Trustees of Boston University

Martin Heidegger the Anaximander Fragment Author(s): David Farrell Krell Source: Arion, New Series, Vol. 1, No. 4 (1973/1974), pp. 576-626 Published by: Trustees of Boston University Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20163348 Accessed: 16/09/2010 19:11
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=tbu. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Trustees of Boston University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Arion.

http://www.jstor.org

MARTIN HEIDEGGER THE ANAXIMANDER
Translated by David Farrell Krell

FRAGMENT

It of Western

IS CONSIDERED THE OLDEST Anaximander

reportedly thinking. fragment lived on the island of Samos from the end of the seventh of the sixth. century to the middle text the fragment to the accepted According generally
reads:

c? ?)v 8? r? ycvco"t? yivtoSai ?AA^Aot? Kara to

coti

TOt? overt Kai Tqv

<?>6opav

etc ravra

tlctlv StSovat y?p avr? xpeoV h'iK-qv /ca? tov ra?cv. TTJs aStKtas Kara rrjv xp?vov

Whence

must things have their origin, there they to necessity; for they also pass away according must pay penalty and be judged for their injustice, according to the ordinance of time. translates The the young treatise was after Nietzsche in a treatise com

Thus

pleted in 1873 entitled Philosophy in the Tragic Age of
the Greeks. 1903, thirty years times in the early lecture course Nietzsche Philoso l&ftfs at Basel under the title, "The Preplatonic with Interpretation of Selected Fragments." phers, In the same year, 1903, that Nietzsche's essay on the first became Preplatonic philosophers Diels' of the Presocratics Fragments Copyright ?
Publishers, "The Inc. Anaximander Fragment" is a chapter from Martin Heideg

published its composition. offered several

in posthumously It is based on a

known, appeared.

Hermann It con

1975 in the English translation by Harper & Row,

ger, Early Greek Thinking (translated by David Farrell Krell and Frank A. Capuzzi), to be published in spring, 1975 (New York:
Harper & Row).

David Farrell Krell
tains texts

577

to the methods selected critically according classical philology, with a translation. along to Wilhelm is dedicated The work trans Diels Dilthey. in the lates the Anaximander following words: fragment of modern things have their origin, there too their to for away occurs according necessity; passing to one another and penalty they pay recompense to for their recklessness, firmly estab according lished time. The ferent scarcely is more translations intentions and Diels arise from dif by Nietzsche and procedures. Nevertheless they are In many ways Diels' translation distinguishable. is only literal it is literal. But when a translation It is faithful from its terms only when the language of the matter But where

not faithful. necessarily are words which speak itself.

More important than the general agreement of the two is the conception of Anaximander which un translations locates him among the Preplatonic derlies both. Nietzsche The two des Diels among the Presocratics. philosophers, are alike. The standard for consid ignations unexpressed of ering and judging the early thinkers is the philosophy Plato and Aristotle. These are taken as the Greek philoso phers who set the standard both before and after them selves. Traversing Christian this view becomes theology, as a universal conviction, one which to entrenched firmly even this day has not been shaken. In the meantime, when treat and historical research philological philoso in greater detail, Platonic before Plato and Aristotle phers and Aristotelian in modern and concepts, representations is still guide the interpretation. That transformations, are made also the case when to locate what is attempts archaic in early thinking by in classical finding parallels and literature. Classic and classicist repre archaeology sentations on archaic not expatiate prevail. We logic, that logic occurs for the first time in the curricu realizing lum of the Platonic and Aristotelian schools. these later notions will not help in the Simply ignoring

578

THE ANAXIMANDER FRAGMENT

course of from one language to another if we translating do not first of all see how it stands with the matter to be for thinking. translated. But the matter here is a matter our concern Granted for a philologically enlightened we must in first of all think about translating language, can the matter involved. Therefore help us only thinkers our to translate in the fragment of this early attempt thinker. When we cast about for such help we surely seek
in vain.

Preplatonic but his interpretations of the texts are com if not entirely monplace, Hegel superficial, throughout. is the Western thinker who has thoughtfully experi only about enced the history of thought; yet he says nothing too the Anaximander Furthermore, fragment. Hegel philosophers; conviction the classic shares the concerning predominant character of Platonic and Aristotelian He philosophy. the basis for the classification of the early think provides ers as and Presocratic Preplatonic precisely by grasping them as Pre-Aristotelians. at In his lectures on the history of Greek philosophy, the point where he indicates the sources for our knowl says edge of this primeval epoch of philosophy, Hegel the following: Aristotle is the richest source. He and with studied attention the older to funda

vibrant

In his own way the young Nietzsche does with the personalities of the rapport

establish

a

expressly philosophers at the of the Meta mentals. Especially beginning in many other he physics (though places besides) as a historian about the entire group of spoke as he is learned; we them. He is as philosophical can we can on him. For Greek philosophy depend do nothing better than take up the first book of his Metaphysics. What (Works, XIII, 189) first fol his the

recommends here to his listeners in the Hegel of the nineteenth decades century had already been Aristotle's lowed by Theophrastus, contemporary, of student, and the first successor to the leadership

David Farrell Krell

579

died about 286 b.c. He com Peripatetics. Theophrastus a text with the title $vaiKwv $6?ai, "the posed opinions of those who of <?uW ?vra." Aristotle also calls them speak the early thinkers who ponder <f>vo-Lo\6yoL, meaning the things of nature. SnW means sky and earth, plants and animals, and also in a certain way men. The word a in both Aris special region of beings which, designates totle and the Platonic school, are separated from t?0os and no ?oyo?. For them <j>vcn<s longer has the broad sense of the thematic ob totality of being. At the outset of Aristotle's servations on Physics, that is, on the ontology of the <?wet 6vTa, the kind of being called <?iW ovra is contrasted with that of r xvr? ovra. $vcret ovra is that which itself produces out of itself; rkyyr) ovra is human by arising produced by and production. planning When Hegel that he is "as philosophi says of Aristotle as he is learned," this means that Aristotle re cal actually the early thinkers in the historical and gards perspective, to the standard, of his own us that Physics. For according means: the Preplatonic understands and Pre Hegel as Pre-Aristotelians. socratic philosophers a After Hegel twofold opinion concerning before Plato and philosophy Aristotle ensconced itself as the general view: (1) the of being, thinkers, in search of the first beginnings early for the most part took nature as the object of their repre on nature are their utterances sentations; (2) inadequate to the of nature approximations compared knowledge in the meantime which in the Platonic had blossomed and Aristotelian
medicine.

the

schools,

the Stoa, and

in the schools

of

The &vo-iK(?v 86$at of became the chief Theophrastus source for manuals of the histoiy in Hel of philosophy lenistic times. These manuals the interpreta prescribed tion of the of the early thinkers which original writings may have survived to that time, and founded the subse tradition in Not only the quent doxographical philosophy. content but also the of this tradition made its mark style on the relation of later thinkers?even beyond Hegel?to the history of thought. an About 530 A.D. the Neoplatonist Simplicius wrote

transcending to become the location of a new but European merely * Land des Abends. provided we first of all think the essence of the and in terms of what But what West the early saying says. Besides. literally "the In German evening-land." Abend-Land. the Anaximander thus it produced fragment. entitles antiquity presumably Are we the latest latecomers with respect to philosophy? in a history now racing towards latecomers its end." Abendland ?TR. an in its increasingly sterile order of uniformity end which to an end? Or does there lie concealed brings everything remote and chronological in the historical [historisch] ness of the the historic proxim fragment [geschichtliche] that will speak out in ity of something unsaid. something times to come? Do we stand in the very twilight of the most monstrous our has ever undergone. to address us. preserving for the Western world. antiquarian to us is the oldest vouchsafed by though the fragment our tradition we do not know whether it is the earliest its kind inWestern thinking. He copied the fragment from extensive Theophrastus' pronounced or to whom?to his ^vulkwv 86?ai.580 THE ANAXIMANDER FRAGMENT on Aristotle's In it he re commentary Physics. the twi transformation planet in which earth itself hangs suspended? light of that epoch heralds Do we gaze into the evening of a night which another dawn? Are we to strike off on a journey to this historic region of earth's evening? Is the land of evening* now this land of evening overwhelm emerging? Will only is whatever and Orient Occident alike. and Can the Anaximander from a historical fragment. We may pre fragment of sume so. of two thousand distance five hundred chronological to us? By what years. From the time Anaximander or when do not know where saying?we it down in the moment jotted Simplicius his commentary more than a millennium elapsed. or "the West. Between moment time of the jotting and the present Simplicius' lies another millennium-and-a-half. still say something authority should it is the oldest? In themselves the it speak? Only because ancient al have no weight. means Occident .

125). from Being itself? Are we the latecomers we are? But are we also at the same time precursors of the dawn of an altogether different age. nations will be obscured and forgotten. but is entering the stage of only its expansion and entrenchment. relation to history. Historic?sm now not been overcome. It sys images by the future and our historic relation tematically destroys to the advent of has today not only destiny. and the essence of history. far-reaching The antiquity the Anaximander pervading fragment to the dawn of early times in the land of evening.David Farrell Krell 581 fated history? Are we men of today already primordially in the course of "Western" in a sense that first crystallizes can all our passage into the world's night? What merely of history tell us about our philosophies historiological history mented if they only dazzle us with surveys of its sedi ever think stuff. in turn. quated books" (Aphorism is to come what from All historiography predicts of the past determined the present. which has already left our contemporary historiological from whose representations of history behind? ( all too coarsely un philosophy the decline of the West? derstood) Spengler predicted in the sense of the Western in historical world?writes Nietzsche. belongs But what if that which is early outdistanced everything . That does not in any way mean however that historiogra us to form within our phy. enables history a truly adequate. taken by itself. The technical organiza tion of communications the world by radio throughout and by a press already after it is the genuine limping "The Wanderer form of historicism's dominion. from the history. the fundamentals their way of explaining events. if they explain history without essence of of ing out. and His Shadow" "A higher (1880). Can we nevertheless the dawn portray and represent of an age in ways different from those of historiography? of history is still for us an indis the discipline Perhaps tool for making the historical pensable contemporary. is in which the Europe of situation for mankind possible. but in which will live on in thirty very ancient but never anti Europe no.

of of the long-hidden that is. in the phrase "eschatology of Being" we do However. i. ?oyo?) gathered Being. The gathering is gathered Being as the (Aoyo?) at the outermost point departure. The hitherto history of in this in this departure. might arbitrariness? are bound We bound to the are We language of the saying.e. is inherently eschatological. to will of the unconditioned subjectness [Subjektit?t] will. longer his would we be seduced by vain hopes of calculating what and psychologically. In both to our mother .582 late. what binds ing is said in to translate it? How do we get to what attempt so that it rescue the translation from the saying. at the departure destiny is The Being of beings (\iyto~6ai. at the last (evxarov). today what is imminent. The essence disappears. when Being gathers itself in the ultimacy as the absolute hitherto determined through metaphysics. through no it would If only once we could hear the fragment Nor sound like an assertion historically long past. as what once occurred. What THE ANAXIMANDER FRAGMENT far surpassed the very latest? if the very earliest once occurred in the dawn of our destiny would then come. phenomenology the history of Being. philologically torically. But presum tion for his way of representing us in our we do hear what his saying says. The phenomenology of spirit within a of Being. was at one time really present to that man called Anaxi of Miletus which may have served as the condi mander the world. We theological to the way of Being in a way corresponding eschatology the i. in the eschatology constitutes itself phase of its essence. (eaxarov) As something itself fateful [geschickliches]. Being Being. then we If we think within the eschatology must someday anticipate the former dawn in the dawn to we must learn to ponder this former dawn come.e. its truth still veiled. from of spirit is to be thought. gathering is the eschatology of of its essence hitherto. of Being in the ultimacy of its destiny. cases we are essen tongue. as the name of a not understand the term "eschatology" or philosophical think of the discipline. of Being.

and indeed more poetizing. adequate easily fall short?if indeed the lack of a sufficiently solid base allows any leap at all. and we stand deeper. fragment leap abyss or historical does not consist merely of the chronological distance of two-and-a-half It is wider millennia. be translated to what is said in Greek. All poetizing. The poetizing thinking it Because the sway of the truth of Being. heard and said here necessarily it says can this Only in thoughtful dialogue with what is of thinking be translated. the translation which wishes to let poetizes of thinking the oldest fragment itself speak necessarily appears violent. Thinking of Being first comes to lan of poetizing. is in sense. what the truth of Being dictates. not only the translation but also the binding as is to be of violence. comes to to what in this translation Thoughtful speech over an is a The abyss [Graben]. since in this broader the realm of language. can borrow their factuality from torical facts?which only it. essence of its ground a thinking. This requires that we translate what is said in Greek into our German tongue. but also Thinking art to the shapes its work within prior poetics of art. comes to in the What language fragment? The ques We shall . However. mainly because right on its are so near the we do not have abyss that edge. So long as we do not experience this binding. and also in the narrower sense of the poetic. but far less and his than the standards of all philological apparent. Language original way fragment in thinking. what the appearance though suffers violence. every translation of the fragment must seem wholly arbitrary. before translating. To that end our thinking must first. i.e. Thinking it is the original dictare. thinking than one kind of poetizing. is primordial poetry. We an a broad we runway for such jump. preserves as it thinks. is said in the say Yet even when we are bound to what retain ing. into its essence.David Farrell Krell tially bound essence. more is the than poetry and song. says guage. try to translate the Anaximander fragment. prior to all poesy. This to 583 of its and to the experience language bond is broader and stronger. It is hard to leap.

. The judgment of later. with respect to things. It specifies the nature of this process. their passing away. imprecise. Thus whence they place a kind of barter system in Nature's immuta they exhibit of constructive and destruc ble economy. StSovat $?K7)v. . only roughly grasped of natural occurrences. . But that from which things to the usual view the statement According speaks of the origin and decay of things. to into the matter the fragment says some inquire it might also mean what the says thing about: fragment in itself. in with his view of nature.584 tion THE ANAXIMANDER FRAGMENT mean and therefore It might is ambiguous. Theophrastus S?ktj. The muta general characteristic not yet with bility of all things is therefore represented in terms of motions defined by exact relations precision of mass. Things flower. More literally translated the fragment says: arise also gives rise to to what is necessary. natural Indeed primitive altogether of nature that incipient observation should de fitting of things in terms of common occur scribe the processes s rences in the human sphere. tiW. concerning of the fragment consists Considered grammatically. This is why Anaximander statement mentions and injustice. of course. Only then can we judge what fragment speaks its subject matter. Anaxi that ?S. Moral penalty. The exchange as a tive moments is. recompense and justice sin and retribution. according to one for things render justice and pay penalty to the ordi another for their injustice. according nance of time. and juridical notions get mixed In this regard for Theophrastus already criticizes avr? ?eywv. ?Suda. At this point an appropriate formula of trie laws is still lacking. mander 7TOir]TtK<?TpoLs QVT<?s ov?paaw to for employing for what he wants rather poetic words means the words say. Originating and refer back to the decaying come. things fall. Before should all else we . more of motion times is indulgent enough not to ridicule this progressive it is found science. the try to make out what it says of.

In the fullest sense. of be "the many. translated liter Ta ovra means "beings. it means multiplicity. The first begins: e? wv S? r?y?vevU ?an rot? ovvl . the totality of be rather. r? TToAAa. But if the way we normally a range of think within (such as physics. The being second clause begins : StS?Vat yap avr?. that r? ovra must be <?wet ovra. . another assumption becomes superfluous." The neuter plural designates ally. that at this time ethical or juridical matters were inter we call "ethics" and in terms of the disciplines preted Denial of such boundaries between dis "jurisprudence. things pro duced bv man. . It is superfluous of r? ovra as "the things" does not suit the translation which comes to language in the saying. in Thus Ta ovra means manifold ing." to does not mean that in early times law ciplines imply and ethicality were unknown. then so does all foundation for the assertion that what ought to be rep is in resented sciences strictly in tenus of the natural and juridically. more in being than mere The Aristotelian-Theo things." in the sense of the manifold But r? ovra does not mean an arbitrary or boundless ing. The fragment speaks of manifold being in totality. less. long among beings. Man.David Farrell Krell 585 tWO clauses. With the collapse of terpreted morally the presupposition strives after scien that the fragment tific knowledge the demarcated realm of na concerning ture. The avra refers to the toU overtof the first clause. are even All these are not merely "also" in they being. are not "things" only things of nature. is things altogether ground But even the for our translation. namely. . biology. disciplines of law. But not only things belong among beings. The matter under discussion is ovra. . presupposition phrastian natural in the narrower sense. also be and so do daimonic and divine things. totality. . however. has no ethics. and the situation or environment effected by the deeds and omissions of man. philosophy psychology) here?if are boundaries between these subjects place there is no possibility of trespass or of the lacking?then unjustified transfer of notions from one area to another. . and realized matter state If the presupposition that the fragment makes ments about things of nature fails. r? iravra.

before translating must cast aside all inadequate presupposi consciously tions. speak of the dialogue in the Same. interprets sorts to poetic expressions. For example. disciplines and flux do not necessarily pre indeterminacy an articulation of a the contrary. thinking must the unified totality of the manifold. but rich. containing are em For that reason these words thought. to It is proper ful only when such listening same in that its conversation thing. or that highly alisms and legalisms are enmeshed ideas relevant to particular regions of nature. For that to happen.586 THE ANAXIMANDER FRAGMENT boundaries between do not appear. and therefore re cally. that a primitive still prevails which the world uncriti outlook examines it anthropomorphically. Ac deed. and TtW have a broad signifi cance which cannot be enclosed within the boundaries of particular disciplines. in In order to translate at all what comes to language we do any actual we the fragment. far-reaching. essential unity. something much rather out. or finally. The words SUrj. ?StKta. even to cast aside all when However. Being comes to language as the Being of beings. appropriate matter purely thought may well come to language when it has been freed from every oversimplification. presuppositions as we ever we find them is insufficient so inadequate long in the frag fail to gain access to what comes to language ment. pressing what they involve and how it is with are of in such a way that their Being is ex Beings spoken pressed. cording to its wording. or law play a role in it. precisely to to the manifold bring totality in its language ployed: of course. that it speak out of participation ex the fragment speaks of ovra. with apprehend in its own terms. specialized ethics. purely in its unity come This way of letting manifold being a kind of view is but into essential primitive anything Yet where boundless vail: on and anthropomorphic representation. . "Broad" does not mean here ex or thinned in the sense of flattened tensive. that the fragment pertains to the phi such a way that inappropriate mor losophy of nature?in in it. them. will be fruit with early Greek Dialogue thinking occurs. its peculiar characteristics.

having completed was planning his systematic metaphysical athustra. mag num opus. Same language." it is in fact. if we take Ta ovra to mean "beings" and elvai as ance than "to be. ing of beings is addressed The ancient fragment of early Western thinking and of recent Western the late fragment thinking bring the to not identical. We ask So ." (ttlv "is. script's handwriting Zar about the time when Nietzsche. we are together between the differences the early thinkers in the realm of the Same." and concerning provides these words. We to express doubts do not mean about it. presencing outermost point of the completion of metaphysics the Be in these words.David At the summit Farrell Krell 587 of the of Western completion philoso are "To stamp Becoming phy pronounced: is the to with the character of Being?that highest will in a note "Reca Nietzsche Thus entitled. but what they say is we can in terms of where However. power." It is the way of continu these words through which will to power wills itself and guaran as the tees its own At the Being of Becoming." Must texts of Greek philosophy correctness impeachable tations of Greek this translation." we cross every gap." According we must locate it in the year 1885. the fundamental condi which things recent and tion of a between dialogue early thoughtful times is automatically fulfilled. granting nothing these epochs. information be. we ask in "being" and elvat only whether this correct translation we also think correctly." 6v we in evidence extensive place in order to demonstrate the un All themselves interpre rest on of this translation? philosophy Every lexicon "being. speak of the Same are not identical." to the character of the manu pitulation. Or does it only seem so? Does this there lie behind a gap between the language of our thinking "seeming" and the language of Greek Whatever the philosophy? case. r? ovra copious ehai meaning "to already the most "beings. This with else Same secures our translation of r? ovra and ehai by "be ings" and "to be. The is "the thinks here Nietzsche "Being" eternal recurrence of the same.We do not ask whether 6v is correctly translated as as "to be".

. when for example we are eoriv in historical works. C?)y?. so and similar labors get nowhere and come to nothing as they do not satisfactorily clarify that realm of all long as on 6v realms?so long they do not cast sufficient light etvat in their Greek essence. T?yyt]. is in order to bring out great Perhaps expended in words to themselves what the Greeks truly represented or words like fleo?. the words 6v often we thoughtlessly Most catalogue and uvai under what we mean by the corresponding (but of our own mother words tongue. \]/vxq. Let us examine ourselves and others. It be comes manifest that in this correct translation everything in equivocal is embroiled and imprecise It significations. We support the Greek words with of hasty opin nothing except the complacent negligence ion. It is nonconceptual scholarly research effort wholly that the potency of the concept and the forgotten on the rest of thinking as conceiving interpretation solely essence of 6v and because unexperienced. But we do not realize that these ?o?a. unthought. and ivepyeia." More precisely. nor are usual translations ever disturbed and writing by them. "being" unthought) and "to be. This may do in a pinch. clear that the always hasty approximations of becomes are never seen as insufficient. <?uo-t?. in the manner of represen grasping together (concipere) is immediately tational concepts taken to be the only pos sible way to understand It is still taken to be ap Being. like Tvxy. x^Pt?> Aoyo?. we never ascribe a signifi cance to the Greek words at all: we immediately adopt them from our stock of common knowledge. thing Let us see.588 THE ANAXIMANDER FRAGMENT in this most common of all translations any only whether at all is thought. and But scarcely have we named ctrai as a realm than "realm" is represented by the of yeVo? and kolvov and understood in apparatus logical This the sense of the universal and all-encompassing. has which them with the common endowed already intelligibility of its own language. or Thucydides' reading clvat and rjvand orat in Sophocles. one hastens into the dialectic of concepts when plicable or flees to a realm of mystic signs. etvat.

granted this state of affairs. addressing is it at all clear and Neither firmly established what 6v and ctvat. may using its tenacious power to effect well bring about a situation which releases a different is of Being. losophy remain in the nor inade pure neglect on the part of philology historical this confusion. But not only do we deceives." On the the attempt to heed this confusion contrary. say. some resolution. words guage as the a but rather key simply particular kind of thinking Then an examination of for all Western words thinking? the language the following in the employed state of affairs: translation would reveal is it clear and firmly established what we our Neither are in in the words selves ''being" and "to be" thinking our own language. Buoyed by Being-talk of the translation of 6v and dvai by the formal correctness and "to be. and ctmt come to speak in lan But what as the fundamental and not of thinking. Being-talk men err in this confusion. nor is it clear and firmly established whether anything we are liable to come up with suits what the Greeks were in the words 6v and emu. all the notions contemporary we have inherited and representations from Greek phi same confusion. thought in Greek. ov.David Farrell Krell 589 if r? 6vTa. research has occasioned quate It arises from the abyss of that relation by [Abgrund] which has of Western the essence Being appropriated man. all at sea." drifting right on by the confused "being" state of affairs. and unthought. The preparation of such an occasion destiny Neither . hovering has drifted far and wide. administer and how far examination which might determine whether our to that of the Greeks. exiled for millennia. steadfastly. an nor can we. "being" and "to be. But within them. thinking corresponds remain These relations confused simple thoroughly over them. We cannot therefore dissolve the confusion by elab a more precise meaning some definition orating through for the words 6v and ehai.

Schicken history originally so or "dispatch. Geschick. And this is that Same which fatefully and ourselves. because of their geschichtlich. Greek . "Greek" does not designate a or nation. Thus. a conversation with early thinking. it can be the that and "to happen" "To send" once re common and geschehen. into the fate of brings the dawn of thinking things as a result of this into the land of evening." "to put later and fate. It is that Greeks albeit in different ways. conversation meaningful simply for our sole aim is to reach what wants to come to language in such a conversation. and makes history remain the Greeks implications second essay out our fate. in Early Greek Thinking. The words schicken. within the abid already sufficient confusion. nor a cultural or particular people anthropo is Greek is the dawn of that destiny What logical group. the past great ages of man. in which Being itself in beings and so pro illuminates a certain essence of man. of schicken meanings closely our constitutes is sent our way. which would be in many re more accurate. Only in do the Greeks become Greeks fatefulness [Geschick] which the historic sense. Heidegger expands in "Logos of these words (Heraclitus ?TR. what lated. what happens. Western." the * Being. means in order. Yet this concealing of its than it is revealed stem from the same root. Nor do advancement its own sake.590 THE ANAXIMANDER FRAGMENT reason to set in motion. that essence unfolds pounds as in Being and fateful.* [geschichtlich] In our manner of speaking. as the land of affairs. We is Greek nei search for what spects nor for the ther for the sake of the Greeks themselves we desire a more of scholarship. ing If we so stubbornly insist on thinking Greek thought in Greek fashion it is by no means because we intend to as one of sketch a historical portrait of Greek antiquity. and the West evening? interpreted we are all these on the basis of a fundamental thinking is more concealed in A-qB-q of Being which characteristic in 'AAiJflcta. preserved historically something ever from dispensed by Being. Rather. without being separated modern times. antiquity. peculiar the sense and B 50)." to prepare and finally "to dispose" something are today sent. it come of its own ac provided concerns the cord. and Geschichte Geschick share a rich the twelfth and since century (ge)schehen. global Christendom.

unconcealment obscures the of be light of Being. does not here have sense of or methodical ex the Husserlian objectification an act of thetic consciousness. As it reveals itself in beings. Being thereby holds keeps it to itself is the way it reveals itself early on. The being itself does not The them. Being beings adrift in errancy. Chronologi destiny cal distance and causal sequence do indeed belong to the of historiography. sets In this way. Being withdraws. ings. Therefore. This keeping Its early sign is 'A-XrjOeia. clusion The epoche of by . Being withdraws. his but are not themselves discipline When we are historical we are neither a great nor tory. historically the course of this misinter sarily misinterpreted. During pretation destiny awaits what will become of its seed. characteristic of that denial by which As it reveals may call this luminous keeping to itself in the truth of its essence the liroxq ?f Being. However. Man's inability of the lighting of Being. this word. Con cealment it keeps We remains to itself. a small distance is Greek. [Geschicklichen its fate [Geschick versucht Man's destiny gropes toward corre to see himself sich an Geschick]. error what in history bypasses what is like Be happens whatever unfolds is neces ing. Beings come to pass in that errancy by which Being and establish the realm of they circumvent or the realm of error (in the sense of a prince's realm In Error is the space in which history unfolds. It it concerns to the possibilities of the brings those whom und Ungeschicklichen]. the brightness granted of Be origin is characteristic so much so that think self-illumination. to its truth and to itself. by illuminating them. Rather. not pursue it. poetry). sponds to the self-concealing from be no connection Without errancy there would to destiny: there would be no history.David essence and of its essential Farrell Krell 591 ing's primordial ing simply does step into this light of Being. As it provides the unconceal ment of beings it founds the concealment of Being. borrowed from the Stoic philosophers. fateful and fatal itself in beings. we are in from what errancy toward it.

on what we represent and portray of Little depends on the way we are mindful the past. we are thinking it in terms Being belongs of the oblivion of Being. and is epochal to whose in Being. corre For us. ing from Being. thereby The beginning of the epoch of Being lies in that which we call "Greek. When world sud Being keeps comes to pass. belongs. Can we ever be mindful of what without all But if thinking does occur we abandon thinking? what to the of shortsighted opinion and open ourselves in the early say of destiny. of its destining. however. It remains to ask whether truth of Being the glance of Being. The epochal nature to the concealed of Being belongs temporal character of and designates in the essence of time as thought Being is represented in this word "time" is only Being. strikes. The ek lays claim to the ecstatic sistence of man sustains what is ecstatic and so preserves essence the Da. and this means light in our knowl fr." also thought epochally. or whether (Heraclitus. the e?vai of beings? Does Do we apprehend what a streak of light still pierce the misty confusion of errancy claims claim and tell us what ovra and etvat say in Greek? Only in the . us of ovra in their Does the fragment Being? speak to it says. of the experience From the epoche of Being comes the epochal essence in which world consists. ning of a storm edge of the past only the faintest glimmers a long flown cast pale semblance of light. Does this claim speak ing of Anaximander? its claim speaks to our essen We are not sure whether in our relation to the tial being. The epochal essence of Being nature of Da-sein. history properly to itself in its destining. This beginning. 64). What the vacuity of an illusory time derived from beings con ceived as objects. the most readily experienced to the of is the ec character spondence epochal Being static character of Da-sein.592 THE ANAXIMANDER FRAGMENT to Being itself. Da-sein. but much depends is destined. denly and unexpectedly Every epoch of world history is an epoch of errancy. to be is the dawn of the destiny in Be thought epochally.

We are inclined to see the opportunity for in the Anaximander itself. we must at first remain outside the fragment be cause we have not each of its terms. s." So it rests with us to be for the right oppor ready tunity. The text cited and translated above from Simplicius' on the as is commentary Physics traditionally accepted the Anaximander the commentary However. fragment still are not paying sufficient heed we are looking In that case we the way of to what translating requires. the confusion Perhaps the use of the words ovra and dvai. For before interpreting not with its the fragment?and to we translate our is essential that help begin with?it comes to in it. selves to the source of what language is to say. "Language express everything clearly think. to Ta ovra. it must be an opportunity from which it expresses. our contemporaries who are ex . before speaks in any expression. what is spoken by the Greek language common as well as in its learned em everyday parlance ploy.ays. fragment. Lessing can we can said. ultimately in the first of what in place) governed by the knowledge was or thinkable in such a choice early times thought of words. thought in Greek. as distinct from what the notions of prevailing recent times find in it. That experience what r? ovra.David Farrell Krell 593 streak can we translate our of this lightning brilliance selves to what is said in the fragment. which will permit us to think clearly the matter the fragment brings to language. This word indicates the source which the fragment that which speaks. this yet delineated is in terms of the matter delineation itself. Still. We must therefore seek the opportunity which will let us cross over to that source first of all outside the frag ment which will let us itself. (or. so as to translate it sur in thoughtful conversation. not merely it from which is already. "being" and rounding "to be. Further more." comes less from the fact that language cannot say we cannot think than because adequately everything once matter involved through the clearly enough. does not cite the fragment so clearly that we can ascer tain with certainty where Anaximander's saying begins and where it ends.

Black. I have (Berlin: Teubner. which employ terminological cannot be accepted ment of the words y?Veo-t?and <f>Bop?. said to be "a re 1930).] Platonic <f>Bop?in their technical it is not likely that Anaxi [and said anything about r? ?Vtci]. Anaximander the terms yeWt? and sense to Anaximander ployed plied * Heidegger Plato."* mander On this basis Burnet argues that Anaximander's saying Kara to xpewv. one as for the second. r? ovra is an old word. 9) begins . quotations a Greek author [Only seldom does immediately begin Further it is safer not to ascribe with a literal quotation. Homer (p. of Burnet's is a natural view. but not in Heidegger's the English Nevertheless. attests. the distinguished scholar of to whom we owe the Oxford edition of Greek philosophy expressed Philosophy citation begins where it Simplicius' to to Diels. n. He because translation cannot have ap conceptual of Burner's language third edi tion by Else Schenkl.What Burnet begins only with the words says in general about Greek citations speaks for the ex these. lish edition p. . "Diels the actual quotation writes: (Vors. cites the German terms. Die Anf?nge der griechischen Philosophie cited the fourth Eng p. doubts in his book as to whether Early Greek them them as conceptual in this fashion. 52. is usually In opposition Burnet said begin. 599) ?-TR. The Greek with the words c? ?v 8c f?ycWi?. 2. On the other hand clusion of the words preceding rest on the his remarks. It is correct and terms with Plato and Aristotle become conceptual are old words which their schools. the first citation. 4. practice of blending with the text tells against this. by already yet a technical as the Iliad passage below in the form r'e?pra." phrase in does occur in Heidegger's the second lish but appears citation. not . But y?veais and (?>Bop? em even Homer need not have knows. But even John Burnet. as to say that yeWi? and <\>6op? they stand.594 THE ANAXIMANDER FRAGMENT in the Greek knowledgeable ceptionally language accept in the form introduced at the the text of the fragment outset of our inquiry. (London: one and references "additional with of the third edition" print in the Eng does not occur The first bracketed correction. 1913). 43. 6. . n. expansion r? to Burnet that Heidegger's response regarding expect might ovra would and that respecting yepeais <p6op?: although duplicate known term.

according other recompense . .and indeed from then on it is unavoidable. remain: . times. testimony concerning secondary der's thinking. Rather. development?some shrinkage. genuine words however of the text are that the preceding proviso parts not set aside. I am inclined to accept only these as the of Anaximander. For conceptual necessarily is first possible on the basis of the interpretation of guage as ?S?a. and penalty for their injustice. This demands that we understand pre are as cisely these words ycWt? and <?>Bop? they thought or Pla in Greek. . but rather are retained. Since thinking through this en came up often in my lecture courses tire question. would Kara tt?v tov xp?vov t??iv at the end of the text also betrays the same characteris takes to strike out it upon himself is dubious to Burnet cannot of the text which Of the usually of the fragment accepted closing Anaximander's only these original words. in structure is much more Aristotelian and tone Xpeo)v than archaic. Whoever the part maintain either. . from <t>vms. simply positively on the basis of the and eloquence of their strength as Anaximan thought. yeWi? and <f>0op?are to be thought ing away. Being the Kara to the entire sentence preceding Nevertheless. nor does . which a few years ago. .David Farrell Krell 595 lan remains foreign to him. Certainly we can translate yeWt? as origination. Kara ?A?t/?oi? to SiSovai avr? Kal tlglv xpecov* y?p Siktjv t?}? ?8tKta?. as ways of luminous rising and decline. tonic-Aristotelian conceptual in yeW? does not at all mean the genetic Accordingly. to for they pay one an necessity. these are the words in reference to Now precisely which Theophrastus that Anaximander complains speaks in a rather poetic manner. as conceived in modern the sense of the "developmental" mean to the counterphenomenon <?>6op? or wast sort of regression. and within it. The normally accepted tic lateness. whether words they be preconceptual terms. with the immediate.

approaches. The coming forward into . departing Anaximander and <f>Bop?. . although doxical turns of speech as ycWi? Igtw (which is the way I should like to read it) and <j>Bop? yiWai.596 THE ANAXIMANDER FRAGMENT as a movement think this originating which lets every emerging abandon concealment and go being we can translate forward into unconcealment. In a review of it we excluded the com preliminary mon its interpretation. become within present departure is concealed and what is unconcealment between what initiate the arrival and departure unconcealed. can designate in a pre less than being-in-totality nothing experienced are still conceptual way. . which determine presuppositions we discovered a clue in what comes to lan In so doing in ycvco-i? and <?>Bop?. The avr? in the second clause. spoke of ycW? in the whether this occurred questionable of the traditional such para statement. "coming-to-be comes to be" still may in is. pursue We began with the usually accepted text of the frag ment. Certainly as think this passing but we must <?>Bop? passing away. . and withdrawing ment. and arriving the de &Bopa means and descent into concealment of what has arrived parture there out of unconcealment. r? 7r?vTa. having arrived here. r? iroXXd. into which. form It remains but we must . in its turn abandons unconceal away as a going which into concealment. because of what it says and also because of the reference of scope this second clause back to the #car?to xp*w. although nothing speaks of the against it. in unconcealment." We Ta ovra "beings" without ever having clarified calling what 6v and elvai indicate when thought in Greek. . "beings. Presumably. and the to . Yet we won a more open field in which to have in the meantime such clarification." and "passing-away speak favor of an ancient TcWi? is coming forward language. of They whatever has arrived. departs by withdrawing the distance. must have is Anaximander spoken of what designated in ycWi? and <?>Bop?\ r? he actually mentioned whether ovTa remains an open question. The fragment guage speaks of that as it and arrives in unconcealment. which.

view precedes the pronouncements of thinking. In this regard we are not to discuss whether and with what right we should represent as transiency. Nevertheless. only that none of the references has been thought through. departure we is to say. so then we must think that it does not Being essentially include Becoming in some vacuous simply conceptual manner. because to set Being oppo have for a long time been accustomed were a kind of site Becoming. aside from the Anaxi their language? Where a mander translate us fragment. Becoming Rather. if Becoming is. speaks everywhere through even before the language?and thinking actually chooses this as its fundamental word?it is necessary that we avail ourselves of an opportunity which in terms of its its time. we must discuss what sort of essence the Greeks in the realm of the ovra think for Being when they experi ence approach as the basic and withdrawal trait of advent. co-Tiv. Thanks to perceive him we possess a reference in which the word appears as something more than a term in the lexicon. lies outside and which from every point of philosophy. Rather. we will refrain from poses the futile practice to serve as of up references heaping this kind of annotation usually proves evidence. r?v. tuTai. it is a ovra to reference which poetically brings language what names. With ex one the aid of this commonly adopted method usually out . but rather in such a way that Being sustains and characterizes (yeWtc-<?0o/oa) in an essential. what comes to the fore in When is there. In Homer we such an opportunity. guideline which would there? Because the word in question. Because sort presup all ?c?i? of the lexicographic the thought of the Xvy?pevov. transiency rather than which being. subject matter. whatever we would 597 has its essence in such arrival and like to call be ming and perishing. and the realm to which it belongs. ehai. Becoming appropriate manner. as if Becoming nothing ness and did not even to belong Being. and this because to be nothing Being has for a long time been understood else than sheer perdurance. with all its modifi cations. the Greeks say Ta ovra.David Farrell Krell However.

"beings". 6v and in the root lo. what unity and one before all number. However. though by themselves what we must think in those word expressly designated forms called by later grammarians perox-q. participium. in the verbal and i. 6v and ovra.e. epsilon est. provided designate be transported shore of the by the poet to the distant matter there. spoken a For the following reference observation preliminary the history of the language is needed. as is the word for what comes to appear in metaphysics transcendental and transcendent Transcendence. which 6v is in truth the riddle of Being. considered linguisti are somewhat forms of the truncated cally. In Plato and Aris totle we encounter the words 6v and ovra as conceptual are formed terms.of ovra appear as they endings. presumably in the latter words is I6v and i?vra.598 THE ANAXIMANDER FRAGMENT reference suddenly pects that by shoving together one unclarified with another every bit as unclear clarity will result. The participle splitting. and Heraclitus and thus Parmenides." In contrast. Only original words the sound preserved and which relates them to Io-tiv and ehai. lines 68-72. the Greeks It gives us the chance to cross over to what we let ourselves with the word ovra. from The lo-Tiv. it indicates what is singu participle is singular in its numerical lar as such. at is. much less to solve it. rootless participial Thus 6v says "being" in the sense of to be a being. those word-forms which participate nominal senses of a word. What at first may be taken for grammatical hair forth. as well. The later terms "ontic" and "ontological" them. always employ I6v and i?vra. The passage upon which we wish to comment is found at the beginning of the first book of the Iliad. "being. But I6v. rather. is singularly and unifyingly what as . in I6v and l?vTa is the epsilon "is. Our ob concerning servations cannot claim to present this philological prob lem adequately. Archaic language. esse." is not only the singular form of the I?vra. In the of the same time it names a being which duality of 6v the distinction between the participial significance is here set "to be" and "a being" lies concealed.

who knew all that is. only what becomes present (Chicago: Uni in The Iliad. Having the future. "he has seen.* him as Before he lets Kalchas speak. is to be." Only when see. . He sees the future tense out of the perfect. Lattimore Richmond Homer. ox' a/oioro? OevTOp?&rjs t I?vra Ta T I?vra Ta t o? iacr?peva f?Sr? irp? Kai vqeaa' "Ikiov eia(o rqyqo'aTi 'A^atwv rjv 8t? pavToavvqv. seen in advance he sees into always already seen. and among them stood up Kalchas. . Whoever belongs one o? f?8r? . with minor of Chicago Press. that the fate of the West theless bears hangs on the translation that the of the word ?oV. Heideg . versity ?TR. assuming consists in crossing over to the truth of what translation comes What to are fa tell us about this word? We before Troy at miliar with the situation of the Achaeans the outset of the Iliad. . . Thestor's son. What in advance? * Obviously. 61. . he must the seer has seen in the pluperfect say what is it that the seer has seen tense. Homer designates in the realm of seers is such a the seer.David We Farrell Krell 599 assert in an way. "who knew . When the poet speaks of the seer's seeing as a having seen. translation ger uses the German by Voss. To see is to have seen. who guided into the land of Ilion the ships of the Achaeans through that seercraft of his own that Phoibos Apollo gave him. Trans. or once was. 1961 ) p. toIctl Ka?^ct? ou?vow?Xwv o' avecrrj language does Homer in i?v. . . far the best of the bird interpreters. T-qv o? ir?pt $ol?o<s 'AiroWw* . changes. At an assembly of Apollo has raged commands Kalchas the seer to in the warriors Achilles terpret the wrath of the god. . which never might exaggerated on the truth. fify. . What seen does he is truly seen has arrived and remains for him in A seer has sight. For nine days the plague sent by in the Greek camp.": f?8-q is the pluperfect of a man has the perfect olSev. he had seen.

the presencing is to come also become present. What presents itself as non-present is what is absent. and thus emphasized. "presently" means ingly. and also the being that once was.600 the THE ANAXIMANDER FRAGMENT is seen in his sight. also that which will be. does The gegen (presently) a over not mean but rather an subject. representing if we employ "present" for the sake of subject. The first point we gather from this poetic phrase is r? i?vra ?S that from r? iav?peva and irpo distinguished in the sense of the i?vra. the presencing of what presencing. in the sense. irapd what present presently meaning in the sense of coming in uncon "alongside. names for the Greeks what is present insofar as iaaopeva. is expressly distinguished which from irpb i?vra and i?vra." alongside in gegenw?rtig cealment. namely is past and what as outside the expanse of unconcealment. presently into the expanse of unconceal . Both are ways of is not i. a closer determination of i?vra. that which is in being. r? t I?vra. open expanse (Gegend) comes and within which whatever along lingers. is proper Such a coming is properly present. into relation with is past and what Yet i?vra is also what is to come. What lighting that penetrates can in un such a be what comes to presence only seeing But what becomes present? The poet names concealment. The Greeks also named precisely is r? rrape?vra.e. an is related to a object something objective. trp? t I?vra. speak we "the present. to linger within designated the expanse of unconcealment. As such it remains it has arrived related to what essentially as it either comes forward is inasmuch present. What of what arrival. the "now" serving as represent something within a in the stream of time?or we phase bring the "present" As the "objective" [Gegenst?ndigen]. Accord as a characteristic as of i?vra. more presently present. as much arrived to linger awhile in the expanse "having of unconcealment. rd threefold: something t ?av?peva. Thus r? i?vra designates being we moderns of When present [Gegenw?rtigen]." we either mean what is "now"?which as time. against something into which of unconcealment. then we must understand "the present" from the essence of i?vra and not vice versa. However." Spoken first.

not being away does require that he rave. on the other. itself in unconcealment. and at the same time away to what what is present insofar as this is always only something presently that arrives in the course of its coming and going. The seer stands in its un is present. whether we must never is time or not. is absent as being absent. which and away to present. are also i?vra. Consequently in unconcealment. We ask: away? Where to lead the Achaeans' from the sheer oppression of what from? Away lies be is only fore us. The of what the concealment seer sees inasmuch as he has seen as present. the raging epidemic. r? and indeed necessarily biguous. Even what is absent 601 is some it presents is to come present thing present. is past and what What i?v means becoming The conclusion in Greek on i?vra is that also of this commentary remains am what comes to presence experience so. as that which pervade of thought presently present. 6 pdvns. But in what does the essence of paiv?pevos. presently is absent. The seer is outside himself in the solitary region of the pres of that in some way becomes present. consist? A madman outside madness to and where himself: he is away. The madness of the seer s namely. the madman. For in fact it is precisely that rules in it that ently present and the unconcealment is not the essence of what is absent. and arrive at what has just presented itself. He The seer.David Farrell Krell ment or withdraws from it. and only on that account vqeva fryv<TaT'> was rie ^le was able to do ships to Troy. However. is the this through God-given pavroavv-q. i?vra means what is presently present. is beside himself. represent what sense as the "universal present in the broader concept" of as to a case?the presence opposed presently particular this is what the usual conceptual mode present?though the pres suggests. On the one hand. everything in which /cat. sight of what has at the same time cast light on concealment. it also means at the present all that becomes present. roll his eyes . encing everything Therefore he can find his way back from the "away" of this region. for as absent from the expanse.

of Da-sein. The within the lighting articulates essence of seeing. in gewahren [to be aware of. Presence lighting all the human senses.e. the openedness both only within The seer is the one who has already seen the totality of Said in Latin. as presencing.e. to experience Be that. as "to have seen. it suggests gathering as a i. er steht im Wissen German. Seeing not by the eye. The old German served in one presencing word war [was] means protection. is present subsists behind every kind of sensuous or non sensuous grasping. Here we think of the preserve [Wafer] in the sense of it that which clears and shelters. As protection of Being. He is the sooth the preserve of what [Wa/ir] sayer [Wahr-Sager]. long-hidden of Being. [he stands in knowledge]. securing which clears and gathers. lated to self-illuminating presencing." is to know. ing belongs to the herdsman?who has so little preservation belongs to do with bucolic can be the herdsman and toss his that he idylls and Nature mysticism to hold of Being only if he continues Both are the Same. to keep or as a We must think of wahren preserve]. vidit. there is always something more in play than the comple In it the connection with what tion of an optical process. Man can do the place of nothingness. Knowl to pres indebted and remains vision edge embraces is is remembrance of Being. On that account. The seer speaks from is present. [to perceive]. the simple tranquility of bodily com the madness of vision. in what is present in its presencing.602 THE ANAXIMANDER FRAGMENT limbs. and verwahren tion. but by the of Being. In "to have seen" To have seen is the essence of knowing. Knowledge . self fundamental trait of presencing. and to understand to this preservation. "to have seen" is re is determined. We still recognize this in wahrnehmen to take into preserva i. That encing. posure may accompany All things present and absent are gathered and pre for the seer. One day we shall learn to think our exhausted word for truth in terms of the preserve [Wahrheit] truth as the preservation [Wahr [Wa/ir]. Presencing [wahrt] preserves in unconcealment is present both at the present what time and not at the present time. nis] of Being.

provided we think the essence of truth as the gath we dissociate our ering that clears and shelters. But what not a slice of something two ab between sandwiched sences. What is it." no are "to be. Being. is thai as presencing. presently present in as in an open ex in unconcealment concealment lingers or panse. means is at the present time present is what is absent. Knowledge is not sense. it has property names what is become clear that r? i?vra ambiguously is not presently present. in transition. provided of selves from the modern prejudice metaphysics?today as something truth is a property obvious?that accepted time of beings or of Being. as The Greeks experience beings being present. is present. whether at the present time or not. presencing in unconcealment. and the Greek word itself hastily employed ciphers for arbitrary and vague notions about some indeterminate Whither universal. fully as of truth." as the translation of longer longer obtuse. and not as a in the sense of a quality. Whatever lingers ( whiles ) in the expanse pro and arrives in unconceal ceeds to it from concealment ment. words translated us? To i?vra. it Lingering in approach and lingers already in departure. we translate ?V. lingers still At the same the presencing . and also what present presently the latter. is in itself of what already truth. Furthermore. is now no The word by which "being. one presences together: brings the other with everything un one lets the other go. have Homer's as it becomes manifest that Being. but clearly not of truth considered property a characteristic of human or divine cognition. ctvat. If what is present stands in the forefront of vision. But what is present is arriving or lingering insofar as it is also already departing to from unconcealment ward is presently concealment. It endures and withdrawal. saying the word thought it is a In a hidden way now. Knowledge is thoughtful preserve. Linger is pres ing is the transition from coming to going: what ent is what in each case lingers. understood with regard to the former.David Farrell Krell why Mvqpouvvq is mother in the modern science maintenance of Being's 603 of the muses. What present lingers in approach awhile.

But only several decades later. the perplexity of the leaders. the plague's funeral pyres. Western thinking. This word names which addresses thinking or not it is uttered. whether lays a claim on all Western thinking. thoughtful natural things. what is present. he is that present illuminat belongs being which. expressly names fragment. Ta i?vra names the of whatever unique manifold lingers in unconcealment in this way awhile. fury. and so on. that which from now on. which Man too to i?vra. ent as such become present in unconcealment. gathering. and thus is pres lets what ing. being present.604 What comes THE ANAXIMANDER FRAGMENT is for the time is. while in spoken. so-called Homer: do not mean exclu beings. this means for Greek think ing that the seer. This word language in the Anaximander not yet is the that which. because Parmenides interprets misconception but with . Troy. upon ject wholly dependent or not at the Ta i?vra. it is present is but an ob does not mean that what nothing the seer's subjectivity. nor does it at all indicate objects specify stand over against human representation. This must be said pre our usual is cisely of whatever truly present. Everything present presents itself to all others. (to as the fundamental are of words expressed presence) as the normal This does not happen. still insists. we in else from the passage gather something Finally. whether present comes to name of what is the unobtrusive time. unspoken all thinking. each after its own fashion. is himself one sense in an exceptional who makes-present and belongs to the totality of what is present. r? i?vra. i?vra to the Achaeans' before poet applies encampment the god's wrath. not with Anaximander and eW i?v (presencing) Parmenides. On the other hand. In the present instance the sively the things of nature. although of representing would like to exclude from way things what is present all absence. what presently to presence out of absence. as the one who has seen. apprehending. If in the is present is thought of Kalchas what poetic designation in relation to the seer's seeing. In Homer's lan r? i?vra is not a term but guage conceptual philosophical a and thoughtfully It does not uttered word.

does the modern age after essential destiny enter the of sub upheavals epoch of the monadology itself in the phenomenology of stance. It is not that Parmenides interpreted Being logically. viroKt?pevov. 'AXrjOeiaand "Ev. By means be thought back into the realm of fundamental words. on the the basis of the subject of a predicate phrase. which at the same time it led to a state wholly dominated. which is present and lingers awhile in unconcealment. to the early in i?vra known richness of unconcealment or necessary it ever becoming without Greeks.which is to "Epic. was think the presence of already granted. as what ready lies before any proposition. ovala. From a thoughtful of the i?v of i?vra. which completes spirit. The eo-nv to of what corresponds presencing into a first the pure claim of Being. Aristotle did not have to interpret substance. Nor did Aristotle in terms of the objectivity of an object in what is present a is far but rather as iv?pyua. i?v and dvai become the words which indicate expressly as a result of the is present. what Only destiny of Being. Aristotle perceived beings is to say. spo experience ken in a preconceptual for words the fundamental way. the is present. Parmenides' the "is" is the copula of a proposition. are uttered: 3>iW and Adyo?. possible in all its perspectives for them to experience this essen tial richness itself. an removed?as of actus the actualitas abyss?from by scholasticism. Thus . before the division and second ovo-ia. as the of "Ev.David Farrell Krell 605 in terms of a proposition's structure and being "logically" its copula. which however proposition. On the contrary. in the sense of irapovo-?a. Mo?pa and early thinking of the "Ev. purus in medieval eanv does not mean In any case. because essence of substance. which It names i?v. logic of affairs where in the essential richness of Being hidden these early fundamental words remained buried. having sprung from metaphysics. But in this and undisclosed i?v is thought from the concealed way. In the of Greek thinking even Aristotle history did not go so far when he thought the Being of beings in as what al terms of Kar-qyopia. into existentia and essentia.

the fragment reads: . whatever The . Anaximander nW. fragment resound: S'iK-q. for they pay one an and penalty for their injustice. Kara ?WrjXois to XP V* 8i8ovai y?p avr? SiK-qv Kal tictiv to Trjs ?Siiaa?. The Aoyo? (Acyctv. From the restrained this way comes. thought of presencing. r? i?vra. But the does not originate: of thinking into the sciences and into faith is the collapse baneful destiny of Being. It arises from in spring solely thinking and But thinking is the thinking of Being. We will words begin by only the closing on the second clause. to and designated gather or assemble) is experienced through 'AX-qBeia. whether is present. the totality of what The antecedent only be is present in unconcealment. . other recompense according consists of two clauses. . names But since the dawn of the "Being" thinking of what is present. Thinking thinking. In the language of these fundamental words. lies concealed. most universal concept. translation: to necessity. come in of what abundance language. commenting The avrd refers to what is named in the previous clause. which ing which thought as the Ao'yo?. what *A\r?$ thought essentially which at the same time mean <?>iW. it is.the shelter essence reveals things. is ui. The claim of Being which speaks in these words de in its essence. when Being presences. In the standard . In the dawn of Being's destiny. from the from the experience these words ?oWa. beings. In the bifurcated of ing which as *Epi* and Molpa. termines philosophy did not Philosophy from myth. in the sense of the gather presencing in turn is clears and shelters. . . of the first one fragment still are retained. can r? ovra. what does the Anaximander fragment to utterance? to the presumably genuine bring According text.606 THE ANAXIMANDER FRAGMENT could be driven to the fatal extreme of serving as Being the emptiest.

?oWa rules all is not right with things. the totality of what is present. something Of what is present. Rather. unifying. how does Anaximander experience their of things present. That are we is out of joint." The even use "penalties" to translate "right. else within present everything and lingers with the others. Whether the word i?vra may remain an open by pressly designated The avrd refers to since the text is uncertain. presencing stands. everything everything sea and temples and cities. embracing of a con such is ruled by the lingering-with-one-another cealed gathering. and so ful fill its presencing? The word a-oWa immediately that S?K-qis ab suggests as to translate B?Kr? sent.David or not at the present Farrell Krell 607 or not this is ex time. day and night. This word desig nates the basic trait of what is present: f? ?oWa. The lit is "injustice. endure. juridical-moral comes to then we hear that language. Thus Heraclitus. becomes present to everything it becomes its duration. the But before this. We are accustomed "right. gods and men. presencing. But where speaking? resist ourselves wherever to what we our own . eagle and snake. stand before our eyes? in presence unjust? What lingers awhile is pres is unjust about it? Is it not the right of whatever ent that in each case it linger awhile. tree and shrub. What as in unifying presencing. ing awhile: and light. But of what means. land. fingering awhile." If translations How is what if we restrict notions." But is this literal translation eral translation faithful? That is to say: does the word which translates dhiKia heed what comes to language in the saying? Does the avrd. question that presences by linger present. lingering awhile in unconcealment. This multiplicity (?roAA?) is not a muster of separate objects behind which something as them as a whole. wind is present coheres stone and sand. revealing named the "Ev ( the Being of beings ) the Ao'yo?. is present? The fragment's We must begin the translation with it. catching sight of this in and essential gathering. how does he experience totality in arrived to linger awhile among one another having at bottom runs whatever unconcealment? What through last word gives the answer.

as what and only it. ?SiKia. that cannot mean that ?Sticta. fundamental Whatever present as it lingers lingers awhile becomes in the jointure which arranges presencing jointly between a twofold is present. The fragment that ?oWa is the experience speaks from the essential trait of i?vra. What more present. "away" of its is conjointly In both directions dis presencing going. in its presencing. Between the this twofold absence of all that lingers occurs. is out of joint. In this That which fingers perseveres It strikes it extricates itself from its transitory while. approach and withdrawal. But neither does it say that what or perhaps only is only occasionally. with respect properties. What is present emerges and by approaching it does both at the same time. way .out of joint? The fragment is present is in clearly says that what i. comes about in such toward absence.e. whatever absence. things no longer come to presence. as we might put it. is out of joint. passes away by departing. The joint.608 THE ANAXIMANDER FRAGMENT even are there is present? Or where is there jointures in what one can what How is present without jointure? jointure be olSikov. has arrived may even insist upon its while while. in the jointure But then what lingers awhile is precisely of its presencing. present lingers occurs as the transitional while arrival in de essentially comes to presence The while between parture. can stay the length of its lingers awhile. This "between" is the whatever lingers awhile in accordance with which whatever jointure lingers is from its emergence here to its departure away joined. from here. The presencing of whatever lingers obtrudes as into the into the "here" of its coming. and not at all. But the fragment says it is. However. in dis junction. Presencing posed a jointure. as such. in the sense of solely to remain perduring. To presencing out of thus creating the of its belong. The fragment is present says: what being what as such jointure must it is. Still. The "while" occurs essentially indeed because in the jointure. it lingers. In this "between" presencing is joined. is present to some one of its out of joint. possibility being is is that which What awhile.

" But the fragment . of uttered the thoughtlessly Meanwhile. say that the essence consists in disjunction? is present It does and it what as the fragment designates doesn't. Certainly. which itself in presencing lets each present being in the expanse of unconcealment. Being the Greek experi of does the fragment However. consid Lingering is an insur ered with respect to the jointure of the while. the jointure of the is pr?s while. ." Nietzsche "for their injustice. but only to say: BiSovai y?p avr? oikijv . or even must be avenged. lingers is present then comes to pres sheer continuance. Continuance as such. is present. model of continuance. says nothing is pun and penalty. awhile stands in disjunction. . and in opposition to. ?Wa belongs. in the jointure of the while. to the opin ishable. in terms of what abandons ever in that lin disjunction.David Farrell Krell 609 no longer concerning itself the willful pose of persistence. Everything lingers awhile." Diels translates. nor does it say that something pense. Thus. In this awhile linger whatever awhile insists upon rebellious whiling. What ence without. what to presence that jointure and is. recom about payment. according ion of those who equate justice with vengeance. To the presencing of gers to the i?v of i?vra. what essence of all that standing in disjunction would be the is present. lingers awhile in presence consists in the fact that whatever The disjunction lingers on the awhile seeks to win for itself a while based solely as persisting. And so in this early fragment of thinking the Coming is present to say the nihilism?of pessimism?not ence of would come to the fore. "They penalty. with whatever to linger?and aims solely for continuance and the way subsistence. asserts rection on behalf of sheer endurance. disjunction the fundamental trait of what is present. The fragment does not say that whatever pay "They must pay recompense. if this were It stiffens?as else is present. translates. rrjs a8i/aa?. "injustice has been clarified by thinking the essence of what things" as the disjunction in lingering.

belongs is the AiK-q. i. is Dis and enjoining Order. ttJ? ?Sucia?. disjunction. all the while. transition of the endurance This fingering is present. which it that which in its approach and withdrawal.e. persistence. thought on the basis of Being as presencing. it consists in 8i8?V<k hiKrjv . of sheer persistence. The jointure is order. Lingering gers awhile lets its essence as presencing belong to order. Giving has the sense of giving-away. whatever tion. originally. . belong to to him. In the jointure articulates It does not in whatever lingers awhile keeps to its while. by questioning is present as such give the jointure How should what of its presencing? here can only The giving designated is not only consist in its manner of presencing. What does withdrawal. mean here? How should whatever "give" comes to presence in disjunc lingers awhile. . continuance of what is the enjoined does not at all insist upon sheer The enjoined continuance it surmounts It does not fall into disjunction.610 THE ANAXIMANDER FRAGMENT loses awhile itself with in disjunction. The cline toward the disjunction to whatever in turn awhile. whatever disorder. not in disorder ing The rather. continue. . The alone. Now that we think this capi only necessary talized word capitally?in its full linguistic power. it says a view to disjunction ent for the time that whatever SiSovai S'iK-qv. comes to presence in presence Whatever lingers awhile and passing insofar as it lingers. giving acceding or to an lets something Such giving giving-to. which jointure belongs lingers in the jointure. doesn't it give jointure have? If it gives anything is present for the and how does that which Where away? time We must ask our question more being give jointure? from within the matter. this "letting belong to. since whatever is present lets order belong in each case. What other which belongs properly belongs is present is the jointure of its while. clearly. lin the length of its while. emerging and the jointure of the transition from approach to away. be able to give jointure? Can it give what it doesn't at all. 'AoiKia. gives being lingers jointure." StSdvatdesignates is present for the time be of whatever presencing does not consist in ?&uda by itself. ordering it is order.

rrjs aoWa?. avr? oUqv . It is tragic. . from the matter itself. we relate the ?WrjXois to oU-qv and it clearly and name it expressly as n'o-tv. Therefore the matter within itself. . they. same let order belong (by the sur of beings. but rather only when we consider its essen aesthetically. nor comes to is neither pessimistic language is it optimistic. .David Farrell Krell Whatever shoved present 611 is presently present is not a slice of something is not it is in between what present. to whom or what the SiSovai is directed. Thus we are ???t/?oi?. more necessary important. portion. beings. Whatever SiSovai avr? oiK-qv Kai naiv y?p ?WrjXoi? Present let order belong linger awhile beings which accus to one another.or whether it should be related rectly to the nW which it. presently insofar as it lets itself belong to the non-present: StSdvat . justified by linguistically it remains for us to ask. if we represent in does Diels?though Nietzsche passes over it entirely it seems to me that the immedi his translation. . However. and where does it be and in what way does that which lingers long? When does not in presence awhile give order? The fragment at least to the extent we directly say anything about this. . ate relation of ???tJ?oi? to 8t8?vat oU-qv #cat rto-tv is neither nor. or we not when it psychologically explain tragedy. by thinking the SiSovai hU-qv in presence. That is a presumptuous thing a trace of the essence we discover of to say. . whether ?AA^Aot? should be di related also to hU-qv. However. r? i?vra. of disorder. present when does the order of jointure belong. becomes lingers awhile it lets enjoining To what order belong. generally tomed to read the text. If we turn our attention it seems to say clearly still untranslated however. rr)<s ?8i#cia?. these mounting) in their here of beings The experience Being which nor nihilistic. tial form. the Being . to the have considered it so far. The de only precedes immediately .

(SiK-q). determined by We usually translate tiW by "penalty. beings that linger awhile As they finger awhile. The essential pro factory care of what is estimable is to satisfy. n'o-i? can mean penalty. The court of justice is complete. not even of course no one rightly knows injustice?though what might constitute injustice. stand in disorder. because Surely is not of the word the original and essential significance To For ?W is "esteem" named. but it must not. Yet a mere commentary on the word does not cess us to the matter in the fragment's use of the word bring ?81*10. When lingers awhile delays. ance and no bothers about SU-q. which respect to is good be a magnanimous but with respect what action. the Ka? which It lacks nothing. the craving to persist. to the the avrd (r? i?vra). and so to take satis esteem something in it. [Sch?tzen]. strikes that lingers awhile But in this way everything a of its kind. and SU-q. can with of esteem. a to wickedness satisfaction may mean giving paying penalty. as with comes to in the matter which from within the language fragment. . They hang on. so Inconsiderateness impels them toward persistence. Beings which linger awhile namely. For they in transition from advance hesitantly through their while. and in persist continu it aims at everlasting deed to insist on persisting. But this is what nW here says. they cling to them They hang it stubbornly what selves. each domi gers awhile in its lingering is implied nated by what presence. None pose toward every other haughty lin of the others. the order of the longer while. those fragment According in presence. arrival to departure. Whatever heeds the lingering presence is inconsiderate toward others. thought if we have not already. thereby means to heed it. they tarry. on." Whatever lingers awhile it expends this as its punishment presence pays penalty. to in hanging follows the inclination on. do not in this respect simply drift into inconsiderateness." This leads us to in translate SiSovai as "to pay.612 cisi?n THE ANAXIMANDER FRAGMENT in part on how we translate in this case depends stands between hU-qv and nW.

naiv ?A??/?oi? one to the other: ?beings which linger awhile let belong. corresponding order." It is meaning from within the matter. is Ttcri?.David Farrell Krell 613 as what is present. . and shameful: pejorative something something without no We Ruch Ruch (reck). reck. The transla with consideration regard tion of rtW as consideration the better with coincides of "heeding" and "esteeming. Care tends to something remain in its essence." that it has to do with human rela tions. as with form. But we shall take advantage related to deign . Rather. on the basis of the pres thought lingers awhile. longer really know what means. is also true of ruoche. . indeed only as a form of disparagement. to be itself. applied essentially. like an improper or vulgar sort of behavior. essential present. that they may still present themselves in is present what does not simply Nevertheless. Our word "consider everything ation" lacks not only the necessary breadth. What we observed concerning the something word "consideration. avrd (r? i?vra). totality it does not into inconsiderate individualities. when thought of what lingers awhile in relation to presencing. In the same perpetrated something we still use the word ruchlos ( reckless ) to mean fashion. to one another. The Middle German word ruoche means High so that it may solicitude or care. But the word "considera encing of what that human for us too directly tion" means trait. inter language possesses we moderns know only in its negative estingly enough. an old word which. while rto-t? is more to because neutrally. something in a crude manner. Our word geruhen is (to deign or respect) Now our to do with Ruhe to reck and has (rest): nothing means to esteem to let or allow something. and as the word the fragment. dissipate says: SiSovat . This turning-itself-toward. disintegrate the saying now itself in discontinuity. to us the word Unfug This usually suggests (disorder). but above all that translates rtVt? in the gravity to speak as the word to lU-q.

" It signi rlaiv is not simply the vacuous conjunction is present grants order. order. The of disorder give reck to surmounting occurs of reck. . as in this manner: it happens beings linger awhile. avr? BiKrjv Kai t'icfw ??A. lets reck pervade #caiTtW dW-qkois. So long reci the ?A?-qXois remains a name for an indeterminate a chaotic manifold. order. When beings which linger in the bound themselves entirely dissipate insistent subsistence. to one an of disorder. since the essence of i?vra is dually determined. .e. ???^?oi? receive for it in the fragment: within the open expanse thought of unconcealment each lingering being becomes present as we do not think r? i?vra. The more strictly we think procity in in ?AA^Aot? the manifold of beings the lingering awhile. less conceit of aiming for a baldly no to expel one when longer share the compulsion they another from what is they let order be presently present. Stfemu . granting order.614 THE ANAXIMANDER FRAGMENT it anew in by adopting of t?W as the reck speak of the obsolescence of the word its essential breadth. and thereby also reck.W aXkr?\oi<s. something twofold. of the reckless. Whatever comes to presence from the jointure be lingers awhile . Stoovai hiK-qv. .iJ?oi? ri}? ?StKia? ?they other let order belong. i The more unequivocally this relation emerges. Trie ko? between hU-qv and "and. If what fies the essential process. to the other. . . occurs in ?Sucia: SiS?va? . When which beings linger awhile give long. (in the surmounting) To let belong is. we have r? Only when already thought is present. each being thereby lets reck belong its relations with the others. to every other being. clearer becomes the necessary relation of ?AAt/Aot? to nW. which what awhile in presence lingers lingers 8i8?vai hU-qv. the more lingers clearly we recognize that the SiSovai . in each one giving reck to tiie other. is the sole manner at all. as the /cat suggests. they one another. and this as the i?vra as what of what totality the significance does awhile. we will corresponding awhile do not to BIktj. This the letting-belong through properly means that the essential process of the disorder of non reek. . i.

lingers in each case in accordance with awhile comes to presence its while. . referring back to the first by means of on the is present. But to whom does whatever we have let the order of jointure belong? second clause of the fragment. comment of what presencing in relation to what is present. comes to pres in accordance with which what is present ence. which does not answer interpreting. With present even a while. to which the mat man in the prescribed ner. and presencing is present as such. For we have provides avr? . the last three words of the Only first clause are preserved: second . . of the fragment's second the translation is present. The second clause offers a on the of what is present.David Farrell Krell tween 615 in It comes to presence approach and withdrawal. The y let belong. over a word: SiSovai passed . is present The been as what is present at the to presence a view to its while it gives reck." introduces the extent the second clause delineates ter of the previous clause behaves But it this question. as It says that the i?vra. In any case. only so can the sec determines what ond clause in turn. ." ance with which. whatever say? is released into reckless disor that which lingers awhile. . This letting letting order and reck belong in which what is the manner fingers awhile lingers belong as what is present. The frag and so comes to presence What does clause ment's manner in the is present clause designates what is of its presencing. . present the brilliance of what is thought. a grounding. icar? to xp*<*>v' . It comes time. . The first clause names that "in accord presencing . to one another. and to the others. . and it tells how present beings surmount disorder by der. The saying speaks of what in This it places and tells about its presencing. the yap. a clue. commentary presencing For this reason the first clause must pres designate even the extent to which encing itself. y?p they (namely) "for" or "namely. . dp. is always that Presencing. Whatever of a twofold the "between" absence.

a x/o?ov is If. lingering is present It is accom is such a surmounting. The word what can in consequence of what. second. can come from can rest in the essence of Being. only only to xpew. It means Kara "down here precedes or "over here. At this point something Order at first from essence of xpewv to though begins glimmer. No matter trie word is the earliest how we are to think ro xPe(*>v> as the i?v of i?vra. We according at first. ence. or by the befalling But lingers awhile in presence lingers Kara ro xpewv. to whom is now provided: to the question order belongs comes to presence to that which order belongs by way of of a surmounting. among one another. as the essence of presencing. ro xpewv name for what we have thought of is the oldest name in which thinking brings the Being to beings language. that has befallen something with which such and such is the case. or it may thought that the relation of Being to beings prove to be otherwise. great distance." The Kara refers back to above. both for it and for from others. to necessity. of what let order be plished when beings which finger awhile and thereby reck. . is present become present as such. haunts ?6Wa. higher something retains the icara is pronounced That in reference to which in accordance it [Gef?lle]. that means by way presencing?and of the is Kara ro xpewv." from which lower comes to pres something something as from and as its consequent. that if xpew thinks the of what encing presencing of what is present. or by what befalling.". First. presencing? quence of. become present That which lingers awhile in presence as it surmounts reckless disorder. But we can still leave to xpewv untranslated to xpewv which arose in reflect on two matters concerning our on the second clause and its reference commentaiy to the first. if not in conse That which of. then to xp^v must related essentially .616 This will THE ANAXIMANDER FRAGMENT is translated: ". to what is present. Being. which The presencing itself as an essential possibility. The answer long. the pres back that it designates is present. then presencing may be somehow in terms of what is present. .

Represented it is elevated the manner of something above present.of disorder. without itself. connecting other. Presencing itself present something in becomes unnoticeably something present. whatever else is present and so becomes the highest be is named As soon as presencing it is repre ing present. but even the very relation be only tween presencing and what is present remains unthought. present essence of these gence remains concealed along with the two words. The in such a way that whatever is pres Xpewv enjoins matters ent lets order and reck belong. The transitional ya'p in the responds one end to the second clause strings the bow. as some as sented present being. the ?. But to be the of what is the Being of beings matter of Being. The and what presencing is oblivion oblivion of Being between of the distinction and beings. The x/o?ov lets such enjoin so grants them the ing prevail among present beings and manner of their arrival?as the while of whatever lingers awhile. is present comes to presence when it surmounts What the dis. From early on it seems as though and what is presencing were each for itself. presencing is not such from what is present: it is taken distinguished as the most universal or the of present be merely highest one such beings. ambiguous a is indicates the emergence of what genitive genesis.David Farrell Krell 617 enjoin order and thereby also reck in that relation. Being no means is of the distinction oblivion However. What asking does to xpewvmean? This first word in the fragment's text we are it is first with respect to last because interpreting matter. The ings. This air? in ?SiKia cor to the Kara of xpewv.of ?(Wa. thereby becoming among essence of and with it the distinction between presencing. is present. Ultimately. by . Not that. The grammatical form of this enigmatic. remains forgotten. What matter? The matter the of the presencing is present. So far we have tried to think what to xp??v means only in terms of the reference of the second clause fragment's about the word back to it. Yet the essence of this emer from presencing.

Rather. Being and beings. the two parties to the distinction. Oblivion to the self-veiling essence of Being. comes to way that presencing speak The early word concerning Being. What already foregone destiny of Being's oblivion. Although is present and presencing. The oblivion of the distinction. when we experience historically what Perhaps only . and selves if we thought we could locate the distinction its essence merely dissect behind by etymologically get served in the those of the word xp^v with enough persist ing the meaning ence. as such may announce ent in presencing itself in such a as this relation. Illumination of the distinction been designated a mean that the distinction therefore cannot appears as is pres On the contrary. do not they do so as distinguished. Thinking language we may surmise that the distinction has lines. since Being the oblivion of Being. yet at no time has the distinction as such. can invade our if it forgotten. with Being begins its essence.618 THE ANAXIMANDER FRAGMENT of a forgetfulness of the consequence thinking. reveal themselves. It is the event of meta now is stands in the shadow of the physics. along in that about Being word illuminated more been early than in recent ones. The distinction It remains for keeps collapses. what gotten. t? xp^wv. designates our we would be deceiving such a relation. the relation to what distinction. but rather the richest pletion. However. as the distinction between However. with which the destiny of Being begins and which it will carry through to com is all the same not a lack. only to which Being comes. experience something only has already unveiled itself with the presencing of what is remains pre if it has left a trace which present. its distinction from beings with together to itself. of Being belongs It so to the of Being that the essentially belongs destiny rises as the unveiling of what is dawn of this destiny means in its This that the history of present presencing. and most prodigious event: in it the history of the West ern world comes to be borne out. even the early trace of the as is obliterated distinction when appears presencing and finds itself in the position of something present being the highest being present.

daring every thoughtful is not such Nevertheless since impossible. It to the comparable belongs unique ness of in order to name the essen Being itself. as in in genuine retaining purely thinking the word found.e. extend my involved with get something. I reach for it. this derived Therefore The relation to what is present that rules in the es sence of is a unique one." Just as little does ing the word initially or ever mean to ratify and ordain. To xp v is thus the handing presence which presencing is delivers to what and which present. Yet we err if we adhere to which inescapably from Xpewv is derived meaning exclusively. to let something to someone. gather how word to Being addressed is.David Farrell Krell 619 has not been thought?the oblivion of Being?as what is to be and when we have for the thought. and of so hence that relation to which the genitive mysteriously over of alludes. means to hand to it. contemporary are accustomed to translate We the word xp ^v by that we mean what is "necessity. From this we can word. ro xpewv. only longest time pondered what we have long in terms experienced of the destiny of Being. Therefore. thus to deliver. tial nature of Being. language would have to find a single the unique word. then only what is essential in the presencing what is present. daring Being speaks always and everywhere throughout language. and with it what is trans keeps this transfer ferred. preserves in presencing. i. But such is of a kind which belong delivery in hand.We will dare a translation Anaximander says." By compelling?that must be. XP"0* I Xpd(?. may the early word speak in our recollection. in mind that we must think the word If we firmly keep mean within the Anaximander it can fragment. . thus keeps in hand. The in in thought the word lies not so much difficulty finding for Being. At the same time xpd<*> some place in one's hands or hand over. is what present as such. in itself presencing altogether to any other relation. the participial xpew originally signifies noth of constraint and of what "must be. means: It suggests y x*?p> the hand. xpdopxii.

that stood * in negative is today used "To brook" only no rival!"?which brook suggest unwillingness its original state of affairs. ?TR. in German translate fruchten. to have to pos to make the enjoyment of. 9-10. De doctrina Christiana. 2-4. ?TR. see On Christian Doctrine. Praesto. It shares Teutonic ern German brauchen and the Middle High constructions?'111 to put up with stem with the mod a German brechen: senses Its archaic include: from the Indo-European bruk-. derived senses. bhrug-. Frucht* We means to be this freely as "to enjoy. I. cf. 321. keep in Latin frui. c.620 which THE ANAXIMANDER FRAGMENT can be sounds strange and which easily misinter to x/o wv. the Jr. ed.cvov. usage [der Brauch]." to xp^v. to bear or hold. 1958 ). "Usage. and to enjoy its fruits. 1948) D." in the sense of frui." which originally with something and so to have it in use. preted: With this translation we ascribe to the Greek word a sense that is foreign neither to the word itself nor to the designated by the word in the saying. J. Usually "to use" to mean and from what we utilizing benefiting our have a right to use. 3. something prized?" the first fib. inevitably makes thinking extent is to xp??v The strangeness of "usage"? the translation is reduced when we think more clearly we understand in our about the word language. c. It loses none of even when we consider that all translation this character in the field To what matter of such demands. sess the right of usufruct?i. use of. pp. York: Liberal for I. Nonetheless the translation makes excessive demands. nisi Quid Frui involves hab?re. W. (New trans. For fib. Only in pleased senses does "enjoy" mean to consume its derived simply or gobble up. Whatever is used is in usage. we at when else do we mean say frui if not to have t "For what De moribus that is especially hand ecclesiae. We should rather to the root-meaning: to use is to brook [bruchen]. praestitum which already lies before us in unconcealment.. I. and use the right to cultivate land one does not own. What from be benefits utilizing comes the usual. in Augustine's basic meaning enim est aliud quod dicimus words. that hab?re. We encounter what we have called the of "use. second (New . should not be under as the word that translates in these current. Whitney of Saint Augustine. Arts Press.e. see Basic Writings 2 vols. praesto praesto quod diligis?\ is in Greek Wo#cetp. Robertson. Random York: Oates House. frui. o?o-ta.

is no Being as a form of of enjoyment longer merely predicated nor is it said in relation to any human behavior. and reck. (fruitio Dei as the beatitudo in the manner rather. Usage is meted that it reserves for itself what out. Frui. What presences without bounds. is present as present: to its presencing. is the of portions of the jointure. means: over to its own essence and to it in hand. that which boundary. usage. "To brook. Anaximander to have said that whatever is has its essen posed present v tial origin in what presences without bounds: ?pxv fateful ovTi?v ro dirupov. being even the highest whatsoever. to use. to brook. The while apportioned rests in the jointure. serving In the translation of ro x/ocwv usage is thought as essen in tial presencing itself. Ta i?vra. usage dispenser the enjoining of order and thereby of joining: distributes order and reck in such manner reck. which to what is joins what lingers in the transition between twofold absence (ar present rival and departure). enjoining order and so limiting what is pres As ro xpewv it is therefore at boundaries. lingers to the tradition recounted in Simplicius' According on Aristotle's is sup commentary Physics. comes to presence within (7T /3a?).e. That which lingers awhile bounds in presence. "To use" accordingly lingers awhile come to presence as to let present suggests: something to hand some such. Usage the dispenses in each case portion of its while." frui. is not some present being but . not As joined by order rather to x/oewv. and secures it as what is present in presencing. i. approaching becoming to xp^v. But usage. ent. delivers what is present Usage to what is present to its lingering. distributes is without the same time t? aWpov.David Farrell Krell which 621 in presence. gathers it to itself. pre thing keep it as something present. usage now designates hominis). as the relation to what is which itself presences Being and involved with what present. The jointure of the while bounds and confines what is present as such. since its essence in consists of the sending boundaries while to whatever awhile in presence.

thinking of what to xp^v means. VIII. what elucidates into disorder. lingers present presencing to each particular case. But accom into which ent the while being is the constant danger that lingering this process panying Thus usage essentially will petrify into mere persistence. Motpa corresponds . as the dispensing perienced to Mo?pa. as the the essence of Being is determined unifying One. Gods and men are subordinated over of what usage. What properly left a trace in to xp*w. tions. This trace "usage" has presumably in in the destiny of Being which unfolds quickly vanishes asWestern world history metaphysics. Usage ing in this way. thinks this same "Ev. What most is the first and is thought as xp*?>v in the fragment ex the Greeks of what interpretation thoughtful of por in the name Motpa. of presencing remains at the same time the distribution Usage conjoins the dis-. ing. What to xp^v> of usage. awhile according The translation of ro x/oewv as "usage" has not resulted and dictionary with from a preoccupation etymologies stems from a prior The choice of the word meanings. Thought The to the Ao'yo? of Heraclitus. of Be the essential experience from within 37). The word "usage" fateful beginning ob to in the experience is dictated of Being's thinking remains to be thought in the word livion. into its while To Xpcwv harbors the still hidden is in each case present essence of the gather ? is the gathering: which clears and shelters. thought Aoyo?. Usage xaT? to presence along the lines is of what is the enjoining and preserving gathering a which in its presencing.He thinks the unity "Ev. Parmenides of this unifying One expressly as the Motpa (Frag. From the essence of A?yoc. tries of a thinking which crossing-o?er [?ber-setzxmg] in the in the essence of Being to think the distinction of Being's oblivion. is the handing in unconcealment. To Xpewv.622 THE ANAXIMANDER FRAGMENT to each pres order and reck. can in presence whatever Therefore. lingers awhile come to presence when it lets order and thereby also only is present comes reck belong: with respect to usage. ent in its presencing. usage delivers Enjoining it is released. is pres The Anaximander fragment.

i?vra. or is present is that which. Every the address of Being. Only what appears can in the first an aspect and form. in order to think the Anaximander However. in our recollecting we latecomers must first in order have thought about the Anaximander fragment to to the of Parmenides and Heraclitus. concealment they linger there. i. Along with the 'AA^cta to the essence of Being. is this: presencing in that word cealment. only thus?think thought. The broader the dependence the freedom of thought." which arrives and in which the pres present everything is encing to one another of beings which linger awhile unfolded and delimited. Unconcealment brings unconcealment along with itself is presencing.David Farrell Krell essence 623 in of Mo?pa and Ao'yo? is thoughtfully intimated the Xpewv of Anaximander. though they are not identical. are what in the manner is present Because of beings once they have arrived in un that which lingers awhile. the ArjB-q remains as in consequence do "presently" and entirely unthought. fragment we must first of all. the region of the open expanse in "non-presently. The extent of this dependent?upon in from irrelevant determines the freedom dependence the more puissant fluences. whether What presently not.e. but then take a simple continually. they Ap is an essential of presencing and pearance consequence of the kind of presencing involved. and therefore the more forebod it may wander past what was once ing the danger that and yet?perhaps the Same. To and dependencies search for influences among is to misunderstand thinker is thinkers thinking. Only . presences which belongs in unconcealment. can can appear. Of course. Concealed itself. step: we must cross over to what that always unspoken into uncon i?v. Both are the Same. proceed thought If we have done so. thinking place show a these matters from within always presencing. elvai says. It says: presencing word. then the misinterpretation that the of the former must have been a doctrine of philosophy while that of the latter was a doctrine of Becoming Being is exposed as superficial.

soon comes in which of Being as actualitas. is shut The Greek ivipyeia is translated and to the present day the word appears only in away. The presencing brought something with respect to its epyov character. objectivity Reality if it is the character of presencing ity must still preserve its in its essence. Actualitas [reality]. The decisive destiny of Being as ivipyeia lies in the transition to actualitas. is thought occurs in a certain presencing. But whatever is present of what lin presencing as some at the same time awhile in presence gers lingers into unconcealment.624 THE ANAXIMANDER FRAGMENT in the has beforehand thinking which thought Being sense of can think the into unconcealment presencing as iSia. the lUa which Plato thinks of presencing. experienced sense in production. of This is the presencing essentially what is present: the Being of beings is ivipyeia. turn in the tional thinking. richness of the Same by each the "Ev. fundamental Anaximander name the Same. in presencing?all these thinks is essential In the concealed One. it produces so man. of i?v. destiny is the land of evening translated? . it is In both cases when by brought produced what has arrived in the foreground of unconcealment is thing an epyov. the Ao'yo? fundamental character as the fundamental Heraclitus character of thinks thinks as the the Mo?pa which Parmenides the Xpe?v which character of presencing. thinks as the fundamental The ivipyeia which Aristotle character as the which of presencing. to remain [Gegenst?nd objectivity of representa It is the "presence" [Pr?senz] lichkeit]. or it is brought when. which in Greek is thought as is of what forward. is a historic language Into the unity of the unifying thinker in his own way. becomes Wirklichkeit Roman type. Could We The silent what may a mere yet truly fateful event. can be as that which light of presence. an epoch Meanwhile with in it the of Being speaks. But objectiv becomes [Objektivit?t]. forward It is so brought itself. arising by itself. But language have translation what can come learn encounter all this? precipitated to pass in translation. thought in the present.

of usage. . in forms of and of nature. He may en after another. . say simply what is. can fathom the What mortal abyss of this confusion? He may try to shut his eyes before this abyss. #caTa to XP (^V%StSovat y?p avr? h'iK-qv Kal riaiv ?AAiy?ot? t^? a8t/cta?. The totality of is the single object of a singular beings is confounded of Being will to conquer. The abyss does not tertain one delusion vanish. the saying first cally. Man has already begun to overwhelm the entire earth to arrogate to himself its atmosphere. . The simplicity in a singular oblivion. Scholarly proof through will not carry us far enough. . and to submit powers energy the concealed future history to the planning and ordering of a world This same defiant man is utterly at a loss to government. Theories of nature and doctrines They further solve the confusion. of history do not dis un confuse everything . Curiously we set aside the claims of our own familiar ways of rep we ask ourselves in what the con resenting things. cannot demonstrate of the transla We the adequacy tion by scholarly means. this reason the fragment will never engage us so as we it and only explain long historiologically philologi resonates when enough. and faith has no place in We can only reflect on the translation thinking. by think of ing through the saying. to say what this is?that a thing is.David We ment: Farrell Krell 625 shall now try to translate the Anaximander frag . for along the lines they let order to one another and thereby also reck (in belong the surmounting) of disorder. But thinking is the poetizing the truth of Being in the historic dialogue between think ers. as For fusion of the contemporary world's fate consists. . nor should we simply accept it faith in some authority or other.

Danger itself advances danger that issues from farthest extreme. and when the oblivion reversal. Is there any rescue? Rescue comes when and only when to its is when Being is. feed on the over the distinction confusion prevailing between beings and Being.626 THE ANAXIMANDER FRAGMENT since they themselves til it is unrecognizable. Being itself undergoes But what if Being in its essence needs to use [braucht] in the essence of man? of man consists If the essence the truth of Being? thinking on the riddle of must poetize Then It Being. thinking into the the dawn of thought of brings neighborhood what is for thinking. .