And here we have perhaps yet one way of reading what have been considered contra-dictions in Nietzsche’s thought. Babette Babich, “Mousike Techne: The Philosophical Practice of Music in Plato, Nietzsche, and Heidegger,” Between Philosophy and Poetry: Writing, Rhythm, History, eds. Massimo Verdicchio & Robert Burch (New York; London: Continuum, 2002), 204, 178.
 Roger Hollinrake makes precisely this argument about Z and Wagner’s operas. See his Nietzsche, Wagner, and the Philosophy of Pessimism (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1982; Taylor and Francis, 2009). For further explorations of this parallel, see Paul S. Loeb’s The Death of Nietzsche’s Zarathustra (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).
 As William Schaberg outlines, Nietzsche was intimately involved even in the production and design of his books and oversaw details as particular as typeface, layout, cover design, paper stock, and endpapers, as well as choosing the color of each of his books. See Schaberg, The Nietzsche Canon: A Publication History and Bibliography (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995).
 Oddly, especially for a book that painstakingly analyzes structure, Lampert neglects to analyze the relationship between the final aphorism of BGE and the closing song, just as he neglects to ask why Nietzsche closes BGE with a poem. Kaufmann’s general antipathy to Nietzsche’s poetry is largely representative of the position most scholars hold. But whether one admires Nietzsche’s poems, or whether they are to one’s taste or not, isn’t the pressing question — as emphasized throughout this essay, their very inclusion in Nietzsche’s texts demands that we address them in order to analyze what precisely Nietzsche is performing with them and how they function within the overall architecture of his texts, etc.
 Taking into consideration Paul Loeb’s proposal that, although, chronologically, the fourth book follows the first three, narratively, it occurs within the third. See Paul S. Loeb, “The Conclusion of Nietzsche’s Zarathustra,” International Studies in Philosophy, 32/3 (2000): 137–52. Even if one is not persuaded by Loeb’s interpretation, the point of the structural parallel between GS, Z: III, and BGE remains, and many scholars argue that Z: III is the “real” or original finale to Z. Further, if the relationship between the three books has been recognized, since Nietzsche refers to GM as a “sonata in three movements,” it is possible that it too is somehow linked, musically, in terms of its structure, to GS, Z, and BGE. Nietzsche was intimately involved in the design of his books and informed his publisher that he wanted BGE to look exactly like GM, to resemble it so precisely that “the two books must look so much alike as to be actually confused with each other.” On this, see Schaberg (ibid.), 150.
 Although the parallel between two of the books has been observed, by Lampert in particular, if not others, what has been emphasized by him is that both Z and BGE end in songs. The much more specific and intriguing parallel noted above has not however to my knowledge been emphasized. Exploring this in detail is beyond the scope of this article.
 Claudia Crawford, “Nietzsche’s Psychology and Rhetoric of World Redemption: Dionysus versus the Crucified,” in Nietzsche and Depth Psychology, eds. Jacob Golomb, Weaver Santaniello, and Ronald Lehrer (New York: SUNY Press, 1999), 271–294. (279)