










































isparchitecture.com

APPENDIX: 

HEIDEGGER’S “MAN’S 
DWELLING”

TRANSLATED BY CESAR A. CRUZ

For ease of  cross reference between essay and appendix, 
paragraph numbering has been added to the appendix, as 
well as page references to the German original in volume 13 
of  the Heidegger Gesamtsausgabe.1 

[1] [213] Hölderlin’s saying – “Full of  merit, yet 
poetically, man dwells on this earth” – is hardly 
registered by us, has not been fully fathomed; nor 
has it entered our collective memory.2 And how 
could it? In light of  contemporary reality – a reality 
regarding itself, and the very reserves it draws on, as 
that of  a self-made and self-sustained society –  the 
poet’s saying is easily watered down by just about 
anybody as fanciful. Poetry is seen in contemporary 
society as the production of  literature.

[2] That Hölderlin’s saying is not taken seriously 
is also testified to by the present stage of  Hölderlin 
research. That research groups the saying among 
the poet’s “questionable works” because its text has 
not come down to us in manuscript form, or so 
Wilhelm Waiblinger emphatically states at the close 
of  his 1823 novel Phaedon. By contrast, Norbert 
von Hellingrath’s “Prologue to a First Edition of  
Hölderlin’s Translations of  Pindar” (1911, page 
58, note 3), talks of  “passages that in essence well 
could be genuine.” Hellingrath’s [214] efforts at 
researching Hölderlin’s oeuvre rested on a distinct 
poetic approach to the poet himself  – a poet 
(Hölderlin) who one day may stand revealed as the 
poet herald of  a future art of  poetry.

[3] Strangely enough, the adjective “poetic” does 

Hölderlin’s 
saying [...] 
is hardly 

registered by 
us, has not 
been fully 

fathomed; nor 
has it entered 

our collective 
memory.

“

”



AP . vol 2 . No 1 . 2016

56

CR
UZ

not occur in Hölderlin’s poems in the final text of  his published works. 
Nevertheless the Stuttgart edition (II, 635) includes the adjective as variant 
in line 28 of  the poem “The Archipelago”,  the relevant passage (lines 25-
29) reading as follows: 

Likewise, heaven’s own, they, the powerful up on high, the silent ones, 
Who a serene day and sweet slumber and foreboding 
From far away cast over the head of  men sensitive and receptive to it 
Out of  the fullness of  their might, even they, the ancient companions in play,  
Dwell, as before, with You…3

[4] In the first draft, instead of  “the ancient companions in play, / 
Dwell,” Hölderlin writes “poetic companions in play, dwell.” Thus the 
poetic thought of  a poetic dwelling is in no way foreign to the poet. But the 
adjective “poetic” in the quoted passage qualifies the manner of  dwelling 
of  the heavenly bodies, not man’s.4 What then does “poetic companions in 
play” say if  instead it turned out to say “the ancient companions in play” 
in the final version?

[5] In what respect are the “ancient” the “poetic”, and the “poetic” the 
“ancient”? 

[6] The heavenly bodies in the poem refer to things that always have 
been – ‘ones of  yore’ – as well as to things that shall return in what is 
yet to come. They are ones of  yore in a twofold sense. Their being of  
yore explains their present state, their everlasting aspect in Hölderlin’s 
phrase of  the “ever blooming stars” (Draft, II, 365) goes beyond mere 
persistence. The ancient companions in play bring, to “men sensitive and 
receptive to it,” the serenity of  day and the night’s slumber and foreboding. 
These companions donate constancy to mortals across their lifetime, and 
are thereby poets (or ‘poetizing’ ones). The ancient companions in play 
“dwell poetically” with the god of  the Aegean Sea, with its islands and the 
inhabitants. 

[7] [215] Even though the final version of  the poem calls the heavenly 
bodies the “ancients,” this did not eliminate their designation as “the 
poetic ones.” For the verses that follow (lines 29-42) begin by expressly 
naming the most supreme of  the celestial bodies, “the day’s sun,” the 
“all transfiguring” sun – and line 38 calls it “the poetizing one.” The sun 
bestows a clarity that allows all things to shine forth in their uniqueness 
and gives to mortals their measure.

[8] And yet, the poem “The Archipelago” expresses itself  in more 
meaningful and complete a manner than a set of  inevitably fragmented 
notes ever could.

[9] Meanwhile, a question imposes itself. Don’t the passages, certified 
by the poet’s own hand and preceding the final version of  this poem, 



57

isparchitecture.com

diminish or entirely do away with any doubts 
surrounding the authenticity of  the words “In 
lovely blueness blooms” (employed by Hölderlin 
in a prose text) from which the line “full of  merit, 
yet poetically, man dwells on this earth” was taken? 
Even if  this were true, the distinction mentioned 
above between “the ancient” versus “the poetic” 
would still remain. 

[10] According to “The Archipelago”, the 
heavenly bodies “dwell poetically,” with the sun 
being, as the most supreme of  heavenly bodies, 
“the poetizing one.” The designation “poetic” thus 
goes with “heaven’s own.” According to the later 
prose text, “poetic dwelling” goes with the mortals 
“on this earth.” 

[11] According to “The Archipelago,” the 
heavenly ones were inclined to impart to those on 
earth their measure. According to the prose text, 
mortals concede the imparting of  their measure 
to the heavenly. “Imparting their measure in equal 
ways?” we may ask, ere we pause and hear the text’s 
own question: “Is there a measure on earth?”, and 
have to immediately ponder the text’s own answer: 
“There is none.” 

[12] The poetized ones on earth are only the 
measure-takers of  a heavenly gift of  measure. 
Poetized mortals always only bestow meaning by 
building on something they themselves already 
received. For Hölderlin, the making of  poetry is 
not a creative power that resides in the individual 
poet. Rather, it is a measured building (Bauen) the 
heavenly ones employ, to the full extent of  their 
power, with works of  Saying being the result of  
such building. In this way a region is kept open for 
mortals to sojourn within it.5

[13] [216] That region’s overall inclination ought 
to be termed a clearing: a clearing in which the 
heavenly ones incline towards Earth’s mortals in 
a manner both foreign and generous, and where 
those on earth incline to the heavenly by way of  
gratitude and cultivation. To a region of  such 

For Hölderlin, 
the making of 

poetry is [...] 
a measured 

building 
(‘Bauen’) the 

heavenly ones 
employ 

“

”



AP . vol 2 . No 1 . 2016

58

CR
UZ

inclination belongs, by way of  giving and receiving of  measure – thus, 
poetically – that the heavenly and mortals each dwell in their own way and 
alongside one another.

[14] Still, isn’t all of  this a mere dream, the creation of  an arbitrary 
imagination that is lacking all reality, any prospects of  possible realization, 
every claim to validity and obligation? 

[15] A single casual glance upon the state of  the world today may suffice 
to compel us towards these questions. Yet here we overlook too easily that 
Hölderlin himself  became cognizant of  what poetry demanded and of  
its hazards along his path – more cognizant than we ever could become 
today, reflecting on his thought. 

[16] The closing stanza of  the hymn “The Journey” expresses this as 
follows (Hellingrath IV, 171; Stuttgart Edition II, 141): 

Heaven’s servants 
Are ever so wonderful, 
Just as all of  God’s children. 
Through a dream it comes to him who wants just once 
To steal from heaven, yet there is retribution for those that 
Through forceful means want to be equal to it; 
Often it is a surprise to the one 
To whom it has hardly ever come to mind before6

[17] And thus it remains premature, even on Hölderlin’s own behalf, to 
point to, let alone announce as having been uttered with any commitment, 
the saying “poetically man dwells on this earth”. If  we were to mention 
“poetic dwelling,” the most we could reach by way of  assertion at this 
point is: Man today dwells on this Earth, but not poetically.  

[18] [217] And what does that mean? Does Hölderlin even speak of  
it? Norbert von Hellingrath, under the section entitled “Fragments and 
Drafts,” presents us with a short text with the heading of  “The Nearest 
Best.”  It goes as follows: 

[O]pen are heaven’s windows 
And set free is the nocturnal spirit, 
Who in storming the heavens has our land 
Enticed, and, by having much to say, by being unpoetic, 
Has wallowed in the debris 
Up to this very hour.  
And yet what I yearn for, it will come, …  .7

[19] Does “unpoetic,” as used here, mean the same thing as not poetic? 
In no way. Yet, if  these terms are to connote different things, in what 
respects do they demand that we differentiate them?

[20] There is an answer readily at hand. The difference lies in the 



59

isparchitecture.com

manner of  negation. A triangle for example is not 
poetic, but it can never be unpoetic. For, to be that, 
it must have been able to be poetic – such that it 
could, in this regard, be lacking something, and 
fail to comply with the poetic. In the history of  
thinking, there has long been a distinction between 
mere negation and deprivation. It remains open to 
further consideration whether, this distinction in 
place (one that required Plato’s utmost intellectual 
efforts to disentangle in his Sophist), the question 
concerning the “not” has now been sufficiently 
settled.

[21] We can only learn how to understand 
the “un” in “unpoetic” in the present case if  we 
succeed in more precisely determining the “poetic”. 
Fortunately, Hölderlin himself  provides the type of  
assistance we need.

[22] The word “unpoetic” only occurs once in the 
preserved manuscripts of  Hölderlin. Hellingrath’s 
“Appendix” (IV, 392) records the term’s variants, 
and comments: “just above the occurrence of  
unpoetic, the following variants are [218] listed on 
top of  one another: infinite, unpeaceful, unbounded, 
unrestrained.”

[23] How are we to understand the varying nature 
of  these variants? Does one variant just go in place 
of   another, with a preceding one extinguished by 
a subsequent one – such that only the final one 
remains valid for the text’s final form?

[24] The Stuttgart edition (II, 868) sets down 
these variants as listed “one above the other,” 
but adopts “unrestrained,” (occurring in the list’s 
topmost position) instead of  “unpoetic” as the 
text’s authoritative reading (II, 234 and 237). This 
might be true if  we were adhering to a philological 
rule (see the Stuttgart Edition I, 319). But it is not 
‘poetologically’ true; it does not reveal what the 
poet wants to say and record.

[25] The variants show Hölderlin’s effort at 
determining the meaning of  “poetic” in “unpoetic.” 
The “unpoetic” names the unessential of  the 

Man today 
dwells on this 
Earth, but not 

poetically.

“
”



AP . vol 1 . No 2 . 2015

60

CR
UZ

“poetic,” that which in it is uncanny or not “at home.” “Unpoetic” is 
the adjective used to qualify “having much to say,” to qualify how “the 
nocturnal spirit” speaks, “who has our land / Enticed,” – a spirit who is, 
“in storming the heavens,” hostile, even rebellious against the heavens.

[26] In being “unpoetic” the “poetic” does not disappear, but rather 
the “finite” is dismissed, the “peaceful” troubled, the “bound” undone, 
the “restrained” wrongfully transforms into the “unleashed.” All this tells 
us: that which bestows measure is not admitted, the very reception of  
measure is suppressed. The region that would be so inclined is instead 
buried under debris.

[27] What leaps to mind is how the quoted fragments mentioning the 
“unpoetic” – fragments certified in manuscript form – belong together 
with the apocryphal text of  the saying, “poetically man dwells.”

[28] Meanwhile, one difference between the two texts still remains. “The 
Nearest Best,” that fragment published by Hellingrath, does not speak 
of  man’s dwelling. Or at least, so it seems.  For exactly that impression 
is put to rest by that fragment’s text [219] variant entitled “draft hymn” 
offered by Friedrich Beissner in the Stuttgart edition. The three draft 
forms (II, 233-239) were brought together in a convincing manner “based 
on handwritten idiosyncrasies,” and are to be interpreted as poetry of  the 
“Dawn of  a newly realized age following the patriotic reversal” (II, 867 and 
following). This age, and the care by which we are to enter it, underscores 
Hölderlin’s poetry in the elegy “Homecoming.” (See my “Annotations to 
Hölderlin’s Poetry,” supplemented by the two lectures, “Hölderlin’s Earth 
and Heaven” and “The Poem” in: Collected Works, Volume 4, 5th edition.)

[29] Hölderlin’s poetry persists in the care shown in the “Homecoming.” 
It is the care shown in establishing those places whereby man dwells 
poetically, and is shown in the patient waiting for salvation that is a part of  
this earthly sojourn. The draft “The Nearest Best” expresses this implicitly 
by referring to “having much to say” as “being unpoetic.”

[30] Nonetheless, ever since Hölderlin poetized his hymns, it may have 
been all too clear: this poem says and waits in vain. The saying regarding 
man’s poetic dwelling remains unfulfilled, it remains just one great illusion.

[31] Yet the question remains whether in light of  this statement we will 
ever think through the poet’s message with sufficient patience. Man of  the 
present age too dwells poetically in his own way, which is to say, assuming 
his way of  being in name only, unpoetically.8  For the sake of  his will to 
produce himself  and [produce] reserves that can be cultivated, man seizes 
measure from an earth that his machinations leave disfigured. He lacks the 
ability to hear Hölderlin’s answer to the question: “Is there a measure upon 
earth? There is none.”



61

isparchitecture.com

[32] “Having much to say,” what “entices our 
land,” are in reality only the monotony of  language 
from which everything which is said lies flat: the 
computer’s language of  informatics. The only 
measure for computing man is the quota.

[33] Certainly Hölderlin had not foreseen or 
foretold the state of  the world today. 

[220] Nevertheless there remains what his saying 
has established and left for us to keep in our 
thoughts.

Much is left to consider, that is, to experience 
thoughtfully. Next for us to consider is: 

First of  all, to think about the unpoetic aspects 
of  our world sojourn as such, experiencing the 
mechanization of  man as his fate instead of  
dismissing it as merely arbitrary and an infatuation. 
Further, it calls for us to realize that there is no 
measure on this earth, but rather that the earth can 
give no measure when it is quantified on a planetary 
scale, that the earth is carried away in the lack of  
measure.

[34] In the midst of  the unpoetic it is insufficient 
for the poetic to think of  the way out in the 
apparently equalizing dialectics.

[35] We still rush past the mystery of  the “not” 
and of  what is not. 

We do not yet experience clearly enough what 
is suggested to us in the withdrawal because we do 
not yet know the withdrawal itself. We do not yet 
know the poetic in the unpoetic.

ENDNOTES
1. The copyright for the original German version 
of  this text is held by Vittorio Klostermann Verlag, 
2002. This translation was very much a cumulative 
effort between the editorial staff  and contributing 
colleagues of  Architecture Philosophy, and myself. 
I would like especially to thank Tom Spector and 
Stefan Koller for their great help in proofreading, 
verifying, and editing this translation.
2. “Hölderlin’s saying”: Wort is translated in this 

In being 
“unpoetic” the 

“poetic” does 
not disappear, 

but rather 
the “finite”  is 

dismissed, the 
“peaceful”  
troubled

“

”



AP . vol 2 . No 1 . 2016

62

CR
UZ

essay, of  course, as “word,” but primarily as “saying” and “message,” as it 
refers both to the entire line “Full of  merit…” and, as Heidegger sees it, 
the message inherent in Hölderlin’s poetry.
3. The translations of  Hölderlin’s three poems quoted in this essay 
benefitted from consulting previously published translations of  each. 
Nevertheless, the translations here are my own, as in each case there were 
enough differences, sometimes subtle but significant enough differences, 
that I could not use the previously published poems. For comparison of  
“Der Archipelagus” see Friedrich Hölderlin, Friedrich Hölderlin: Poems and 
Fragments, trans. Michael Hamburger (Ann Arbor, MI: The University of  
Michigan Press, 1967), 212-215.
4. ‘Heavenly bodies’ (Himmelskörper): literally, celestial bodies (as in section 
7). The translation preserves Heidegger’s referene to ‘the heavenly’ in 
Hölderlin’s poem (section 4) and his own Fourfold.
5. Heidegger writes “the region” (die Gegend) instead of  “a region.” The 
latter is used here because he is referring to a kind of  region or regioning, 
not a specific locality or place. Also, like sections 7 and 10, the present 
paragraph uses ‘poetize(d)’ to designate ‘dichten(d)’, the verb (and adjectival 
form of) ‘to make poetry’. Cf. Aurenque’s essay above, n. 8.
6. For comparison of  “Die Wanderung” see Friedrich Hölderlin, Friedrich 
Hölderlin: Hymns and Fragments, trans. Richard Sieburth (Princeton, NJ: 
Princeton University Press, 1984), 66-67; Friedrich Hölderlin, Hölderlin: 
His Poems, trans. Michael Hamburger (London: The Harvill Press, 1952), 
188-189; and Hölderlin, Friedrich Hölderlin: Poems and Fragments, 398-399. 
7. For comparison of  “Das Nächste Beste” see Hölderlin, Friedrich Hölderlin: 
Hymns and Fragments, 174-175 and 274-275; and Hölderlin, Friedrich 
Hölderlin: Poems and Fragments, 544-545. 
8. “way of  being”: the only use of  Dasein in this essay. Literal translation: 
“Man of  the present age too dwells poetically – namely, that is, as per 
(unter) the name of  his Dasein, unpoetically.”


