Abstract

The paper examines the early discussion on the role of Heraclitus in Nietzsche’s philosophy, including some relatively little-known contributions by R. Oehler, E. Bertram and A. Baeumler, as well as more wide­ly mentioned interpretations of K. Jaspers, M. Heidegger and K. Löwith. I show that in the 1890s–1930s the significant influence of Heraclitus on Nietzsche’s thought was considered indisputable. However, inter­pretations of the period can be divided into the ‘authentic’ ones (e.g., Oehler, Löwith), each of which view Nietzsche’s use of Heraclitus thought as significant for Nietzsche’s own philosophy, and ‘idiosyncratic’ ones (e.g. Heidegger, Jaspers), which, by interpreting Nietzsche from their own idiosyncratic perspectives, nat­urally put less philosophical weight on reading Nietzsche from the standpoint of Heraclitus. This review leads to the conclusion that a study of Nietzsche’s Heraclitus can contribute to two contemporary debates in Nietzsche studies: the discussion on Nietzsche’s ontological position and to the discussion around the so-called continuity thesis.