A typical text by Romano Guardini could read as follows:
I am standing in front of a tree. What is this tree?
First of all, it is a series of material components that are strung together in such a way that certain characteristics appear: green and brown colours, elongated and round shapes, rough and smooth textures, hard and soft areas; the tree is therefore a material composition.
We immediately realise that this material representation does not exhaust what this tree is. All these material components not only form a punctual shape, but are connected by an inner principle, life. The different materials are in a certain relationship to each other, are attuned to each other in such a way that together they form a living whole. This relationship lasts for a certain period of time as long as the conditions are right. What this tree is, namely a living thing, only becomes clear thanks to this second perspective; the first "layer" (the material one) does not become false as a result, but only when it is incorporated into the second layer (the living one) do we recognise the tree for what it is. It would be different with a stone or a crystal; such things can apparently be explained exhaustively on the purely material level.
The layer model as a hermeneutic key
In this way, the "levels of reality" are layered on top of each other. On the material level, material processes can be described in a material way and material things can be understood in this way; the bio-psychic level incorporates the lower level, but the characteristics of the living are added. In Guardini's thinking, we are also familiar with spiritual layers (the cultural, historical and ethical), which do justice to man in his spiritual characteristics; as well as the spiritual level, which includes the religious, the supernatural and that which is known about God through revelation. According to this layered model, each higher level incorporates the lower ones, but releases new depths of meaning in them. Thus, the peculiarity of a living thing does not only consist in that which is not material; rather, the materiality of the living gains a new quality through the living. The qualitative levels are therefore not layered on top of each other like storeys, but form a "qualitative interlocking".
But Guardini's model also has another special feature. Let us return to the example of the tree. A tree, for example, is a natural thing that can be visualised, determined by its botanical properties and used for a wide variety of purposes. It can also be taken merely empirically, soberly and calculatingly. But then it is not the actual tree, but something limited and incomplete.
In order to fully understand the tree, Guardini does not stop at the biological level; he also illuminates it with the means of the next level, i.e. the spiritual-cultural layer. The tree then no longer appears merely as a qualitative intertwining of substance and vitality, but rather a spiritual, a cultural sense is added. This sense of the tree is seen from the spiritual-cultural level. From there, the observer discovers, for example, that the tree is not just a biotope, but a real home for animals; not just an essential link in the cycle of the environment, but a friend to man, who not only uses its material as a resource, but also draws inspiration from its forms for his art, architecture, literature, etc.
If we approach the essence of a tree "from above" in this way, we find a deeper meaning. The tree is then a cultural thing. It has value. It has dignity. It is
beautiful. Its cultural value does not simply arise from its material and biological properties in the environment, but is due to its role in the world, i.e. its relationship to other things - especially its relationship to humans. From the perspective of man, the tree becomes a part of his history.
Man raises the tree to a higher level, the human-spiritual level. And only from this level of the human, which is actually higher than the tree, can the tree be properly recognised. To put it bluntly, this would mean that "only those who know the human recognise the tree".
Yes, Guardini can elevate the tree even further to a spiritual level.
But all it takes is one occasion and the touch happens. Then the tree is suddenly mysteriously there. As this happens, it does not blur into uncertainty; it does not become fantastic, as would be the case for modern man, but retains all its determinations. In these, however, the "other" becomes present; the divine appears. It is precisely in this way that he becomes himself in the first place; he becomes the whole tree. It has not only the profane, but the full reality. As such, it has power that penetrates people and, depending on the intensity of the experience, can fill them with awe and amazement, even overwhelm them. This happens especially when - as Walter F. Otto has classically described in his analysis of Homeric religiosity - a thing approaches its optimum, becomes completely mature and clear; then it is "divine".
The tree thus becomes a hermeneuma, a "primal thing", as Guardini writes. Its meaning is revealed through a hermeneutics of things, i.e. a human or even religious interpretation of things. Seeing things not just as cold objects, but as entities full of meaning: this is precisely what Guardini excelled at. The "whole" meaning lies in the "sum" of the layers that lie "qualitatively within one another"; and it is only correctly interpreted by looking from the peak to the valley, from the higher level to the lower. The layer model thus reveals itself as a hermeneutical key.
The doctrine of opposites as a hermeneutical key
A typical text by Guardini could also read differently.
I am standing in front of a tree. What is this tree like?
In the midst of a landscape in which many things are in motion, the tree is a static point of calm. It has stood firmly in its place for centuries. Its wooden structure is a stable form that can withstand any storm. But wait: calmness, solidity, construction, stability - it is precisely these that are jeopardised by a storm. The rigid branch breaks if it cannot be bent by the wind.
A second look at the tree follows. Its limbs are in constant vibration, its fibres are flexible and elastic because a juicy act of life pulsates through the wood every second. It has stood there for centuries, yes, but none of its poses have been the same. The marvellous essence of this tree is the lengthy act of its life.
Thus the tree ultimately stands before us as the unity of two opposites: as a structure and as an act. We cannot truly comprehend the tree - i.e. grasp it intellectually - either on the pure track of construction or on the pure track of the act. The concrete tree is both and needs both. Otherwise - if only one of the two "propositions" of the counter-proposition is elevated to essentiality and the other is subordinated or even ignored - any noetic grasp of the tree will fail. A faithful understanding of the tree must maintain the tension between its opposing poles.
I can take the doctrine of opposites for granted here and immediately come to the conclusion that it too can be a hermeneutical key. The all-roundness that Guardini strived for through the doctrine of opposites naturally became his own motto at the moment of interpretative understanding. According to the doctrine of opposites, the "whole" meaning lies only in the "sum" - or rather: tension - of the sides, i.e. in the unity of adjacent and consecutive poles. Like the layer model, this hermeneutic key is also an appeal to seek meaning in "wholeness".
Relation of layer model and theory of opposites
Let us analyse a third text, this time an actual quotation from Guardini's lectures on ethics.
If I'm standing in front of a tree, I can ask:
What is it worth? What can I do with it? What can I earn by buying it? etc. This is the kind of sensible consideration that foresters and timber merchants always make. It centres on the benefit that this tree can have for me. In it, I think about myself, and about the tree in relation to me...
But I can also look at it differently. In such a way that I try to understand its structure, its life, its relationship to its environment; that I experience its beauty, the peculiarity of this structure there, clinging to the earth, reaching upwards, reaching out into space, still, motionless and yet alive, etc. This is the kind of behaviour we find in botanists when they do research ... or in Mörike when he writes his poem "The Beautiful Beech" ... or in Ruysdael when he paints his avenue of ash trees.
These two perspectives reflect the layers of perspective we have already mentioned. The forester's gaze sees the tree primarily as a material and biological object. The poet "understands" the tree from the higher, spiritual layer. The text is taken from Guardini's treatise on encounter; in the following, Guardini explains that only the second approach leads to a genuine encounter, in which the human being engages with his counterpart without intention. The first approach, on the other hand, reflects a use-driven relationship in which the other person is objectified; Guardini calls this "the considered, organised work carried out in practice and overcoming".
This brings us to a twist in the text that at first glance seems insignificant, but is very significant for the theoretical analysis of Guardini's thinking.
The encounter is a gift; the work is done. From the encounter springs the fruitful insight, the creative seed, the breakthrough of something new; through the work, all of this is transformed into form, order and duration.
The juxtaposition of the signal words "creative" and "order" makes us sit up and take notice. Is this a contrast between encounter and work for Guardini? Indeed it is:
The two belong together. The mere encounter would turn life into an adventure; it would become erratic and at the mercy of the moment. But mere labour would remain barren; everything would become habitual, worn out, "old". Existence would be forced into the system. Joy and shocks would be lost. And piety. Better to say: an important element of piety.
Work and encounter can be traced back here not only to two layers of reality, but also to a contrast. The work deals with the tree in its materiality and biology; the poetic or philosophical encounter deals with the tree in its spirituality - yes, sometimes even in its spiritual dimension.
The fact that Guardini presents work and encounter as opposites here leads to three consequences:
a) Superficially, Guardini leads us to the realisation that none of the approaches does justice to the object "tree" if it excludes the other. Indeed, in the forester's attitude there will always be at least a minimum of spiritual appreciation of the tree - otherwise his work becomes the dull processing of raw materials without cultural and spiritual value; on the other hand, a spiritual encounter with the tree becomes fantastic or romantic if it is not accompanied by at least a minimum of material and practical insight.
b) With regard to our topic, we must add up the hermeneutic sums of the doctrines of layers and opposites to form a larger unit. In order to find the meaning of the concrete "tree", we must place the insights based on the respective layers in an apparently contradictory relationship to one another.
c) In the background, this raises the theoretical question to which Alfons Knoll has drawn attention: What is the relationship between the layer model and the theory of opposites? Can the layers, which expressly lie on different qualitative levels, really be placed in a relationship of opposition? Or is Guardini contradicting himself here?
Compatibility of layer model and theory of opposites
In the following, I will briefly mention four positions on the compatibility of the theory of opposites with the layer model:
a) Incompatibility
In his dissertation on faith and culture in Romano Guardini, which can be considered a milestone in Guardini research, Alfons Knoll noted that the layers cannot simply be understood as opposing poles because they belong to different qualitative levels. He wonders whether the two teachings in Guardini's oeuvre as a whole are fundamentally incompatible.
Knoll calls the doctrine of opposites an "important stage" in Guardini's creative work and counts it "among the 'beginnings' of Guardini's thinking". He suggests that the doctrine no longer played a decisive role in later works. After 1925, Guardini no longer succeeded in applying the "thought structure that had been worked out in such detail to anthropological phenomena". Knoll even speaks of a "correction" in the development of Guardini's thinking after 1925, citing as a reason that the doctrine of opposites does not coincide with the structural principles that later played a major role in Guardini's philosophy, namely "expression" and the "relationship between 'inside' and 'outside'"; behind these principles, however, is the layer model. According to this presentation, one could conclude that the doctrine of opposites does not have a consistent - continuous and
The use of the term in Guardini's work is not contradictory and even leads to "ambiguities" in individual cases.
b) Parallelism
However, contrary to this assumption, it can certainly be proven that Guardini used the doctrine of opposites constantly and consistently even after 1925. Even if the doctrines could not be integrated into one another, this does not necessarily mean that they are incompatible. Most researchers treat the doctrine of strata and the doctrine of opposites independently of each other throughout Guardini's work; they are different approaches that can exist parallel to each other; if they occasionally intersect, they do not contradict each other. Especially as hermeneutic keys, they can serve to answer different questions or open up depths of meaning. For example, what would contradict the assumption that a contradiction that exists at a certain level is repeated analogously at a higher (or deeper) level?
c) Compatibility
Alfonso López Quintás sees the doctrines as compatible with each other. In his commentary on "Anthropology and Dialectics", he takes up a passage from The Human Being. Here Guardini discusses the contrast between the diversity and wholeness of human existence. There, the diversity of layers stands in a contradictory relationship to the unity of man.
d) Integration
For myself, it seems quite possible to integrate the two doctrines on the basis of Guardini's own explanations. To this end, it must first be emphasised - with Knoll - that the pure qualities of the individual layers cannot in fact be in a relationship of opposition, since they are "not completely equal in value". However, the qualitative interlocking of concrete, layered reality does not mean that these qualities are purely opposed to each other; rather, the lower layer is qualitatively "elevated" by the upper one. And so we must not ask what relationship the abstract concepts of the qualities have to each other, but how they relate to each other in the concrete and living reality in which they occur as a whole. The materiality of a plant is not to be understood qualitatively as dead materiality, but as living materiality - and as such it is "of equal value" with the biological properties.
The theoretical point of contact between the layer model and the theory of opposites are the transempirical opposites. The poles "inside and outside" seem to extend through the layers.
The processes of plant growth - in contrast to the growth of a crystal, which takes place through external addition - appear as an emergence from a productive centre, that is, an inner realm, into the sensually perceptible given. Its becoming and asserting itself takes place between its organic centre on the one hand and the environment on the other ... In the animal the process becomes evident because this is where the psychic moment begins. The animal absorbs things and processes from the outside world through its sensory organs and responds to them through initiatives: Defence, attack, flight. Conversely, it can also be said to have initiative itself: Hunger, need for protection, reproductive instinct, and acts them out on the external given. If we add the processes of memory and learning, then the realm of the internal becomes even clearer.
The example Guardini uses to illustrate this question in the most precise way is the relationship between body and soul in human beings. As long as we are talking about body and soul, it cannot be a question of an opposing relationship. Guardini discusses this relationship in the ethics lectures, among other places. His main concern here is to overcome the dualistic image that sharply divides the physical and spiritual manifestations of man into two realms. In doing so, he utilised the principles of the doctrine of opposites. "'Mere corporeality' and 'mere spirituality' [are] borderline values [...] that lead beyond the realm of the human. They are forms of impossibility". In humans, physicality and spirit are in a relationship of opposition to one another. Everything physical in man always contains a minimum degree of spiritualisation. Conversely, there is no such thing as the "merely spiritual" in human beings; rather, there is always a physical dimension, however minimal, to human spiritual acts. "I know of no 'purely spiritual' act in man. Everything I find is from the outset and constitutively spiritual-bodily, that is, human".
Here we are faced with a further application of the doctrine of layers, i.e. the spiritualisation of the vital layer by the higher layer of the spirit, or the embodiment of this spirit in the lower layer of the vital.
The human being is neither a mere biological body nor a mere spirit. The essence of man is the human. One cannot say: Man is a special stage of the biological - but neither can one say: Man is the spiritual. [...] One can only say: Man is man.
In this contrasting relationship, the human body is therefore decisively permeated, characterised and co-constituted by the spirit. Guardini calls it a "body" in this sense. Only in relation to the spirit soul does the body become a body; only in relation to the body does the spirit become a spirit soul.
Application of the principles to Guardini's literary hermeneutics
The question of the relationship and possible integration of the two doctrines remains difficult. Using Guardini's text on the meaning of Hölderlin's historical thought, we want to examine how the two models relate to each other as "hermeneutic keys". Guardini published this text in 1935 in the Schildgenossen and presented it again in the Hölderlinbuch (1958).
Guardini comments on "the meaning of Hölderlin's historical thought" in the "second circle" of the book and postulates that an eschatological meaning of history can be perceived in it "by the inwardly prepared reader". He names a series of expressions in which Hölderlin "prophesies" a spiritual fullness in history: "All life becomes full of divine meaning; earthly and heavenly things unite; men and gods celebrate their bridal feast; everything is filled with peace and beauty; everything is permeated by the spirit". Guardini interprets this neither as an actual expectation of the end times nor as a romantic longing, but rather as a phase of existence in which the eternal "wants to come into time; as a mysterious fullness of meaning in which every conflict is resolved, every question is extinguished and every need is satisfied". Guardini thus uses the theory of layers as a hermeneutical key; he interprets Hölderlin's "prophecy" as a longing to uncover the meaning of the earthly from a higher level, i.e. the supernatural, without dissolving or cancelling the lower levels in the process.
This non-earthly enters into the earthly, this eternal into the temporal - but in such a way that the earthly remains earthly and the temporal remains temporal. This means, however, that history and non-history, earth and heaven, eschatological administration and the continuation of existence will be one.
It is therefore an attempt to lift history beyond itself and yet preserve it as history; to transcend this world, but in such a way that the unity with the earth remains; to gain eternity, but not as the cancellation of time, but as the character of temporal existence itself.
It is clear that Guardini understands history here - through Hölderlin's lens - as a reality that can be viewed not only from the spiritual level (as temporal and earthly cultural history), but also from the spiritual level (as religious and mystical realisation of eternal value).
If we read further in the text, we come across signal words of the doctrine of opposites:
Of course, this necessarily changes the concept of eternity itself. It, which by its very nature is the mode of being of the autocratic and holy God, becomes the dialectical antithesis of time and thus a moment of the existence of the world. In the same way, the concept of time also changes; for it, which by its nature is created to pass "in the face of eternity", dependent on it and receiving its meaning from it, becomes the equal counterpart of this eternity and capable of entering into the unity of a new form of existence with it. In truth, both eternity and time lose their character - the word taken in the strict sense of unambiguity and responsibility.
Guardini thus recognises in Hölderlin's view of history not only a layered relationship between time and eternity, but also a polar position between the two. I want to anticipate that Guardini will immediately criticise this polar position. But first he follows the thought and describes how Hölderlin's polarity means that time is no longer purely temporal and eternity no longer purely eternal; in the polar relationship, both take on a new character. Time is "elevated", but eternity is "secularised" in the process. "Just as God [in Hölderlin] becomes an element of the world, so eternity is to become an element of history".
For Guardini himself, it is clear that eternity "in the strict sense of unambiguity" is not in opposition to time, but lies on a higher level of reality. For Guardini, it is not permissible to simply hold the different layers as such in polar juxtaposition. Just as - in the above example of body and soul - spirit as such does not need matter in order to be spirit, eternity does not need time in order to be eternal.
At the same time, Guardini's doctrine of opposites is not at all concerned with assigning concepts (such as "time" or "eternity") to each other in their strict unambiguousness; rather, he is concerned with the observation of the living-concrete. In concrete history, time and eternity certainly exist "side by side" - even for Guardini. Although time and eternity are not polar to each other in terms of their concept and nature, they can certainly have a polar effect on each other in concrete history; no longer as "pure eternity" and "pure temporality", but in a different sense.
Two clues point the way for our interpretation:
Firstly - in accordance with the doctrine of layers - eternity must not be "brought into the world and history" in such a way that the upper layer is reduced to the lower layer and thus understood "from below". As becomes clear in the last part of Hölderlin's book, Hölderlin ultimately draws Christ into the immanent instead of elevating the human through Christ into the transcendent.
What Guardini appreciates about Hölderlin is that he recognises the traces of the spiritual on the spiritual level and wrestles with them; but he also knows that the poet does not rise to the higher level in order to see from the perspective of faith. Just as the anthropologist can recognise the traces of a higher - in this case a spiritual - level in the human hand, but cannot understand the human spirit exhaustively simply by examining its material and biological manifestation - i.e. the hand - so the poet can only ever touch upon the layer of the spiritual to some extent as long as he does not rise above the spiritual-cultural level.
Furthermore, according to the doctrine of opposites, the divine must not be reduced to an antipole of the world or nature. However, this does not mean that the divine cannot take on the existential role of an antipole in concrete situations. One such concrete situation, however, is human history. Guardini himself has presented an attempt to explain the relationship between time and eternity in this concrete history - and he seems to place them in a polar position:
What does it mean to be human in its deepest sense? To be human means [...] to feel transient, but to strive for the eternal; to be attached to time, but neighbour of eternity, of limited strength, and yet determined to deeds of eternal value. That neither of these two traits is veiled, but each is affirmed and mature; that they do not destroy each other or drive each into excess, but merge into a clear unity that is full of inner tension and yet closed, endangered but full of confidence, unlimited but directed towards the infinite - that is full humanity. And so much is a person human when he lives knowing, willing and joyfully ready as a limited being, in time, in change, in the thousand formations of existence - but at the same time struggles to penetrate into eternity, into infinity, into transfiguration. A person is human to the extent that he truly and humbly unites these two traits. This is humanity's unspeakable magic, a mystery full of pain, full of strength, full of longing and confidence.
Can this be seen as an alternative to Hölderlin's model? Guardini speaks here of the way of historical life that the Church makes possible for man. The relationship between time and eternity in the Church does not lead to secularising eternity, but to sanctifying time. The lower, natural layer is elevated by the upper, grace-filled layer and not cancelled out. The concrete reality of human history in the Church visualises the eternal-spiritual - just as the spiritual is embodied or embodied in the human body. Substance and spirit are not actually polarised towards each other; in the concrete human being, however, they are actually united, which leads to that peculiar tension of opposition.
Similarly, the human-earthly and the divine-eternal are not actually polarised towards each other; in concrete history, however, they have actually been united - through the incarnation and the establishment of the kingdom of God - which in turn leads to the peculiar tension of the contrast.
Whether this distinction between the "actual" and the "factual" is sufficient to answer the question of whether and how a polar position of the different layers in relation to each other is permissible remains to be seen. But this much we can say without doubt: If such a polarity should occur, care must be taken to ensure that a reality is not "reduced" to a deeper layer in each case. And if such a polarity should occur, then only as a living and concrete case, not in the sense of a "pure" juxtaposition of the spiritual and the spiritual as such.
