some mightrightlynote the challengethat Henri Bergson posed to the hegemony of neo-Kantianphilosophy in France, it must be stressedthat Bergson never underminedthe reigningethos of philosophical professionalism.As Fabiani and R. C. Grogin have shown, Bergson was embarrassed by the popularityof his philosophy in the literaryfield and feared that popular success might undermine his credibilityin the philosophicalcommunity.Given his allegianceto thatBergsonwouldmakefew references academia,it is understandable to Nietzsche, who had alreadybeen stigmatizedby being associated with the literaryrealm.50 At times silence and the curious omissions in discourse explainmuch more than speech, and the relativesilence of academic philosophers concerningNietzsche during the 1890s certainlyaffords insight into the implicit classifications at work. From 1891 through 1898 Nietzsche, having earned the laurels of many essayists and poets, fractionof the seemed to be the expressedpropertyof the avant-garde La Philosophiede literaryworld. For example, Henri Lichtenberger's Nietzsche,which appearedin 1898 and was the first serious study of the philosopherto be publishedin France,was writtenby a professor The reviewsof this study not by a philosopher.51 of Germanliterature, in academicphilosophicaljournalshighlightthis conflict of classification. For example, the Revue philosophique had been reviewing Germanstudies of Nietzsche since 1892, most of which were written text apparently by the academic Lucien Arreat; yet Lichtenberger's requiredspecial treatment,for the review was contributedinstead by Louis Weber,an independentwriter workingfor both academic and literaryjournals. In short, the writings of (and even writingsabout) in the accepted acaNietzsche could not be considered "philosophy"

855

demic sense of the term;hence between 1891 and 1918 neitherof the two primaryphilosophicaljournals of the day, La Revue de mctaphysique et de morale and La Revue philosophique, featured reviews of

Nietzsche's texts, even though they had been translatedinto French since 1898 and had been distributedfor review to both journals.52 There existed, however,a curious ambiguityon the part of these periodicals regardingthe case of Nietzsche. Although refusingto dignify his texts as legitimatephilosophyby reviewingthem, both journalsdid review other scholars'studies of Nietzsche, thus accordinghim partial admittanceto the field. Yet even the accordance of marginalstatus functionedas an instrument of the field itself.53 The logic of classificatory thought,Bourdieusuggests,allowsindividual themselves to as collective persons speakingwith the agents perceive full authorityof the group, while simultaneouslyattributingto each competitor total responsibilityfor the transgressionsof the opposing Thereforeboth Nietzsche and his literarychampions- comcamp.54 with academicson the intellectualfield - were subjectedto the petitors of hierarchy epithets of the philosophicalfield, and became invested with all the sins of the literati,the infidelsof the academicuniverse.As Bourdieuexplainsthis phenomenon:
Social subjects,classified by their classifications,distinguishthemselvesby the distinctionsthey make between the beautifuland the ugly, the distinguishedand the vulgar,in whichtheirpositionin the objectiveclassifications is expressedor betrayed.55

The universitaires, possessing sufficient cultural capital to maintain their social dominance,presented themselves as a class diametrically thus reproducing in the space of opposed to the dominatedlitterateurs, intellectuallife and in culturalterms the class structureof the social world. The brief classificatoryepithets prefacingmany discussions of Nietzsche functioned within the highly structured sign-system of French academiclife: invariablyhe was introduced/stigmatized as the or the "ecrivain et thus "poete-philosophe" philosophe,"56 immediately reinforcingthe predominanceof literary(over philosophical)qualities in his workand therebyfirmlysituatinghim withinthe literarysector of the intellectualfield. The non-academicLouis Weberobservedthatthe works of Nietzsche did not belong within "the space [cadre]of the rubric'philosophy'... Nietzsche is too much the litterateur and poet to be studied as a pure philosopher."57 With Nietzsche, anotherreviewer claimed, "the ecrivainis so brilliant,the poet is so rich, that one does not perceive the inanity of the philosopher. That is the danger."58

856

Above all, a definitehierarchy was establishedand perceivedfor those who dared speak of Nietzsche, as Alfred Lambertnoted, between the at the bottom and the penseursconsacresat the opinions of the vulgaire
top.59

theirsoliThroughsuch exclusionary gestures,philosophersreaffirmed darity with the professorial corps against perceived encroachments from the literarysphere.According to Louis Weber,the early French itself with intensityin literary curiosityfor Nietzsche had "manifested milieuxmore for the moralistand ecrivainthanfor the philosopher."60 For these reasons,then, "Nietzscheis in debt to his first vulgarisateurs for havingrapidlyacquireda celebritywhich rarelyovertakes... pure
philosophers."61 A critic for the Revue de metaphysique et de morale

assured readers that Nietzschean thought would "not seduce phias it had swept awaypoets and novelistsduring losophesde profession" the 1890s.62For Alfred Fouillee,Nietzsche'ssuccess "wasat firsta true
scandal for many a philosophe de profession,"63yet the seduction of

poetry alwaysprevailedover that of more seriousthought:"hasnot the poet often had more influence than the pure metaphysicianover the movementof social and moralideas?"64
Aphorisms[suchas Nietzsche's]suit a publicwhichhas neitherthe time nor the meansto fathomanything,and which entrustsitself willinglyto sibylline sheets, above all if they are poetic to the point of appearinginspired.The same absence of reasoningand of exact proof bestows on the negatingdogmatisman air of authoritywhich forces upon the mob some half-informed, amateurs of all types.65 litterateurs,poets, musicians,

To the thought of Nietzsche, Fouillee juxtaposed that of his nephew Jean-MarieGuyau,who "wasmore properlya philosopherand theoretician." Playing upon the common classificationof Nietzsche as a Fouill6e deliberatelyportrayedGuyau as a "phi"po&te-philosophe," "I believe that he [Guyau]would have been rightto losophe-poete."66 and feroraisehimselfagainsta fascinationwithNietzscheanperversity some which is a of fashion litterateurs mode] among city only caprice [la
and amateurs."67

themIn all of these descriptions,academicphilosophersdistinguished selves not only from Nietzsche, but from an entire sector of the intellectualfield thatconsistentlygainedsocial success throughan enlarged In this very specifically-defined field of discoursewith colreadership. and career,it is no wonderthat lectivelyheld ideals of science,morality, the figureof Nietzsche presenteda threatto the philosophicalcommu-

857 nity; hence the need to bring the table of values to bear against whoever threatened to break it. In the first article on Nietzsche to appear in La Revue de metaphysique et de morale, Charles le Verrier enunciated the problem of classifying Nietzsche: "In no sense can one say that he professed philosophy: he occupied no chair and hardly cared to construct a system."68 Failing these two apparent requirements for acceptable philosophy, there were several other factors serving to discourage further the naive acceptance of Nietzsche into the fold. "He despised many things and many people," Verrier explained, "but no one more than these 'philosophers of the writing table,' who press themselves to thought upon the invitation of their bureaucratic requirements [necesNot only did Nietzsche himself possess none of the saires de bureau]."69 academic traits necessary for the formulation of true philosophy, but he scorned those very professionals who had them. Most academic accounts of Nietzsche therefore appear as defense mechanisms serving to protect and reproduce the corps by rearticulating the hierarchical structure of the intellectual field; hence the need to frame analyses of the thinker in the oppositional and hierarchical terms of consecration/ vulgarity and purity/impurity, all mere restatements of the more fundamental division between literary and academic modes of thought. The philosopher Lucien Arr6at often employed physical metaphors when speaking of the ideas of Nietzsche, all of which imply definite preconceived notions of the normal and the grotesque in philosophical discourse. On several occasions, for example, Arr6at referred to Nietzsche's Overman as a "monster,"or as a debased wretch in need of a nurse.70 The procedure of "this renowned and unfortunate thinker," he noted elsewhere, "always consisted in pushing a precise idea to a degree of exaggeration which deforms it."71 The presentation of Nietzschean thought as monstrosity and deformity aptly describes the relation of Nietzsche to the self-image of French philosophers: as an entity incommensurable to the existing taxonomy, he transgressed the boundary between the thinkable and the unthinkable. Both ecrivain and philosophe, Nietzsche the thinker was a veritable mutant on the philosophical field, identified as such by the purportedly "pure"gaze of professional philosophy. The totality of classificatory thought employed against Nietzsche served at once to classify/construct him as object as well as to classify implicitly the classifiers. The image that emerges for us of the corps of professional philosophers is that of a social elite or, more properly, of a quasi-religious community. Above all, these professors saw themselves

858 as immune to the fashions and "seductions" of the literaryfield, prias 1mile Durkheim because of "their professional marily, claimed, habits:"
Accustomedby the practiceof scientificmethodto reservetheirjudgmentto such a degree that they do not feel enlightened,it is naturalthat they succumbless easilyto the raptures of the rabbleor the prestigeof authority.72

Such intellectualswere trainedto maintainthe purityof their gaze, or at least the collectiveillusion of the pure academicgaze, in the face of what they designatedas the naivegaze of the literarysphere.By articulatingthe ideology of the pure gaze, academicseffected a social break with theirliteraryother.73 The word "vulgaire," repeatedlyemployedto evaluate Nietzsche's literary commentators,pertained to the "comto "thatwhichis withoutdistincmon,"to "classeswith no distinction," tion."Fouillee even spoke of the "mob"of Nietzsche'sartisticsympathizers,thus augmentingthe social qualitiesimplicitlyattachedto phiAn exampleofferedto clarifythe definitionof "vullosophicalactivity. garisateurs" expressedthe oppositionalstrategyof academicclassification: "Les savantsne sont pas des vulgarisateurs."74 By contrast,to be at the turnof the centurycarriedexplicitreligiousconnota"consacre" tions, such as "thatover which the priest has pronouncedsacramental words."The verb "consacrer" furtherdemonstratesthe quasi-mystical of classification: "to rendersacred,respectimplications philosophical honorable."75 These able, religiousmetaphorswere used not merelyin the case of Nietzsche commentaries,but to characterizethe general relation of academic philosophers to the uninitiated:did not Darlu himself note on one occasion how inaccessible the writings of Kant tended to be for "lessprofanes"?76 In short, the classificationsof phide demonstrated the degreeto whichthe losophes professioneffectively autodefinitionof the universityfield could enter into philosophical analyses:by condemningNietzsche and others in social, cultural,and even religious terms, academic philosopherswere able to consecrate themselves as possessing the monopoly of legitimate nomination of philosophicaldiscourse.At the momentthat these professorshoped to establish a morale laique in France they establishedthemselves as a sacredlysecularphilosophicalclergy. The logic of the philosophicalfield demandedthatthose ordainedwith the right to speak of philosophy be co-opted by the field itself. As Bourdieuwrites:

859
What the co-optation technique must discover... is not knowledge,not a packageof scientificknowledge,but skill or, more exactly,the artof applying knowledge,and applyingit aptly in practice,which is inseparablefrom an froma habitus.77 overallmannerof acting,or living,inseparable

In short, being an academic philosopher entailed the investment of the person in a relationof trust with the professionalcorps, which is why the attainmentof culturalconsecrationis often experiencedas a sort of ontologicalpromotionafter which one reflects only with scorn upon his or her former self.78A central strategyof academic comhis life in a certainfashion, mentaryon Nietzsche was to (re)construct to examine his dispositions in order to constitute/expose him as a position vis-aspecificallyliterarysubjectand to illustratehis marginal vis establishedphilosophy.Whereasthe ideas of thinkerssuch as Kant or Comte might be considered without referencesto the biographical factors of their philosophy,the "Nietzsche" producedby philosophical discourse was first and foremost an ecrivainwhose lived experiences wereinseparablefromhis writings- hence the rhetoricalconventionof appendingbiographicalsigns to many commentarieson his thought. This strategyis evident in one of the few published remarksmade by the psychologistAlfred Binet on Nietzsche:
has until now never had the occasion to Since our Annee [psychologique] to reproducefor our readers,after speakof Nietzsche,we thinkit interesting Fouillee,some citationsfromthis singularauthor.... These citationscan give his immense an idea of the mannerof Nietzsche,his conduct of affirmation, pride, his incoherence and the beauty of his lyricism [emphasisin originalj."79

Bourdieunotes how the mannerof using symbolicgoods constitutesa definite markerof class, and is a key weapon in strategiesof distinction.80Binet thoughtthat these aphorisms,which had served Fouillee well in discrediting the German,would offer his readersinsightinto the Not only was the reader space of Nietzsche'slifestyle and personality. to be apprised of the soul of Nietzsche, against which his writings would emerge as its troubled and poetic expression;Binet even invoked the entire comportment of Nietzsche, which was less the demeanorof an isolated individualthan that of the entireclass of literary producerswithwhichNietzschewas identified. Whilethis biographical strategyhad often been used withinthe literary to elicit sympathyfor and complicitywith the German,it avant-garde functioned among academics in the opposite manner:to underscore

860 once again (through the mechanism of academic distinction) Nietzsche'sinherent otherness and to render his work suspect in the eyes of academic philosophers. This perhaps explains the positive reception of Daniel Halevy's La Vie de FredericNietzsche (1909), whichonly bolsteredwhatmanyacademicphilosopherswere sayingall along.As one reviewerwroteof Halevy'sbiography:
Nietzscheanthoughthas nothing systematicabout it; it is made of presenand the truthsthathe bringsto lightare timents,intuitionsand enthusiasms, not the laboriousresultof methodicalmeditationsnor of any work of excavationand undermining aroundclearlydefinedconcepts.8

Nietzsche'sthoughtthereforerequiredone "to replace Understanding the thoughtinto the man who createdit"in order to learn of the "interior drama which was his life."82Halevy's biography was therefore acceptablebecause it treatedNietzsche as a literarysubjectwhose personal and psychologicaltrialsfound concrete expressionin his written work. This biographicalstrategyin Nietzsche scholarshiphad found a study: precedentin Lichtenberger's
But before studyingthe doctrineof Nietzsche,it is importantas well to see clearly that it is, by the confession of the author,less a totality of abstract truthsand of universalsignificance thanthe livingreflectionof an individual the sincereand passionof a very particular naturaltemperament, character, ate confessionof a soul of rareessence.83

As a professor of Germanliteratureat the Universitede Nancy (and invokedNietzsche'sbiographyin later at the Sorbonne),Lichtenberger a mannerthat was consistentwith his view of the authoras a litterateur. Even Louis Weber noted that Nietzsche has "a complex personality. Philosophicalaptitudesand moral tendencies combine in him with a And, according to another compoet's and artist'stemperament."84 mentator"allhis life is one long combatagainstexternalnature,against other men, and againsthimself."85 As is the case with historicalaccounts,the history of a thinker'slife is availableonly in fragments,which are selected, organized,and linked strategyfulfillingspecial togetherby a rhetorical(and seam-concealing) functions on the discursivefield.86Such was the case with all the verat the turnof the century- virtually sions of Nietzsche'slife circulating was detail recounted apprehendedwithin a specific conceptual every Yet giventhe cultural or the academy. the it of be that field, avant-garde the accounts posited by academicscarconsecrationof the university, ried a greaterdegreeof legitimacythanthose writtenby representatives

861 of the literaryworld. A member of the general public searchingfor a brief, authoritativeand objective account of Nietzsche and his work wouldundoubtedlyforego the biases of literaryaccountsin favorof the more consecrated and "pure"encyclopedia. That is why the first French encyclopedia entry on Nietzsche deserves special attention: contributedby Ren6 Berthelot, a young philosophy professor at the Universityof Brussels and son of the distinguishedchemist,Marcelin this essay in La Grandeencyclopedie was less an objective Berthelot,87 account of Nietzsche'sthought than a demonstrationof the objective power relations of fin-de-siecle intellectual life, which would nevertheless be perceived as an institutionallyapproved and persuasive accountof the philosopher."Thehistoryof his life and that of his ideas are inseparable," Berthelot posited at the outset; the moral ideal he was proclaimed "nothingother than the exaggeratedimage of his own character."88 Note the dramaticdifference between this introduction and the one that Emile Boutrouxwrote for Kant:"The philosophyof Kant is one of the most considerableacts in the history of the human A similarsentimentappears in the entry on Comte, "one of spirit."89 the most profound thinkersand the most originalphilosopher of the The philosophical portraits that appeared in La Grande century."90 thus expressedthe structureof the field itself, which was encyclopedie dominatedby both idealism and positivism, and tacitly indicated the boundarybetweenlegitimateand illegitimate philosophicalactivity.91 For Berthelot, the mature works of Nietzsche were foreshadowedin the circumstances of his childhood:"Theadmirations and works of his foretell and youth alreadyexplain his future theories.At fifteen years his favoritepoet was Holderlin,the friendof Goethe and of Herder,the intimate of Schelling and Hegel."92 The implicationhere was of the of Nietzsche in the groundedness literaryrealm - especially romanticism - from an early age, a condition from which he never fully co-founderof the Nouvellerevue francaise,correctlyidentifiedthis philosophical strategy in 1900: "A more delicate means of belittling Nietzsche and of arrestinghis influence,"Drouin observed, "is to declarehim a poet.... I fear that M. Ren6 Berthelotfavorsthis thesis a bit by insisting on the real affinities of Nietzsche with the romantics."93 Alfred Fouill6e also invoked Nietzsche's biography,and emphasized the vanityhe displayedat an early age:"He believed he was of a superior race, of a Slavicrace, as if the Slavshad been superiorand as if he had been a Slav himself!And all his life this pure-blooded German pridedhimselfon not being German."94
emerged. Marcel Drouin, a normalien agrege de philosophie and future

862
The son of a pastorfrom the Prussiancountryside,he imaginedthat he descendedfroman old noble Polishfamilyof the nameof Nietzkywhereas(his sisterhas herselfremarked) he had not one drop of Polishblood in his veins; he since them, his imaginary Slavismbecame a fixed idea and an idee-force: ended by thinkingand actingunderthe empireof this idea.95

The neo-KantianFrancois Pillon even appealed to Nietzsche's fragmented soul, whichhe claimedmade it virtuallyimpossibleto produce disciples:"howcan one faire ecole when one has passed his life wanting to satisfytwo of the most antagonistic passionswhichhaveever divided
a thinker's soul: that of truth, and ... eccentricity?"96

Tellingthe tale of Nietzsche'slife necessarilyinvokedthe space of academic lifestyles, which only reinforced the negative view of the German.That Nietzsche was a professor of philology at Basel drew him into the habitusof academicsin general- here was not merelyan independentwriterbut a fellow member of the academy,anotherone of the faithfulleading a respectablelifestyle.As Lionel Dauriacnoted in his review of Hal6vy'sbiography, however,Nietzsche sufferedconstantly from professional isolation: "his philologist colleagues made him feel a bit too often and perhapsalso too cruellythat he was not of Berthelot noted that from 1869 to 1876 their species [espece]"97 Nietzsche lived "the tranquillife of a universityprofessor."98 Yet, dehis from his his post at Basel professionalexclusion, resignation spite stressed Berthelot While more even rendered the German suspect. Nietzsche's declining health as the chief factor in his resignation,an et de morale suganonymousreviewerat the Revue de metaphysique other considerations: gested
Despite the brilliantsuccesses of his debut and peacefulfuturethathis chair at Basel seemed to offer the young professor,his restless ardor,his vast curiosityand perhapsalso the firstblows of the maladydid not permithim to
content himself with the honorable satisfactions of a university career [empha-

sis added].99

and The logic of the academicfield providedfor its own reproduction, thereforepreservedthe image of the professor'slifestyle as a space of prestige,honor,and even holiness,all of whichreinforcethe tranquility, quasi-religiousmetaphorsdiscussed above. One could thereforefind within the circumstancesof Nietzsche's life a variety of reasons for exclusion. That Nietzsche had once been an academic perhaps rendered him, accordingto the logic of the philosophicalfield, a much greaterthreatthan a writermore firmlyand consistentlyentrenchedin

863 the field of literature. His subsequentdeparturefrom the academy,an unpardonable transgression, effectivelyfinalizedthe breach.
An enemy of the people: The immoralist and the crisis of French philosophy
Whetherwe immoralistsare harmingvirtue?Just as little as anarchists harmprinces.Only since the latterare shot at do they againsit securelyon their
thrones. Moral: Morality must be shot at.

Nietzsche
Twilightof the Idols 00

Despite the exuberance and purported intellectual freedom accompanying the renaissance of philosophy during the Third Republic, many academicsexpresseda deep concern for the crisis of their discipline at the turn of the century.Fabianicites three principlesources of this notion of crisis.First,while under the classicalcurriculum the phiclass remained the of after the losophy pinnacle secondaryeducation, Ribot reforms of 1902 this place was lost to the sciences, especially mathematics.Therefore,after 1902 philosophy had slipped from the summit to the marginsof national education. Second, many philosoin the public image of their discipline:while phers perceivedambiguity some members of the larger society renewed their interest in the Catholicheritageof spiritualism, manyothersexpresseda conservative reactionagainstthe criticaledges of universityphilosophy.Finally,the rise of the positive sciences and the stresson empiricalresearchposed problems, especially when it crossed into territorytraditionallycontrolledby philosophy. Given these institutionaland intellectualblows, then, one discerns a reactionin fin-de-sieclephilosophicaldiscourse,a sustainedattemptto reassertthe value, integrity,and prestigeof the disciplineon the intellectual field by citing the existence of a contemporarymoral crisis. It was believed that his malaise,which was linked to the Dreyfus Affair, could be counteredonly by a returnto more academicmodes of philosophical thinking. The French government was also deeply concontrolof culturalgoods:throughout the historyof the ThirdRepublic, sixty-twopercent of all cases of censorshipwere the resultof apparent This moral crisis also coincided with challengesto the moral order.101 the transformation of the role of the universityintellectualduringthe
cerned about public morality, which it claimed to protect through the

864 1890s to a position of active political engagement- what Durkheim called "the strict duty [of ecrivainset savants]to participatein public life."102 Hence the proliferationof lectures, articles, and books promoting republicanphilosophy and morality.During a lecture series on "Moralesociale" at the College Libre des Sciences Sociales, for example, Emile Boutroux noted that ensuring social solidarity depended upon "educationof judgmentand will, diminutionof egoism and false personality,progress of justice and of fraternityin human
societies."103
not even No one raises,no one has the rightto raisechildrenfor themselves; and the progressof humanity, the father.We raise them for the preservation for society and country,for the accomplishmentof the duties which await themin life.104

To Marcel Bernes, professor of philosophy at the Lycee Louis Le Grand, observation of the present showed only "moralindifference, vices that were to be eradicatedat any cost.105 moral anarchy," Having establishedthe symptomsof the moral crisis, then, a logical course of actionwouldbe to isolate and expungethe germitself. A central strategyin the philosophers'mission to regaintheir waning image was a shift in philosophical discourse on Nietzsche: whereas duringthe 1890s it was permissibleeitherto ignorehim or dismisshim after 1898 Nietzsche was specifiedas as a mere litterateur, increasingly a majorcause of contemporary immoralism,and "intelindividualism, The latter epithet may be traced as far back as lectual anarchy." AugusteComte,who explainedthat"thegreatmoraland politicalcrisis of our present society is the result,in the final analysis,of intellectual Our most deadly disease is the profounddivergenceof minds anarchy. with regardto all the fundamentalmaxims whose fixity is the prime Fin-de-siecleFrenchphilosophers condition of a true social order."106 order in their denunciationof for social concern same to the appealed shift rhetorical Nietzsche. This graduallyunfolded during the 1890s, and is well illustratedby Lucien Arr6at'sseries of book reviewsfor La first review in 1892 did little to inspire Revuephilosophique.Arrdat's for Nietzsche the interestof his colleaguesin the little-knownGerman: 'blonde of the The is all is beast',tertrue, place permitted.... "nothing rible and brave!Altruismis a word devoid of meaning.An end to pity: The existence of such ideas is not surprising, harden yourself!"107 Arr6atconcluded:

865
[Theyindicate]a necessaryreactionagainstthe debasementof man and the triumph of mediocrity,that one would sometimes say is the secret and unspokenpassionof socialismand democracy.108

By 1893, Arreat's vocabulary had changed considerably: as Nietzsche was becoming more popular among the literary avant-garde it was necessary to activate the logic of difference so characteristic of intellectual struggles. Of Wilhelm Weigland, author of Friedrich Nietzsche: Ein psychologischer Versuch,Arreat noted significantly that "[t]hiscritic is a poet," a shrill warning to his readers of Wiegland's position vis-a-vis academe. Nietzsche himself was now described as "a genuine ecrivain" rather than a philosopher:
It is not necessary,and it does not suffice,to be a philosopherand to refute with serious reasons the glitteringtirades and dogmatic opinions of this paradoxicalecrivain;it is necessary to be a psychologistand an artist to speakexpedientlyof him."19

Arr6at's terms clearly excluded the works of Nietzsche at an early date from ever being considered seriously as true philosophy; yet at this point his remarks betray little concern for the moral and social implications of Nietzsche's thought. By 1894, Arreat noted with dismay the steady increase of German and Italian scholarship devoted to Nietzsche: "This literature becomes a bit cumbersome, and it does not seem to me that the importance of the hero justifies it."110 When Rudolf Steiner, the father of anthroposophy and an associate of the Nietzsche-Archiv, presented a serious study of Nietzsche, Arr6at's response expressed the alignments of the field and the primacy of academic classification: "The literary qualities of the ecrivain have hidden from him the flaws in [Nietzsche's] logic and the incoherence of his thought.... His superior man, his Ubermensch, remains an incomprehensible monster.""' By the end of the century, Arr6at, who had previously been content to dismiss Nietzsche as a mere dilettante, began to portray him as a public menace. Arr6at noted, among the ranks of the Dreyfusards, a significant number of Nietzscheans: "Nietzsche appeared, in effect, to supply new and living formulas to the elegant anarchism of the 'intellectuals.'"12 As intellectuals divided themselves along lines of fracture established for nearly a decade, Arr6at declared the malignant influence of the German on French morality: "Nietzsche has awakened some disciples, he has jumbled up some minds."

866
His conception of the strong individual,his theory of a "mastermorality" are strikingenough, and in part precise opposed to that of the "slaves," How frivolousthey enough,to captivateattentionand summoncontroversy. always appear, when one presses and pushes them to their final consequences!How they are above all a ridiculousweapon in feeble hands!The alas!is still a wretchedmanin need of a sicknurse.113 Overman,

In short,the triple threatof anarchism, and immoralism individualism, became attributedto Nietzsche at the end of the century,thus coinciding with the publication of Nietzsche's works in French and the aforementionedcrises on the philosophical,social, and political fields. By 1899, Arreat'svoice mingledwith others in the collective condemnation of Nietzsche as the architect of contemporarydespair. The Soci6et Francaisede Philosophie,in its collectivelycompiled"Vocabulaire technique et critique de la philosophie,"explicitly and officially After the death as the doctrineof Nietzsche.l14 identified"immoralism" et de moraleeven of the Germanin 1900, La Revue de metaphysique obituaryfor the philosopherwhose works they publisheda substantial as a warning,the only sorhad refusedto review.Functioning primarily row conveyed in this elegy from universityphilosophers was for the future:
He has just died;and, deprivedof reasonfor elevenyears,in the elevenyears since he had disappearedfrom life, he alreadyhas a posterity.... In all of Europe he has found philosophersto appreciatehim, literarypeople [des lettres]to relish him, fanaticsto exalt him.... He developed, with the most .15 absolutelogicalrigor,this philosophyof the illogical,this irrationalism...

Clearly pursuing a different but related strategy,La Revue philosophique barelymentionedNietzsche'spassing,affordinghim only three The Renouvierist Annee philosophique had matter-of-factlines.116 the on remainedsilent subjectof Nietzsche throughoutthe 1890s; yet in 1899 FrancoisPillon also articulatedthe new discourseon the philosopher:
[Nietzsche is] the philosopher who boldly systematized anarchismand and absolutedeterminism; deduced from radicalindividualism immoralism and from his who enlivens the passionateimagination vigorous [he is] poet in original].117 the thoughtof the philosopher[emphasis

Charles Renouvier himself, two days before his death in 1903, told his disciple and friend Louis Prat that the vogue for Nietzsche was "the delusion of grandeurs erected into a system by a madman.

867 This fashion will pass in its turn."118 Another reviewer noted how Nietzschean thought underminedall forms of conventionalmorality, The rejectionof Kantwas deci"Christian, Protestant,and Kantian."'19 sive for Alphonse Darlu:in Nietzsche "[t]here is neithertruthnor good in itself. It is upon intellectualand moral nihilism that he raised his Kantian morality,meaning the morality of flamboyant doctrine."120 Lionel in 1906, "hasnever been less in favor.Its wrote Dauriac Duty," decline is even one of the dominanttraitsof the contemporarymoral Those who had givenbirthto this crisis,Dauriacpointed out, crisis."121 were not only young philosophers but "ecrivains,artists, and also, because it is necessaryto use fashionablewords, some aesthetes"who have consistentlyturned to alternativesources of action and contemplation.
[I]n the contemporary crisis, one seems disposed to practice radical methods, those that one could call methods of la tabula rasa. One would void the moral consciousness of the present time.... A crusade against the doctrine of sin, a crusade against belief in the categorical imperative; a crusade against all which in the matter of our moral consciousness descends or seems to descend, in a straight or oblique line, from a Jewish or Christian source[:] such is the triple character of the contemporary movement. Who are the commanders of the crusade? The army which follows them knows barely any but one: Nietzsche.122

No philosopherever elaboratedon the constituentsof this "army" of Nietzscheans except to say that they were primarilyfrom the artistic the ThirdRepubsphere,a long-timetargetof academicire throughout lic.'23Although the shift in philosophical and literary discourse on Nietzsche coincided with the DreyfusAffair,the event itself was translated into the logic of the philosophicalfield. Indeed, perhapsthe conservative critic FerdinandBrunetierehad initiated this discourse by blasting the intellectuelsfor their pretensions of being a noble class, "the pretension of raising writers, scientists, professors, and philosoSome months later he repeatedhis phers to the rankof supermen."'24 attackin similarterms, claimingthat the "Manifestedes intellectuels" was nothing other than individualismeand egoism. They see themselves as "the'Overman' of Nietzsche, or again as 'the enemy of laws' [of MauriceBarres]":
I am only saying that it will be necessary to see, when intellectualism and individualism occur to this degree of self-infatuation, they quite simply are or will become anarchy.125

868 The association of Nietzsche with Barres was quite common during this criticalperiod, and suggeststhe recoursethatmanyacademicshad to comfortable classifications that had by the end of the century become fairly obsolete. While Barreshad indeed writtenhis Cultedu moi trilogyduringthe early 1890s at the heightof the ere des attentats and remainedan outspokencritic of universityphilosophythroughout the fin de siecle, by 1898 Barres was writing about collective rather than individualregenerationin his novel of national energy. Nevertheless, as the two most visible symbolsof the literaryattackupon professional philosophy - and, from Brunetiere'sperspective, the two figuresmost clearlyassociatedwith the rebelliousliteraryavantgardeboth became associatedas exemplarsof contemporary egoism,immorand anarchism.126 alism, The most outspokencriticof Nietzscheanphilosophyat the turnof the centurywas Alfred Fouillee, a highly prolific social philosopherwho, due to declining health, had taken an early retirementfrom teaching during the 1870s.127 His poor health notwithstanding, Fouillee emerged as one of the most famous and the most consecratedof academicians,and his opinions carrieda degree of weight in the broader intellectualfield if not withinthe sphereof academe.Nietzsche himself had been a criticalreaderof Fouillee'swork, and wrote in The Willto Power:
these Parisianphilosopherssuch The "growing autonomyof the individual": as Fouilleespeakof this;they oughtto takea look at the sheep-likerace [race moutonnierel to which they belong!... A complete lack of psychological integrity!128

A staunchdefenderof the liberalrepublicand of the crowningposition of philosophy in national education, Fouillee devoted several articles and one full-lengthstudy to the philosophy of Nietzsche, while campaigningfor a revitalizedcourse in philosophythatpromisedto restore In no other philosopherdoes moral standardsto Frencheducation.129 the virulentrejectionof Nietzsche emergemore clearlyas a manifestation of the crisis of French philosophy.The argumentin favor of philosophical educationand the crusadeagainstNietzsche were part and parcel of the same discourse of public moralitythat markedphilosophicalrhetoricafter 1899. Fouillee utilized two cultural weapons in his campaign against Nietzsche, both of which might suggestthe legitimacyof his appraisal. First, Fouill6e published several articles in the dominant Revue des

869 deux mondes, which had throughoutthe 1890s proven an enemy of Nietzsche by carryingthe criticalcommentariesof Teodor de Wyzewa, Victor Cherbuliez, and 1douard Schure. Positioned on the literary field and yet recognized as an ally of academic philosophy,Fouillee selected a periodicalthat addressedthe culturaland acastrategically demic elite. Second, Fouillee had his Nietzscheet l'immoralisme, like most of his texts, publishedat Alcan, thus ensuringthe image of legitimacy that the publishinghouse conferred.Thus makingfull use of the symboliccapitalavailableto him, Fouillee initiatedhis protractedand bitteroffensiveagainstl'immoraliste. Fouillee saw Nietzsche'saristocratic ethic as a "signof the times.... The faithfulof the order of Nietzsche promise us nothing less than a new culture founded on anti-Christianculture."130 Throughout this text Fouillee selected the most graphic examples of Nietzsche's elitism, cruelty,nihilism,and hatredfor all forms of socialism,equality, justice, and those values which the liberal science, democracy, upon republicand academicphilosophy- stood. Far from being "'valuesof annihilaand equaltion,"'Fouillee protested,these republicanideals of "justice ity of rights are the true conditions of power and progress."31 Nietzsche's superior individual, according to many French critics, appeared as a cultural nomad with virtually no ties to civilization. Nietzsche'sideal individual,Arreathad mentionedelsewhere,can only be supposed "without heredity,withouteducation,withoutfamily,and withoutcountry."132 Fouill6e articulateda similarsentimentwhen critand libertarians" who rejectedthe idea of the icizing those "anarchists nation:
"We others without country!" cries Nietzsche. In other words: We other bees without hive, ants without anthill, individuals without speech, without science, without arts, without manners, men without humanity.'33

All in all, Fouillee's study of Nietzsche expressed the needs of many academicphilosophersduringthis criticalperiod of theirprofessionby how desperatelythe public needed theirinterventionto demonstrating restore republicanmorality.These philosophersbolstered themselves against the crisis they perceived in their discipline by maligning Nietzsche, a convenientsymbol of the literarydistortionof legitimate and purephilosophicalactivity.

870
Conclusion: Voices from the margins

Despite the apparentacademic rejection of Nietzsche, after 1905 it became much more acceptableto accord the Germanmarginalstatus within acceptable academic discourse. Yet in most cases this was demonstrated only by individualswho were themselvessomewhatmarto the ginal philosophicalfield. For example,the academicswho criticized Fouillee'sdecisive condemnationof Nietzsche, notably Georges Palante,Jules de Gaultier,and CharlesAndler, did so from positions that were eithermarginalor externalto the field. Palante,a philosophy professor at a provincial lycee who actively integrated Nietzschean themes into his social philosophy was only an agregede philosophie who often wrote for avant-gardeliterary reviews in addition to La who neitherheld Revuephilosophique. His colleagueJules de Gaultier, nor sought an academicpost, also contributedessays on Nietzsche to La Revue philosophiqueand published several importantstudies on the philosopher after 1900.134The German scholar Charles Andler had originally wished to pursuea careerin academicphilosophy;yet he twice failed his agregationde philosophie in 1887 and 1888 due to with with his jury,who found him muchtoo "intoxicated disagreements his turned Andler from the Rhine." across Undaunted, metaphysics attentionto Germanliteratureand would ultimatelybe appointed to the Sorbonne.Withhis initialcareerplansblockedby the philosophical it is not surprising thatAndler would producean imporestablishment, tant six-volumestudy of the thinkerwhose ideas were deemed illegitimate by that institution.135 Finally two other agregesde philosophie of Kantian the philosophyin favorof Nietzsche,but rejected hegemony were forced to do so from positions within the literaryavant-garde: PierreLasserre,a key collaboratoron the royalistActionfrancaise,and Marcel Drouin, a normalienstudent of Andler who helped form La
Nouvelle revuefranpaise in 1909.

In additionto such philosophicaldeviants,some professorswere willing to direct theses and even deliver lectures on the philosopher. Between 1904 and 1913, for example, four doctoral dissertations (threeat Paris and one at Montpellier)were completed and at least six public lectureswere offered by academicphilosopherson Nietzsche's While conferences on Nietzsche had been conducted thought.136 as Henri Albert and Teodor de around 1900 by such litterateurs were certainlymuch less comacademics lectures by Wyzewa,public mon. Held at the universitiesof Caen, Dijon, Poitiers,Lausanne,Paris, and Aix-Marseille, the open nature of these lectures surely under-

871 scored the popular and literary nature of Nietzsche's primary readership. In addition, the fact that several of these speakers were charges de cours rather than professors suggests once again the marginality and junior status of such academics. It is also unclear how many of these lectures were, like Georges Dwelshauvers's 1908 series at the EVcole des Hautes Etudes Sociales, further opportunities to discourage interest in the German.137One respondent to Binet's 1908 enquete noted the influence of contemporary moral concerns on the teaching of philosophy: "I cannot imagine ... a course on morality where one does not discuss the communism of Plato, where one ignores the contemporary workers movement, where one struggles [s'escrime] against Protagoras, and where one does not even cite Nietzsche."138 This marginal integration of Nietzsche into the French philosophical curriculum hardly signalled a canonization of the troublesome thinker. Indeed, because his ideas were apparently inspiring German aggression, Nietzsche was often represented as a veritable threat to national security, an image that seemed justified by the actual outbreak of hostilities in 1914.139Without a doubt, Nietzsche would still be taught at the Ecole Normale Sup6rieure after the First World War; yet one such seminar, presented by the neo-Kantian Leon Brunschvicg in 1928, was provocatively entitled: "Nietzsche - was he a philosopher?"140 On the contrary, those philosophers who openly embraced Nietzsche in twentieth-century France were generally themselves marginal to the academic mainstream. Jean-Paul Sartre, Paul Nizan, Jean Wahl, and Henri Lefebvre, for example, were all committed opponents of the reign of Bergsonism and Kantianism in academic philosophy, and were quite instrumental in the introduction of alternative philosophical models, especially Husserl, Hegel, and Marx, during the 1930s. Indeed, Sartre had clearly effected a revolution against Kantianism by blurring the boundary between literary philosophy and philosophical literature, a transformation of the philosophical field that undoubtedly facilitated the entry of more stylistically unorthodox philosophers in years to come.141 Nevertheless, while the rigidity of acceptable philosophical discourse in France apparently weakened during the twentieth century, practitioners of more "literary" styles of philosophy have generally been without significant power within the university field. Philosophers such as Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, and Jacques Derrida - all of whom had embraced facets of Nietzsche's philosophy - for years occupied relatively marginal positions in mainstream academic life despite their

872 considerable cultural success in France and North America. As Bourdieuwritesof his contemporaries:
In their relationswith the philosophicalhigh priests of the Sorbonne,who, like most of them,are productsof the 'greatlay seminary', the Icole Normale which is the apex of the whole academichierarchy, Superieure, they appear like religiousheretics, or, in other words, ratherlike freelanceintellectuals installedwithin the universitysystem itself, or to venturea Derrideanpun, of an academicempirethreatencampedon the marginsor in the marginalia ened on all sides by barbarianinvasions(that is, of course, as seen by the dominantfraction).l42

was not due exclusivelyto the advocacyof Surelysuch marginalization Nietzscheanphilosophy,but ratherto an entire approachto philosophical activity that, like that of Nietzsche, deviated from the philosophicalnorm.In short, one cannot conclude from the gradualinteafter 1908 that grationof Nietzsche into the philosophicalcurriculum his thoughtwas becoming part of the canon of acceptablephilosophical exemplars. Instead,one mightsay thatthe invisibleline whichat the turn of the centurywas meant to protect the philosophicalcorps from externalliteraryincursions reappearedlater within the philosophical the orthodoxand the heterocommunityitself to divide hierarchically dox. French philosophersat In conclusion, the efforts of most mainstream of Nietzsche and, when the turnof the centuryensuredthe marginality possible, of those who dared to speak of him as a legitimatephilosopher.The classificationsystemof academicphilosophersfunctionedas mechanismin the continuingmission to reproducethe an exclusionary of the profession, a standarddevice that necessitated the concorps struction of Nietzsche as an object of inquiry and of derision. The objectthus producedwouldin turnserveas a rationalefor its own maras well as for the exclusionof its admirers. Throughoutthis ginalization criticalperiod of the discipline,few would recognize the power relaof tions embeddedin their knowledgeor, above all, the representation in an to order to the object they were obliged destroy present "objective"philosophicaldiscourseon Nietzsche.

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledgethe helpful commentaryand suggestions made by Georg G. Iggers,FritzRinger,JonathanDewald,Alan Schrift, Andrew Hewitt, and John Joseph in this essay.I have also benefitted

873 from the suggestionsof those in attendanceat the SUNY/Buffalo and WesternNew YorkHistory Colloquium,8 April 1994. Finally,I thank the Editors of Theoryand Societyfor their carefulcritiqueof the origWhile I have taken seriouslythe insightfulsuggestions inal manuscript. made by these individuals,for a numberof reasons I was not able to incorporateall of them into the presentarticle. Notes
1. Friedrich Nietzsche, The Antichrist in The Portable Nietzsche, trans. Walter Kaufmann (New York: Viking Press, 1954), 579. 2. Christophe Charle, Naissance des "intellectuels,"1880-1900 (Paris: Minuit, 1990),

82-84,105-116. 3. The propagation of Nietzsche'sthoughtbetween 1892 and 1898 was effectedprimarily by the young writers of the literary avant-garde, who would publish the complete works of the philosopher in French. That many of these young Nietzsche enthusiasts, such as Daniel Halevy, Fernand Gregh, Robert Dreyfus, Andre Gide, Henri Gh6on, and Marcel Drouin, would become Dreyfusards suggests the inadequacy of those interpretive schemas that have made of Nietzsche an essentially right-wing thinker. On the contrary, research indicates a marked correspondence between social/literary position and the propensity to embrace or reject Nietzsche before 1899. Cf. Charle, Naissance, 97-137; Christopher E. Forth, "Nietzsche, decadence and regeneration in France, 1891-95" Journal of the History of Ideas 54 (January 1993): 97-117. Throughout this essay, the word "objective" is employed in regard to social relations that do not spring from the conscious intentions of a subject. Cf. Pierre Bourdieu, "Intellectual field and creative project," Social Science Information 8 (1969): 89-119; Homo Academicus (Stanford University Press, 1988); Les Regles de I'art (Paris: Seuil, 1992). Several scholars have applied this sociology to the intellectual life of late nineteenth-century France. Cf. Jean-Louis Fabiani, Les philosophes de la republique (Paris: Minuit, 1988); Christophe Charle, Naissance; Fritz Ringer, Fields of Knowledge: French Academic Culture in Comparative Perspective, 1890-1920 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). With this project, I hope to provide an alternative to the standard but now dated study of Genevieve Bianquis, entitled Nietzsche en France (Paris: Alcan, 1929). In this work, Bianquis presents a catalog of the various interpretations of Nietzsche from the 1890s to the 1920s without a contextual analysis of their conditions of possibility. Moreover, aside from occasional references to Efmile Faguet, Charles Andler, Henri Lichtenberger, Georges Palante, and Jules de Gaultier, Bianquis says little about the implications of Nietzschean philosophy for French academia. Bourdieu, Les Regles de I'art,243. Bourdieu, Homo Academicus, 24. Jay, Theory and Society 19 (June 1990), 316. Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil in Basic Writings (New York: The Modern Library, 1968), 419. Jean-Louis Fabiani, "Les programmes, les hommes, et les oeuvres: professeurs de philosophie en classe et en ville au tournant du si&cle,"Actes de la recherche en

4. 5.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

874
sciencessociales47-48 (1983): 4. On the influenceof Victor Cousin,see Alan B. Spitzer, The French Generationof 1820 (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress, 1987,) 71-96. 11. WilliamLogue, FromPhilosophyto Sociology:The Evolutionof FrenchLiberalism, 1870-1914(Dekalb,IL:NorthernIllinoisUniversityPress, 1983), 74-75, 77. 12. PhyllisStock-Morton,MoralEducation of for a SecularSociety:TheDevelopment France(Albany:State Universityof New Morale Laique in NineteenthCentury York Press, 1988), 33, 34. in 1868 and 1869, 13. FrancoisPillon had initiallypublishedL'Anniephilosophique which, after being replacedby Renouvier'sCritique philosophiquein 1872, was resurrectedin 1891. In addition,Pillon was cited as the primaryphilosophical unireviewerfor the second supplementto PierreLarousse'sGranddictionnaire verseldu XIXe siecle, suggestinghis authorityto shape and define academicphilosophy in the early 1890s. Cf. Philippe Besnard, editor, "The 'Annie socioloand the Foundingof gique'team"in TheSociologicalDomain: TheDurkheimians French Sociology (New York: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1983), 14; StockMorton, 59, 85-86; "Au lecteur,"Granddictionnaireuniverseldu XIXe siecle: du Granddictionnaire deuxiemesupplement universel,n.d. (Paris:Administration [1890?]), 17: 2022; WilliamLogue, CharlesRenouvier(Baton Rouge:Louisiana StateUniversityPress, 1992). 14. "Perhaps to-day [sic],"Paulhanclaimed, "M.Renouvieris even more respected and admiredthanfollowed."Cf. Paulhan,"Contemporary philosophyin France," Review9 (January ThePhilosophical 1900): 60. 15. Ringer,217. Univer16. VincentDescombes, ModernFrenchPhilosophy(Cambridge: Cambridge 130; Ringer,208sity Press, 1980), 6; Fabiani,Les Philosophesde la republique, 209. BasilBlackwell,1973), 3-9. 17. StephenLukes,Individualism (Oxford: Revuede meta18. Alphonse Darlu,"Apresune visite au Vatican,de M. Brunetiere," 249. morale 3 de et (1895): physique 19. Paulhan,64. 20. Jean-LouisFabiani,"Enjeuxet usages de la 'crise'dans la philosophieuniversitaireen Franceau tournantdu siecle,"Annales(mars-avril 1985): 383-384. et les hommes,"5. 21. Fouilleeand Darluquotedin Fabiani,"Lesprogrammes 22. It was at Alcan that the great philosophicaland social science periodicalsof the era were published, such as La Revue philosophique,L'Annee psychologique, L'Annee sociologique,and Le Journalde psychologienormale et pathologique. One might also cite the role of Flammarionin the productionof the academic philosophicalauthor.Cf. Fabiani,Les Philosophes,103-109. 23. Quotedin Fabiani,Les Philosophes,35. 24. Ibid.,34-36. et de morale 1 (juillet1893): 2; Fabiani,Les Philosophes, 25. Revuede metaphysique 36-37. Revuede en allemagne," 26. J. Benrubi,"LeMouvementphilosophiquecontemporain et de morale16 (septembre1908): 567. metaphysique 122. in Basic Writings, 27. Nietzsche, TheBirthof Tragedy
28. Fabiani, "Enjeux," 384.

Revue de metaphy29. Alphonse Darlu, "De M. Brunetiereet de l'individualisme," 381. morale et de (1898): sique ediin ErnestLavisseand AlfredRambaud, 30. Emile Faguet,"Leslettresen France"

875
tors, Histoire generale du IVe siecle d nos jours: Le monde contemporain, 18701900 (Paris: Armand Colin, 1901), 628-629. It is important to indicate the sharp division between such established conservative critics as Faguet, Brunetiere, and Cherbuliez, and younger republican professors of literature, such as Victor Basch and Charles Andler, who often defended the academic definition of philosophy, thus placing them at odds with their more consecrated elders. Cf. Victor Basch, "Individualistes modernes: Friedrich Nietzsche," La Grande revue 16 (1901): 362. Fabiani, "Les programmes," 17-18. A number of les petites revues of the avantgarde explicitly defined themselves as dealing with philosophical issues. For example, L'Idde moderne: Revue litteraire, artistique et philosophique, La Revue contemporaine: Litterature, politique, et philosophique, La Revue moderniste: Litteraire, artistique et philosophique, and Le Thyrse:Recueil de philosophie, art et litterature. Cf. Remy de Gourmont, Les Petites revues: Essai de bibliographie (Paris: Mercure de France, 1900), 14-15, 22, 28 and 33. Bourget, Le Disciple, as summarized in Ringer, 128-129, and Fabiani, Les Philosophes, 112-13. Barres, Les Deracines, as summarized in Ringer, 130-133, and Fabiani, Les Philosophes, 113; Jules de Gaultier, "Le bovarysme des Deracin6s," Mercure de France 35 (juillet 1900): 19. See also Barres, "Nos professeurs de philosophie," Scenes et doctrines du nationalisme in Oeuvre (Paris: Club de l'Honnete Homme, 1966), V: 65-67. Alfred Vallette, "Une enquete franco-allemande," Mercure de France 14 (avril 1895): 1-65. Jacques Morland, "Enquete sur l'influence allemande," Mercure de France 44 (novembre 1902): 289-384; 44 (d6cembre 1902: 647-695. In this case, a comparison may be drawn between France and Germany. As Steven E. Aschheim has shown recently in The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany, 1890-1990 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992), prior to the First World War the German avant-garde was also quite favorably disposed to Nietzsche while, with the exception of such sociologists as Ferdinand Tonnies and Georg Simmel, academics tended to reject his writings. Jules de Gaultier, contribution to Morland, 332. Remy de Gourmont, contribution to Morland, 336-337. Frederic Paulhan, contribution to Morland, 365. Theodule Ribot, contribution to Morland, 375. Fabiani, "Enjeux," 379. Paulhan, 65. Alfred Binet, "Une enquete sur l'6volution de l'enseignement de la philosophie," L'Anne psychologique 14 (1908): 159, 161-162, 163. Ibid., 160. Ibid., 167. Fabiani, Les Philosophes, 73-74. Leon Brunschvicg, quoted in Julien Benda, The Betrayal of the Intellectuals (Boston: Beacon Press, 1955), 179n. This statement appeared originally in Le Progres de la Conscience dans la philosophie occidentale. Remy de Gourmont, "La mort de Nietzsche," tpilogues, 1899-1901 (Paris: Mercure de France, 1915), 186-187. As opposed to the empirical Nietzsche, a proper name that merely designates the fact that an object is different without demonstrating the manner in which it differs (an object of recognition rather than cognition), Nietzsche as a constructed

31.

32. 33.

34. 35. 36.

37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47.

48. 49.

876
and epistemic individual refers to a finite set of properties standing in relation to mutually reinforcing representations on a predefined conceptual space. While the empirical Nietzsche is inexhaustible, the epistemic Nietzsche contains nothing that evades conceptualization, and those who read about this latter construction will respond to it according to their own positions on the conceptual field that generated it. This model suggests therefore an indefinite number of epistemic Nietzsches corresponding to all possible conceptual fields, and posits the act of epistemic constitution as endemic to the process of cultural reception. Cf. Bourdieu, Homo Academicus, 21-24. 50. Cf. Fabiani, Les Philosophes, 116-118; R. C. Grogin, The Bergsonian Controversy in France, 1900-1914 (Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 1988), 84. 51. The first several years of the twentieth century saw the rising popularity of Nietzsche in many sectors of French intellectual life. Lichtenberger's study had, it seems, inspired somewhat of a trend, for between 1898 and 1918 more studies were published on Nietzsche than on either Kant or Comte, which is surprising given the predominance of Kantian and positivist currents on the philosophical field. On the other hand, the growing appeal of Nietzsche among non-academics certainly contributed to this trend. From 1898 to 1918, 33 studies were devoted to Nietzsche, 30 to Kant, and 29 to Comte. Cf. Otto Lorenz, Catalogue general de la librairiefrancaise (Paris: Nilsson, 1905-24), volumes 16, 17, 20, 23, 25, 27, 28. 52. Cf. "Livres d6pos6s au bureau de la Revue," Revue philosophique 46 (d6cembre 1898): 689; 47 (juin 1899): 685; 48 (septembre 1899): 336; 49 (f6vrier 1900):

224; 50 (juillet1900): 112; 51 (mars 1901): 336; 52 (d6cembre1901): 705; 54

(d6cembre 1902): 656; 57 (juin 1904): 335; 68 (octobre 1909): 440. The works of

in Bayreuth Nietzsche translatedinto French were: RichardWagner (1877), The

Case of Wagner (1892), Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1898), Beyond Good and Evil (1898), Human, All Too Human (1899), Twilight of the Idols (1899), The Antichrist (1899), Nietzsche Contra Wagner (1899), The Genealogy of Morals (1900), Dawn (1901), The Gay Science (1901), The Wanderer and His Shadow (1902), The Will to Power (1903), Untimely Meditations (1907), and Ecce Homo (1908).

53. While neither of the two dominantphilosophicaljournalsreviewed Nietzsche's

texts, Renouvier's then-marginal Annee philosophique did so on several occasions. Cf. Franqois Pillon, review of Nietzsche, La Genealogie de la morale, L'Annee philosophique 10 (1900): 210-212; review of Nietzsche, Aurore and L'Origine de la tragedie, L'Annee philosophique 11 (1901): 301-302; Lionel Dauriac, review of Nietzsche, La Volonte de puissance, L 'Annie philosophique 13 (1903): 233. Bourdieu, Homo Academicus, 188. Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984), 6. Cf. Anonymous, review of Daniel Hale6vy,La Vie de Frederic Nietzsche, Revue de metaphysique et de morale 18 (mars 1910): 15; Lionel Dauriac, review of Camille Spiess, La verite sur Frederic Nietzsche, L'Annee philosophique 19 (1910): 280; Ren6 Berthelot, "Nietzsche (Friedrich-Wilhelm)," La Grande encyclopedie (Paris: Societe6anonyme de La Grande encyclop6die, 1900), 24:1081. Louis Weber, "Philosophie," Mercure de France 28 (d6cembre 1898): 769. Anonymous, review of Ludwig Stein, Friederich Nietzsche's [sic] Weltanschauung und ihre Gefahren, Revue de metaphysique et de morale 2 (janvier 1894), supplement 3. Alfred Lambert, review of Eugene de Roberty, Frederic Nietzsche, Revue internationale de sociologie 10 (d6cembre 1902): 924.

54. 55. 56.

57. 58.

59.

877
60. Louis Weber, review of Lichtenberger, La Philosophie de Nietzsche, Revue philosophique 45 (1898): 662-663. 61. Ibid., 663. 62. Anonymous, review of Ludwig Stein, Friederich Nietzsche's [sic] Weltanschauung und ihre Gefahren, Revue de metaphysique et de morale 2 (janvier 1894): supplement 2. 63. Alfred Fouillee, Nietzsche et l'immoralisme (Paris: Alcan, 1902), iv. 64. Ibid., iii. 65. Ibid.,iv. 66. Ibid., iii, 2. 67. Alfred Fouillee, "La Morale de la vie selon Guyau et selon Nietzsche," La Revue bleue (1 avril 1899): 386. For a contemporary discussion of Guyau and Nietzsche, see Geoffrey Fidler, "On Jean-Marie Guyau, Immoraliste," Journal of the History of Ideas 55 (January 1994). 68. Charles le Verrier, "Pitudes critique: Friedrich Nietzsche," Revue de metaphysique et de morale 9 (janvier 1901): 70. 69. Ibid. 70. Lucien Arreat, Dix annees de philosophie (Paris: Alcan, 1901), 134, 135. 71. Lucien Arreat, review of Ernst Horneffer, Nietzsches Lehre von der ewigen Wiederkunft und deren bisherige Ver&ffentlichung,Revue philosophique 50 (1900): 314. 72. I4mile Durkheim, "L'Individualisme et les intellectuels," Revue bleue 10 (2 juillet 1898): 10. 73. Bourdieu, Distinction, 30-31. 74. Littre et Beaujean, Dictionnaire, 1291. 75. Ibid., 217. 76. Alphonse Darlu, "De M. Brunetiere et de l'individualisme," Revue de metaphysique et de morale (1898): 384; Littr6 et Beaujean, Dictionnaire, 932. 77. Bourdieu, Homo Academicus, 57. 78. Bourdieu, Distinction, 251. 79. Alfred Binet, review of Alfred Fouill6e, Nietzsche et l'immoralisme, L'Annee psychologique 9 (1903): 402,405. 80. Bourdieu, Distinction, 66. 81. Anonymous, review of Hal6vy, La Vie de Frederic Nietzsche, Revue de metaphysique et de morale 18 (mars 1910): supplement 15. 82. Ibid., 16. Cf. also Lionel Dauriac, review of Daniel Halevy, La Vie de Frederic Nietzsche, L'Annee philosophique (1909): 269-270. 83. Henri Lichtenberger, La Philosophie de Nietzsche (Paris: Alcan, 1898), 1. 84. Louis Weber, review of Lichtenberger, La Philosophie de Nietzsche, Revue philosophique 45 (1898): 663. 85. Anonymous, review of Alfred Fouillee, Nietzsche et l'immoralisme, Revue de metaphysique et de morale 11 (mars 1903): supplement 2. Cf. also the biographical strategy in Georges Dwelshauvers, La Philosophie de Nietzsche (Paris: Societe franSaise d'imprimerie et de librairie, 1909). 86. Cf. Hans Kellner, Language and Historical Representation: Getting the Story Crooked (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989), 10-11. 87. By 1909, Rene Berthelot would be a member of the Academie de Belgique and an honorary professor at the Universite de Bruxelles. 88. Berthelot, La Grande encyclopedie, 24: 1081. 89. Smile Boutroux, "Kant (Immanuel)" La Grande encyclopedie, 21: 403.

878
90. G. Wyrouboff, "Comte (Auguste)" La Grande encyclopedie, 12: 284. 91. The list of contributors of La Grande encyclopedie cited efforts of the following academic philosophers, without failing to mention the specific academic capital of each: Ren6 Berthelot, Universit6 de Bruxelles; Vmile Boutroux, Sorbonne; Lionel Dauriac, Facult6 de lettres a Montpellier; Alfred Espinas, charge de cours, Faculte de lettres h Paris; Xavier Leon, agr6eg de philosophie; Theodule Ribot, professeur au College de France, directeur de la Revue philosophique. 92. Ibid. 93. Michel Arnauld [Marcel Drouin], "Frederic Nietzsche," La Revue blanche (1900): 113; Anna Boschetti, "L6gitimite litteraire et strategies editoriales" in Henri-Jean Martin and Roger Chartier, editors, Histoire de l'edition francaise: Le livre concurrence, 1900-1950 (Paris: Promodis, 1986), IV: 499. 94. Fouill6e, Nietzsche et l'immoralisme, vi. 95. Ibid. 96. Franqois Pilon, review of Nietzsche, Le Crepuscule des idoles, L'Annee philosophique (1899): 306. 97. Lionel Dauriac, review of Halevy, La Vie de Nietzsche, L'Annee philosophique (1909): 270. 98. Berthelot, La Grande encyclopedie, 24:1083. 99. Anonymous, review of Daniel Halevy, La Vie de Frederic Nietzsche, Revue de metaphisique et de morale 18 (mars 1910): 15. 100. Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols in The Portable Nietzsche, 471-472. 101. This percentage is significant, for in earlier periods the majority of censorship cases were instituted in response to perceived challenges to political and social authority. See the figures presented in James Allen Smith, In the Public Eye: A History of Reading in Modern France, 1800-1940 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), 94,102-103. 102. tmile Durkheim, "L'Ilite intellectuel et la democratie," La Revue bleue (4 juin 1904): 705. 103. Emile Boutroux, "Avant-propos" in Morale sociale: lecons professees au College libre des sciences sociales (Paris: Alcan, 1899), iii. 104. Ibid.,iv. 105. Marcel Bernes, "L'Unite morale" in Boutroux et al., Morale sociale, 38. 106. Auguste Comte, The Essential Comte, ed. Stanislav Andreski (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1974), 37. 107. Lucien Arreat, review of Robert Schellwein, Max Stirner und Friedrich Nietzsche, Revue philosophique 34 (septembre 1892): 334. 108. Ibid., 335. 109. Lucien Arreat, review of Wilhelm Weigland, Friedrich Nietzsche: Ein psychologischer Versuch, Revue philosophique 36 (1893): 104-105. 110. Lucien Arreat, review of Ludwig Stein, Friedrich Nietzsche's [sic] Weltanschauung and ihre Gefahren, Revue philosophique 37 (1894): 682. Contrasting academic philosophy in France and Germany, J. Benrubi noted that in the latter Nietzsche, "if he does not have students among professors of philosophy, one at least endeavors to interpret him in an impartial manner and to see in him something more than an 'immoralist' and a madman." Benrubi, "Le Mouvement philosophique," 578. 111. Lucien Arreat, review of Rudolf Steiner, Friedrich Nietzsche: Ein Kampfer gegen seine Zeit, Revue philosophique 41 (1896): 463. 112. Lucien Arreat, review of Lichtenberger, La Philosophie de Nietzsche, La Revue philosophique 45 (1898): 663.

879
113. Lucien Arr6at, review of G. Zoccoli, Federico Nietzsche, Revue philosophique 48 (1899): 224. 114. Andre Lalande, "Vocabulaire technique et critique de la philosophie," Bulletin de la Societe francaise de philosophie 8 (2 juillet 1908): 334. The "Immoralist" formed one part of The Will to Power, which was widely touted as the longawaited systematic expression of Nietzsche's philosophy. The term would become popularized among the literary avant-garde, especially after the 1902 publication of Andre Gide's novel L'Immoraliste. 115. "Necrologie: Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)," Revue de metaphysique et de morale septembre 8 (1900): suppl6ment 1. 116. "Necrologie," Revue philosophique 50 (1900): 328. 117. Francois Pillon, review of Henri Lichtenberger, Friedrich Nietzsche: Aphorismes etfragments choisis, L'Annee philosophique (1899): 302. 118. Charles Renouvier, Les Derniers entretients, ed. Louis Prat (Paris: J. Vrin, 1930), 85-86. 119. Anonymous, review of Henri Lichtenberger, La Philosophie de Nietzsche, Revue de metaphysique et de morale 6 (mars 1898): supplement 2. 120. Alphonse Darlu, "Classification des idees morales du temps present," La Revue bleue (11 mars 1899): 292-293. 121. Lionel Dauriac, "Le crepuscule de la morale kantienne: impressions et r6flexions sur la crise actuelle," L'Annee philosophique (1906): 125. 122. Ibid., 143. 123. It is necessary to raise at this point a key question: in this critical period during the Dreyfus Affair, which coincided with a dramatic shift in the literary perception of Nietzsche, exactly who were such philosophers as Dauriac, Pillon, and Arr6at implicating in their rejection of the disciples of the German? A simple answer is not forthcoming. While there was a clear concurrence between young universitaires and the literary avant-garde under the banner of the revision in 1898, many representatives from the latter faction, notably Andr6 Gide and Daniel Halevy, championed a vision of Nietzsche that coincided with their own social positions and trajectories as well as their rapport with the field of power. Thus despite their political alliance, most philosophy professors would differ markedly in their interpretation of the German. At the same time, roughly between 1898 and 1902, a new interpretation of Nietzsche became generated by writers associated with antiDreyfusism, such as Pierre Lasserre and Jules de Gaultier, which was therefore reflective of concerns standing in stark opposition to those of Gide and Hal6vy. It is therefore difficult to decide whether these philosophes de profession were rejecting both interpretations of Nietzsche, or only those that conflicted most with their political/professional agenda. 124. Ferdinand Bruneti&re, quoted in Jean-Denis Bredin, The Affair, trans. Jeffrey Mehlman (New York: Braziller, 1986), 277. 125. Ferdinand Brunetiere, "Apres le proces," Revue des deux mondes 146 (15 mars 1898): 445. 126. This discourse on Nietzsche persisted through the First World War, and may be found in the casual yet dismissive remarks made by academic philosophers. Alfred Croiset, dean of the Faculty of Letters at the Sorbonne, recommended a form of individualism that was at odds with that of any "cult of the self" or of the "Superman." During a 1904 lecture series Gustave Belot of Lycee Louis Le Grand noted that Nietzsche was "the immoralist d la mode" whose individualism, along with that of Stirner, would "end in individual anomie and social anarchy." In

880
a 1909 article for La Revue de metaphysique et de morale, Louis Weber, stressing the need for social morality, noted sadly that "the grandsons of our egalitarians of 1848 infatuate themselves with the hyper-aristocratic ideal of Nietzsche. The Ubermensch is d la mode." And Abel Rey, agrege de philosophie, articulated virtually the same discourse: for him both Nietzsche and Stirner were "anarchistes intellectuelles." Cf. Ringer, 230; Gustave Belot, "Les principes de la morale positiviste et la conscience contemporaine" in Alphonse Darlu et al., Itudes sur la philosophie morale au XIXe siecle: lecons professees d l't?;coledes hautes etudes sociales (Paris: Alcan, 1904), 8, 9-10; Louis Weber, "La Morale d'Epictete et les besoins presents de l'enseignement moral," Revue de metaphysique et de morale 17 (mars 1909): 216; Abel Rey, La philosophie moderne (Paris: Flammarion, 1911), 302. Logue, From Philosophy to Sociology, 130. Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power, trans. Walter Kaufmann (New York: Vintage Books, 1968), 782. Fouillee was an opponent of the 1902 Ribot reforms, which displaced philosophy from the summit of secondary education. Cf. Ringer, 249, 251. Fouill6e, Nietzsche et l'immoralisme, 52. Alfred Fouill6e, "Les id6es sociales de Nietzsche," Revue des deux mondes

127. 128. 129. 130. 131.

(1902):430. 132. Arreat, Dix annees, 134. 133. Fouill6e, "L'Idee de patrie," Revue de metaphysique et de morale 12 (janvier 1904): 120. 134. Cf. Christopher E. Forth, "The Function and Fate of Nietzschean Philosophy at the Boundaries of French Sociology, 1898-1911," Annals of Scholarship 10 (1993): 147-175. 135. Christophe Charle, Les Professeurs de la faculte de lettres de Paris: dictionnaire biographique, 1809-1908 (Paris: Editions du CNRS, 1985), 17. On the exchanges between Alfred Fouillee, Georges Palante, and Charles Andler, cf. Georges Palante, review of Alfred Fouill6e, Nietzsche et l'immoralisme, Revue philosophique 56 (juillet 1903): 93-103; Alfred Fouillee, "L'Idee de patrie," Revue de metaphysique et de morale 12 (janvier 1904): 121-122, n. 1; Charles Andler, review of Alfred Fouillee, Nietzsche et l'immoralisme, Notes critique, no. 23 (mars 1903): 82-84; Fouillee, "Lettre de M. Fouill6e," Notes critiques, no. 24 (avril 1903): 97-100; Andler, "R6ponse a M. Fouillee," Notes critiques, no. 24 (avril 1903): 100-102. 136. These dissertations were: Albert Levy, "Stirner et Nietzsche." Paris, 1904; J.-B. Severac, "Les opinions de Nietzsche sur Socrate." Montpellier, 1906; Pierre Lasserre, "Les idees de Nietzsche sur la musique: la periode wagnerienne, 18711876." Paris, 1907; Mlle Claire Richter, "Nietzsche et les theories biologiques contemporaines." Paris, 1911. Lectures delivered on Nietzsche included those of: H. Delacroix (Caen), Cours public: "Schopenhauer, Wagner, et Nietzsche"; Th. Ruyssen (Dijon), Conference ouverte: "La philosophie de la volonte: Schopenhauer et Nietzsche"; Georges Dwelshauvers (Bruxelles), "La philosophie de Nietzsche," Ecole des Hautes Etudes Sociales; A. Rivaud (Poitiers), Cours public: "La vie et les doctrines de Frederic Nietzsche"; M. Milloud (Lausanne), "Lecture critique de l'ouvrage de Nietzsche: La volonte de puissance"; Charles Andler (Paris), Litterature allemande: "Nietzsche: Sa vie, sa pens6e"; M. Segond (AixMarseille), "La volonte de puissance, 3e partie de Nietzsche". Cf. Ministere de l'instruction publique, Catalogue des theses IV: 837; V: 228, 462; VI: 345; Revue

881
de metaphysique et de morale, septembre 14 (1906): supp. 2; 15 (septembre 1907): supp. 2; 16 (septembre 1908): supp. 2; 16 (septembre 1908): supp. 5; 17 (novembre 1909): supp. 34; 21 (novembre 1913): supp. 33; "Bibliographie de la philosophie francaise," Bulletin de la Societe'francaise de philosophie 10 (21 juillet 1910): 299; Anonymous, review of Georges Dwelshauvers, La philosophie de Nietzsche, Revue de metaphysique et de morale 17 (septembre 1909): supp. 19. Georges Dwelshauvers, "La philosophie de Nietzsche," La Revue hebdomadaire des cours et conferences 17 (4 mars 1909): 769-780. Ironically, in his youth Dwelshauvers had been an early advocate of Nietzsche in the Belgian literary review La Societe nouvelle, where he admiringly cited "the diversity and genius of Nietzsche," an endorsement he would evidently grow to regret as he embarked upon a more academic philosophical career. In this early article, which consisted primarily of translated passages of Nietzsche, Dwelshauvers promised a forthcoming study of the philosopher. This study would never appear. Cf. Georges Dwelshauvers, "Etudes sur Friedrich Nietzsche," La Societe nouvelle 15 (octobre 1892): 470-481. Anonymous respondent to Binet, "Une enquete sur l'evolution de l'enseignement de la philosophie," L'Annee psychologique 14 (1908): 175. Cf. For example, a peripheral member of the Durkheimian school, Lucien LevyBruhl lectured on Nietzsche at the Eicole Libre des Sciences Politiques during the 1905-06 academic year, and perhaps earlier; yet, in these presentations L6vyBruhl explicated Thus Spoke Zarathustra as an example of doctrinal pangermanism. In 1910 the neo-Kantian Emile Meyerson made a similar claim in his article in the newspaper, Paris-Journal. Cf. Pierre Rain, L'Ecole Libre des Sciences Politiques (Paris: Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques, 1963), 47; Stephane Sarkany, Paul Morand et le cosmopolitisme litteraire (Paris: Editions Klincksieck, 1968), 24. Ronald Hayman, Sartre:A Life (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987), 71. Cf. Michael S. Roth, Knowing and History: Appropriations of Hegel in TwentiethCentury France (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988); Pierre Bourdieu, Les Regles de l'art, 293-297; Anna Boschetti, The Intellectual Enterprise: Sartre and Les Temps Modernes, trans. Richard C. McCleary (Evanstron, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1985). Bourdieu, Homo Academicus, xix.

137.

138. 139.

140. 141.

142.