Hölderlin: Between Kant and the Greeks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article's thesis is clearly stated and convincing, yet not of striking novelty. The arguments are adequate and solid. (Maybe the argument expressed in note 58 should be brought up in the continuos text, since it's an important part of the argumentation.) 

Some aspects can be surely improved: Recent scholarship is not sufficiently being reflected. For example, the analogy between Dionysus and Christ has been recently and elaborately discussed by Karen Gloy (2022). Even if the article does not converge in its main ideas with such contributions, they should be mentioned.

More problematic is the authorship issue of the "Systemprogramm". There is no critical distance whatsoever towards the hypothesis of a (still disputable) authorship by Hölderlin. If one assumes the Cassirer/ Böhm hypothesis to be proven beyond any doubt – which is by far not the case –, then arguments in favour of this opinion should be provided. If not, a safe critical distance should be kept. Reference to only Manfred Frank in note 49 is not satisfactory. For diverging hypotheses at least Pöggeler, Bohrer and Gockel should be referred to.

L. 39, a somewhat confusing reference to an "article" by Hölderlin which was never completed, but in fact the reference alludes to the essay (Aufsatz) mentioned above. 

L. 58, "the resonances of the first dialogue in the final version of Hyperion..." Maybe a short clarification—e.g. already in footnote nr. 1, where preliminary versions are mentioned, or extensively in the continous text—pertaining to Hyperion's successive versions issue could be instructive for the reader. 

L. 75-76 , "Expressed in the terms of Schiller, Hölderlin, and the Älteste Systemprogramm...", the reader feels the need of a bibliographic reference. Which are these terms? Inserting a short reference after "aesthetic education of humanity" could enlighten the reader.

L. 176-178 and note 58: "oscillation" for dt. "Schweben". If this is the translation of Eric Matthews, one could consider it unfortunate. Maybe keeping a critical distance and commenting in a footnote on Matthew's equivalence is a more appropiate scientifically approach. Normally, "Schweben" has to be translated as "levitation" or "floating/ flotation". "Oscillation" was an usual term in wave mechanics already in the 17th century, if Kant had precisely this in mind, he would have probably used the German equivalance "e Schwingung/ s Schwingen".

L. 824, the reference is inaccurate: "Große", not "Grössen".

L. 867, Hühn's title is not accurately cited. There should be a dot before ". Zur..." 

 

 

Author Response

The article's thesis is clearly stated and convincing, yet not of striking novelty. The arguments are adequate and solid. (Maybe the argument expressed in note 58 should be brought up in the continuos text, since it's an important part of the argumentation.) 

Brought into the text (L. 443-448)

Some aspects can be surely improved: Recent scholarship is not sufficiently being reflected. For example, the analogy between Dionysus and Christ has been recently and elaborately discussed by Karen Gloy (2022). Even if the article does not converge in its main ideas with such contributions, they should be mentioned.

Reference introduced in note 62.

More problematic is the authorship issue of the "Systemprogramm". There is no critical distance whatsoever towards the hypothesis of a (still disputable) authorship by Hölderlin. If one assumes the Cassirer/ Böhm hypothesis to be proven beyond any doubt – which is by far not the case –, then arguments in favour of this opinion should be provided. If not, a safe critical distance should be kept. Reference to only Manfred Frank in note 49 is not satisfactory. For diverging hypotheses at least Pöggeler, Bohrer and Gockel should be referred to.

Question addressed in note 4.

1. 39, a somewhat confusing reference to an "article" by Hölderlin which was never completed, but in fact the reference alludes to the essay (Aufsatz) mentioned above. 

Modified, line 40.

1. 58, "the resonances of the first dialogue in the final version of Hyperion..." Maybe a short clarification—e.g. already in footnote nr. 1, where preliminary versions are mentioned, or extensively in the continous text—pertaining to Hyperion's successive versions issue could be instructive for the reader. 

Introduced explanation in note 2.

1. 75-76 , "Expressed in the terms of Schiller, Hölderlin, and the Älteste Systemprogramm...", the reader feels the need of a bibliographic reference. Which are these terms? Inserting a short reference after "aesthetic education of humanity" could enlighten the reader.

I believe that the terms to which the author is referring are quite clear after the colon (“it makes sense to speak of the aesthetic education of humanity, and poetry must play an essential role”), and the expression “aesthetic education” is a clear reference to Schiller’s text.

1. 176-178 and note 58: "oscillation" for dt. "Schweben". If this is the translation of Eric Matthews, one could consider it unfortunate. Maybe keeping a critical distance and commenting in a footnote on Matthew's equivalence is a more appropiate scientifically approach. Normally, "Schweben" has to be translated as "levitation" or "floating/ flotation". "Oscillation" was an usual term in wave mechanics already in the 17th century, if Kant had precisely this in mind, he would have probably used the German equivalance "e Schwingung/ s Schwingen".

“oscillation” changed to “floating”.  

1. 824, the reference is inaccurate: "Große", not "Grössen".

Modified

1. 867, Hühn's title is not accurately cited. There should be a dot before ". Zur..." 

Modified

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-written piece that will make a strong contribution to the special issue. My only question is line 505. "Throughout this text, it has been justified the role of beauty in these problems" doesn't sound natural in English. Perhaps something like "Throughout this text, the role played by beauty in these problems has been justified/considered/substantiated." 

There should be a blank line between 486 and 487 to separate the German and English poems.

Author Response

This is a well-written piece that will make a strong contribution to the special issue. My only question is line 505. "Throughout this text, it has been justified the role of beauty in these problems" doesn't sound natural in English. Perhaps something like "Throughout this text, the role played by beauty in these problems has been justified/considered/substantiated." 

Modified (line 512)

There should be a blank line between 486 and 487 to separate the German and English poems.

Modified

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a cogently argued and very well researched account of Hölderlin's Hyperion and "Das ältese Systemprogramm" in their philosophical context. I would say that the argument's central accomplishment is to situate Hölderlin's novel and that document in this rich context (the disagreement with Schiller on Kant, the response to Fichte's Wissenschaftslehre) and to understand its 'philosophical' motivation. The use of Hölderlin's letters was particularly impressive in this regard.

Parts of the essay on Plato and Kant seemed somewhat unconnected to the discussion of Hölderlin that occured afterward, perhaps because they engage in lengthy swaths of argumentative summary. That summary is correct throughout, but sometimes its relevance for the overarching claim about Hyperion falls by the wayside (e.g., is the paragraph recounting the sublime necessary to what is later said about Hyperion?).

This reviewer was also befuddled by the discussion of metaphor. A quick precis of the positions is outlined (Aristotle on analogy/substitution, Ricoeur is cited), but none of Hölderlin's metaphors are discussed in detail. The citation of the poem on Herakles is also left hanging. The paper would benefit from actually analyzing and interpreting one of Höldelrin's concrete uses of metaphor vis-à-vis the philosophical account provided in Kant that connects metaphor to the notion of an aesthetic idea. Kant's own discussion of metaphor is highly contentious (just one example of this being the account in Richard Klein, "Kant's Sunshine," diacritics 1981 vol. 11, no. 2).

Finally, the author might address the issue of the "Systemprogramm"'s authorship for the purposes of this paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is more or less fine, despite some awkward constructions.

Author Response

This is a cogently argued and very well researched account of Hölderlin's Hyperion and "Das ältese Systemprogramm" in their philosophical context. I would say that the argument's central accomplishment is to situate Hölderlin's novel and that document in this rich context (the disagreement with Schiller on Kant, the response to Fichte's Wissenschaftslehre) and to understand its 'philosophical' motivation. The use of Hölderlin's letters was particularly impressive in this regard.

Parts of the essay on Plato and Kant seemed somewhat unconnected to the discussion of Hölderlin that occured afterward, perhaps because they engage in lengthy swaths of argumentative summary. That summary is correct throughout, but sometimes its relevance for the overarching claim about Hyperion falls by the wayside (e.g., is the paragraph recounting the sublime necessary to what is later said about Hyperion?).

A reflection on Kant’s account of the experience of the sublime is essential, insofar as Hölderlin seeks to integrate the experiences of beauty and the sublime in order to articulate a moral framework for artistic production and to ground the project of constructing a new community. The reference to Plato is fully warranted—not only by Hölderlin’s explicit mention of him in his letter to Neuffer, but also by the thematic resonances evident in Hyperion, and by the pivotal role assigned to beauty as the mediating element that facilitates the transition from the sensible to the supersensible.

This reviewer was also befuddled by the discussion of metaphor. A quick precis of the positions is outlined (Aristotle on analogy/substitution, Ricoeur is cited), but none of Hölderlin's metaphors are discussed in detail. The citation of the poem on Herakles is also left hanging. The paper would benefit from actually analyzing and interpreting one of Höldelrin's concrete uses of metaphor vis-à-vis the philosophical account provided in Kant that connects metaphor to the notion of an aesthetic idea. Kant's own discussion of metaphor is highly contentious (just one example of this being the account in Richard Klein, "Kant's Sunshine," diacritics 1981 vol. 11, no. 2).

We believe that Klein’s text offers an interesting perspective for considering Derrida’s reception of Kantian reflections on metaphorical discourse, but ultimately contributes little either to the existing analyses of this issue within Kant-Forschung or to an understanding of how Hölderlin employs metaphor in the context of his literary work. We also believe that there are a sufficient number of examples of Hölderlin’s use of certain images as symbolic expressions of suprasensible concepts in lines 468–480. Nevertheless, we provide a somewhat more detailed analysis of the metaphor of water falling through the rocks as an image of human existence (lines 551–557).

Finally, the author might address the issue of the "Systemprogramm"'s authorship for the purposes of this paper.

Question addressed in note 4.