Wolter Hartog
Glenn Most on the Relation between Aristotelian Catharsis and
Nietzschean Entladung
Reflective Report Nietzsche Seminar October 2, 2009
In his article, ''Nietzsche gegen Aristoteles, mit Aristoteles,'' Glenn Most analyses Nietzsche's
implicit use and appropriation of the Aristotelian concept of tragic catharsis. The article, of which
Most presented a draft during the Nietzsche seminar, is the result of a series of lectures during a
philological conference in Berlin on the concept of catharsis. In studying Bernays' medical
interpretation of this Aristotelian concept, Most noticed that Bernays' translation of it with the
German word Entladung, plays a major role in Nietzsche's GT too. This observation led him to the
hypothesis that Nietzsche could have derived this term from Bernays and so, indirectly, from the
catharsis-concept of Aristotle.
In this report of the discussion that we had on Most's thesis, I will first give a summary of his
provisional article (I). Next, I will give an account of the discussion that we had during the seminar
as a result of his presentation (II). And finally, I will conclude with some personal reflections on this
topic (III) and a subsequent conclusion (IV).
I. Summary
Most starts with the observation that the concept of tragic catharsis hardly appears at all in
Nietzsche's GT. Especially in passages in which Nietzsche speaks for example of a mishmash of
double feelings, such as joy and pain (GT 2, KSA 1, 33), in Greek tragedy, one would expect to find
it (51). For in all theories of tragedy since Gorgias, all theories of catharsis since Aristotle, as well
as the metaphors of medicine and poison that have been included in Jacob Bernays' scientific
explanation of the concept of catharsis, one finds this concept as the illuminating solution for this
contrast of feelings (51-2). But just like in Aristotle's Poetics, one has to wait almost until the end of
the book to find the concept of catharsis – with reference to Aristotle – explicitly mentioned in GT
(22, KSA 1, 141-3; cf. Poetics 6, 1449b28). In this passage, Nietzsche attacks – according to Most
entirely unfairly – the contemporary scientific catharsis-theory, which he sets out ambiguously as
fleeting between either a moral or a medical view of tragedy and opposes this with his own
aesthetic interpretation (53). However, according to Most, Nietzsche imitates, by bringing forward
Goethe's aesthetic interpretation against moralistic interpretations, entirely the argumentation of the
contemporary philologist Bernays, which Nietzsche turns at the same time against the latter (54).
It is evident that Nietzsche, already in his early years, tried to find a counter concept to Aristotle's
theory of catharsis (56). Already as a student, he attacks Aristotle's theories on tragedy vigorously.
1
Also later on, formulas like “gegen Aristoteles” (cf. KSA 7, 75, 78, 195) or “Kritik der
Aristotelischen Auffassung” appear regularly (KSA 7, 220). Until GT, Most finds only one positive
comment with regard to Aristotle, but in this remark, the catharsis-theory of Aristotle functions
merely as an indication that the Greeks in general were deeply touched by their music (KSA 7:
9[36]). In his later writings, Nietzsche attacks Aristotle's conception of tragedy quite regularly,
although he takes him more seriously at some places in the Nachlaß of this later period (57). In one
instance, he calls the necessity of discharge, catharsis, a ground-rule for the Greek nature and
wonders whether tragedy can be explained as the instantaneous jolting of charge and discharge
(KSA 8: 5[147]). And five years later, he supposes that the Greeks reduced their excess of pity
through catharsis, by way of the tragedy (KSA 9: 4[110]). In his final works, Nietzsche states that
Aristotle, in contrast to his own view on tragedy as a life-enhancing and inspiring means, has turned
tragedy into a depressing, life-depriving purgative.
Not only before and after GT does the polemic with Aristotle take place, GT itself too is a
systematic and programmatic contra-design to Aristotle's Poetics, according to Most (57). In
contrast to Aristotle, for example, Nietzsche gives the choir a central role in the performance of the
tragedy as the most important poetic element (cf. KSA 7: 9[9]). And whereas for Aristotle the
actions of the characters and the moralistic and pragmatic judgement of them are central, for
Nietzsche they play a subordinate role and are interpreted as masks of the godhead Dionysus.
Finally, whereas Aristotle speaks of a mimesis of the act, Nietzsche speaks of a mimesis of nature
that is carried out in tragedy.
This shows, according to Most, that Nietzsche wanted not so much to refute Aristotle's Poetics, but
rather to replace it by means of his own treatise on tragedy (58). And this explains, so Most, why
Nietzsche has repressed Aristotle's name in a psychoanalytical, metaphorical, as well as in a literary
sense. For with regard to the latter, the KSA commentary points out that Nietzsche initially wrote a
note on § 16, in which he attacks Aristotle as the “only left torch-bearer” of Greek poetics, for
lacking the great artistic instincts, which for example his teacher Plato still had (KSA 14, 54). Most
speculates that Nietzsche probably removed this note, because the confrontation with Aristotle was
far too central and intimate to be put in a footnote.
Also the repressing of Aristotle can be understood in light of Nietzsche's intimacy with Aristotle's
thought, according to Most (59). For even in GT, for example in § 24, he finds an active and
virulent Aristotelianism within Nietzsche himself. This passage deals with the traditional question
of how the cruel performance of the tragedy can arouse lust in the spectators. At first sight,
Nietzsche seems to be opposing Aristotle here by his remark against the central concepts of the
catharsis-theory (pity and fear) and the moralistic view conception of tragedy. However, Most
2
notes, that Nietzsche connects with Aristotle at the same time by using the terminology of
“eigenthümliche[] Lust,” which is a direct translation of the expression which Aristotle uses twice
in his Poetics: “oikeia hēdonè”. And although Nietzsche uses it in a more specific literal sense than
Aristotle, the influence of Aristotle in this passage is unmistakeable, according to Most.
Moreover, Most states that the whole project of GT would not have been possible without the
Poetics of Aristotle. And so, Most argues, there are also traces of the Aristotelian concept of
catharsis, more specifically, of Bernays’ interpretation of it (60). For the word Entladung, which
Nietzsche uses several times in GT is the very same term that Bernays uses to translate the
Aristotelian term catharsis. This translation was a standard since Bernays' pioneering medical
interpretation and also Nietzsche uses this word in his translation of the Aristotelian term of
catharsis consistently, at least 13 times in the writings after the years in Basel. And also in GT,
Nietzsche uses this word in relation to his own concept of tragedy. Most gives two examples (61).
The first example relates to the Satyr, who gets so excited that he experiences a vision of the
godhead Dionysus, which is interpreted by Nietzsche as a discharge (Entladung) of his affections
(GT 8, KSA 8, 61-2). The second is an application of this interpretation to the effect that this
Entladung has on the spectators (GT 24, KSA 1, 149-50). In both instances, Most argues, it is not
only the use of the word Entladung that refers to Aristotle's concept of catharsis. The explanation of
the sudden transition from the Dionysian phase of strong emotions to the visualised and theatrical
phase of Apollo as a whole also reflects the Aristotelian understanding of catharsis.
Most finds the origin of this interpretation of the effect of the tragedy as Entladung in a Nachlaß
note from the period in the winter of 1870, in which Nietzsche explains the work of art as the
discharge (Entladung) of agitation (Rausch) (KSA 7, 62-3). In GT however, catharsis is a key
concept, according to Most, since it is connected with many other related words and expressions,
such as the origin of images out of music (GT 6), the redemptive effect of art from the aversion of
being by means of the noble (das Erhabene) and the comical (GT 7), the correlation between music
and myth (GT 21), and the tragic myth as the representation of Dionysian wisdom, which comes to
its limit and then falls back again (GT 22). After GT, at least until his lecture during the winter
semester of 1874-75, Nietzsche keeps on using this understanding of discharge, although he does
not use the terminology of Entladung or catharsis explicitly. It might even be so, according to Most,
that the whole book of GT originated from Bernays' concept of discharge and would not have been
possible without it. Most concludes that Nietzsche unmistakeably derived the basic conception of
GT, which consists in the thought that the tragedy, as a dramatic vision, originated from the
discharge of emotional excitement – the birth of tragedy out of the spirit of music - from Bernays
and Aristotle, but he has not acknowledged their contribution to it.
3
II. Discussion
The article of Most provoked a range of reactions and objections. Most of them questioned the
strong claim of Most that Nietzsche's concept of Entladung in GT was mainly influenced by
Aristotle's concept of catharsis, more specifically, Bernays' interpretation of it. According to Most
however, these objections were mainly due to a lack of background knowledge on the notion of
catharsis, so he decided to give a short lecture on the history of the concept first.
II.1. History of the Concept of Catharsis
The history of the concept of catharsis in philosophy could be divided, according to Most, into four
periods. The first period is related to Plato, who poses the problem to which catharsis should offer a
solution: why do people enjoy the horrific elements of tragedy? His answer is that we, as people,
have emotions that are always trying to get control over us. When we watch tragedy, according to
Plato, these emotions get stronger and stronger. The pleasure that we feel is one part of our
emotions, beating the other part. So, for Plato there is actually a danger in watching tragedy.
Aristotle, whose name is connected with the second stage, works within the framework of his
master, but gives a twist to the understanding of tragedy by introducing the concept of catharsis. He
defines tragedy as the representation of actions, which results in an increase of emotions like pity
and fear, and ultimately results into a catharsis of those emotions. However, Most does not think
that Aristotle had an elaborated theory of catharsis. He just presented it as a solution to the problem
of Plato, without working it out more fully. And so, any interpretation of Aristotle's concept of
catharsis is necessarily always hypothetical, according to Most. Until the interpretation of Bernays
in the 19th century, the concept of catharsis was understood morally, as the purification of bad
affects. By watching the tragedy, one would be freed from, or purified of immoral emotions.
Bernays was the first person who systematically tried to give another interpretation of the concept
of catharsis by which he initiated the fourth period. He claimed that the concept of catharsis was
most commonly used in a medical context. The interpretation of Bernays might be influenced by the
intellectual developments of his age, in which there was a growing tension between the moral
perspective and the scientific-medical perspective. Nevertheless, Bernays derived the most common
example, which functioned as a model for catharsis, the example of female menstruation, from
antiquity. Aristotle thought that the woman, because she is wet and cold, naturally produces so
much blood. When she is pregnant, the excess of this blood is used for the embryo, but when she is
not, the tension will build up untill a sudden discharge of the blood takes place. According to
Bernays, this was the standard example for Aristotle's model of catharsis in tragedy. However,
although Bernays' interpretation is so important that any contemporary interpretation of catharsis
should take it as a starting point, it can never be conclusive, for the very reason that no
4
interpretation can be final. According to Most, there is no complete interpretation of Aristotle's
concept of catharsis that does not contradict itself in the end. With this background information in
mind, we turned to the relation between Aristotle's and Nietzsche's concept of catharsis.
II.2. 'Exaifnès' and 'Umschlag'
As a starting point for discussing the relation between the two concepts of Aristotelian catharsis and
Nietzschean Entladung, we discussed Most's claim that the way in which Nietzsche speaks about a
sudden discharge of emotions, reflects the conceptual scheme of Aristotle's understanding of
catharsis. During the seminar, Most explained that the Greek notion of exaifnès (suddenness), next
to the notion of speed, was crucial in Aristotle's understanding of a good, successful tragedy. In his
text, Most uses the German words “plötzlichen Umschlag” to indicate the similarity in Nietzsche's
understanding of how the intense emotions of the Dionysian phase are discharged suddenly in the
Apollonian realm (61). However, as it was pointed out, for Nietzsche this means something entirely
different than for Aristotle. For Aristotle, the sudden change means a restoration of the old state,
whereas for Nietzsche, it means a “recreation” of an old substance into a new medium. Most did
agree with this, but he replied that it does not necessarily refute his claim that Nietzsche got the
basic idea from Aristotle and at the same time tried to overthrow it with his own conception. This
led us to the question whether the central connection between the Aristotelian concept of catharsis
and the Nietzschean concept of Entladung is strong enough to claim that Nietzsche actually got the
basic idea from Aristotle.
II.3. 'Catharsis' and 'Entladung'
As Most himself noted, Entladung in German has various meanings, e.g. 1) the discharge of a gun
as a sudden, enormous effect, resulting from just a small spark, 2) the explosion of sexual energy
that is frustrated, 3) electrical discharge, and 4) the unloading of the cargo of a boat or a truck.
Bernays used this term as a translation for catharsis, according to Most, because of its antimoralistic connotation. Before Bernays, nobody had ever done that, but after Bernays, nearly
everybody translated catharsis with Entladung. So although Most does not claim that Nietzsche
thought of Bernays every time he used the word Entladung, he does think that when Nietzsche was
writing his book on tragedy, Bernays would have been the central figure to respond to. And if one
would read Bernays' book, Most argued, one would find a whole conceptual understanding of
catharsis, which is reflected in Nietzsche's GT, more specifically in his view on how the Dionysian
emotions become stronger and are replaced instantaneously by an Apollonian visualisation.
Nevertheless, Most also acknowledged that this relation between the Dionysian and the Apollonian
in GT is not always clear. On the one hand, the Dionysian cannot be a work of art and one needs the
5
distance of Apollo to 'put it into (a) work' (as Heidegger would put it), but at the same time, too
much of Apollo can also be dangerous and harmful. Next to this, GT is about a lot of other issues
too, of course, like the emergence of subjectivity in Western thinking and the influence of Wagner
and Schopenhauer, but in the end, tragedy and the relation between the Dionysian and Apollo seem
to be central, as Most argued.
With regard to the differences between Aristotle's and Nietzsche's view on catharsis, Most himself
stated that Nietzsche did have a definitive theory of catharsis, whereas Aristotle actually did not.
Next to this, Most also agreed that Aristotle's understanding of tragedy was throughout receptive,
whereas Nietzsche's combines a productive and a receptive perspective and blurs somewhat the
distinction. Nevertheless, Most emphasized that he does not claim that Nietzsche interprets or steals
Aristotle's theory, but rather tries to construct an alternative model, based upon the scholarly means
that he had during that time. In doing this, he tries to give a better interpretation of tragedy than
Aristotle's and to overthrow it.
II.4. Nietzsche's Strategy of Reading and Writing
But is Most, in his suggestion that Nietzsche 'stole' the central concept of GT from Aristotle, not too
suspicious with regard to Nietzsche? Most himself repudiated this accusation. To state that
Nietzsche gradually took over the concept in reading Bernays' interpretation of Aristotle, is not to
say that he dishonestly stole the idea indirectly from Aristotle. In fact, Most acknowledged that this
is the way in which Nietzsche deals with all texts in general. First he reads them and takes over
some ideas, and then he starts writing. And the more he writes, the more he absorbs, or incorporates
what he is reading. This is an inherent aspect of the way in which Nietzsche writes and deals with
his texts. It is not a matter of dishonesty, according to Most. He gave the illuminating example,
which has been addressed by the German philologist Bollnow first,1 of how the beginning of UB II
originates literally from a passage in Leopardi. Most studied this hypothesis and concluded that
Bollnow had been right. In the final version of this text, the name of Leopardi is only mentioned on
the fifth page, but in the first version, Nietzsche actually begins with an explicit quotation with
reference to Leopardi (cf. KSA 7: 29[98]). In the second version however, although the quotation is
still there, the reference to Leopardi is missing (cf. KSA 7: 30[2]). Finally, in the final version the
quotation is also missing, and Nietzsche has incorporated it entirely in his own text. In an analogous
way, Nietzsche could have taken the idea of catharsis from Bernays and incorporated it into the text
of GT, according to Most. So, he concluded, we must be suspicious towards Nietzsche's texts
indeed, but only with regard to how these texts come about. And it is only because of the contingent
1 Otto Friedrich Bollnow, “Nietzsche und Leopardi,” Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung 26, no. 1 (1972): 6669.
6
fact that Nietzsche had a sister who adored him almost like a god and preserved nearly all of his
writings, that we have the material, which enables us to actually follow the process of his writing.
Nevertheless, Most’s explanation could not fully take away the suspicion that he was a bit
suspicious towards Nietzsche’s appropriation of Aristotle. For, why did Most depict Nietzsche’s
implicit reference to Aristotle in GT as a Verdrängung of Aristotle, in contrast to his appropriation
of Leopardi in the process of the composition of UB II, for example?
II.5. Nietzsche 'Mit' or 'Gegen' Aristotle or Bernays?
Despite Most's explanation of how he conceived the relation between Nietzsche and AristotleBernays, the question remained whether the claim that Nietzsche took over the central idea of the
Aristotelian catharsis for his concept of Entladung, could be sustained in light of the overwhelming
differences between the two concepts. How exactly is Nietzsche “mit” Aristotle in his striving
against him, as indicated in the title? Most replied that the word “mit” indicates Nietzsche's use of
the Aristotelian concept of catharsis. But again, is the meaning of this word in the title not very
weak in relation to the “Gegen”? For although it is certainly the case that Nietzsche does use the
same word as Bernays' translation of catharsis, the actual concept seems to be entirely different.
This becomes very clear in the last aphorism of GD, in which Nietzsche explicitly repudiates the
moralistic interpretation of Aristotelian Entladung, which aims at the purification of emotions like
pity and fear. Nietzsche opposes this interpretation of the effect of tragedy with his own
understanding that these emotions are overcome by the identification with the eternal lust of
becoming (GD, 'Alten', 5). And although Nietzsche's accusation that Aristotle's understanding of
tragedy is life-negating is rather late, as everybody agreed, Nietzsche already in GT develops an
understanding of the effect of tragedy that is explicitly turned against Aristotle. In GT 22, for
example, the passage that Most himself quotes in his article, Nietzsche states that people who
understand the effect of tragedy moralistically or pathologically as the discharge of affects like pity
and fear have not experienced anything of tragedy as higher art (KSA 6, 142). And in GT 17,
Nietzsche explicitly states that we become one with the eternal lust of becoming in spite of pity and
fear. In doing so, he is arguing that the Aristotelian interpretation is a moral appropriation of what
should be worked out aesthetically. Again, the differences with Aristotle seem to be so explicit,
strong and overwhelming, that the question remains in which way Nietzsche's concept of Entladung
reflects Bernays' interpretation of Aristotelian catharsis.
In reply, Most seemed to admit that the meaning of word mit in the title must indeed be a bit weak
and rephrased it into 'nicht ohne'. And instead of Aristotle, it might be better to put the name of
Bernays in the title. The only claim Most tries to make in the article, as he clarified during the
7
seminar, is that GT would not have existed in this way without Bernays (nicht ohne Bernays). This
is a more interesting observation than, for example, showing that Schopenhauer had influence on
the concept of Entladung too, for it is altogether clear that Nietzsche still was an outspoken
Schopenhauerian during that time. Furthermore, to show that there is an interesting connection to
Bernays, is not to deny the main differences between them.
Subsequently, the suggestion that the word Entladung might also be inspired by Wagner's book on
Beethoven, as Olivier Ponton has suggested in his recent monograph,2 led Most to the recognition
that the word Entladung was indeed 'in the air' during that time. Nevertheless, Most persisted in his
claim that the connection with Bernays' book should not be overlooked, because it concerns a
central book on Greek tragedy in which the concept of Entladung plays a central role.
II.6. Remaining Minor Issues
Most concluded his 'defensio' by answering some remaining minor questions that had been raised.
For example, the question why he states in his article that Aristotle would be more rationalistic than
Plato (58). Most explained that Nietzsche thought Aristotle to be more rationalistic than Plato,
because the former believed that emotions could be controlled, whereas Plato considered emotions
to be a real threat. Nietzsche could be situated somewhere in between, because on the one hand he
considers, in opposition to Aristotle, emotions to be vital, and on the other hand, he provides a
theory in which emotions are not destroyed, nor avoided, but rather transformed.
Next to this, Most responded also to the suggestion that Nietzsche might be arguing against the
concept of thēoria within Aristotle. He explained that the word thēoria actually goes back to a very
practical concept, as reference to the activity of an ambassador who inspected the games in
advance. It could be related etymologically to seeing and visualising, and thus to the Apollonian.
Only in Plato, the word becomes a theoretical-philosophical term, according to Most. With regard to
the suggestion that the Dionysian could be associated with the body, whereas Apollo would be
connected to the mind, Most responded that although the interpretation of Bernays would become
interesting in this light, for his interpretation emphasizes the body, the suggestion is rather
hypothetical.
III.
Personal Considerations
Looking back on the discussion, it seems as if Most gradually weakened his rather rigid claim,
indicated in the title Nietzsche gegen Aristoteles mit Aristoteles, that Nietzsche made us of an
Aristotelian concept in order to challenge it, to the rather minimal claim that Nietzsche's book
would not have existed in this form without Bernays: Nietzsche nicht ohne Bernays gegen
2 Olivier Ponton, Nietzsche, philosophie de la légèreté (Walter de Gruyter, 2007), 35.
8
Aristoteles. This would mean that his article and its title require, not a retractio, but at least a
revisio. However, before we can draw this conclusion finally, we first have to evaluate to what
extent the constructive examples of Entladung in GT that Most gives towards the end of his article,
reflect the Aristotelian concept of catharsis, something we did not discuss to during the seminar.
Let us start with the passage, in which Most claims to find a 'virulent Aristotelianism', GT 24 (59).
As Most himself recognizes, this passage is characterized, on the one hand, by a quite common
view on the tragedy, which arouses some kind of lust in its spectators, but on the other, Nietzsche
explicitly opposes the moralistic understanding of the effect of tragedy as the discharge of pity and
fear. However, Most discovers an analogy with Aristotle in Nietzsche's formulation of
eigenthümlichsten Lust, which seems to be a literal translation of the Aristotelian expression oikeia
hédonē. But although this connection seems to be pretty convincing, there seems to be no reason to
suggest that Nietzsche repressed this connection with Aristotle; he just urges to explain this lust in
the pure aesthetic, instead of the ethical realm.
Next, Most suggests that Nietzsche's translation of the concept of catharsis with the German word
Entladung would have been unthinkable without Bernays' medical explanation of tragedy and his
translation of this word (60). Again, we will have to take this point for granted and acknowledge it
as a major contribution of Most's article. Especially in GT 22, but also in for example MA I, 212,
GD 'Alten', 5 and EH 'GT', 2, it becomes very clear that Nietzsche has taken over this translation
and the pathological interpretation of Aristotelian catharsis from Bernays (KSA 1, 142). However,
together with this claim that Nietzsche took over the translation of catharsis with Entladung from
Bernays, Most smuggles in the claim that this Aristotelian concept is reflected on every occasion on
which Nietzsche uses the word Entladung. The first examples he gives to illustrate this, is the
passage in GT 8, in which Nietzsche describes how the Dionysian agitation of a satyr is discharged
in the Apollonian vision of a god. On the basis of this picture, Nietzsche understands the Greek
tragedy as the continuing discharging of the Dionysian choir into an Apollonian world of images. In
the second example, a passage from GT 24, Nietzsche explains how this effect within tragedy offers
the spectators a way to discharge their Dionysian excitation in an Apollonian dimension. Especially
with regard to the second example, we will have to admit that Nietzsche does seem to offer here an
analogous mechanism as a solution to a similar problem as Aristotle's. However, we could argue
that this similarity is still inherently connected to the joint recognition that tragedy arouses lust in its
spectators, which at the same time poses the joint problem of how the agitation is discharged, to
which they both offer an entirely different interpretation and solution. Aristotle, at least in the
medical interpretation of Bernays, interprets this as the increase of emotions, such as pity and fear,
which should be purified by watching tragedy. Nietzsche to the contrary, sees this agitation as the
9
increase of Dionysian primal feelings, which are stirred up by the music and are represented in the
Apollonian images on the stage, by which reality, as an aesthetic phenomenon, is justified. And
because Nietzsche follows this line throughout his book, the other examples from GT, which Most
gives, as well as the passages from his lecture on the history of Greek literature, could also be
explained in this way.
IV.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we can affirm that Most has not demonstrated sufficiently his claim that Nietzsche's
notion of Entladung builds on the Aristotelian notion of catharsis. As I have argued, the similarity
between both thinkers seems to lie rather in their joint recognition of the problem why people
experience pleasure in watching tragedy, than in their solution of it. As I have tried to show, their
interpretation of the source of this pleasure seems to be entirely different and their solution seems to
have an entirely different aim too. Nietzsche resisted Aristotle's concept explicitly, as well as
Bernays' interpretation of it, and there is no reason to suspect that he repressed Aristotle in his
refutation of him.
Nevertheless, I do think that Most has given a major contribution in understanding the relation
between Nietzsche and Aristotle, by pointing out that Bernays' interpretation and translation of
Aristotelian catharsis had a major influence on Nietzsche's understanding of Aristotle. It is likely
that it influenced the connotation of the word Entladung for Nietzsche too, although this word
might have been influenced by others as well. Nevertheless, Most has showed that Bernays' book on
Aristotle's understanding of tragedy had a significant influence on GT at the very least and could be
a worthwhile source in understanding GT better. And who knows, reading Bernays' Grundzüge der
verlorenen Abhandlung des Aristoteles über die Wirkung der Tragödie will convince one of the
fundamental connection between Aristotelian catharsis and Nietzschean Entladung after all.
10