The Music of Holy Hours: The Essence of Language in Heidegger's Thought

When Derrida announces, upon arriving at the house of being in the third section
of the 1!"#!$ se%inar, that he &ill try to deter%ine the essence of d&elling 'very
deliberately in a non#Heideggerian language, in a language stripped of (er%an philology
and the pathos that al&ays %ight see% schoc)ing, for e*a%ple in one of the te*ts on
H+lderlin', a ,uestion arises: -edagogical reasons aside, is that right. Does Derrida's
supposedly sober and apathetic tone suit die /ache selbst, the issue to be thought.
Ho&ever lucid and right Derrida's e*plication %ight be, so%ething is not right &ith it0
That such is the case is %ade apparent by Derrida hi%self &hen he stresses the necessity
that there be in Heidegger's discourse so%ething li)e the very style that he Derrida
decides to avoid: 'nous allons parler dans un autre style0' Ho& so. 'Dans un langae
depouille de philologie alle%ande et du pathos ,ui ris,ue de cho,uer, par e*e%ple dans
un des testes sur H+lderlin0' Without all this one does not even begin to see &hat began
to see0 1n the ne*t half hour or so 1 &ill try to guide us up until this beginning and then
leave you to strol on your o&n as beginnings are al&ays in essence solitary0 2eginnings
begin &hen solitude is able to arrive0 2eginnings begin &hen nothing else can happen0
-art 1 # The 3n#truth of Being and Time
What is Heidegger all about. Death, ti%e, being0 The list could go on to incorporate
related concepts: an*iety, factical thro&ness in an al&ays#already factical &orld, the
possibility of ta)ing up one's inauthentic and al&alys#already antecedent 4erstreuung
5disse%ination6 into das Man 5the they6, thus beco%ing free for the original un#originality
that precedes and e*ceeds the oneness of one, an originary conceal%ent and distortion in
the very %ove%ent of the sending and thus &ithdra&al of being as the destining of a
deferred historical people0 This list should go on0 What of language. What of the decisive
role language plays in 2eing and Ti%e and co%es to play %ore and %ore so as
Heidegger's thin)ing encounters H+lderlin's poetry. Here one thin)s of the constitutive
function of discourse &hich, along &ith attune%ent and understanding, discloses the Da
of Dasein in its concrete possibilities according to &hich this e*ceptional being has
al&ays yet to e*ist in its factical pro7ection0 2ut ho& is Dasein first disclosed to itself.
1nitially and for the %ost part 58un9chst und 8u%eist6, Dasein, the being &hich, in its very
being, al&ays already understands and is troubled about its being, this thus e*ceptional
being tends to 5%is6understand itself alongside t&o connected lines:
10 in ter%s of other beings unli)e itself, ready#to#hand beings li)e a table or a chair that
furnish the e,uip%ental hori8on out of &hich a naive and cursory understanding of being
e%erges0 1n its average everydayness Dasein is surrounded by e,uip%ent 54eug6, the
nearness of &hich presses Dasein to 5%is6ta)e itself, in its very being, as if it &ere
so%ething li)e a ha%%er and not a Dasein#li)e being for &ho% its being is al&ays at
sta)e, al&ays yet to be decided in the blin) of an eye 5:ugenblic)60 ;ontrary to this, a
'piece' of e,uip%ent cannot decide0 1t is not troubled about its e*istence0 The ha%%er
does not see% to need psycho#analytic help, a help &hich Heidegger %ight find less than
helpul 5to be polite here, let's leave it at that60 :t any rate, the ha%%er does not see% to
be &riting boo)s about the %eaning of its being because, according to Heidegger at least,
it can not0 Why can't it. The ha%%er can not e*plicitly pose the ,uestion of being
because, as Heidegger &ould have us believe, the ha%%er does not %ove &ithin the
hori8on of an undestanding of its o&n being0 Why not. 2ecause the ha%%er does not
i%plicitly al&ays already understand the %eaning of being0 Why not. 2ecause language
does not give the ha%%er not even an in)ling of &hat the ha%%er is0 /trictly spea)ing, a
ha%%er cannot be0 2ut the ha%%er's inability even to be indifferent to&ards its being
5such an ontic indifference could only be grounded in an ontological non#indifference6
does not %a)e the ha%%er har%less, ontologically spea)ing0 <ar fro% it0
Li)e any other tool, the ha%%er ha%%ers in an already discovered referential totality of
a series of in#order#tos 5u%#8us in (er%an60 The ha%%er only %a)es sense as a ha%%er
if, for e*a%ple, a nail is there in order to be nailed, in order to fasten a piece of &ood, in
order to build a house &hich is ulti%ately a shelter for the sa)e of Dasein0 /uch net&or)
of in#order#to#li)e references is al&ays discovered in advance by Dasein according to its
particular involve%ent in and &ith the '&orld' 5say in scare ,uotes60 2ut this '&orld' as
the referential totality of a series of in#order#to#li)e assign%ents, &hat Heidegger calls
significance 52edeutsa%)eit6 in section 1= of 2eing and Ti%e, this is al&ays a '&orld'
only in scare ,uotes0 :s Heidegger &rites &orld in scare ,uotes throughout 2eing and
Ti%e, particularly in those early pages dedicated to the &orldhood of the &orld as the
title of chapter > of division one stands, a ,uestion arises: &hy '&orld' in scare ,uotes as
the follo&ing ,uote fro% the afore%entioned section 1= has it 5the first ,uote in your
hand#out6
The relational character &hich these relationships of assigning possess, &e ta)e as one of
signifying ?be#deuten@0 1n its fa%iliarity &ith these relationships, Dasein 'signifies'
?bedeutet@ to itself: in a pri%ordial %anner it gives itself both its 2eing and its
potentiality#for#2eing as so%ething &hich it is to understand &ith regard to its 2eing#in#
the#&orld0 The 'for#the#sa)e#of#&hich' signifies an 'in#order#to'A ?000@ These relationships
are bound up &ith one another as a pri%ordial totalityA they are &hat they are as as this
signifying ?2e#deuten@ in &hich Dasein gives itself beforehand its 2eing#in#the#&orld as
so%ething to be understood0 The relational totality of this signifying &e call
'significance'0 This is &hat %a)es up the structure of &orld # the structure of that
&herein Dasein as such already is0 Dasein, in its fa%iliarity &ith significance, is the
ontical condition for the possibility of discovering entities &hich are encountered in a
&orld &ith involve%ent 5readiness#to#hand6 as their )ind of 2eing, and &hich can thus
%a)e the%selves )no&n as they are in the%selves0 Dasein as such is al&ays so%ething of
this sortA along &ith its 2eing, a conte*t of the ready#to#hand is already essentially
discovered: Dasein, in so far as it is, has al&ays sub%itted ?ange&iesen@ itself to a
'&orld' ?'&orld' in scare ,uotes@ &hich it encounters, and this sub%ission belongs
essentially to its 2eing0
2ut in significance itself, &ith &hich Dasein is al&ays fa%iliar, there lur)s the
ontological condition &hich %a)es it possible for Dasein, as so%ething &hich
understands and interprets, to disclose such things as 'significations' ?2edeutungen@ A
upon these, in turn, is foundedB the 2eing of &ords and of language0 B?Heidegger's
%arginal note@ 3ntrue ?3n&ahr@0 Language is not piled up ?aufgestoc)t@, but is the
original essence of truth as there ?Da@0 52eing and Ti%e, (er%an =C, English 1DE#D16
2efore &e turn to Heidegger's %arginal note, added so%eti%e after the publication of
2eing and Ti%e in 1DC, &e %ust first understand &hat Heidegger once thought to be
true0 Dasein, &rites Heidegger, is al&ays already sub%itted to or dependent upon
?ange&iesen@ a '&orld'0What &orld. 'World' in scare ,uotes0Why. 2ecause this '&orld'
is not seen as such0 Even though, or precisely because Dasein is so captivated
5beno%%en6 by its absorption 5:ufgehen6 in the &orld of e,uip%ent 54eug&elt6, this
&orld in scare ,uotes as e,uip%ent#&orld does not sho&s itself to Dasein's theoretical
sight0 /uch &ithdra&al is constitutive of the pheno%enon of &orld0 World &orlds, hidden
in plain sight0 :nd yet &orld is al&ays already so%eho& 'seen'0 2ut ho& is it seen.
World &orlds insofar as Dasein is delivered over to the &orlding of the &orld0 <ro% its
birth up until its death, Dasein is dispersed 58erstreut6 into its public &orld in &hich it
encounters other Daseins in ter%s of an e,uip%ental %ode of concern0 1ntially and for the
%ost part Dasein is &hat it does 5Dasein ist &as es betreibt60 That %eans that Dasein,
initially and for the %ost part, understands the %eaning of its being fro% out of the
hori8on furnished by FGHIJ0 FGHIJ is &hat first grants Dasein its '&orld', if 'only' in
scare ,uotes0
D0 The second line alongside &hich Dasein 5%is6understands itself springs fro% and
recoils to FGHIJ0 :s Heidegger introduces, in the fourth chapter of division one of 2eing
and Ti%e, )ey concepts such as being#&ith 5Mitsein6 and the 'they' 5das 'Man'6, it
beco%es clear that: a6 other Daseins are initially and for the %ost part 'encountered' only
insofar as they sho& up &ithin the e,uip%ental hori8on furnished by FGHIJ0 b6 as FGHIJ
initially grants Daseins 'its' '&orld', FGHIJ gives the foundation of language to be
spo)en by others in their average#everyday indifference as the 'they', das Man, everyone
and noone as Heidegger calls it0 FGHIJ gives language0 Language in turn gives Dasein the
possibility of listening to, and being listened by others0 Language first %a)es possible
Dasein's e*posure to &hat 'they' say0 /pringing fro% and recoiling to FGHIJ, language
discloses the Da of Dasein in ter%s of the e,uip%ental hori8on of Dasein's e,uip%ent#
&orld0 FGHIJ thus leads Dasein astray not 7ust by %eans of the pressing nearness of the
e,uip%ental &orld that surrounds Dasein0 FGHIJ, &orld as e,uip%ent#&orld, is %ade
responsible for the origin of language0 The referential totality of in#order#to#li)e
assign%ents ulti%ately grounded in a Woru%#&illen, a for#the#sa)e#of#&hich, a Dasein,
the being of &e ourselves in each case, this net&or) of signifying relations, &hat
Heidegger calls 2edeutsa%)eit as the &orldhood of &orld, this '&orld' in scare ,uotes as
e,uip%ent#&orld, this is the &orld produced by FGHIJ0 Language and &ords are only by#
products, the%selves founded in this production0 Due to its technical birth, language as
language has al&ays already begun to lead Dasein to %ista)e itself for a being it is not0
3ntrue, stands Heidegger's correction0
-art 11 # The non#technical origin of FGHIJ, &orld and language
What happened. Ho& can 2eing and Ti%e be untrue to language. What happened to
Heidegger's thin)ing that it ca%e to see the un#truth of 2eing and Ti%e. H+lderlin is
&hat happened0 History is &hat happened0
:s Kac,ues Derrida points out at the very cru* of the 1!" se%inar accordingly
entitled Heidegger: the ,uestion of being and history, the pro7ect of 2eing and Ti%e to
disclose ti%e as the only possible hori8on for an understanding of being in general co%es
to founder upon the enig%a of Dasein's historicality0 :s Heidegger begins to ,uestion the
historicality of Dasein he hi%self ad%its that the Dasein analytic has thus far re%ained
one#sided 5einseitig6 insofar as Dasein's happening bet&een birth and death has been
analy8ed fro% the vantage point of death alone0 When the ti%e co%es to understand the
provenance 5Her)unft6 of the concrete possibilities Dasein each ti%e inherits, Heidegger
is forced to open up the historical hori8on fro% &hich Dasein &rests its %o%ent
5:ugenblic)60 Heidegger &rites: 5second ,uote in your hand#out6
?000@ &e %ust as) &hence, in general, Dasein can dra& those possibilities upon &hich it
factically pro7ects itself0 Lne's anticipatory pro7ection of oneself on that possibility of
e*istence &hich is not to be outstripped # on death # guarantees only the totality and
authenticity of one's resoluteness0 2ut those possibilities of e*istence &hich have been
factically disclosed are not to be gathered fro% death0 :nd this is still less the case &hen
one's anticipation of this possibility does not signify that one is speculating about it, but
signifies precisely that one is co%ing bac) to one's factical 'there'0 Will ta)ing over the
thro&nness of the /elf into its &orld perhaps disclose a hori8on fro% &hich e*istence
&rests ?entreisst@ its factical possibilities. ?000@
:s thro&n, Dasein has indeed been delivered over to itself and to its potentiality#for#
2eing, but as 2eing#in#the#&orld0 :s thro&n, it has been sub%itted to a '&orld'
?ange&iesen auf eine MWeltM@ ?notice that N&orldM is in scare ,uotes, again preceded by
the sa%e past participle ange&iesen as in section 1=@, and e*ists factically &ith others0
1nitially and for the %ost part the /elf is lost in the 'they'0 1t understands itself in ter%s of
those possibilities of e*istence &hich 'circulate' in the 'average' public &ay of
interpreting Dasein today0 ?000@
The resoluteness in &hich Dasein co%es bac) to itself, discloses current factical
possibilities of authentic e*isting, and discloses the% in ter%s of the heritage &hich that
resoluteness, as thro&n, ta)es over0 52eing and Ti%e, (er%an >=>, English ">$60
:t this point Heidegger's thin)ing beco%es historical0 World ceases to be only a technical
&orld0 World beco%es historical0 The &orld to &hich Dasein is initially and for the %ost
part lost in its absorption into the e,uip%ent#&orld, this &orld is technical only because it
is historical0 The auto#trans%ission 5/ichOberlieferung6 of history is &hat grants Dasein
its initial, technical '&orld'0 : piano encounters %e in and fro% out of %y past0 :
(er%an piano, li)e the one 1 played on &hen 1 &as fourteen, the old &ood, the bro)en
pedal, the ashtray nearby filled &ith half#s%o)ed cigarettes %y piano teacher half#
s%o)ed0 Dasein is no longer playing the piano in any old roo%0 World is not 7ust a
&or)shop, a referential totality of in#order#to#li)e assign%ents0 World &ords each ti%e as
%y &orld0 Word &orlds each ti%e as the &orld of %y generation0 My &orld co%es as the
sending of a history that is al&ays yet to arrive0 :l&ays to co%e0 This is &hat Heidegger
began to thin): &orld as the return of &hat has been0 2ut ho& is the return possible.
2ecause so%ething has been and at the sa%e ti%e not been0 Having#been is al&ays a not#
yet#having#been0 Dasein can only repeat its history because it has al&ays already begun
to forget it0 Dasein e%erges out of and sin)s bac) into the forgetting of history0 This
forgetting first %a)es possible the possibility to re%e%ber0 Ho& does Heidegger
re%e%ber. 2y reading H+lderlin's poetry0
During the 1>EPs and "EPs, Heidegger begins to re#situate the place history occupies in
his thin)ing0 H+lderlinPs poetry helps Heidegger see the priority of history in the
&orlding of the &orld0 With a historical &orld fron and center, language beco%es the
issue to be tought0 Why. 2ecause language is no longer founded in FGHIJ0 The un#truth of
2eing and Ti%e co%es to be seen as such0 Heidegger had &ritten: '2ut in significance
itself, &ith &hich Dasein is al&ays fa%iliar, there lur)s the ontological condition &hich
%a)es it possible for Dasein, as so%ething &hich understands and interprets, to disclose
such things as 'significations'A upon these, in turn, is foundedB the 2eing of &ords and of
language0M Language and &ords are added on, so to spea), to the fa%iliarity of the
e,uip%ent#&orld &hich Dasein has al&ays already sub%itted itself to0 FGHIJ, as this
passage fro% 2eing and Ti%e states, provides the foundation upon &hich language and
&ords are only subse,uently piled up0 Language and &ords thus spring fro% a FGHIJ
&hich is not yet linguistic0 The totality of the in#order#to series is first understodd &ithout
language being there fro% the get#go0 '3n&ahr' 5untrue6, cries out Heidegger:
'Language is not piled up ?aufgestoc)t@, but is the original essence of truth as thereM0 2ut
if language is there fro% the start, if language is the there as the original essence of truth,
language itself has an origin outside FGHIJ0 This non#technological essence of language is
poetry0 -oetry gives language0 Everything hinges on this0 -oetry gives the language0 That
sounds absurd0 Ho& can poetry give language. Does not poetry rather spring fro%
language understood as a body of e*isting &ords and syntacical rules. Ho& could poetry
precede the very &ord understood as the /toff, the %aterial that is shaped into the
finished loo) 5eidos6 of a poetic product. :nd ho& is such a product not technological.
/urely it %ust be0 Qo, says Heidegger0
-art 111 # The threefold nature of poetry as gift
-oetry gives language0 What in the &orld does that %ean. 1t %eans at least three
things:
10 1t first %eans that language is given0 Language is a gift0 Ho& does Heidegger
understand this. Lr, in typically Heideggerian fashion, ho& does Heidegger not
understand the gift, that is, ho& does Heidegger avoid %isunderstanding &hat a gift is.
2y thin)ing the gift ontologically0 That %eans by not thin)ing he gift fro% out of an ontic
hori8on &ithin &hich the gift is understood according to the la& of cause and effect0 /uch
la& derives the gift fro% supposedly &ell#)no&n e*isting conditions &hich the gift does
no %ore than relocate0 The gift &ould do no %ore than trans%it a ready#%ade product
into &hatever shape the gifter so &ishes0 1n our case, the gift of poetry &ould be such a
gift because language is fashioned into the loo) of poetry0 Language &ould be the bread
and butter of the poet, the stuff fro% out of &hich poetry e%erges as a finished product0
The poet &ould be no different than the carpenter &ho gives a loo) 5eidos6 to %atter as a
yet undifferentiated %ass of &ood, al&ays already there, available to be used, The gift of
poetry &ould be no different than the gift of FGHIJ0 Nein, nein, nein, Heidegger screa%s
5or perhaps that's %e screa%ing to %y father in a drea%, as Eli8abeth )no&s60 -oetry, as a
&or) of art, in fact loo)s as if it &ere handicraft, nothing else0 T&o %o%ents in
Heidegger's essay 'The Lrigin of the Wor) of :rt' %a)e this clear 5>rd ,uote in your
hand#out6:
1n the creation of he &or), the strife, as rift ?Riss@, %ust be set bac) into the earthA the
earth %ust be set forth and %ade use of as the self#closing0 This %a)ing use of, ho&ever,
does not use up and %isuse the earth as %ere %atterA rather, it frees it to be, for the first
ti%e, itself0 /uch using of the earth is a &or)ing &ith it that indeed loo)s li)e the
e%ploy%ent of %atter in handicraft0 This is &hat created the appearance that the creation
of a &or) if also craft activity0 1t never is ?Dies ist es nie%als@0 2ut it re%ains al&ays a
using of the earth in the fi*ing in place of truth in the figure ?Feststellen der Wahrheit in
die Gestalt@0 2y contrast, the %a)ing of e,uip%ent is never, in the first instance, an
effecting of the happening of truth0 The production of e,uip%ent is finished &hen the
%aterial has been so for%ed as to be ready for use0 The e,uip%ent's readiness for use
%eans that it is released beyond itself to disappear into usefulness0 Qot the case &ith the
createdness of the &or)0 5Lrigin of the Wor) of :rt >=#6
-oetry, as &or) of art, as in fact the essence of any &or) of art, poetry as the
essence of art 5Dichtung als das Wesen der Runst6 is a gift insofar as &hat poetry gives is
being, pure and si%ple0 This is &hat it %eans to understand the gift ontologically0
Heidegger &rites: 5fouth ,uote in your hand#out6
Truth, as the clearing and concealing of that &hich is, happens through being poeti8ed0
:ll art, as the letting happen of the advent of the truth of beings, is, in essence, poetry0
The essence of art, on &hich both the art&or) and the artist depend, is the setting#itself#
into#&or) of truth0 <ro% out of the poeti8ing essence of truth it happens that an open
place is thro&n open, a place in &hich everything is other than it &as0 1n virtue of the
pro7ection of the unconcealedness of beings &hich is set into the &or) and casts itself
to&ard us, thro&ing us, everything ordinary and hitherto e*isting beco%es an unbeing0
This unbeing has lost the capacity to give and to preserve being as %easure0 What is
curious here is that the &or) in no &ay affects hitherto e*isting beings through causal
connection0 The effecting ?Wir)ung@ of the &or) does not consist in a ta)ing effect
?&ir)en@0 1t lies in a transfor%ation of the unconceal%ent of beings &hich happens fro%
out of the &or), a transfor%ation, that is to say, of being0 5""#"$6
2ut have &e not thus far define poetry as a gift only negatively. : second
deter%ination of poetry as a ift co%es to help us see &hat Heidegger %eant by this:
poetry gives language0
D0-oetry gives language0 2ut if language co%es fro% poetry, and if poetry is never to be
understood on the basis of a causal connection bet&een itself and the 5un6beings that
co%e to light for the first ti%e as such, if poetry is this co%ing to and receding fro% light,
if poetry is never a being, are &e to thin) that language co%es fro% nothingness. Kaein,
yes and no, as Heidegger states in another passage fro% 'The Lrigin of the Wor) of :rt'0
5this is the fifth ,uote in your hand#out6
The setting#into#&or) of truth thrusts up the e*tra#ordinary ?3n#geheure@ &hile thrusting
do&n the ordinary, and &hat one ta)es to be such0 The truth that opens itself in the &or)
can never be verified or derived fro% &hat &ent before0 1n its e*clusive reality, &hat
&ent before is refuted by the &or)0 What art founds, therefore, can never be balanced out
and co%pensated in ter%s of &hat is present and available for use0 The founding ?of
poetry@ is an overflo&ing, a gift ?/chen)ung@0
The poeti8ing pro7ection of truth, &hich sets itself into the &or) as figure, is never carried
out in the direction of e%ptiness and indeter%inacy0 1n the &or), rather, turth is cast
to&ard the co%ing preservers, that is to say, a historical hu%anity0 What is cast forth,
ho&ever, is never an arbitrary de%and0 The truly poeti8ing pro7ection is the opening up of
that in &hich Dasein, as historical, is already thro&n0 This is the earth and, for a historical
people, its earth, the self#closing ground on &hich this historical people rests, along &ith
everything &hich # though hidden fro% itself, it already is0 1t is, ho&ever, its &orld &hich
prevails fro% out of the relationship of e*istence to the unconceal%ent of being0 <or this
reason, everything &ith &hich %an is endo&ed %ust, in the pro7ection, be fetched forth
fro% out of the closed ground and e*plicitly set upon this ground0 1n this &ay, the ground
is first founded as a ground that bears0
2ecause it is such a fetching#forth, all creation is a fetching, as in fetching &ater fro% a
spring0 Modern sub7ectivis%, of course, %isinterprets creation as the product of the
genius of the self#sovereign sub7ect0 The founding of truth is a founding, not %erely in
the sense of a free gift, but in the sense, too, of this ground#laying grounding0 The
poeti8ing pro7ecion co%es out of nothing in the sense that it never derives its gift fro%
&hat is fa%iliar and already there0 1n another sense, ho&ever, it does not co%es out of
nothingA for &hat it pro7ects and thro&s is but the &ithheld deter%ination of historical
e*istence itself0 5"C#"=6
We arrive at &hat is decisive for Heidegger0 -oetry gives language %eans poetry
gives history0 The poet founds a historical ti%e0 The poet, and every artist is in essence a
poet for Heidegger because that essence is linguistic thus poetic, founds and lays bare a
ground &hich &as al&ays already there0 2ut ho& &as it there. :s &ithheld0 Ho& does
the poet found and lay bare this &ithheld ground. 2y letting it be &hat and ho& it is, by
letting the thro&n ground of historical e*istence co%e to light as the dar)ness that it is0
The poet lets the foundation of a historical people spea) as that &hich re%ains
unspea)able0 This is &hy Heidegger tried to thin) the essence of the (er%an people0Lut
of an encounter &ith H+lderlin, das Volk und das Vaterland 5the people and the
fatherland6 announce the%selves to Heidegger as &hat is %ost concealed0 This is &hat
H+lderlin's poetry gives Heidegger: a conceal%ent, a non#giving0 : &ord fro% H+lderlin
should here suffice0
>0 -oetry gives language0 -oetry lets the historical vocation of a deter%inate people
arrive0 Ho& does this arrival arrive. 2y non#arriving0 The arrival is a deferral0 This
deferral happens0 This happening can only happen insofar a language is given, that is to
say, not given0 Language is not given0 This is &hat poetry ulti%ately gives: the non#
giving of language, first and fore%ost0 -oetry gives language only insofar as the language
&hich it gives gives nothing0 2ut &hat is this nothing. Qever a being &hich language
signifies0 Le langage ne signifie pas, says 2lanchot0 Language cannot na%e the
%ove%ent by &hich it unfolds0 This is, nevertheless, &hat poetry tries to na%e: the un#
na%eable, the non#linguistic at the heart of the linguistic0 -oetry reverberate echos0
H+lderlin )ne& this0 :s did Heidegger in his 1"> essay entitled after H+lderlin's poe%
Hei%)unft S :n die Ter&andten 5Ho%eco%ing S To Rindred Lnes60 H+lderlin says: 5last
,uote in your hand#out6
KaU das :lte noch istsU Es gedeihet und reifet, doch )eines
Was da lebet und liebt, l9sset die Treue 8urO)0
:ber das 2este, der <und, ?4&eite <assung: :ber der /chat8, das Deutsche@ der unter des
heiligen <riedens 2ogen lieget, er ist Kungen und :lten gespart0
Th+rig red ich0
?000@
Wenn &ir seengen das Mahl, &en darf ich nennen und &enn &ir
Vuhn von Leben des Tags, saget, &ie bring'ich den Dan).
Qenn'ich den Hohen dabei. 3nschi)liches liebet ein (ott nicht,
1hn 8u fassen, ist fast unsere <reude 8u )lein0
/ch&eigen %Ossen &ir oftA es fehlen heilige Qah%en,
Her8en schlagen und doch bleibet die Vede 8urO).
:ber ein /aitenspiel leiht 7eder /tunde die T+ne,
3nd erfreut vieleicht Hi%%lische, &elche sich nahn0
WesU The old still isU They thrive and ripen, yet nothing
Which lives and loves there abandons its faithfulness0
2ut the best, the real find ?/econd versionX 2ut the treasure, the (er%an@, &hich lies
beneath the rainbo& of holy peace, is &ithheld fro% the young and the old0
1 tal) %adly0
?000@
When &e bless the %eal, &ho% shall 1 na%e and &hen &e
Vest fro% the life of day, tell %e, ho& shall 1 give than)s.
/hall 1 na%e the high one then. : god does not love &hat is unfitting,
To grasp hi%, our 7oy is al%ost too s%all0
Lften &e %ust re%ain silentA holy na%es are lac)ing,
Hearts beat and yet tal) holds bac).
2ut string%usic lends its tones to every hour,
:nd perhaps bring 7oy to the heavenly &ho dra& near0
1 do not have the ti%e here to go into Heidegger's reading of this passage0 1n
conclusion, let %e 7ust give you a feel for it0 Heidegger calls our attention to ho&
H+lderlin poeti8es the poetry of every hour, that is to say, the %usic of every hour 5:ber
ein /aitenspiel leiht 7eder /tunde die T+ne: but string#%usic lends to each hour its tones60
These tones stri)e the bell of the language of the (er%an people, as Heidegger sees it:
'The elegy ho%eco%ing is not a poe% about ho%eco%ingA rather, the elegy, the poetic
activity &hich it is, is the ho%eco%ing itself, and still it co%es to pass as long as its
&ords ring li)e a bell in the language of the (er%an people0' The language of the
(er%an people rings li)e a bell fro% out of the &elling up of poetry0 -oetry gives
language the ring that hollo&s out language and the possibility &hich springs fro% it: the
historical vocation of a deter%inate people brings &ith it %adness for the poet &ho
spea)s of it: 'Th+rig red ich' 5'T tal) %adly'6 Why %adness. That's the origin of
language as the bell that rings fro% out of the &ell of poetry0 This &ell brings forth the
possibility of language &ithout being itself reduced to language0 <ro% out of this &ell
one hears echoes, not &ords0 Ein /aitenspiel 5/tring%usic6, not na%es0 Lne hears the
%usic of every hour0 Holy hours, says H+lderlin0 What is holy about the%. The si%ple
listening to the thunderbird calling a ne& day to co%e:
Denn es &9chst unendlicher dort das Kahr und die heiigen
/tunden, die Tage, sie sind )Ohner geordnet, ge%ischt0
Dennoch %er)et die 4eit der (e&ittervogel und 8&ischen
2ergen, hoch in der Luft &eilt er und rufet den Tag0
<or the year gro&s %ore endlessly there and the holy
Hours, the days, are %ore boldly ordered and %ingled0
Wet the thunderbird %ar)s the ti%e and bet&een
Mountains, high in the air, he hovers and calls out the day0