Hermann Hesse (1877-1962) was viewed, in the 1960s-1970s, in North America, as a spiritual and literary icon of sorts. He embodied the best of the counter culture in a probing and poignant manner. He was, as Theodore Ziolkowski rightly notes, “Saint Hesse among the Hippies”. There were few in the high noon of the counter culture who had not read Hesse. In fact, knowing Hesse was a rite of passage into the counter culture family. Hesse was the guru that many turned to for wisdom and insight in an age and ethos in which much seemed askew and out of joint. Many of Hesse’s early and more immature works seemed to pander to the “I’m spiritual but not religious” dogma that is so trendy today or he anticipated the Christianity without Religion (CWR) religion that is the cause de jour of many reactionary types (an ideological position more dogmatic than most 16th century confessions).
Hesse won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1946, and his more mature books, The Journey to the East and The Glass Bead Game are a missive and tome not to missive on the religious journey. There is a decided shift in Hesse’s writing in these two burnished gold beauties and such splendid works of literary art draw the reader into Hesse’s comprehensive fullness. The younger Hesse was a reactionary of sorts (turning his tender back against his German pietistic upbringing) who elevated the notion of the lone individual contra church, state, history and society (all oppressive) in search of meaning and purpose. But, by the time Hesse came to research, write and publish The Journey to the East and The Glass Bead Game, he came to recognize the folly, reductionism and thinning out of the pilgrimage by turning against religion, history, state, society and the vast riches of the institutions that carry civilization forward.. The lone individual isolated from such imperfect historic and communal dimensions tends to shrink and shut off fuller possibilities. The same theme, in English literature, was played out earlier by Bunyan and Milton (liberal individualism in its emerging phase–today a fragmentary viral postmodern reality).
It is quite pertinent to note that in The Journey to the East the main narrator (H.H.–Hermann Hesse) joins the League that seems to embody the spirituality contra religion or a sort of Christianity without Religion tribe. H.H. loses his way as the novella unfolds and, as such, enters a period of inner confusion and disorientation. There was, though, one central character in the novel that embodied for most in the League and H.H. a unique persona. Leo was the servant of most and, like Francis, had much affinity with the animal world and nature.
Leo was also the guardian and bearer of the grand intellectual tradition and institutions of western civilization (and other cultures and their wisdom traditions). When Leo disappears, the League fragments and H.H. loses his way. But, Leo remains a polaris of sorts and H.H. goes in search of him and, as the tale unfolds, finds Leo. The finding of Leo by H.H. seems to offer hope to H.H. again and the longing of sorts to return to the League. The journey home to the League hinges on H. H. heeding and following Leo through a maze of twisting streets (the richness of intellectual history and the institutions that embody such ideas) to the sacred centre and building that houses the League. The leaders of the League bring H.H. before them to ponder how and why he had lost his way. A variety of questions are firmly put to him about why he disappeared when imperfection emerged, when tough questions took front stage and dogged him, when schism and fragmentation occurred in the once unified League. H.H. had taken the easier path of rejecting the League because of unresolved issues (and all it culturally stood for), and his unhealthy need for a sort of purist position in thought, word and deed (even though he was none of the above). But, the real kicker takes form when Leo takes his chair (who, H.H. discovers, is the head of the League) and raises the telling critique of H.H.’s shallow rejection of the League (and all it stands for in terms of the best that has been thought, said and done throughout history). The passage is one not to miss.
Do you remember how we passed the Town Hall, the Church
of St. Paul and the Cathedral in order to kneel and pray awhile,
and how you not only refrained from entering with me to
perform your devotions—-but how you remained outside,
impatient and bored, waiting for the end of the tedious
ceremony which seemed so unnecessary to you, which was
nothing more to you than a disagreeable test of your egoistic
impatience? Yes, you remember. By your behaviour at the
Cathedral gate alone, you have already trampled on the
fundamental requirements and customs of the League. You
have slighted religion, you have been contemptuous towards
a League brother, you have impatiently rejected an opportunity
and invitation to prayer and meditation.
In short, those who never pass through the Cathedral gate (because of their laundry list of questions) will never understand or receive all the Cathedral of religion can offer. It is not that the gates are closed. It is more a case of H.H. (and his progenitors) being unable to go through because of their cynicism and skepticism).
I could continue with the passage in The Journey to the East, but there can be no doubt that Hesse via Leo is highlighting the fact and failure (a sort of spiritual boorishness) of H.H. when he turns against the mother lode of religion and all it can offer for a deeper and fuller faith journey.
H.H. has, aIso, in abandoning the layered wisdom of the past as embodied in the historic church, culture, civilization, history, memory, arts and literature, philosophy and theology, politics and society deprived himself of a more spacious and mature mind and imagination. I might add that The Glass Bead Game goes much further on this pathway with Joseph Knecht than does The Journey to the East (Knecht being a subtler version of Leo) , although The Journey to the East is the primer for The Glass Bead Game. The mature Hesse, in short, would certainly question the spirituality contra religion clan or the Christianity without Religion tribe—he would see such a position as short sighted and quite indulgent. Perhaps, there is much yet to learn from Hesse’s counter culture insights in an age in which spirituality contra religion, Christianity without Religion or the postmodern and emergent church notions have become their own establishment, religion and dogma. It is also important that the more mature Hesse be read rather than his younger and more immature writings to get a good sense of the real Hesse rather than a caricatured version of him.
Amor Vincit Omnia
Ron Dart
Good article Ron. The ‘spirituality without religion’ clan feels very gnostic to me, rejecting any received faith practice in favor of something more vague and ethereal. So too, there are those who espouse a ‘Christianity without religion’ who’ve been uprooted from the soil of the tradition that stewarded ‘the faith once delivered.’ On these fronts, the ‘nones and dones’ in exodus need to ask themselves where the kite will crash once the string is cut.
Yet what this article overlooks is the need to acknowledge that words bear multiple senses. On the one hand, I am “religious” in the sense that I hold to the ancient dogmas of the faith, participate in the Great Tradition with its smells, bells, and liturgies. Religion in this sense is an embodied faith, intentionally incarnational and deliberately tied to the visible church. Or speaking biblically, we have St James’ ‘pure and undefiled religion’ that takes care of widows and orphans. This then suggests the opposite: an impure and defiled religion, which leads to a second and pejorative sense.
At CWR magazine, where I work, we are careful to designate ‘Christ-less religion’ when using the pejorative sense. This was introduced through Kierkegaard, Bonhoeffer and Barth. They used the term in contrast to ‘revelation’ or ‘relationship.’ The Orthodox, such as Fr. Romanides, also use ‘religion’ in this negative sense as over against ‘living faith.’ Indeed, Alexandr Schmeman famously said, “Christianity is the end of religion.” The religion they rail against is the self-righteousness and hypocrisy that may be seen in any form (or formless!) spirituality, Christian or otherwise.
So I think it’s important to honor which sense people intend when they are speaking … and with that, level our critiques but also here the horror stories that gave rise to their reactions. For more on this: https://www.clarion-journal.com/clarion_journal_of_spirit/2016/02/religion-in-two-senses-brad-jersak.html
Brad,
I agree with your telling points. Perhaps, we need to distinguish between religion and
religiosity, the former layered, historic, wisdom thick and internally dialogical, the latter
the perversion, distortion and narrowing of the former. The same sort of distinction can
be made between Tradition, traditions and traditionalism—traditionalism, like religiosity,
is a counterfeit of the pure gold. Hesse, like Erasmus, Barth, Bonhoeffer and most prophetic
reformers, rightly so, solidly critique religiosity and traditionalism by recalling the dynamic
vision of religion and Tradition as an antidote to the toxins of traditionalism and religiosity.
I hope this clarifies things somewhat.
Ron Dart
Thanks Ron,
I think that distinguishing between ‘religion’ as faith practice and ‘religiosity’ as toxic is very helpful. Well, at least to me. Some are so wounded by their experiences of what they call ‘organized religion’ that they are closed off to re-entry. Of course, as you’ve noted, this has its own perils. When has anarchy been safer than hierarchy? And if their new gurus are untied to any accountability, has leaving the ‘institutional church’ made them any less vulnerable to spiritual abuse? Hopefully, we will maintain a level of trust with the nones and dones so that they see us as a lifeline when the waves get high.
Along the same lines of distinguishing healthy religion from toxic religiosity, I might also direct readers to your fine article here, contrasting the spirituality of Bunyan and Chaucer in like manner. I refer to it often.: https://www.clarion-journal.com/clarion_journal_of_spirit/2016/05/two-types-of-spirituality-chaucer-or-bunyan-ron-dart.html