Andrea Orsucci's Da Nietzsche a Heidegger: Mondo classico e civiltà europea is one of the richest and densest historical-philosophical studies to have appeared in recent years—certainly on Nietzsche, but also more generally on the European philosophical and intellectual landscape of the turn of the century.The title, which can be translated as From Nietzsche to Heidegger: The Classical World and European Civilization, indicates not only a temporal period and a spatial boundary, but also a philosophical project: moving from Nietzsche to Heidegger through figures such as Dilthey, Spengler, and Jaeger, Orsucci identifies, on the one hand, a quite revolutionary distancing from the spirit of the nineteenth century and, on the other, a substantial debt to the classical inheritance that century delivered. Indeed, on his reading, it is the classical world—and particularly the art, culture, and education of ancient Greece—that is the essential reference point for these figures; rather than fathers of the twentieth century, they are the sons of Goethe and the German Klassik. As Orsucci puts it, “in the late nineteenth century and the following decades, Hellas appears as a real experimentum crucis, which permits the ‘construction’ of indispensable ‘ideal models’ with which to ‘descend’ back to the present and to decipher, from a distanced perspective, the complexity of the transformations taking place” (x; translations are my own). In this project, Greece is a collective name referring to several realities: not only Winckelmann's and Goethe's classicistic sense of the “mother” of Western culture, but also the “bridge” to Oriental culture provided by late Hellenistic-Roman Greece and the more archaic, almost primitive Greece, the understanding of which had been developing in ethnology and anthropology. Orsucci offers an extremely detailed and innovative reconstruction of the convergences between these anthropological studies and the philosophy of this time, revealing the extraordinary significance of classical studies in the philosophy and culture of this crucial period.The wealth of topics covered and information provided by the book preclude any comprehensive summary. Indeed, as Orsucci admits (xix), the fifteen chapters can be read separately as short essays, and some treat themes familiar from his previous work (see chaps. 1–3 and 5–8). But the overall structure is as follows. In the first part, “Exercises of Realism,” chapters 1 to 3 are devoted more specifically to Nietzsche, and chapters 4 and 5 deal with Dilthey. In the second part, “Eastern Heritage in the Classical World,” Spengler is analyzed in detail in chapters 10 and 11, as a conclusion to the rich landscape of authors analyzed in the preceding chapters. Heidegger is the object of an interesting discussion in chapters 12 and 13, and in dialogue with Werner Jaeger in chapter 14. The book also offers a valuable critical apparatus: a rich array of footnotes, an extensive bibliography, and a useful index of names. Particularly interesting in this regard is the list of sources (529–38), which identifies a number of links between the authors analyzed and the studies on antiquity of the period, links that provide Orsucci with keys to understanding the complex structure of the cultural references made in these philosophical works.Chapters 1 to 3 provide a detailed overview of Nietzsche's readings of ethnographic and anthropological works of the period, and how they contribute to his understanding of the religious and cultural dimensions of Greek antiquity, particularly during the composition of Menschliches, Allzumenschliches. Orsucci traces a path through the major works in ethnology, including those of Carl Bötticher, Edward B. Taylor, Heinrich Nissen, Wilhelm Mannhardt, and John Lubbock, to name only the most significant. Together with Manfred Posani Loewenstein's new Italian critical edition of the Vorlesungen über den Gottesdienst der Griechen (Milan: Adelphi, 2012), these chapters of Da Nietzsche a Heidegger complete the panorama of ethnological references in Nietzsche's work and place them in a general interpretation of the role of antiquity in his thinking of the “middle” period. For, rather than simply enumerating the sources or showing Nietzsche's debts to them, Orsucci makes visible how they work in Nietzsche's texts: even when they appear only as quotations, he shows how they become an indissoluble part of the philosophical framework around which Nietzsche constructs the central themes of his critical analyses, often far from the source's original intentions. These chapters can thus be considered a culminating achievement of the philological studies for which Orsucci is already well known in Nietzsche Forschung.Another research interest of Orsucci's is Dilthey, and chapters 4 and 5 of the book provide a strikingly modern interpretation of the meaning of history and historiography in Dilthey's work. According to Orsucci, Dilthey undertakes an experiment in historiography by “assigning new ‘questions’ to the history of philosophy” and integrating in it, as a “working hypothesis,” the historical thesis proposed by “positivistic” philosophers and scientists such as Auguste Comte and John Stuart Mill, Justus von Liebig and Emil du Bois-Reymond. On this view, to remain valid as an instrument of knowledge and action in the modern period of scientific and technical innovation, history must be enriched by an awareness of modern scientific discoveries and the demands revealed by new sociological and political thought; in the face of anxiety about progress and its limits, history must become more a complement and less an alternative to scientific knowledge. Thus, Orsucci claims, “Dilthey's purpose is to increase the ‘strength of impact’ of the humanities by adopting the new languages of the age of positive science and of technical progress” (p. 70).Particularly interesting here is chapter 5, “Cicero, ‘Eternal Rome,’ and the Challenges of Modernity,” where, rather than the ubiquitous Greece, attention is paid to Roman law and Roman social and political thought, which modern scholars from Otto von Gierke and Theodor Mommsen to Dilthey had reconstructed on the basis of Cicero. The historiographical discourse returns in chapter 6, the first of the book's second part, where Orsucci reflects on historiographical classifications and rejects the traditional caesura between a “classical” and a “late” period of antiquity by reflecting on authors such as Ernst Troeltsch, Eduard Meyer, Alois Riegl, Eduard Norden, Wilhelm Bossuet, and Franz Cumont, who promoted a European rediscovery of historical continuity.The second part of the book is perhaps the most important one, both for its richness and ambition and for the significance of its themes. It reconstructs German classicists' discovery of later Greece, the Hellenistic Roman Greece, the Roman Empire, and the so-called Spätantike. Here Orsucci does not focus on particular authors, but considers a wealth of figures in order to reveal the issues raised by the new approach to late antiquity, and the disruptive, almost revolutionary implications of their studies for the more static tradition of classical philology. The most important issue here is the new interest in the magical or shamanic dimension of ancient Greece, and particularly the fascinating effects of ancient music and its rhythm on the human soul, myth, religious mysticism, and astrology, which Orsucci reconstructs in chapter 7 through the works of scholars such as Albrecht Dieterich, Ernst Cassirer, Rudolf Otto, Richard Reitzenstein, and Konrad Theodor Preuss. Chapters 8 and 9 are dedicated to the phenomenon of religious syncretism, analyzing the interrelations among ancient Iranian civilization, Judaism, and early Christianity on the basis of their mystical and gnostic philosophical or religious tendencies. What emerges in these chapters is a Greco-Roman culture freed from its traditional traits, lacking definite boundaries, and with a syncretistic character. In chapters 10 and 11, Orsucci addresses more directly Oswald Spengler and his criticism of the idea of classicism, by means of a rich and enlightening reconstruction of his work, sources, and references. The figure of Spengler, often perhaps too hastily neglected, emerges from this analysis not only as the interpreter of the “twilight atmosphere” of the century's decadence, but also as a sharp and attentive interpreter of all the intellectual stimulations that the ancient tradition offered to fin de siècle scholars.Chapters 12 to 14, which constitute the third part of the book, proceed from the most important results of the second part and focus on Heidegger, by systematically analyzing the deep connections between his thought and nineteenth-century religious-historical studies, including the already mentioned Reitzenstein as well as Rudolf Bultmann, Walter Bauer, and the scholars and intellectuals orbiting around George Kreis. The richness of Orsucci's analyses here will not escape Heidegger scholars, both for the theses defended and as a valuable reference tool. I found particularly interesting his reconsideration of Heidegger's debate with Werner Jaeger on the classical world. For Orsucci shows convincingly that Heidegger's criticism of the crypto-classicist position Jaeger expressed in his main work, Paideia, does not involve a rejection of the classical itself. Heidegger shares references and even sources with his opponent and is subject to the same fascination for antiquity, and his criticism is directed more at Jaeger's weak argumentative framework than at the object of his speculation, the Greek Paideia.In conclusion, Nietzsche scholars will find that Orsucci's chapters on Nietzsche provide valuable insights into his sources and their influence on his thought, and Dilthey, Heidegger, and Spengler scholars will also find the book an indispensable tool for historical and critical research. But Da Nietzsche a Heidegger is also remarkable for its attempt to describe a period of philosophical and classical studies, and the relations between these fields, that no one has yet managed to comprehensively define and describe. In this, Orsucci's work is nothing less than an attempt to account for the complex stimuli, ideas, and discoveries through which the transition from nineteenth-century to contemporary thought occurred. By its very nature, this attempt cannot but reveal the composite and unresolved character of this period. Indeed, the multitude of Orsucci's themes and references may perhaps distract or confuse the reader, and much is left to the reader's own efforts. But this is inevitable in a work that aspires to give unity and completeness to a philosophical period that defies simple categorization. It will be extremely valuable reading for anyone who wishes to appreciate this rich and still not adequately understood period, which profoundly marked the further development of contemporary thought.
Read more