Fourfold is thought to be a defining theme of Heidegger’s later thought, and yet it remains to be one of the most controversial notions in Heidegger scholarship. Interpreting the fourfold has been a challenging issue. Some of them dismissed it as having no real philosophical weight, despite its overarching presence in many of Heidegger’s later literature. Some of them tried to interpret it without giving due attention to the intricacies at hand. In this paper, we argue that, Julian Young’s understanding (...) of the fourfold in terms of the twofold of nature and culture has certain drawbacks owing to its emphasis on the literal meanings. We also suggest an interpretative strategy to avoid the pitfalls of literal and metaphorical readings, in which Andrew Mitchell’s interpretation is a good case in point. Mitchell’s marvelous attempt to think the fourfold in terms of relationality, can be seen as a best ever effort, in that, it not only remedies many of the problems of previous interpretations, including that of Young but it also gives due consideration to the intricate relations between what Heidegger would call the technological standing reserve and the thing of the fourfold. We will also discuss how Young’s interpretative problems can be remedied, in the new light provided by Mitchell. Finally, we suggest that Mitchell’s reading should be complemented with an adequate account of the holy, in which, the holy is understood as a principle of unification and wholesomeness of the members of the fourfold, apart from understanding it purely in terms of the God, one of the members of the fourfold. (shrink)