Nietzsche in Context (review)

Robin Small's Nietzsche in Context should be commended for its general project of placing Nietzsche in the context of various scientific thinkers: R. J. Boscovich, Afrikan Spir, Eugen Dühring, J. C. F. Zöllner, Teichmüller, Julius Mayer, Friedrich Albert Lange, Elisabeth d'Espérance, Eduard von Hartmann, and Paul Rée. I am always happy to read an author taking Nietzsche and science seriously, no matter how well that connection has now been established. My considerable problem with Small's work, however, is that there is not so little as a nod in the direction of other scholars who prepared his way.

In chapter after chapter, Small does not recognize the work of other scholars, and so does not place himself within a context of Nietzsche scholarship. In short, while Professor Small has effectively placed Nietzsche within the context of the scientific thought of his times, Small has not placed himself within the context of Nietzsche scholarship. One may argue that (1) both tasks are not necessary at all points, or (2) both tasks cannot be done at once.

My reply to the first point would be that it is absolutely necessary for Small to orient himself vis-⁄-vis other scholars precisely in a work such as his, where "the devil is in the details." Much of what Small says about Nietzsche and science has already been said well before publication of his own articles, especially the general orientation of recognizing scientific influences on Nietzsche. But the problem is now, has long been, and will continue to be working out myriad technical details. Small's approach in the work is to present the reader with a set of conclusions about these details, along with some selective details, but there is no attempt to acknowledge the existence of alternate interpretations, not to mention an attempt to refute them. Crucially, there is no comparison given between himself and several other commentators on the time atomism fragment. Readers may easily get the impression that Small and Small alone has discovered the significance of such a document.

My second point is that while doing history of ideas cannot always entail being explicitly self-conscious about it in every sentence, there must be an attempt at balance. Especially if a large body of literature already exists on a subject, or already employs an approach, the author must acknowledge the existence of other interpretations, if not give a brief comparison of one's own ideas with those alterations.

Take, for example the issue of time atomism. Before Nietzsche in Context, there existed several treatments from various perspectives, especially the work by Schlechta and Anders in the 1960s and my own in the 1990s. In addition, there are important works such as Günther Abel, Alistair Moles, and other crucial monographs that are not connected by the author to his own work. This raises a question: Who is the intended audience? Other scholars may be supposed to know the information necessary to read between the lines. To some scholars it will be apparent the orientation from which Small proceeds, and the large background of scholarship presumed by it. But the less-informed reader, meaning all those who do not specialize in Nietzsche and science, may well draw the conclusion that Small has researched all this on his own. Either way, Small has left important information out of his monograph.

Or take the example of Boscovich and Spir. I found Small's overestimation of Afrikan Spir to be objectionable. Small knows well that other scholars have considered Boscovich far more influential to Nietzsche than Spir. Does Small acknowledge the existence of others? No. He proceeds to give the reader his own reading as if it were uncontroverted truth. But the controversy precedes Small by decades. This raises an even more troubling question. Since Small knows of the work of Schlechta and Anders, and the...