Tillich was perhaps the leading Protestant theologian of the 20th Century.
From his description of God as the Ground of Being to his concept of
ecstatic reason (not to mention his conventionally-conflicted sex life),
Tillich has much in common with M. Tillich was famous, appearing on the cover
of Time Magazine in 1955 when he was University Professor at Harvard. My own
teacher, Lee Rouner, studied with Tillich then went on to teach in India: in
fact Rouner used to claim that Tillich was best viewed as a closet advocate of
the Advaita. By the way, the context of this article is: Tillich directed
May's Ph.D. dissertation at Columbia (later published at The Meaning of
Anxiety); the story also goes that around this time May was hospitalized when
Tillich seduced May's wife.
Paul Tillich as Hero: An Interview with Rollo May
by Eliott Wright
Mr. Wright is on the staff of Religious News service, New York City. This
article appeared in the Christian Century, May 15, 1974, pp. 530-533. Copyright
by The Christian Century Foundation; used by permission. Current articles and
subscription information can be fond at www.christiancentury.org. This material
was prepared for Religion Online by Ted and Winnie Brock.
---------------------------------
"Im not afraid to admire Paul Tillich. He has been my spiritual father. I
learned from him and loved him. Strangely, that seems to enrage many people."
Rollo May, the psychoanalyst and author who is well known in religious
circles, sat in his Manhattan office discussing with me critics reactions to
his Paulus, a small appreciative volume subtitled "Reminiscences of a
Friendship," which was published (by Harper & Row) in October 1973. In the same
month and year Hannah Tillich, widow of the theologian who died in 1965 at the
age of 79. issued an autobiography, From Time to Time (Stein & Day), which
presents a more ambivalent, perhaps bizarre, picture of her husband.
The interview he granted me was the first in which May talked about the
background of Paulus, its contents in relation to Mrs. Tillichs account, and
his concern over what the reception of both books says about contemporary
culture.
"My book has elicited so much anger," he said. "It seems to me its anger
that one should present a man as a hero. Some people say that I thought too
much of Paulus, that I dont make him flesh and blood. One review complained
that I compared Pauluss death with Socrates. Well, I must say that is a bit
idealized. Yet its a very real thing which I felt. Hannah shows him at his
death with his bowels erupting, which strikes me as typical of what we do with
our great men: show them defecating, no different from you and me."
I
Paulus and From Time to Time were inevitably reviewed together. And
practically all the reviews -- from the scintillating paragraphs in Time
magazines October 8, 1973, issue to the impassioned piece in Psychology Today
for April 1974 -- stressed the widows description of Tillich as "lover of
myriad women" (to use a southern papers phrase). By comparison, many reviewers
treated Mays interpretation of Tillichs sensuality as demure.
"It saddens me to say this, but I must speak out: I dont think Hannahs book
presents an accurate picture of Paulus," May declared. "It presents him as a
kind of adolescent voyeur and implies there were actual sexual relationships
between him and a long series of women. Thats not true.
"Now Paulus did greatly admire women and could be quite sensuous. He loved to
hold a womans hand, talk intimately with her. . . well, one could call it a
spiritual seduction that had little to do with sexual intercourse.
"Hannah also distorts Pauluss life by saying almost nothing about his
intellectual greatness, nothing about his being an impressive writer, nothing
about his ecstatic reason. The things that make Tillich significant are left
out. What this does, unless a reader already knows him, is to give a warped
portrait; another dirty old man."
The Psychology Today review, written by John Wren-Lewis, says that Paulus
"appears to be a hasty production, so much so as to suggest the nasty suspicion
that it might have been rushed out in the hope of counterbalancing the possible
scandal of Hannahs revelations." A review appearing in Newsday last December
said the same thing, but in the form of a question.
"Nonsense," May retorted. The truth is that he agreed to write the book only
at the Tillich familys request. He explained:
"Hannah actively urged me over several years to write what she called the
authorized biography. I had known her and Paulus since a month after they
arrived in the U.S. in 1933, when I was a student at Union Seminary. As I began
making notes, I saw that I had neither the time nor the facts on the German
period to write an authorized biography. I decided to concentrate on where
our two lives overlapped."
Records made available by Harper & Row show that May signed a contract for a
Tillich book in 1967, and that by early 1969 the concept of a personal memoir
had emerged. But May had to fulfill commitments on Love and Will and Power and
Innocence to another publisher (Norton) before he could give full attention to
Paulus. He began writing that in spring 1972. For six months after publication
of Paulus, May declined to grant any interviews regarding it. But charges that
his volume was "rushed" out and that, when compared with From Time to Time, it
contains errors of fact, were one reason why he changed his mind. May cited two
other reasons.
First, the Tillich Society in Germany issued a "warning" to German publishers
not to issue any translation of Mrs. Tillichs book, which the society said
contains "weighty distortions" and "misrepresentations" of Tillich. Second, the
British publisher of Paulus is asking May to write a special preface frankly
stating the relationship between the two books.
I decided it is important to set the record straight in this country. May
said.
II
What are your major concerns in light of the widespread attention Paulus
and From Time to Time have drawn?
My major concern is that Paul Tillich has been presented in such a way that
not only is he not given fair treatment in terms of the so-called "sexiness,"
but his ideas are neglected. I have chapters on Pauluss agony of doubt and
his great ability in logic. These are ignored.
You feel that Tillich, the theologian and philosopher, is being ignored?
Precisely. I think the most important issue in this whole thing is the anti
hero mood of our society. We have a great need to scandalize, to gloat over the
foibles of important figures. Nobody can rise above the mass. Its a sickness
typical of the present stage in our decadent era.
Moral decadence? Political decadence?
Spiritual and psychological decadence. Tillich used to say we are living in
the last century of the modern period, which began at the Renaissance, and like
the Middle Ages and the Greek era we are caught in the midst of radical change
and its accompanying spiritual malaise. One symptom of the morass we are in is
that we have no more heroes. Once we lose our heroes we also lose our morale.
We have no one to guide us, no one to teach us.
You mean the teacher is a heroic model?
Partly. But essentially for a teacher to have any influence or power he must
have listeners. Somebody must want to listen -- and thats quite rare today. We
mock our teachers: they dont rate like men who enter the business world and
make money. This is part and parcel of the loss of our sense of reverence lot
persons. Watergate is just a minor symbol of the disintegration of our esprit
de corps. Decadence is what is going on, and in odd but different ways Hannahs
book and my book fit right into it.
In what sense?
Here is part of the decadence movement, the scandalizing and cutting down of
a giant to ordinary size. The anger my Paulus has aroused seems bent on
leveling out a great teacher. An egalitarian society finds reassurance when a
man of Pauluss stature is shown with all the petty adulteries of everybody
else. We have substituted conformism for democracy.
Would you expand on anger as a response to your book?
Yes. I had a difficult time understanding it because it isnt anger over what
I say or over disagreements on minor facts. Its an irrational anger,
expressing itself in such irrelevant things as holding me responsible for a
printers error about Pauluss birthday in the first copies off the press.
Questions have also come up as to whether the comment "today is dying day"
should be attributed to Tillich on the morning of his last day or at some other
time in his final illness.
That also seems to me irrelevant, though I might say that I took my
information on the death from an account Hannah wrote and gave me back in 1966.
Whats important is the way such details are used to support rage -- a rage, I
believe, that anyone should have a hero.
III
Were you aware that Mrs. Tillich was planning a book when you were preparing
yours?
At a point. Hannah has always written. Her travel diaries are quite good. She
has also written poems and fables, and things about her sexual relationships
with various people. A lot of that is in From Time to Time. I was not aware
that she was thinking of publishing that material until 1972. During the early
part of the year she kept saying I must read her manuscript, and I kept
avoiding it because I knew the problem we would get into if I did. Remember, I
have known Hannah for 40 years. That summer -- 1972 -- she brought the
manuscript along when she visited us in New Hampshire, and I realized I would
have to read it.
What was your reaction?
Like most of her and Pauluss friends, I tried to persuade her not to publish
it. I wrote her a long letter saying I thought it would give a distorted
picture of Paulus and their relationship and would be most humiliating to her.
It would appeal to that aspect of our culture that likes to see people
flagellate themselves in public. I told her that if the manuscript was
published it would be because she had happened to be Paul Tillichs wife. All
the publishers who read it in 1972 turned it down. Paulus was officially
announced in January 1973. Then in February Hannah secured a publisher. I
stopped work on my almost complete biography. It seemed obvious that both books
would be coming out at the same time, and I did not want that to occur.
Why did you stop work?
I was sick about the whole thing. I felt . . . sick is the best word. As I
look back. I dont know whether it was a good idea to publish Paulus or not.
But at the time my friends convinced me it was important to finish my biography
and provide two versions of Paul Tillich.
And you think your version is the more factual on the sensual side of Tillich?
I do. An admiring student may not be the most objective judge of a teacher,
but a wife is considerably less reliable. "No man is a hero to his valet."
Why would Mrs. Tillich want to misrepresent her husband?
Hannah is an emotional German woman who was made jealous many, many times by
Paulus. She talks about her jealousy in her book. She felt his interest in
other women was a threat to her. I have no arguments against taking revenge, if
one wants it. Yet I feel it is unfortunate that Hannah waited until after
Pauluss death to take hers.
Did Mrs. Tillich cooperate with you, share documents and her reminiscences?
Certainly. She implored me to write the book in the beginning.
Did she read your biography before publication?
Oh yes, when it was put into proof by Harper. And she liked it. She described
it as an affectionate and loving portrait of Paulus.
Some of the reviews treat her book as an exercise in womens liberation.
Well, it is true that Hannah was married to a man who, regardless of his
modern ideas on theology and art, was a product of the old Germany. So was she.
Paulus expected her to get up and get his breakfast. She persuaded him to spend
a little time with their two children, but like most German fathers he found
our American way of dealing with youngsters -- the child ordering the adult
around -- contrary to his training. Hannah had to take quite a bit of gaff,
though no more than any woman out of Weimar, Germany, would have taken. She
always drove the car, made the arrangements for travel. At times I felt sorry
for her. Yet she seemed to enjoy it; she liked to meet the important people she
met because she was Mrs. Paul Tillich.
Its all to the good when a previously downtrodden woman speaks out, but I
dont think the thesis "a woman declares her freedom at last" can carry all the
weight put on it in Hannahs case. This woman speaking out is Paul Tillichs
widow. Remove that fact and I doubt that From Time to Time could sustain itself
as a womens liberation piece.
IV
Could we return to the issue of sensuality, which seems to be the most
controversial subject in the two books?
Perhaps we should. Paulus was a very sensual man. He came from a Lutheran
background, not the Puritan background we have in the U.S. and England. Like
Luther, he believed in the robustness of the body. He was a great mountain
climber, could walk forever, never wore a hat. His physical robustness was
appealing and endearing. He loved food and drink. He liked nightclubs.
Everybody knows those things about him. Paulus had a great joie de vivre,
greater than Hannahs. He could throw himself into a situation with a zest that
was quite unusual. Hannah tended to be shy. Paulus loved parties and this
reflected his joy in being with people. His relation to women is an epitome of
that joy. Paulus thought every woman beautiful. He was loving and tender with
them. But it was not an act; his emotions were real and women responded. I know
many women who feel that his friendship was a great moment in their lives.
And sexual intercourse was not involved in these relationships?
To my knowledge, only a few times, and I knew Paulus intimately as well as a
number of the women. And those few times, only when he had known the women over
a period of time.
Was he sexually pursued by women?
Undoubtedly some women would have liked him to go further than he did. Not
many, I think. By and large, they knew what Paulus was getting across. The
Psychology Today review says for Paulus to relate to women as I say he did was
nastier" than to have actual sexual intercourse. That moralistic statement
misses the point. The women knew and Paulus knew that they were not going to
end up in bed. Pauluss motivation was the glory of loving and appreciating
women, not the glory of intercourse.
Hannah leaves the impression Paulus was a prurient person trying to get as
many women as possible into bed. This is a distortion of fact and, more
seriously, a distortion of his character. Yet people want to hear and see the
prurient. I have the feeling that Sartres view of society in The Flies fits us
today. The people in the play hold a great celebration of guilt. That fits
Watergate and in some ways our whole society.
Was that not also the Weimar society out of which Tillich came?
Exactly. But, you see, Paulus had a "system" -- he called it Christian
socialism -- that might have ameliorated the conflicts in the Weimar Republic
had the people been in the mood to listen.
Do you think Tillichs reputation as theologian has been permanently damaged
in the past six months?
We can only wait and see. Some people tell me they are more interested in the
man Paulus after reading about Tillichian sex-capades. But I dont see much
real interest in his significant writings. The theologian seems to get lost in
all the publicity. I am afraid the depth and breadth of Pauluss ideas and his
sorely needed contribution to our culture will be forgotten in the mêlee.
qntmpkt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --Nope. The Barber saw MMY having
sex. The barber told me in 1973.
(went over this 12 times)...if you can't accept the truth, you have
some type of blockage.
- In [email protected], "Richard J. Williams"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Billy wrote:
> > The 'article' is in error as you mentioned,
> > *because* she said the affair started in
> > 1969 at the (reported) age of MMY at 68
> > years old.
> >
> So, she is saying that MMY was celibate up to
> the age of 68, then, for one year he wasn't
> celibate, then from 1969 till today he was
> celibate. So, he must have had sexual relations
> with females for a year, yet neither Ms Pittman
> nor Nandi Keshore, Magic Alex, John, Paul, George,
> Ringo, Mike, Donovan or any skin boy or personal
> secretary, such as Tom Anderson, ever saw him
> actually doing it, even with the door wide open
> and with thousands of students passing by on a
> daily basis for over fifty years. And that the
> Indian press never suspected a thing.
>
> Now that is impressive for a 106 year old man!
>
---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
