The question of the relation, not of technology, but of the “essence” of technology, that is, of technicity (die Technik)—understood in Heidegger’s sense as a destining of revealing—the question of the relation of technicity to nature is becoming ever more urgent. Human beings and their fate are implicated in that relation, yet never as merely passive participants, and they need to be awakened both to that urgency and to the fundamental question it poses: poses to them as those who are implicated in this manner. The question of the relation of technicity to nature arrives on our doorstep today by virtue of a long, philosophical inheritance, one articulated in terms of the relation of phusis and techne. It is a very specific interpretation and appropriation of techne—and also, inseparably, of phusis—that, in the course of the centuries, sets the stage for the emergence of technicity and its relation to nature. Yet the Greek word techne once meant not only the production of items of utility using nature as a resource, but also the bringing forth of the beautiful, or rather, of the experience of the gods—a bringing forth that came to be called art. In his 1953 essay “The Question Concerning Technicity,” Heidegger invites us to reflect on the question of the relation of technicity to nature by considering “the monstrousness” (das Ungeheure) that becomes manifest in the contrast between the Rhine river as dammed up and placed into the service of a hydroelectric power plant, and the Rhine “as uttered by the artwork, in Hölderlin’s hymn by that name.” The contrast, we note, is not between a pure, pristine, unadulterated nature, the river Rhine as a natural phenomenon untouched by techne, and the river placed (gestellt) in the service of technicity. The contrast, rather, is between two ways in which the Rhine can be revealed to us, two ways of letting something be revealed, two modes of techne—techne itself being a mode of revealing, as the essay elucidates. Yet what, then, of phusis, that other mode of revealing? Is it perhaps the case that phusis needs techne, not as a technical supplement in the sense of technicity, but as art, whose essence is poetizing (Dichtung)—needs it in order to show itself in a more primordial, more ancient sense? Must the response that the urgency of the question concerning the relation of technicity to nature elicits from us entail our becoming poets, or at least artists—and this despite the fact that any appeal to art as “the saving power” must seem hopeless in the face of the destinal force that is technicity? My remarks here elaborate on these themes by turning to Heidegger’s reading of Hölderlin’s hymn “Wie wenn am Feiertage…,” where nature is said to be “more ancient than the ages.”