Nietzsche, Swiss Thinker

Middleton, Selected Letters of FN, at 67 n.37: “N had been permitted by the authorities at Basel to join the Prussian forces as a medical orderly (other military service was out of the question, since he was officially a Swiss citizen).” Swiss citizen???

He also caught diphtheria two weeks after finishing his 10-day training program.

Do you mean his cheese is full of holes?

so Britannica is wrong?

I’m sure it’s not unheard of. Even the 1911 edition might have nodded once or twice. It also might be one of those questions on which the extant evidence is murky.

Holbo:
In teaching Nietzsche I joke he was a Swiss philosopher – like Rousseau and Calvin. (Like them, he believed autonomy is paramount and impossible. “Girls, girls, you’re both pretty!”)

Even by Holbo’s wink-wink-aren’t-we-initiates-all-clever standards, these sentences strike me as opaque (puzzling, whatever). I don’t think of Rousseau and Calvin as having much in common, except for the Geneva connection (have read some Rousseau; knowledge of Calvin is largely second-hand).

“Autonomy both paramount and impossible” — I’ll have to think about that one. And as for the line in quotes (“girls, girls…”), I have no idea what it means. But then I know rather little about Nietzsche’s writings, a state of ignorance in which I intend to remain, barring something very unforeseen.

Well, my guess about the Middleton reference seems unlikely. Basel wanted N to renounce Prussian citizenship bc they didn’t want their professor having to go do compulsory military service, so there can’t have been anything about being a prof that made one any “technical” Swiss citizen automatically.

Still, Britannica shouldn’t state categorically that N was a Swiss citizen if there’s doubt on the subject.

Holbo @9
Rousseau thought freedom was paramount. Calvin thought it was impossible. They are Swiss (well, they lived there.) Ergo, Swiss thinkers regard freedom as paramount and impossible. Nietzsche did. I really don’t see the problem.

This is funny, obvs. intentionally. (I didn’t realize the opening of the OP was also intended to be, but now I do.)

I immediately think of them as having something in common, though I have read much more by and about Rousseau than about Nietzsche. (I wish I could take John Holbo’s course.)

Calvin was, of course, French. But wasn’t Prussia originally Calvinist? And also Slavic (if not Polish)? Technically, as pedants are wont to point out, either there was no Switzerland at the time of Rousseau’s birth, or if there was, Geneva was not officially part of it. However that may be, after the public burning of Emile for heresy, Rousseau had to flee to Motiers (in what is now Switzerland), then under the protection of Frederick the Great of Prussia.

They both liked animals: http://virtualstoa.net/2012/01/11/rousseau-and-boswell-on-cats/

I was under the impression that Calvin believed all men were depraved, whether they meditated or not. But did Rousseau really write that? What was he doing during his “rêveries du promeneur solitaire” then?

Shelley thought that Rousseau, although classed as a philosopher, was “essentially a poet” (Defense of Poetry, 1821). It seems to me that this could be said of Nietzsche as well, and Machiavelli, too, as a matter of fact. All three were master stylists who created such arresting turns of phrase that readers tended to remember them out of context, causing their works to be misunderstood by much of posterity.

@23 That is a very good point, Jim. I just looked meditate up in a French dictionary, which gives the synonym “to reflect about something for a long time” — whereas in English meditation tends to connote thinking about nothing — i.e., emptying one’s mind, as in transcendental meditation. At least it does now. Perhaps the English meaning used to be closer to the French at one time, having more overlap with the words “premeditate” or plan.

@Jim Buck, iirc Rousseau’s negative reaction was not to the de la Tour portrait, but to the one by Allan Ramsay. So I think Ardrey has that one wrong.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Allan_Ramsay_-_Jean-Jacques_Rousseau_(1712_-_1778)_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg

Rousseau, at one time, converted to Calvinism. There is the connection.

Also, Rousseau had to flee from Geneva, and other nations. He was a bit of a wanderer, too, like Nietzsche. Forced, more often than not. But I’ve always really thought of him as French. He wasn’t born there. But I think Paris made him. And he kept returning to France over time, even after being forced to leave now and then.

John Holbo, the Chamberlain book is very good. Perhaps too short. But that can be an advantage for a teacher trying to get to as much material as possible. Were you able to find some of the other books we mentioned in the previous thread about N?

LFC 08.10.15 at 2:12 am

“Even by Holbo’s wink-wink-aren’t-we-initiates-all-clever standards, these sentences strike me as opaque (puzzling, whatever). I don’t think of Rousseau and Calvin as having much in common, except for the Geneva connection (have read some Rousseau; knowledge of Calvin is largely second-hand).”

I got it and enjoyed it, but I’m guessing not too many undergrads do either.

“Rousseau thought freedom was paramount. Calvin thought it was impossible. They are Swiss (well, they lived there.) Ergo, Swiss thinkers regard freedom as paramount and impossible. Nietzsche did. I really don’t see the problem.”

From a comedic standpoint, I suspect the problem is that the punchline relies on a suppressed 5-point syllogism.

“Nietzsche had this thing where he said he was descended from Polish nobility, on the basis of his name, although I gather that turns out to be nonsense.”

My memory of this one is fuzzy, but I seem to remember that this idea was either initiated or further encouraged when he discovered a painting of a Polish noble that someone said resembled him. Can’t find it in the Young bio at the moment.

My limited knowledge of French leads me nevertheless to think that “l’homme qui” can introduce a relative clause. “Man, the planning animal, is a depraved animal.”

Plume, my memory is that Rousseau was born Calvinist, converted to Catholicism, and later converted back.

Rousseau was a citizen of the Calvinist (Huguenot) republic of Geneva, however, he converted to Catholicism in his teens, after leaving that city. He converted back to Calvinism in his thirties in order to move back there but had to leave after suggesting that all religions were equally worthy (the heresy of indifferentism). The Calvinist (or former Calvinist) Frederick II of Prussia permitted him to live in Motiers in Neufchatel, of which he was the official protector, but the pious citizens of that city stoned him and he had to flee to England where David Hume had offered him a refuge.

Hume remarked that Rousseau “has not had the precaution to throw any veil over his sentiments; and, as he scorns to dissemble his contempt for established opinions, he could not wonder that all the zealots were in arms against him. The liberty of the press is not so secured in any country… as not to render such an open attack on popular prejudice somewhat dangerous.'”

I understood that one reason Rousseau didn’t marry his mistress Therese after his return to France, was because it was illegal there for a Protestant to marry a Catholic.

Rousseau belongs to French culture in the sense that (like Calvin) he was a master of French prose, but he always considered himself a citizen of Geneva, where artisans and tradesmen had voting rights and where a person’s thoughts didn’t have to be concealed by veils of premeditated aristocratic politeness.

“Hail to thee blithe spirit … that from heaven or near it pourest thy full heart / In profuse strains of unpremeditated art” — Shelley

Meditate – Oxford English Dictionary: 1. intr. To exercise the mind in thought or reflection; (freq.) to engage the mind in religious or spiritual reflection, contemplation, or other discipline

Oh, well, it’s traditional for the Swiss to help put folks back together after the battle.

It was also traditional for the Swiss to help tear folks apart during the battle.

bianca s. @36 (this addressed to Harold also):

Man, the planning animal, is a depraved animal.

Whatever the ‘meditate’ line is intended to mean, its context in the Second Discourse indicates that it has little to do w ‘planning’. It occurs in a lengthy passage where R. is arguing that ‘savages’ in his (hypothetical) state of nature don’t suffer from illness, that civilization causes illness, and that humans cd have avoided nearly all illnesses by “preserving the simple, uniform, and solitary manner of living which was prescribed for us by nature.” Then: “If nature destined us to be healthy, I venture to affirm that the state of reflection is contrary to nature and that the man who meditates is a depraved animal.” (Norton ed., p.13, and see editors’ attached footnote.)

Btw, as long as we’re still on R., Chris B’s intro to his 2012 Penguin ed. Of The Social Contract and Other Political Writings appears to be compact, well written, and interesting.

@43 LFC

It clearly means, in the context, reflect or “think about”, as Rousseau says himself. Even today in France if you don’t want, say, to buy something at the moment, you might say “I need to think about it” — using the verb “réfléchir” — “to reflect”. Also, as you probably know, “sauvage” in French doesn’t (or didn’t) carry the same connotations as “savage” does in English, but merely means wild.

Also, no disrespect to the excellent editors and translators of the Norton edition, there are also many many other solid and reliable books in English about Rousseau’s writings, including Leo Damrosch’s biography mentioned above, not to mention our own Chris Bertram, and also the late and lamented Robert Wolker, Lovejoy’s famous essay about Rousseau’s supposed primitivism, and on and on.

“Pedantically, Rousseau wasn’t Swiss, as Geneva didn’t join the Swiss Confederation until 1815.”

The Swiss Confederation before the 19th century was never more than an alliance of independent states (similar to Germany btw – Goethe was never politically a German). A citizen of Geneva or Zurich would have identified with that city more than with any “Switzerland”. Geneva was a Republic, allied with the Swiss Confederation, except that in the Napoleonic era, the state was annexed to France. Napoleon also tried to unite most of Switzerland for the first time as a unified state called the Helvetic Republic, which was unpopular (an understatement) and was dissolved in 1803. Switzerland as a unified country and citizenship really dates from the 1848 constitution, which was adopted after a brief civil war in which the liberal Protestant states were victorious.

Re Nietzsche’s citizenship: Swiss citizenship is, even today, linked with citizenship in the state and municipality. These are taken very seriously. Nietzsche would have had to acquire the Basel citizenship. If he did, there must be records of it which shouldn’t be too hard to find. Citizenship usually requires a waiting period of several years and a significant financial investment. Maybe there were special rules for people like professors.

“wasn’t Prussia originally Calvinist? And also Slavic (if not Polish)?”

Prussia adopted Lutheranism.

Harold @44
It clearly means, in the context, reflect or “think about”, as Rousseau says himself

And “think about” is distinct from “to plan,” though as bianca says @47, both senses may fit or work here.

not to mention our own Chris Bertram

Well, I mentioned him @42.
The Damrosch bk is, I assume, v. readable. I have read his bk on Tocqueville; not the one on Rousseau.

Bianca, Yes, that is how I interpret it. And Rousseau certainly hit a nerve with his hankerings after sincerity and spontaneity in an age of protocol and ceremony — not to mention censorship.

As far as Prussia, I gather the Royal Family were Calvinist — also known as Reformed or Huguenot. In the 17th and 18th c’.s yheir children had refugee Huguenot tutors who instructed them in French, as did much of the aristocracy of central Europe as Marc Fumaroli describes in When the World Spoke French. Of course, both Calvin and Luther professed the doctrine of total depravity (but Fumaroli says that the aristocratic refugee tutors adhered to a broad, rather libertine outlook, in honor of the example of Henri IV, le galant vert.)

According to wikipedia:

The Calvinist (Reformed) and Lutheran Protestant churches had existed in parallel after Prince-Elector John Sigismund declared his conversion from Lutheranism to Calvinism in 1617, with most of his subjects remaining Lutheran. However, a significant Calvinist minority had grown due to the reception of thousands of Calvinists refugees fleeing oppression by the Catholic Counter-Reformation in Bohemia, France (Huguenots), the Low Countries, and Wallonia or migrants from Jülich-Cleves-Berg, the Netherlands, Poland, or Switzerland. Their descendants made up the bulk of the Calvinists in Brandenburg. At issue over many decades was how to unite into one church.

Frederick William III, King of Prussia and Prince of Neuchâtel [in what is now Switzerland]
One year after he ascended to the throne in 1798, Frederick William III, being summus episcopus (Supreme Governor of the Protestant Churches), decreed a new common liturgical agenda (service book) to be published, for use in both the Lutheran and Reformed congregations. The king, a Reformed Christian, lived in a denominationally mixed marriage with the Lutheran Queen Louise (1776–1810), which is why they never partook of the Lord’s Supper together. A commission was formed in order to prepare this common agenda. This liturgical agenda was the culmination of the efforts of his predecessors to unify these two Protestant churches in Prussia and in its predecessor, the Electorate of Brandenburg, becoming later its core province.

@53. My apologies, LFC, no insult intended. It is just a question of Rousseau’s preternaturally vivid rhetoric, since if you read the whole thing, it is clear that R.’s so-called natural man is really a kind of solitary ape.

@Harold: no problem, I did not think you were intending an insult.