Printer Friendly

Principles of HyperNietzsche.

Nietzsche for the experts

`One thing, however, seems certain: the manuscripts should be completely deciphered and transcribed, and studied as a group, as an individual manuscript, as an individual page (in many cases!), and then put in chronological order.

For example: yesterday I carefully examined the results of the page by page transcription of the manuscripts of Daybreak. I drew a sort of diagram of all the aphorisms in Daybreak following their appearance in the different manuscripts. Two things came out of this, which are basically the two sides of the same coin, that is: 1) the evolution of Daybreak, and 2) the exact chronology of each manuscript.

An understanding deepened by the reading and transcription of all the material might give even more precise philological results. And if that is important for the posthumous writings of a work published by Nietzsche himself, it is even more important for the vast number of manuscripts which were not used. By reading and transcribing all the materials which show us how a thought develops from notepad to notebook, and from that notebook to another notebook, the chronology, or even better the succession, can thus be obtained by internal criteria. So far, none of that has been done!'

This was an intuition and a real programme of work being announced 40 years ago (on 21 August 1961) by a young man aged 33 to his old professor of philosophy, Giorgio Colli, who had sent him to Weimar to check on the state of Nietzsche's manuscripts, with the intention of making a simple Italian translation of Nietzsche's works. Mazzino Montinari had just finished his second stay in Weimar, but he still did not know that he was going to devote the rest of his life, not just to the Italian translation, but also to a critical edition of the philosopher's works, a monumental work of editing which changed the state of research on Nietzsche.

However, having read that letter, we get the impression that Montinari did not really succeed in reproducing that intuition, which had seized him when he first saw Nietzsche's manuscripts, on paper in the 40 volumes of the Kritische Gesamtausgabe, the monumental German critical edition of Nietzsche's works. Montinari could surely have attained this penetrazione a fondo, this deeper understanding, this even deeper penetration of the development of Nietzsche's thought, but he was not able to communicate it (or at any rate only in a very unsatisfactory way) in his apparatus criticus. It was not his fault, it was the fault of ... paper! What Montinari wanted to do could not be done 40 years ago because it cannot be done by publishing in a printed volume.

Just as in the case of marginalia on the pages of the philosopher's personal library, so Montinari would have needed electronic support to be able to transcribe and publish each page of Nietzsche at a reasonable cost and with world-wide circulation. (1) And he would have needed hypertext to portray the development of the evolution. This does not take into account the fact that this intuition, coming not from a professional philologist, but from a philosopher and historian, should have been expressed by means of a literary theory to elicit a response from the Germanists and philologists, the majority of whom, at the time, were still busy looking for the best way of presenting the variants in the apparatus criticus.

Today, 40 years and 40 volumes later, we can envisage, thanks to the development of technology, the realization of what Montinari could only dream of, something which no editor has been able to accomplish so far: the transcription of all Nietzsche's manuscripts and the reconstruction of the creative process behind each work and each philosophical aphorism.

Besides, in this case, critical theory preceded technique. For Montinari was not an isolated visionary; other philologists and editors felt the same sense of frustration in relation to the medium and the methodologies used. In Paris, Louis Hay, whilst working on Heinrich Heine's manuscripts during the 1960s, had begun to see the manuscript as a new scientific object, not just a stage towards the printed text, and had founded the CNRS's Equipe Heine--the original basis of the present Institut des Textes et Manuscrits Modernes, a centre for more profound reflection on what has subsequently been called critique genetique (evolutionary criticism). (2) In Italy, a whole section of contemporary philology is devoted to filologia d'autore, in Dante Isella's words. (3) And in Germany, support for an edition charting the development of his work continues to grow and has even been applied to Nietzsche in the case of Dionysos-Dithyramben. (4)

In the case of Nietzsche, this demand dates back even further. Montinari himself gave us a striking example of the knowledge of Peter Gast--the first to tackle the publication of Nietzsche's manuscripts--by telling us that in the library of the former NietzscheArchives there was a small volume by Ernest Horneffer, Nietzsche letztes Schaffen (1906), in which the author railed against Peter Gast's edition of The Will to Power: `Nietzsche's manuscripts should be published just as they are, word for word, without putting them in order or grouping them together'. Next to this sentence can be found a comment in Peter Gast's hand: `If we had published them like this, Horneffer would have said that the opposite would have been better. The public would not tolerate such an edition. The experts, for whom an edition like this would be a real pleasure, are only a tiny minority'. (5)

The other reason for which Montinari was unable to realise his dream was the fact that he did not want to ruin the small publishing house which his friend Luciano Foa had just founded to publish this new edition of Nietzsche. Even when publishers get involved in publishing manuscripts, or evolutionary editions with a large number of facsimiles, and even though they usually succeed in making most of the costs fall on the general public, the price remains so high--and thus the circulation of this kind of publication remains so low--that the number of Nietzsche experts, which is already very limited in the case of an edition of this type, can only get smaller.

On the other hand, however, we believe that, in the case of HyperNietzsche, a growing number of students and researchers will become more and more interested in Nietzsche's texts and manuscripts, thanks to the greatly reduced costs of publication and access to information on the Internet, and the different kinds of more or less specialized publications and commentaries also available, and that the number of real experts can only increase.

We wish to rethink in a radical, co-operative and open way, with renewed methodological awareness and the tools of the 21st century, what Montinari could only dream about 40 years ago, with his evolutionary diagram in the middle of the Daybreak notebooks, so that the dream of all those Nietzsche experts--to publish everything that Nietzsche wrote as he wrote it, and following the logic of his thought in fieri--can become reality.

Research hypertext model

The HyperNietzsche project ( has taken up the challenge of an Internet medium for critical knowledge in literature and philosophy, by aiming to create a hypertext model which can be used as a real scientific research instrument for the human sciences.

The infrastructure of this collective work on the net will be applied to and tested on the work of Friedrich Nietzsche first of all, so that it can then be applied generally to other authors, to the study of a historical period or a collection of archives, or to the analysis of a philosophical problem.

It will give access to primary sources (texts, manuscripts, and correspondence), allow the establishment of critical editions, and the publication of research work, as well as setting up a system for validating contributions on the Internet, according to the principles of peer review.

So this is not just a digitalization project, nor the publishing on the net of a collection of texts and studies on Nietzsche, nor an electronic edition conceived as a readymade product and offered for consultation (in the form of a CD-ROM), but rather a working tool which will allow a scattered scholarly community to work co-operatively and cumulatively, and to publish the results of their work on the net, on a world-wide scale.

Nor is it a library of electronic on-line texts, more or less indexed, and accompanied by a search engine using either key words or unabridged text. It is a real hypertext system which above all allows users to have at their disposal Nietzsche's texts and manuscripts according to chronological, evolutionary or thematic order, and above all to activate a collection of hypertext links between the primary sources and critical essays produced by researchers.

HyperNietzsche is a research, publication and communication hypertext inspired by the Open Source philosophy and therefore encouraging the use of Copyleft This is constructed according to a dynamic contextualizing principle, and complements libraries, archives, publishers and other research projects on Nietzsche. (6)

Open Source in the human sciences

We took the concepts of Open Source and Copyleft from the field of computer science and adapted them to human sciences. Computing science, in its turn, had just reformulated in its own terms the fundamental characteristics of scientific method and practice which had been in place since the seventeenth century.

In 1984, Richard Stallman founded the Free Software Foundation (7), which saw software programmes not as the product of an industry which kept them secret for commercial ends, but as scientific knowledge to share with its peers. Stallman saw in the distribution of the source code a basis for allowing the transmission of knowledge and scientific innovation.

To stop the industry from appropriating bits of the free code and integrating them into non-public, industrial products, Stallman invented the concept of Copyleft and the GPL (General Public Licence) by which the author of a software programme would allow everybody to copy, modify and distribute it, on condition that they would not prevent others from doing the same. Copyleft indicates that whoever redistributes the software programme, with or without modifications, must also pass on the freedom to copy and modify it.

In 1997 these concepts were taken up by the Open Source Foundation (8), and in particular by Eric S. Raymond. According to Marcel Mauss's analysis, Raymond saw Open Source as the culture of donation, a sociological model which corresponded to a situation not of scarcity, but of abundance. (9)

Advocating the distribution of Open Source in a research environment signifies a recognition that science is a public enterprise and that it cannot advance according to the principles of secrecy, monopoly or the limited circulation of information. Besides, all researchers, including those who work for private companies, know that the free distribution of discoveries remains the most efficient method of resolving problems common within a particular discipline. (10)

Open Publishing and Public Archives

In the field of human sciences, working in Open Source means, on the one hand being able to access the digital version of objects of study which are appropriate to the human sciences: texts and manuscripts, archive collections, archaeological objects, images, sounds, film sequences, etc., (Public Archives) and, on the other hand, providing Internet access to the results of research work (Open Publishing).

The concept and practice of Open Publishing are beginning to spread through the natural sciences. Witness, for example, the initiative put forward by a group of biologists to create a `public library of science' which exposed the problem of the monopoly exerted by some publishers over the dissemination of scientific knowledge produced in a public research environment. (11)

The legitimacy of Open Publishing is even stronger in the case of publications in the human sciences, where the stakes are also not so high in financial terms. In this field, however, electronic publications still have to be able to acquire the aura and intellectual prestige which characterize writings published in handsome volumes by recognized publishers.

We do not want to return to the old question of the death of the book. On the contrary, we are convinced that the book is an object which has a future and remains an indispensable reading medium, even if it is of less use than the Internet in the dissemination and sharing of information appropriate to research.

On the other hand, we think that the research community should organize itself better, regain control of the peer review mechanism which it has more or less entrusted to commercial publishers and so become once again the guarantor of intellectual prestige. Effectively, a researcher's career can only be based on the number of his publications. But if it is publishers who are to decide which documents are worthy of publication by using their own criteria and not necessarily in accordance with the quality of scientific work, then the career of a researcher is actually in the hands of those publishers, instead of being determined by the judgement of his peers. From this perspective, the evaluation procedures of the research community are limited to just recording judgements which have been expressed by the selection panels of a certain number of recognized publishers. University presses do very little to correct the distortions created by this system. It is very evident in the human sciences that an appointments board would have no difficulty in making their choice between two candidates for a professorial chair if one could show he had been published by a large Parisian publisher whilst the other had to make do with a work published by a small university press.

Within the framework of the HyperNietzsche project, we have tried to resolve the distortions which now exist in the publication and evaluation mechanism by accompanying publication on the Internet with rigorous quality control carried out by the hypertext scientific committee on the one hand, and, as far as the publishing medium is concerned, by using printing-on-demand systems.

Public Archives is the other basic element of our approach. Unlike Open Publishing, the Public Archives concept is new and we are endeavouring to make public institutions understand the need for it. (12)

The aim is to guarantee universal access, by means of the Internet, to the wealth of collected documents (texts, images, sounds), humanity's heritage preserved by libraries, archives and public museums. These materials are a source of interest for every cultured person and represent primary sources for the work of researchers. Their circulation on the Internet in the form of digital reproductions, respecting both intellectual property rights and the concept of the public domain, would constitute an unparalleled means of publication and enhancement of this heritage, without harming demands for conservation of the originals.

In addition to providing the numerous advantages of digitalization of this heritage for cultural life in general and research in particular, and to encouraging public institutions to undertake digitalization campaigns, our approach aims to define a normative framework

which would allow every digitalization initiative with non-profit making aims to gain fast, free and easy access to the originals, or to good reproductions, copyright-free, following the decentralized spirit typical of the Internet. Too often, however, even in the case of collections preserved by public institutions, research projects on the Internet are obstructed by so-called legal obstacles which have absolutely nothing to do with the author's rights, but everything to do with the fact that very often archives and museums quite simply do not allow researchers to take photographs of a heritage which should be in the public domain.

Copyright and Copyleft

The concept of Copyleft forms the legal framework in which Open Source, the most widespread publication and most extensive sharing of knowledge, can best be realized.

This same spirit of sharing knowledge is at the very heart of the Copyright concept which was intended to encourage authors to publish the results of their research by granting them time-limited exclusive rights. Indeed, the duration of this privilege has since become so long that Copyright is in the process of producing the opposite effect, that is to say it is restricting the dissemination of information rather than encouraging it.

Copyleft is just a special case of Copyright, in which the Copyright holder decides to give the widest circulation to their work and to allow others to use it freely, on condition that no-one should appropriate it by claiming any exclusive rights.

Copyleft protects the text against illicit appropriation by someone who wants to plagiarize, mutilate, or disfigure it (that is to say to exploit it without recognizing intellectual paternity and the moral right of the author), just as much as from a publisher who wants to distribute it or sell it himself and prevent others from using it, copying it or distributing it freely.

The legal element of the HyperNietzsche project has tried to adapt the concept of Copyleft to the demands of scientific research in the human sciences not just by theoretical reflections, but also by putting in place legal conditions which allow the web site to function. Here, by way of example, are the legal procedures which regulate the publication of contributions to HyperNietzsche.

Every contribution published on HyperNietzsche will naturally be subject to the standards which regulate the rights of the author: indeed, there is no reason why a text published on the Internet should not enjoy the same legal protection as that accorded to an essay published in a book. However, in the context of university publishing, what interests researchers more is that the fruit of their researches should have the widest possible circulation. For this reason, Philippe Chevet, the lawyer who is taking part in the HyperNietzsche project, has written three licences of the Copyteft type which, within the most stringent protection of intellectual paternity and moral rights, allow everyone to consult the primary sources and critical contributions, but do not allow anyone to appropriate and monopolize them.

Unlike traditional publishers, the HyperNietzsche Association itself does not appropriate the materials which are entrusted to it for publication. With the contract assigning rights subscribed to by electronic means at the moment an essay is published on the net, the author does not actually cede any rights over his text whatsoever to HyperNietzsche, not even the exclusive rights of publication on the net. He is thus free to publish it again in whatever form he likes. The only thing to which the author commits himself is to make his text available on HyperNietzsche for a period of ten years, with the possibility of extending that period.

Finally, we should like to stress that HyperNietzsche is not limited to the publication of new essays, but that it intends to include the majority of essays written on Nietzsche (which will have been scrutinized by the scientific committee), even those which have already been published elsewhere. Indeed, we know that where an author who has not signed a contract assigning rights (as is usually the case for articles published in a journal) or where the contract did not make specific provisions for assigning rights to electronic publication (as in the majority of contracts established before the Internet explosion), the author is presumed to have kept publication rights for the electronic medium. Thus he is free to publish it again and to revive his text on HyperNietzsche, with all the advantages of worldwide circulation and inclusion in the hypertext context.

Peer review

A legal framework was also needed to control the peer review procedure and therefore to be able to guarantee the quality of contributions offered for publication. We found it in the constitution of the HyperNietzsche Association, an association set up under Law 1901, which was intended to become an instrument of self-government for the community of Nietzsche specialists and whose principal task was to police peer review through its scientific committee.

According to the provisions in the statute, the scientific committee is to be elected every two years by all the members of the Association. However, the first scientific committee was nominated by the founder members of the Association.

HyperNietzsche's scientific committee will normally work via the Internet, but it will meet in person at least once a year. (13)

Principle of dynamic contextualization

Digital libraries, electronic text centres and data banks of e-prints are usually organized according to a textual research principle using unabridged text, key words, categories, etc. This method of searching the information is not unknown on our site, which uses all kinds of textual enquiry instruments, search for occurrences, search by title, author, date, etc. But its function logic is different and endeavours to go beyond the research principle.

Basically, we have organized the information according to a principle of dynamic contextualization which is intended to provide the user with all the documents related to the page which he is currently displaying, as he navigates the site by moving from one page to another.

To achieve this result, we have divided the information into material, contributions and authors, that is to say firstly the objects of study (the material), then the researchers who work with this material (the authors), and finally the products of their work (the contributions). This structural division is already present in HyperNietzsche's home page (fig.1).


The materials section of HyperNietzsche, accessible by the frame of that name, contains copies of the digital form of all the primary sources for the study of Nietzsche, ordered according to a criterion of decreasing circulation: first the works which the philosopher wrote for the reading public, then the letters which he sent to a single reader (or to a very restricted circle), the manuscripts which he scribbled for himself, the books from his personal library with the annotations which he made in them, and finally all the documents which have to do with his biography and thus with his private life.

The criterion used for placing the entries in the contributions frame in order is that of their relevance to the materials. Therefore the first link suggested concerns the transcription of notes or other handwritten texts. Then there are the paths, that is to say the different possibilities for ordering the manuscripts or other documents: the chronological, thematic and evolutionary paths. The chronological paths try to place a collection of documents in chronological order: handwritten notes, letters, biographical documents, etc. The thematic paths, on the other hand, first of all ask for precise definition of the theme that one wishes to follow and the reason for which the different texts, written at different times, are supposed to refer to it. The evolutionary paths are the most complex and most subject to interpretation, because chronological, thematic and biographical elements are all involved in their establishment, as well as more general theories on the dynamics of their creation and on the writing of a text at different stages.

All kinds of commentary--philological, evolutionary, critical, philosophical, etc.--can be published on HyperNietzsche. Unlike critical essays, they are characterized by their brevity, but above all by the close connection they have with the material on which they comment.

The essays, on the other hand, represent a moment of extreme freedom in which the materials as well as the paths contained in the hypertext are analysed and used according to very general interpretative criteria, often with reference to other moments in the history of philosophy and literature. They interact with other parts of the hypertext--or even with other hypertexts--within an appropriate logic of argumentative development. They thus represent the sudden emergence in the hypertext of theories which are interpretative, critical, literary, philosophical, etc.

Bibliographies on HyperNietzsche will access a very flexible set-up system, in the form of databases, instantly available to researchers, which can be constantly updated. Corresponding works can be linked to the bibliographical entries, as facsimiles or in text versions. Translations are a form of contribution which characteristically can be applied to all the other elements of HyperNietzsche. The materials, contributions and translations themselves can all be the targets of translation into another language. HyperNietzschetype systems will become the preferred site for comparing translations and for stimulating a desire to produce translations of important texts for research.

The third frame is a summary of all the authors who have contributed to HyperNietzsche and the positions which they hold within the Association. One click of the mouse will be enough to access the researcher's personal page containing their scientific profile and a list of their contributions.

Let us try now to simulate a researcher's consultation of the hypertext, entering the hypertext by means of the materials frame. By clicking on works in the central menu, a list of works published by Nietzsche will appear. Now let us choose the work which we used to form the first core materials put onto our system: The Wanderer and His Shadow A new system of frames then appears which allows us to consult everything on HyperNietzsche connected with this work (fig.2).


In the upper portion of this window, the three frames on the home page which provide access to the three logic areas of the hypertext are transformed into a menu with icons and, above all, contextualized. On the home page, each frame accesses all the elements present on HyperNietzsche: the materials frame accesses all the materials, that of contributions accesses all contributions, etc. Now on the other side of the looking glass, we can move within the hypertext by allowing ourselves to be guided by the three images which represent its logical structure and internal organization (the fourth icon, the small thoughtful Nietzsche at the top on the left, will take us back at any time to where we started).

From now on, each of these images refers exclusively to the part of the hypertext which we are currently examining: in that case, clicking on the small materials box will give us access, not to all the materials on HyperNietzsche, but just to those which are connected with The Wanderer and His Shadow; clicking on the icon of the pen will take us to all the contributions which deal with The Wanderer, and so on.

This model of structuring the elements of the hypertext applies not just to each work by Nietzsche, but to each aphorism, each manuscript page, each letter and each biographical document (fig.3).


If, in the course of navigating, we contextualize a particular piece of material, for example aphorism 338 of The Wanderer (the yellow background to the page tells us that we are currently navigating the materials area), by clicking on the small materials box the system will display for us the different digital representations of this aphorism: digital facsimiles and digitalization in text mode. One click on the contributions icon will give us a list of everything that the authors have written about this aphorism: translations, philological notes, philosophical commentaries, evolutionary paths, etc. And last of all, one click on the authors icon will list the names of all those who have written about aphorism 338 of The Wanderer (fig.4).


If we contextualize a contribution, for example an essay by Luca Lupo on aphorism 338 in The Wanderer (blue background), the materials will be all Nietzsche's texts, manuscripts and other documents which Lupo quotes in his essay. The contributions will be 1) all the contributions by other authors, quoted by Lupo, and 2) all the contributions by other authors which quote Luca Lupo's text. The authors will be all those quoted in Lupo's text, and all those who have quoted Lupo's text in their own works (fig.5).


If finally, we contextualize an author, for example Luca Lupo (pink background), the materials are all the Nietzschean materials which Lupo used. Contributions will give us a list of all Luca Lupo's contributions and all the contributions by other authors quoted by Luca Lupo. Authors are those whom Lupo quotes (with an indication of the passages where he quotes them) and those who quote Luca Lupo (with an indication of the passages where they quote him).

This hypertextual system will allow, for example, a teacher who has to give a class on one of Nietzsche's aphorisms, not just to have immediately to hand all the translations of this aphorism, the philosophical commentaries and essays which refer to it, but also, by means of the authors' web pages, to discover specialists who share their research interests and to get in contact with them.

Libraries and archives, publishing houses, research groups

HyperNietzsche maintains links with traditional systems for preserving and circulating information which are both a substitute for and a complement to it.

HyperNietzsche complements libraries and archives whose statutory mission it acknowledges and fulfils in the best way. If science is by definition an Open Source undertaking, then researchers ought to have the primary sources relating to their discipline freely at their disposal, so they can work with them and refer to them in the context of open public discussion. In Nietzsche's case, the primary sources are his books and manuscripts. And the Internet is the most effective means of guaranteeing all researchers access to these documents.

We can even claim that archives and public libraries may find in HyperNietzsche a suggestion as to the manner of reconciling their statutory aims of conservation and free access to their heritage. There would be maximum conservation, because researchers, except for those engaged in very highly specialized studies on the nature of the paper or on the dating of the manuscripts, would not need to have access to the originals which could be kept under optimum conditions, and maximum availability, because the digitalized image of the manuscripts would be available for consultation by millions of Internet users, scattered throughout the world.

On the other hand, this digitalized collection, available throughout the world and with free access for the purposes of teaching and research, could be put to profitable use by publishers who wished to use it for commercial editions in book-form, or for book fairs, etc.

A system like HyperNietzsche enjoys a complementary relationship with both traditional publishing houses and publishers of electronic books. It satisfies the aims of exhaustiveness, speed and maximum dissemination, features of specialized research which can only be frustrated by the time, expense and constraints of space and methodological uniformity which are inevitable in texts published in book form. But it is not a substitute for books as reading tools. On the contrary: publishing houses which produce beautiful books will even be able to find on this site something to sustain their editorial output. Indeed, HyperNietzsche and the other systems of this type will be able to provide publishers with a reservoir of critical materials of guaranteed quality, constantly updated and highly structured, which can be re-used at any moment in the form of a printed work or an e-book (whilst, of course, respecting the rights of the author as formulated according to the Copyleft licences set out above). Publishers will be able to mine this resource to print anthologies, themed collections, files tracing the evolution of a work which contain a great many facsimiles, up-to-date editions, etc.

It seems to me that traditional publishers will be able to continue to carry out their task as cultural intermediaries between the scholarly community, with aspirations of scientific exhaustiveness, and a reading public which is either educated or wishes to be, but not necessarily to a specialist degree, within a movement such as this.

The prospect of really open international collaboration through HyperNietzsche will not necessarily lead to total fragmentation of research. The fact that a "World Wide Laboratory" exists, in which every researcher can work on his own, does not weaken the justification for traditional research centres or disrupt the mechanism by which research is organized, especially in Germany, by means of projects financed by the DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) or other public bodies.

This was the way, for example, that the Colli-Montinari edition was completed after the death of its founders. (14) But these days, research groups working on a critical edition enjoy a kind of monopoly on the materials which form the object of their study, a monopoly which stems from a privileged relationship with the Berlin publisher of Nietzsche's work, Walter de Gruyter.

The arrival of HyperNietzsche means that, on the one hand, the existing Nietzsche centres will be able to benefit from the help of the whole of the specialist community, whilst on the other hand, new Nietzsche centres will be created. Indeed, from the moment when everybody will be able to publish freely the results of their work on HyperNietzsche, a monopoly born of a special relationship with a particular publisher will cease to exist. This should give a big boost to research on Nietzsche: the work of publishing it and providing a philological commentary will be able to be carried out more quickly and effectively, the results will be available in real time, and will mesh in the most fruitful way with the philosophical interpretations of them. New ways of dividing up both the editorial and interpretive work will be able to be invented on a global scale, without being private property and in a new spirit of co-operation.

Finally, a procedure like this could well excite the interest of public bodies which finance research, such as the DFG, the CNRS and the Italian CNR (Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche), which would be able to benefit from a system like HyperNietzsche as an infrastructure for collective work. That would avoid the same research being funded twice, would accord much greater visibility to the work of researchers and lead to substantial savings in publication costs--without, of course, excluding the publication in book-form of the contributions most suited to that method of circulation.


(1) Allow me to refer on this matter to Paolo D'Iorio, Frank Simon-Ritz, `Multimedia catalogue of Nietzsche's library', in Paolo D'Iorio and Daniel Ferrer (eds.), Bibliotheques d'erivains, Paris, Editions du CNRS 2001, pp. 145-169.

(2) See Jean-Louis Lebrave, `La critique genetique: une discipline nouvelle ou un avatar moderne de la philologie?', in Genesis I (1992) pp. 33-72; Louis Hay (ed.), Les Manuscrits des ecrivains, Paris, Hachette-CNRS Editions 1993; Almuth Gresillon, Elements de critique genetique. Lire les manuscrits modernes, Paris, PUF 1994.

(3) See Alfredo Stussi, Introduzione agli di filologia italiana, Bologna, Il Mulino 1994, p. 155 et seq.

(4) See Wolfram Groddeck, Friedrich Nietzsche `Dionysos-Dithyramben', Berlin-New York, de Gruyter 1991. On these questions, see also Paolo D'Iorio, Nathalie Ferrand (eds.), Genesi, critica, edizione, Pisa, Scuola Normale Superiore 1998.

(5) Mazzino Montinari, `La Volonte de puissance' n'existe pas, text edited and with an afterword by Paolo D'Iorio, translated from the Italian by Patricia Farazzi and Michel Valensi, Paris, Editions de l'eclat 1996. Also available at internet address: <>.

(6) Introduced for the first time in 1996 at the Ecole Normale Superieure in Pisa during the conference Genesi, Critica, Edizione (organized by Paolo d'Iorio, Armando Petrucci and Alfredo Stussi), the development of the HyperNietzsche project began in the autumn of 1998 within the framework of the Institut des Textes et Manuscrits Modernes of the CNRS, thanks to financial aid from the Archives de la Creation programme and the GIS `Sciences de la cognition' (Jean-Gabriel Ganascia). In 2000 HyperNietzsche was financed within the framework of Aides a Projet Nouveau (APN) and in 2001 by ACI `Jeunes chercheurs' of the Ministere de la Recherche. From autumn 2001 development will continue in the University of Munich within the framework of the Sofya Kovalevskaya Prize awarded by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (see <>). A description of the project was published in autumn 2000 in the book: HyperNietzsche. Modele d'un hypertexte savant sur Internet pour la recherche en sciences humaines. Questions philosophiques, problemes juridiques, outils informatiques, edited by Paolo D'Iorio, Paris, PUF 2000.

(7) <>.

(8) <>.

(9) Eric Steven Raymond, `Homesteading the Noosphere', para.6, < homesteading/homesteading/>, 25.08.2000, c Eric S. Raymond, also published in Eric S. Raymond, The Cathedral and the Bazaar. Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary, London, O'Reilly and Associates Inc. 2001.

(10) Richard Barbrook, `The Hi-Tech Gift Economy' in First Monday, Vol.3, no.12, December 1998, <http://>.

(11) See the website <>.

(12) A preliminary discussion of this concept is scheduled to take place during the conference L'Open Source dans les Sciences Humaines. Modeles ouverts de recherche et de publication sur Internet organized at the Ecole Normale Superieure in Paris by the Maison des sciences de l'homme (Programme Numerisation pour l'Enseignement et la Recherche), the Fabula Association and the HyperNietzsche Association in January 2002 (see <>)

(13) The first meeting was held from 4-8 May 2001 at the Fondation des Treilles de Tourtour, at the conference Un esprit libre sur Internet. See <>. The scientific committee of the HyperNietzsche Association is made up at the moment by: Paolo D'Iorio, ITEM-CNRS, Paris; Gtinter Abel, Technische Universitat, Berlin; Sandro Barbera, University of Pisa; Marco Brusotti, University of Munich; Ernani Chaves, University of Belem (Brazil); Mathieu Kessler, University of Orleans; Jean-Francois Mattel, University of Nice; German Melendez, Universidad nacional, Colombia, Bogota; Glenn W. Most, ENS, Pisa/University of Chicago; Renate Muller-Buck, Technische Universitat, Berlin; Diego Sanchez Meca, University of Madrid; Paul J.M. van Tongeren, University of Nijmegen (Holland).

(14) See Wolfgang Muller-Lauter's article, `Zwischenbilanz. Zur Weiterffihrung der Montinari mitbegrundeten Nietzsche-Editionen nach 1986', Nietzsche-Studien, 23 (1994), pp. 307-316.
Paolo D'Iorio
ITEM-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
Translated from the French by Rosemary Dear

Paolo D'Iorio, who is a former student at the Pisa Scuola Normale Superiore and a doctor of philosophy, is researcher at the Institut des Textes et Manuscrits Modernes (ITEM-CNRS) and Sofja Kovalevskaja award recipient of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. A Nietzsche specialist, he also works on scholarly hypertext editions. He has published a book on Nietzsche's eternal recurrence (La linea e il circolo, 1995). Together with Francesco Fronterotta he established the text of Nietzsche's lectures on the pre-Platonic philosophers and wrote a commentary on them (1994), and similarly with a collection of texts by Nietzsche for La Pleiade (2000). Among his most recent publications are: Genesi, critica, edizione (with Nathalie Ferrand), 1999; HyperNietzsche (ed.), 2000; Bibliotheques d'ecrivains (with Daniel Ferrer), 2001.
COPYRIGHT 2002 Sage Publications, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2002 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
Author:d'Iorio, Paolo
Geographic Code:4E
Date:Dec 22, 2002
Previous Article:Gathering memory: thoughts on the history of libraries.
Next Article:Genesis and hypertext: exchanging scores.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2022 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |