HOLDERLIN AND HEIDEGGER

Dear Simon, no I think Heidegger went along with the regime, but by 1944 he was sent to the Rhine dykes (to dig) and probably would have been shot. He had proven to be a traitor, or was unwilling to go along with what had become palpable madness. He's an interesting example of complicity and Hannah Arendt, his lover, writes about him (as she later wrote about Adolph Eichmann - die banalitat von Bosen - the banality of evil). Do you mean the difference between Anglo-Saxon logical-positivist philosophy and Continental philosophy? Continental philosophy is often applied since it makes no claims independently of its subject and cannot be studied of itself. There's psychoanalysis, Hermeneutics or existentialism (and Heidegger's funny form of existentialism calling Sartre's 'Being and Nothingness' dreck). Holderlin's a difficult writer, rather like Gerald Manley Hopkins, but there are two hurdles to straddle there: firstly Holderlin's obscure, complex German and then his wide knowledge of the Classics. Incredibly dense, many of Holderlin's poems were enscribed in the English Gardens along with Goethe's. (but I thought Heinrich Heine was the second most important German poet - or is this simply because he was Jewish?) I've tried to read Holderlin but its difficult to connect with his work, mind, life and times, they are so distant from us.

I'm presently reading the 'Regeneration' trilogy which loses moment after the first volume. Quite interesting since it was written from a point-of-view so removed from the harsh realities the novel's immersed in.

Do you ever read ordinary literature? Agatha Christie or Harold Robbins? Or do you listen to rock 'n pop? I'm listening to a lot of Bob Dylan's stuff presently, a constant source of inspiration, his brief ballad stories. His persona, or the personae he created, compel me, but not as much as those Pound created. Pound's pretentious, but he knows what he's talking about, 'ABC of Reading' proves that. I was inspired by his mind, he clearly had something to say although much of what he did has been overshadowed by his fascist links. (perhaps he liked to be the Devil's advocate or was too obstinate eventually to acknowledge that he was wrong, whatever. He did what he did out of legitimate aversion for some aspects of America, life and history and politics and all, or perhaps he sought notoriety. How else does on sell unreadable poetry?)

best wishes

Hi Paul,

I'm answering a flood of documents and finishing a review on Mario Petrucci, whose work I commend to you. Anyway after that pompous opening I'm glad my intuitions aobut Hitler's essentially Volk-Viennese prejudice proves true. A documentary on the failure of the German military was enlightening, too.

Essentially, the German military were paralysed. They had traditionally taken an oath of loyalty but also one to stay out of politics. That's understandable and mostly works well - as we know to our cost when the military don't stay out. Perhaps they held General Monk in 1660 as a shining example. So they initially saw little of the Nazi threat but that it secured a stronger military future. Then by 1933 they were overtaken by the incredibly adroit oath they had to swear to the Nazis. They were outmanouevred and many resented it. But their taditional mind-set and habits did all the out-manouvering the Nazis could hope for. Their greed for a stronger military outweighed their scruples till it was far too late. But they weren't curious enough. Had they opposed, the Nazis would have collapsed, riven with the SA/SS split as they were.

Ill in bed read early unrevised Spender - replete with his Frankfurt experiences and the rise of Nazism -and Hopkins (Wreck etc) in alternation as Sonja was mourning a fallen tree outside. Showed her the two Hopkins poems and then read throughout. Spender is a truer poret in some ways than Auden, also a bad reviser, and MacNeice in some ways. Clumsy, but authentic and occasionally thrilling. Alinguistic confusion is often mroe than that, suggestive and suddenly lucid, turning insights of great power. It's a great pity we only usually see the tamed 1930s and the dying fall thereafter. He edited out his own reputation to some degree, and of course outlived himself till his last phase, which I'll read.

Just bought Heidegger on Holderlin too. I've dipped into this but as you'd imagine, only just. His other work on poets is out of print but City Books are scouring second-hand for that and Merleau-Ponty's Sense and Non-Sense which addresses Cezanne. The point being that often philosophers of this kind, that is, not inductive but continental ones, are often best when applied, not pure. Heildegger as Martin called him, posed interesting questions but had dishonourable answers. His criticism is more interesting. a repellant man, he persecuted happily from 1933 onwards.

All the Best,

Simon