Pergamon History of European Ideas, Vol. 23, No. 2~4, pp. 81-104, 1997 © 1998 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd PI1:S0191-6599 (97) 00016-8 Printed in Great Britain 0191-6599/97 $17.00 + 0.00 ODD BEDFELLOWS: NIETZSCHE AND MILL ON MARRIAGE RUTH ABBEY Department of Political Science, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, 6907 WA, Australia ABSTRACT This paper examines Nietzsche's views on love and marriage in the works of his middle period. Contrary to the general consensus in the secondary literature regarding Nietzsche's ideas on these matters, it shows that he offers several positive reflections on love and marriage. Indeed, at times he accepts that friendship is possible between the genders and even models marriage on friendship. Modelling marriage on friendship creates an overlap between Nietzsche's thought and that of John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor. However, it is argued here that, albeit for different reasons, none of these visions of marriage as friendship succeeds in fully accommodating sexuality. © 1997 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd INTRODUCTION Friedrich Nietzsche's description of John Stuart Mill as a 'flathead', his reference to Mill's 'insipid and cowardly concept man', ~ his repeated attacks on utility as a standard of value and on utilitarianism as an approach to morality 2 all suggest that a study of Nietzsche and Mill could only be a study in contrasts. Yet despite the many differences between Nietzsche and Mill, some surprising convergences exist) This paper will explore one such convergence--their overlapping views about marriage. On Nietzsche's side, this convergence is only evident in the works of his middle period. The middle period comprises Human, All Too Human (1879), Assorted Opinions and Maxims (1879) and The Wanderer and His Shadow (1879). The latter works became volume two of Human, All too Human in 1886. It also includes Daybreak (1881) and The Gay Science (1882). 4 The works of the middle period, particularly Daybreak, tend to be neglected in commentary on Nietzsche, 5 which could help to explain why discussions of his thought so often proceed as if his oeuvre were monolithic. Although there are continuities in his thought, many commentators seem impervious to the fact that he did not say quite the same thing all his life and attribute the views of a specific period or text to 'Nietzsche' unqualified. This homogenisation of Nietzsche is evident from the general consensus in the secondary literature that he takes a dim view of love and marriage. Ofelia Schutte, for example, claims that he excludes 'the possibility of love between the sexes and among human beings in general'. 6 For Peter Berkowitz, Nietzsche's 81