EDITOR’S EPILOGUE

I.

In its form, the title of this volume does not correspond to Martin Heidegger’s manuscript at the time it was written but rather to the label that he gave the folder to distinguish between this and the Hölderlin lecture course that follows (volume 53: Hölderlin’s Hymn “The Ister”) in their subsequent use.

For the winter semester of 1941–1942, Heidegger had initially announced “Nietzsche’s Metaphysics” as the title of his lecture course. In the rector’s confirmation indicating a change (October 20, 1941), a new title is given: “Hölderlin’s Hymns and German Metaphysics.” This title has not hitherto been corroborated by a letter or section of manuscript in Heidegger’s hand. The expression “German metaphysics” is not used in the lecture course.

The manuscript bears the title “Hölderlin’s Hymns,” as does that of the lecture course from the summer semester of 1942. This plurality presumably relates to the five hymns and fragments named at the beginning of the lecture course. The note offering a preview of the intent of the undertaking, and that is reproduced here as an appendix, also speaks of a plurality of poems to be interpreted in the given context. On German page 39, there is a mention of “the second poem we shall draw attention to”; the “Ister” lecture course too begins with a plurality: “several of Hölderlin’s poetic works.” Heidegger accordingly in these places still had his initial plan in view. The appendix also already maintains the foundational significance of “Remembrance” for the interpretation of all the envisaged poems. It is thus understandable that the endeavor to think what is poetized in “Remembrance” took up the entire lecture course of the winter semester of 1941–1942. The four other poems named at the outset are indeed touched upon, albeit very briefly. Thus, the simple title “Hölderlin’s Hymns” would not indicate the actual content of the lecture course.

Given that “Remembrance” had been discussed in its foundational significance, Heidegger at the beginning of the “Ister” lecture course in the summer semester of 1942 may have continued to have the original plan in view. Perhaps he did not anticipate that “The Ister,” the “second poem” whose interpretation was planned in 1941, would take up the entire duration of the lecture course. However things may stand in this regard, the identical title “Hölderlin’s Hymns” in the manuscripts of “Remembrance” and “The Ister” must be acknowledged in order to be able to think through how the two lecture courses belong together in terms of the original plan. The fact that a more condensed elucidation of “Remembrance,” sometimes borrowing from the lecture course, was written in August 1942 for the Hölderlin commemorative volume of 1943,1 is also indicative of the foundational significance of the poem for Heidegger’s Hölderlin interpretation noted here in the appendix.

Heidegger labeled the folders for the manuscripts with the added titles “Remembrance” and “The Ister,” without recording these additional titles in the manuscripts. He provided one copy of the typewritten transcript of the second lecture course, prepared by Frau Vietta, with the title “M. H. / Hölderlin / The Ister” on a handwritten cover sheet. Whether this is to be regarded as a decision concerning the final title that was likewise not carried over into the manuscript, must remain an open question. Correspondingly, had the title “Hölderlin / Remembrance” been adopted for the present volume, it would have sounded too similar to the title of the elucidation given in the Hölderlin commemorative volume.

Since, moreover, the two lecture courses are being published in two separate volumes, it seemed appropriate to choose for the first lecture course the title that now appears: it maintains in modified form the title of the manuscript and the label of the folder, indicates the content precisely, is clearly distinguished from the title “Remembrance” of the elucidation, and at the same time is in keeping with volume 39 (Hölderlin’s Hymns “Germania” and “The Rhine”).

II.

The lecture course was held for one hour at a time. The text is based on Heidegger’s manuscript, as well as the few alterations and brief additions that he made in a typewritten manuscript prepared by his brother Fritz Heidegger. The manuscript consists of sixty-seven sheets, written on one side in horizontal folio format, numbered pages 1 through 64 (together with three inserted pages marked as a, b, c). In addition there are four smaller sheets with “additional materials,” bibliographical details, and the note reproduced as the appendix which (other than the remark “winter semester 1941–42” on page 1) bears the only date. On the left half of the pages is the running text, and on the right are written numerous insertions and new versions of deleted portions of the text, themselves often again altered, supplemented, and nestled within one another.

The separate manuscript of the Reviews, likewise written on one side in horizontal folio format, consists of nineteen sheets. The left and right sides of the pages are organized in the same way as those of the text of the lectures. The places in the text of the lectures where the Reviews were inserted are precisely marked by Heidegger; this is where they have in each case been integrated into the published text.

Collating the manuscripts and typewritten transcript revealed additions and corrections to the transcript. It further revealed that Heidegger presumably did not undertake any precise collation, for only a minority of the readings that deviate from the manuscript have been corrected by him in the transcript. Textual alterations (mostly making points more precise) and additions made in his own hand in the transcript have been retained. There are so few overall that one must say that he let the version that he wrote in 1941–1942 stand as definitive throughout. In keeping with the guidelines for the edition of the lecture courses, various marginal remarks containing, for example, references to “SS [summer semester] 1942,” or notes remarking on particular connections, were not incorporated. The deletion of the beginnings of sentences with “And . . . ,” of fillers, as well as the reordering of words, was carefully undertaken in accordance with Heidegger’s guidelines; that is, not everywhere where such things occur, particularly not where beginning a sentence with “And . . .” clarifies an overarching link, or where deletions would disturb the rhythm of the text or of the sentence. The different way in which lines of verse are cited, sometimes excerpted as freely standing lines, sometimes integrated within the paragraphs of the interpretation, was everywhere reproduced. Considerably more paragraphs were introduced into the text than could be discerned in the manuscripts.

The manuscripts and transcript were not divided into sections by Heidegger himself. Only the title “Remembrance” marks the place where, following the Preliminary Considerations for the original overall plan (see the third and fourth paragraphs in section I above), the interpretation of this poem begins. This title, which corresponds to the thematic main part of the lecture course that was actually given, was left intact. Following the Preliminary Considerations, which extend to section 7, sections 8 through 10 may be regarded as a “second” series of preparations, as it were, which lead more closely and particularly to “Remembrance.”

The division into preliminary considerations and four parts stems from the editor, as does the choice of section titles. With the aid of these titles the lecture course has been subdivided relatively rigorously; that is, this repeatedly gave rise to distinctly short sections of text. This was intended to accommodate as closely as possible Heidegger’s demand for a clearly emerging form for the construction of the lecture course and for individual steps, including the overview provided by the table of contents.

III.

Attention may be drawn to the statement “The lecture course is only a pointing,” which is added to the manuscript like a kind of motto. It is found there in square brackets, and was therefore perhaps not read out. One may further point out the restrained way in which Heidegger characterizes his own interpretation when in this course he calls his lectures “comments” [Bemerkungen] and in the “Ister” lecture course speaks of “remarks” [Anmerkungen]. (Similarly, an initial version of the title for the elucidation published in 1943 read: “Remarks on Hölderlin’s Poem ‘Remembrance.’”) This cautious characterization of his own beginning, almost reticent in its choice of words, corresponds to the immediate proximity in which Hölderlin’s poetizing struck Heidegger’s thinking. That something happened thereby that demands to be carefully pondered was indeed seen quite early on already (for example, by Max Kommerell); however, it has as yet scarcely been brought to language in a manner that correctly approximates it. Heidegger’s three Hölderlin lecture courses open the previously published Elucidations of Hölderlin’s Poetry to new standards and perspectives of questioning, in accordance with the exceptional significance that the encounter with Hölderlin’s poetizing has in his thinking.

I give my heartfelt thanks to Herr Dr. Hermann Heidegger and Herr Prof. Dr. Friedrich-Wilhelm von Herrmann for friendly and beneficial discussions on questions that arose in the course of my work, and also for assistance with literary, bibliographical, and documentary inquiries. For their attentive checking of the galley proofs I thank Frau Dr. Luise Michaelsen, Frau Dr. Gerda Utermöhlen, and Herr Prof. Dr. Walter Biemel.

Curd Ochwadt

image

1 “Andenken,” in: Hölderlin. Gedenkschrift zu seinem 100. Todestag, edited by Paul Kluckhohn (Tübingen, 1943), 267–324. [This refers to the essay “Andenken,” also included in Erläuterungen zu Hölderlins Dichtung from the second edition onward (Frankfurt: Klostermann, 1951), 75–143. Translated as Elucidations of Hölderlin’s Poetry by Keith Hoeller (Amherst, New York: Humanity Books, 2000), 101–173. —Trans.]