It is well known that the secondary literature on Nietzsche covers the widest possible range. It goes from Nietzsche as a proto-Nazi to Nietzsche as aristocratically and aesthetically apolitical to Nietzsche as a possible constitutionalist and democrat. This spectrum of interpretations is often said to be consequent to inconsistencies or confusions or mistakes in his thought. One might, however, also note that it seems to be thelot of great thinkers to permit such a wide range of interpretations – one thinks of Plato or Rousseau.

How and by what are we to be educated in reading Nietzsche if no one can say finally what he means? This diversity leads one to ask if one can – or should – take all of Nietzsche’s writings seriously. Are there not what one might call “rhetorical” exaggerations? It is clear that no one can fail to recognize the rhetorical quality and concerns of his work. Aside from his published writings, he lectured regularly about rhetoric and related matters; it is worth...