quite shy and who had no desire to play the role of the great professor in such circumstances; moreover, his appreciation of a reciprocal listening and of the exceptional relationship—at once frank and fraternal—between the poet and thinker, was confirmed. The latter becomes the silent guardian of memory, “even if poetry remains a resource for the thinker.”62 Char was obviously flattered to have been invited and recognized, and appreciated not having to be lectured: “This is really the first time, he said referring to Heidegger, that a man of this stature has not attempted to explain to me what I am or what I do.”63
There is less to tell about his visit to Braque in his house in Varengeville, on a hill that dominates the sea, near Dieppe: the two great men hardly exchanged any words: “Take a stroll and look at everything. Braque’s frail condition confined him to an armchair. It is only when we left that he stood up to accompany his visitor as far as the middle of the green in front of the workshop.”64
Perhaps I should yield the floor to a poet who did not attend the meeting:
Braque
What was he thinking about
What was he dreaming of
in front of the sea, this nude model?65
Full Days in a Castle
The first castle Heidegger occupied for five or six days with Jean Beaufret and Kostas Axelos was Jacques Lacan’s manor house in Guitrancourt. It was a “very pleasant stay.”66 However, we wonder if meaningful discussions really took place between the psychoanalyst and the thinker. Axelos’s response was negative: they remained at the level of friendly small talk67 and pleasant walks (in particular, a picturesque visit to Chartres cathedral).68
Finally, the actual purpose of the Master’s visit to France was the meeting that took place from August 27 to September 4, 1955, in the castle of Cerisy, in Normandy. The program of those famed ten days was described only in vague terms, without giving the names of the directors or the participants. The theme was “What is philosophy?,”69 which was a skillful way to announce an event without revealing the well-kept secret: Heidegger’s participation.
Was it a stroke of luck for Jean Beaufret, who had proposed the idea of a meeting in France?70 Or was it a “master stroke” for Madame Heurgon, the owner, who sensed the “propitious moment”?71 The fact remains that this meeting took place and was a success, according to most of the participants,72 who numbered about fifty.73 Two incidents occurred, however: the complaint of Vladimir Jankélévitch, who would never set foot in Cerisy again;74 and the cautious, if not hostile, attitude of Lucien Goldmann, who would nevertheless attend all the sessions.
62. According to Jean Beaufret, Heidegger made the following comment just after dinner. He found “what Char told him striking: Treffend was Char sagte. This is the entire difference between thought and poetry. Poetry goes forward, but thought is essentially memory, even if poetry remains its viaticum” (“En France,” 9).
63. Quoted by Beaufret, “L’entretien sous le marronnier,” 2.
64. Ibid., 2. Also see Beaufret, “En France,” 10.
65. Jacques Prévert, quoted by George Braque and Jacques Prevert, Varengeville (Paris: Maeght, 1958), 5.
66. See Entretiens with Kostas Axelos in Heidegger en France, vol. 2. [TN: This interview with Kostas Axelos was not included in the English edition.]
67. Ibid.
68. “Heidegger stayed at La Prévôté, then visited the Cathedral at Chartres. Lacan drove his car with the same speed as his psychoanalytic sessions. Seated in front, Heidegger did not flinch, but his wife could not stop complaining. Sylvia conveyed her dissatisfaction to Lacan. But to no avail: the master drove faster and faster. On the way back, Heidegger remained silent, while his wife’s protests grew louder and Lacan pressed down still harder on the gas-pedal. The trip came to an end, and each of the passengers went his or her own way.” Elisabeth Roudinesco, Lacan and Co. A History of Psychoanalysis in France 1935–85, trans. Jeffrey Mehlman (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 299.
69. This detail was provided by de Gandillac, Le Siècle traversé, 345.
70. This offer was encouraged by Heidegger himself who “had hoped for a series of meet-ings in France,” according to de Gandillac (ibid.).
71. According to Aron, Les Modernes, 99.
72. One of the most enthusiastic participants was Walter Biemel: “The session that had been organized so judiciously as to include time for conversations during strolls and trips was essentially attuned to Heidegger’s style of interpretation. All the participants felt the same fascination that I had myself felt fifteen years earlier during my first seminars in Freiburg” (“Le professeur, le penseur, l’ami,” in Martin Heidegger: Cahier de l’Herne, 135).
73. One finds a list, with sarcastic commentaries, in Jean-Paul Aron’s book (Les Modernes, 105–106), which confirms fifty-six participants. Apart from Marcel, Gandillac, Goldmann, and some religious figures (R. F. Fessard, Kleiber, Léger, the Canon Dondeyne, the Abbots Morel and Pépin), other names stand out such as Axelos, Ricoeur, de Waelhens, Biemel, Starobinski, Philonenko, Allemann, and Deleuze. Maurice de Gandillac (Le Siècle traversé, 345) also informs us of the presence of Gilbert Kahn, a translator of Heidegger, and of Pierre Burgelin. Let us also note the participation of Mlle Jeanne Hersch, Mme Parain-Vial, and Mme Simone Pétrement.
74. Some absences should be mentioned: Hyppolite, Merleau-Ponty, Sartre, and Jean Wahl. The latter, who did not show any philosophical hostility toward Heidegger in his Traité de métaphysique (Paris: Payot, 1953), in which chapter 4 focused on “L’idée d’être” (the notion of being), would devote a whole course, in his highly interpretative style, to the Introduction to Metaphysics (which had not been translated yet), which appeared in Vers la fin de l’ontologie (Paris: SEDES, 1956). However, he made a point of expressing his reservations about the reprinting in the German edition of Einführung . . . of Heidegger’s pronouncement on “the inner truth and greatness of this movement” (National Socialism). Wahl specified: “There is a page (152) that is really embarrassing for those who admire Heidegger the philosopher. . . . What is typical but also quite disturbing with respect to both Heidegger and Germany, is that he thought it was appropriate to reprint that sentence as such” (ibid., 5).