Revolt Against the Modern World
Rivolta contro il mondo moderno
Julius Evola
Translated from the Italian
by Guido Stucco
To the
1st Battaglione Carabinieri Paracadutisti "Tuscania" .
Caesarem Vehis!
===========================================
Contents
1----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART I
The World of Tradition
1. The Beginning 3
2. Regality 7
3. Polar Symbolism; the Lord of Peace and Justice 16
2-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. The Law, the State, the Empire 21
5. The Mystery of the Rite 29
6. On the Primordial Nature of the Patriciate 35
7. Spiritual Virility 42
3----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. The Two Paths in the Afterlife 47
9. Life and Death of Civilizations 54
10. Initiation and Consecration 60
11. On the Hierarchical Relationship Between Royalty and Priesthood 68
4-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Universality and Centralism 73
13. The Soul of Chivalry 79
14. The Doctrine of the Castes 89
15. Professional Associations and the Arts; Slavery 101
5--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. On the Hierarchical Relationship Between Royalty and Priesthood 68
12. Universality and Centralism 73
13. The Soul of Chivalry 79
14. The Doctrine of the Castes 89
15. Professional Associations and the Arts; Slavery 101
16. Bipartition of the Traditional Spirit; Asceticism 1 1 1
17. The Greater and the Lesser Holy War 1 16
18. Games and Victory 129
19. Space, Time, the Earth 143
20. Man and Woman 157
21. The Decline of Superior Races 167
PART II
GENESIS AND FACE OF MODERN WORLD
Introduction 175
22. The Doctrine of the Four Ages 177
23. The Golden Age 184
24. The Pole and the Hyperborean Region 188
25. The Northern-Atlantic Cycle 195
26. North and South 203
27. The Civilization of the Mother 211
28. The Cycles of Decadence and the Heroic Cycle 218
29. Tradition and Antitradition 230
30. The Heroic-Uranian Western Cycle 253
3 1 . Syncope of the Western Tradition 278
32. The Revival of the Empire and the Ghibelline Middle Ages 287
33. Decline of the Medieval World and the Birth of Nations 302
34. Unrealism and Individualism 312
35. The Regression of the Castes 327
36. Nationalism and Collectivism 338
37. The End of the Cycle 345
Conclusion 358
Appendix: On the Dark Age 367
Index 370
=================================================
Foreword
For quite some time now it has become almost commonplace to talk about the
"decline of the West 1 ' and the crisis of contemporary civilization, its dangers,
and the havoc it has caused. Also, new prophecies concerning Europe's or the world's
future are being formulated, and various appeals to "defend" the West are made
from various quarters.
In all this concern there is generally very little that goes beyond the amateurish-
ness of intellectuals. It would be all too easy to show how often these views lack true
principles, and how what is being rejected is often still unconsciously retained by
those who wish to react, and how for the most part people do not really know what
they want, since they obey irrational impulses. This is especially true on the practical
plane where we find violent and chaotic expressions typical of a "protest 11 that wishes
to be global, though it is inspired only by the contingent and terminal forms of the
latest civilization.
Therefore, even though it would be rash to see in these phenomena of protest
something positive, they nevertheless have the value of a symptom; these phenom-
ena clearly illustrate that beliefs that were once taken for granted today no longer
are, and that the idyllic perspectives of "evolutionism" have come of age. An uncon-
scious defense mechanism, however, prevents people from going beyond a certain
limit; this mechanism is similar to the instinct found in sleepwalkers who lack the
perception of height as they amble about. Some pseudointellectual and irrational
reactions seem to have no other effect than to distract modem humans and prevent
them from becoming fully aware of that global and dreadful perspective according
to which the modem world appears as a lifeless body falling down a slope, which
nothing can possibly stop.
There are diseases that incubate for a long time and become manifest only
when their hidden work has almost ended. This is the case of man's fall from the
ways of what he once glorified as civilization par excellence. Though modern
men 1 have come to perceive the West's bleak future only recently, there are causes
that have been active for centuries that have contributed to spiritual and material
degeneration. These causes have not only taken away from most people the possi-
bility of revolt and the return to normalcy and health, but most of all, they have taken
away the ability to understand what true normalcy and health really mean.
Thus, no matter how sincere the intention animating those who today attempt to
revolt and to sound the alarm may be, we should not cherish false hopes concerning
the outcome. It is not easy to realize how deep we must dig before we hit the only
root from which the contemporary, negative forms have sprung as natural and neces-
sary consequences. The same holds true for those forms that even the boldest spirits
do not cease to presuppose and to employ in their ways of thinking, feeling, and
acting. Some people "react"; others "protest." How could it be otherwise considering
the hopeless features of contemporary society, morality, politics, and culture? And
yet these are only "reactions" and not actions, or positive movements, that originate
from the inner dimension and testify to the possession of a foundation, a principle, or
a center. In the West, too many adaptations and "reactions" have taken place. Expe-
rience has shown that nothing that truly matters can be achieved in this way. What is
really needed is not to toss back and forth in a bed of agony, but to awaken and get
up.
Things have reached such a low point nowadays that I wonder who would be
capable of assessing the modem world as a whole, rather than just some of its par-
ticular aspects (such as "technocracy" or the "consumer society"), and of under-
standing its ultimate meaning. This would be the real starting point.
In order for this to happen, it is necessary to leave the deceptive and magical
"circle" and be able to conceive something else, to acquire new eyes and new ears in
order to perceive things that have become invisible and mute with the passing of
time. It is only by going back to the meanings and the visions that existed before
the establishment of the causes of the present civilization that it is possible to
achieve an absolute reference point — the key for the real understanding of all mod-
em deviations — and at the same time to find a strong defense and an unbreakable
line of resistance for those who, despite everything, will still be standing. The only
thing that matters today is the activity of those who can "ride the wave" and remain
firm in their principles, unmoved by any concessions and indifferent to the fevers,
the convulsions, the superstitions, and the prostitutions that characterize modern
generations. The only thing that matters is the silent endurance of a few, whose
impassible presence as "stone guests" helps to create new relationships, new dis-
tances, new values, and helps to construct a pole that, although it will certainly not
prevent this world inhabited by the distracted and restless from being what it is, will
still help to transmit to someone the sensation of the truth — a sensation that could
become for them the principle of a liberating crisis.
1. I say among "modem men" since the idea of a downfall and a progressive abandonment of a higher type
of existence, as well as the knowledge of even tougher times in the future for the human races, were well
known to traditional antiquity.
Within the limits of my possibilities, this book hopes to be a contribution to such
a task. Its main thesis is the idea of the decadent nature of the modern world. Its
purpose is to present evidence supporting this idea through reference to the spirit of
universal civilization, on the ruins of which everything that is modern has arisen; this
will serve as the basis of every possibility and as the categorical legitimization of a
revolt, since only then will it become clear what one is reacting against, but also and
foremost, in what name.
By way of introduction I will argue that no idea is as absurd as the idea of
progress, winch together with its corollary notion of the superiority of modern civili-
zation, has created its own "positive" alibis by falsifying history, by insinuating harmful
myths in people's minds, and by proclaiming itself sovereign at the crossroads of the
plebeian ideology from which it originated. How low has mankind gone if it is ready
and willing to apotheosize a cadaverous wisdom? For this is how we should regard
the perspective that refuses to view modern and "new" man as decrepit, defeated,
and crepuscular man, but which rather glorifies him as the overcomer, the justifies
and as the only really living being. Our contemporaries must truly have become
blind if they really thought they could measure everything by their standards and
consider their own civilization as privileged, as the one to which the history o\^ the
world was preordained and outside of which there is nothing but barbarism, dark-
ness, and superstition.
It must be acknowledged that before the early and violent shakings through
which the inner disintegration of the Western world has become evident, even in a
material way, the plurality of civilizations (and therefore the relativity of the modem
one) no longer appears, as it once used to, as a heterodox and extravagant idea. And
yet this is not enough. It is also necessary to be able to recognize that modern civili-
zation is not only liable to disappear without a trace, like many others before it, but
also that it belongs to a type, the disappearance of which has merely a contingent
value when compared with the order of the "things-that-are" and of every civiliza-
tion founded on such an order. Beyond the mere and secular idea of the "relativism
of civilizations, 1 ' it is necessary to recognize a "dualism of civilizations.' 1 The consid-
erations that follow will constantly revolve around the opposition between the mod-
ern and the traditional world, and between modern and traditional man; such an
opposition is ideal (that is, morphological and metaphysical) and both beyond and
more than a merely historical opposition.
As far as the historical aspect is concerned, it is necessary to indicate the width
of the horizons confronting us. In an antitraditional sense, the first forces of deca-
dence began to be tangibly manifested between the eighth and the sixth centuries
b.c, as can be concluded from the sporadic and characteristic alterations in the forms
of the social and spiritual life of many peoples that occurred during this time. Thus,
the limit corresponds to so-called historical times, since according to many people,
whatever occurred before this period no longer constitutes the object of "history."
History is replaced by legends and myths and thus no hard facts can be established,
only conjectures. The fact remains, however, that according to traditional teachings,
the above mentioned period merely inherited the effects of even more remote causes;
during this period, what was presaged was the critical phase of an even longer cycle
known in the East as the "Dark Age," in the classical world as the "Iron Age," and in
the Nordic sagas, as the "Age of the Wolf." 2 In any event, during historical times and
in the Western world, a second and more visible phase corresponds to the fall of the
Roman Empire and to the advent of Christianity. A third phase began with the twi-
light oi' the feudal and imperial world of the European Middle Ages, reaching a
decisive point with the advent of humanism and of the Reformation. From that pe-
riod on, the forces that once acted in an isolated and underground fashion have
emerged and led every European trend in material and spiritual life, as well as in
individual and collective life in a downward trajectory, thus establishing one phase
after another of what is usually referred to as the "modem world." From then on, trie-
process has become increasingly rapid, decisive, and universal, forming a dreadful
current by which every residual trace of a different type of civilization is visibly
destined to be swept away, thus ending a cycle and sealing the collective fate of
millions,
This is the case as far as the historical aspect is concerned, and yet this aspect is
totally relative. If everything that is "historical" is included in what is "modern," then
to go beyond the modem world (which is the only way to reveal its meaning), is
essentially a process of traveling beyond the limits that most people assign to "his-
tory." It is necessary to understand that in this direction, we no longer find anything
that is susceptible again to becoming "history." The fact that positive inquiry was not
able to make history beyond a certain period is not at all a fortuitous circumstance,
nor is it due to a mere uncertainty concerning sources and dates or to the lack of
vestigial traces. In order to understand the spiritual background typical of every
non moderm civilization, it is necessary to retain the idea that the opposition between
historical times and "prehistoric" or "mythological" times is not the relative opposi-
tion proper to two homogeneous parts of the same time frame, but rather the qualita-
tive and substantial opposition between times (or experiences of time) that are not of
the same kind. Traditional man did not have the same experience of time as modem
man; he had a supertemporal sense of time and in this sensation lived every form of
his world. Thus, the modem researchers of "history" at a given point encounter an
interruption of the series and an incomprehensible gap, beyond which they cannot
construct any "certain" and meaningful historical theory; they can only rely upon
fragmentary, external, and often contradictory elements — unless they radically change
their method and mentality.
On the basis of these premises, the opposition of the traditional world to the
modern world is also an ideal one. The character of temporality and of "historicity"
is essentially inherent only to one of the two terms of this opposition, while the other
term, which refers to the whole body of traditional civilizations, is characterized by
the feeling of what is beyond time, namely, by a contact with metaphysical reality
that bestows upon the experience of time a very different, "mythological" form based
on rhythm and space rather than on chronological time. 3 Traces of this qualitatively
different experience of time still exist as degenerated residues among some so-called
primitive populations. Having lost that contact by being caught in the illusion of a
pure flowing, a pure escaping, a yearning that pushes one's goat further and further
away, and being caught in a process that cannot and does not intend to be satisfied in
any achievement as it is consumed in terms of "history" and "becoming" — this is
indeed one of the fundamental characteristics of the modern world and the limit that
separates two eras, not only in a historical sense but most of all in an ideal, meta-
physical, and morphological sense.
Therefore, the fact that civilizations of the traditional type are found in the past
becomes merely accidental: the modem world and the traditional world may be
regarded as two universal types and as two a priori categories of civilization. Never-
theless, that accidental circumstance allows us to state with good reason that wher-
ever a civilization is manifested that has as its center and substance the temporal
element, there we will find a resurgence, in a more or less different form, of the
same attitudes, values, and forces that have defined the modem era in the specific
sense of the term; and that wherever a civilization is manifested that has as its center
and substance the supernatural element, there we will find a resurgence, in more or
less different forms, of the same meanings, values, and forces that have defined
archaic types of civilization. This should clarify the meaning of what I have called
the "dualism of civilization" in relation to the terms employed ("modem" and "tradi-
tional") and also prevent any misunderstandings concerning the "traditionalism" that
I advocate. "These did not just happen once, but they have always been" (...).
The reason behind all my references to
non modern forms, institutions, and knowledge consists in the fact that they are more
transparent symbols, closer approximations, and better examples of what is prior
and superior to time and to history, and thus to both yesterday and tomorrow; it is
these alone that can produce a real renewal and a "new and perennial life" in those
who are still capable of receiving it. Only those capable of this reception may be
totally fearless and able to see in the fate of the modern world nothing different or
more tragic than the vain arising and consequential dissolution of a thick fog, which
cannot alter or affect in any way the free heaven.
So much for the fundamental thesis. At this point, by way of introduction, I would
like briefly to explain the "method" I have employed.
The above remarks will suffice to show how little 1 value all of what in recent
times has officially been regarded as "historical science" in matters of religion, an-
cient institutions, and traditions, nor do I need refer to what I will say later concern-
ing the origin, the scope, and the meaning of modern "knowledge." I want to make it
clear that I do not want to have anything to do with this order of things, as well as
with any other that originates from modem mentality; and moreover, that I consider
the so-called scientific and positive perspective, with all its empty claims of compe-
tence and of monopoly, as a display of ignorance in the best of cases. I say "in the
best of cases"; 1 certainly do not deny that from the detailed studies of the "scholars"
of different disciplines what may emerge is useful (though unrefined) material that
is often necessary to those who do not have other sources of information or who do
not have the time or intention to dedicate themselves to gather and to examine what
they need from other domains. And yet, at the same time, I am still of the opinion
that wherever the "historical" and "scientific" methods of modern man are applied
to traditional civilizations, other than in the coarser aspect of traces and witnesses,
the results are almost always distortions that destroy the spirit, limit and alter the
subject matter, and lead into the blind alleys of alibis created by the prejudices of the
modem mentality as it: defends and asserts itself in every domain. Very rarely is this
destructive and distorting work casual; it almost always proceeds, even though indi-
rectly, from hidden influences and from suggestions that the "scientific" spirits, con-
sidering their mentality, are the last to know.
The order of things that I will mainly deal with in this present work, generally
speaking, is that in which all materials having a "historical' 1 and "scientific 1 ' value
are the ones that matter the least; conversely, all the mythical, legendary, and epic
elements denied historical truth and demonstrative value acquire here a superior
validity and become the source for a more real and certain knowledge. This is pre-
cisely the boundary that separates the traditional doctrine from profane culture. In
reference to ancient times this does not apply to the forms of a "mythological" or
superhistorical life such as the traditional one; while from the perspective of "sci-
ence" what matters in a myth is whatever historical elements may be extracted from
it. From the perspective that I adopt, what matters in history are all the mythological
elements it has to offer, or all the myths that enter into its web, as integrations oi' the
"'meaning" of history itself. Not only the Rome of legends speaks clearer words than
the historical Rome, but even the sagas of Charlemagne reveal more about the mean-
ing of the king of the Franks than the positive chronicles and documents of that time,
and so on.
The scientific "anathemas 11 in regard to this approach are well known: "Arbi-
trary!" "Subjective!' 1 "Preposterous! 11 hi my perspective there is no arbitrariness,
subjectivity, or fantasy, just like there is no objectivity and scientific causality the
way modern men understand them. All these notions are unreal; all these notions are
outside Tradition. Tradition begins wherever it is possible to rise above these notions
by achieving a superindividual and nonhuman perspective; thus, I will have a mini-
mal concern for debating and "demonstrating. 11 The truths that may reveal the world
of Tradition are not those that can be "learned" or "discussed 11 ; either they are or
they are not. 4 It is only possible to remember them, and this happens when one
becomes free of the obstacles represented by various human constructions, first among
which are all the results and the methods of specialized researchers; in other words,
one becomes free of these encumbrances when the capacity for seeing from that
nonhuman perspective, which is the same as the traditional perspective, has been
attained. This is one of the essential "protests" that should be made by those who
really oppose the modem world.
Let me repeat that in every ancient persuasion, traditional truths have always
been regarded as nonhuman. Any consideration from a nonhuman perspective, which
is "objective" in a transcendent sense, is a traditional consideration that should be
made to correspond to the traditional world. Universality is typical of this world; the
axiom, "quod ubique, quod ab omnibus et quod semper" characterizes it. Inherent to
the idea of "traditional civilization" is the idea of an equivalence or homology of its
various forms realized in space and time. The correspondences may not be notice-
able from the outside; one may be taken aback by the diversity of several possible
and yet equivalent expressions; in some case the correspondences are respected in
the spirit, in other cases only formally and nominally; in some cases there may be
more complete applications of principles, in others, more fragmentary ones; in some
there are legendary expressions, in others, historical expressions — and yet there is
always something constant and central that characterizes the same world and the same
man and determines an identical opposition vis-a-vis everything that is modern.
Those who begin from a particular traditional civilization and are able to inte-
grate it by freeing it from its historical and contingent aspects, and thus bring back
the generative principles to the metaphysical plane where they exist in a pure state,
so to speak — they cannot help but recognize these same principles behind the differ-
ent expressions of other equally traditional civilizations. It is in this way that a sense
of certainty and of transcendent and universal objectivity is innerly established, that
nothing could ever destroy, and that could not be reached by any other means.
In the course of this book 1 will refer to various Eastern and Western traditions,
choosing those that exemplify through a clearer and more complete expression the
same spiritual principle or phenomenon. The method that I use has as little in com-
mon with the eclecticism or comparative methodology of modern scholars as the
method of parallaxes, which is used to determine the exact position of a star by
reference to how it appears from different places. Also, this method has as little in
common with eclecticism — to borrow an image of Guenon's — as the multilingual
person's choice of the language that offers the best expression to a given thought. 5
Thus, what [call "traditional method" is usually characterized by a double principle;
ontologically and objectively by the principle of correspondence, which ensures an
essential and functional correlation between analogous elements, presenting them
as simple homologous forms of the appearance of a central and unitary meaning;
and epistemologically and subjectively by the generalized use of the principle of
induction, which is here understood as a discursive approximation of a spiritual intu-
ition, in which what is realized is the integration and the unification of the diverse
elements encountered in the same one meaning and in the same one principle.
In this way I will try to portray the sense of the world of Tradition as a unity and
as a universal type capable of creating points of reference and of evaluation differ-
ent from the ones to which the majority of the people in the West have passively and
semiconsciously become accustomed; this sense can also lead to the establishment
of the foundations for an eventual revolt (not a polemical, but real and positive one)
of the spirit against the modern world.
In this regard I hope that those who are accused of being anachronistic Utopians
unaware of "historical reality" will remain unmoved in the realization that the apolo-
gists of what is "concrete" should not be told: "Stop!" or "Turn around!" or "Wake
up!" but rather:
Go ahead! Achieve all your goals! Break all the dams! Faster! You are
unbound. Go ahead and fly with taster wings, with an ever greater pride
for your achievements, with your conquests, with your empires, with
your democracies! The pit must be filled; there is a need for fertilizer
for the new tree that will grow out of your collapse. 6
In the present work I will limit myself to offering guiding principles, the application
and the adequate development of which would require as many volumes as there are
chapters; thus, I will point out only the essential elements. The reader may wish to
use them as the basis for further ordering and deepening the subject matter of each
of the domains dealt with from the traditional point of view by giving to them an
extension and a development that the economy of the present work does not allow
for
In the first part I will trace directly a kind of doctrine of the categories of the
traditional spirit; I will indicate the main principles according to which the life of the
man of Tradition was manifested. Here the term "category" is employed in the sense
of a normative and a priori principle. The forms and the meanings indicated should
not be regarded as "realities" proper, inasmuch as they are or have been "realities,"
but rather as ideas that must determine and shape reality and life, their value being
independent from the measure in which their realization can be ascertained, since it
will never be perfect. This should eliminate the misunderstandings and the objec-
tions of those who claim that historical reality hardly justifies the forms and the
meanings (more on which later). Such a claim could eventually be validated without
reaching the conclusion that in this regard, everything is reduced to make-believe,
Utopias, idealizations, or illusions. The main forms of the traditional life as catego-
ries enjoy the same dignity as ethical principles: they are valuable in and of them-
selves and only require to be acknowledged and willed so that man may hold steadily
to them and with them measure himself and life, just like traditional man has always
and everywhere done. Thus, the dimension of "history" and of "reality" has here
merely an illustrative and evocative scope for values that even from this point of
view, may not be any less actual today and tomorrow than what they could have
been yesterday.
The historical element will be emphasized in the second part of this work, which
will consider the genesis of the modern world and the processes that have led to its
development. Since the reference point, however, will always be the traditional world
in its quality as symbolical, superhistorical, and normative reality, and likewise, since
the method employed will be that which attempts to understand what acted and still
acts behind the two superficial dimensions of historical phenomena (space and time),
the final outcome will be the outline of a metaphysics of history.
In both parts 1 think that sufficient elements have been given to those who, today
or tomorrow, already are or will be capable of an awakening.
The skillful masters (of the Tao) in old times, with a subtle and exquis-
ite penetration, comprehended its mysteries and were deep (also) so as
to elude men's knowledge . . . Shrinking, looked they like those who
wade through a stream in winter; […], like those who are afraid
of all around them; . . . evanescent like ice that is melting away; unpre-
tentious like wood that has not been fashioned into anything; vacant
like a valley, and dull like muddy water. . . .
Who can make the muddy water clear? Who can secure the condi-
tion of rest? . . .
They who preserve this method of the Tao do not wish to he full of
themselves. It is through their not being full of themselves that they can
afford to seem worn and not appear to be new and complete.
— Tao te Ching, 15
(from R. Van Over, Chinese Mystics)
====================================================================
The Beginning
In order to understand both the spirit of Tradition and its antithesis, modern civi-
lization, it is necessary to begin with the fundamental doctrine of the two natives.
According to this doctrine there is a physical order of things and a metaphysical one;
there is a mortal nature and an immortal one; there is the superior realm of "being"
and the inferior realm of "becoming." Generally speaking, there is a visible and
tangible dimension and, prior to and beyond it, an invisible and intangible dimension
that is the support, the source, and true life of the former.
Anywhere in the world of Tradition, both East and West and in one form or
another, this knowledge (not just a mere "theory") has always been present as an
unshakable axis around which everything revolved. Let me emphasize the fact that
it was knowledge and not "theory." As difficult as it may be for our contemporaries
to understand this, we must start from the idea that the man of Tradition was aware
of the existence of a dimension of being much wider than what our contemporaries
experience and cal 1 "reality." Nowadays, after all, reality is understood only as some-
thing strictly encompassed within the world of physical bodies located in space and
time. Certainly, there are those who believe in something beyond the realm of phe-
nomena. When these people admit the existence of something else, however, they
are always led to this conclusion by a scientific hypothesis or law, or by a speculative
idea, or by a religious dogma; they cannot escape such an intellectual limitation.
Through his practical and immediate experiences, modem man, no matter how deep
his "materialistic" or "spiritual" beliefs may be, develops an understanding of reality
only in relation to the world of physical bodies and always under the influence of his
direct and immediate experiences. This is the real materialism for which our con-
temporaries should be reproached. All the other versions of materialism that are
formulated in scientific or in philosophical terms are only secondary phenomena.
The worst type of materialism, therefore, is not a matter of an opinion or of a "theory,"
but it consists in the fact that man's experience no longer extends to nonphysical
realities. Thus, the majority of the intellectual revolts against ''materialistic" views
are only vain reactions against the latest peripheral effects stemming from remote
and deeper causes. These causes, incidentally, arose in a different historical context
from the one in which the "theories" were formulated.
The experience of traditional man used to reach well beyond these limits, as in
the case of some so-called primitive people, among whom we still find today a faint
echo of spiritual powers from ancient times. In traditional societies the "invisible"
was an element as real, if not more real, than the data provided by the physical
senses. Every aspect of the individual and of the social life of the people belonging
to these societies was influenced by this experience.
On the one hand, from the perspective of Tradition, what today is usually re-
ferred to as "reality," was only a species of a much wider genus. On the other hand,
invisible realities were not automatically equated with the "supernatural." Tradi-
tionally speaking, the notion of "nature" did not correspond merely to the world of
bodies and of visible forms — the object of research of contemporary, secularized
science — but on the contrary, it corresponded essentially to part of an invisible real-
ity. The ancients had the sense of a dark netherworld, populated by obscure and
ambiguous forces of every kind (the demonic soul of nature, which is the essential
substratum of all nature 's forms and energies) that was opposed to the superrational
and sidereal brightness of a higher region. Moreover, the term nature traditionally
included everything that is merely human, since what is human cannot escape birth
and death, impermanence, dependence, and transformation, all of which character-
ize die inferior region. By definition, "that which is" has nothing to do with human
and temporal affairs or situations, as in the saying: "The race of men is one thing,
and the race of the gods is quite another." This saying retains its validity even though
people once thought that the reference to a superior, otherworldly domain could
effectively lead the integration and the purification of the human element in the
direction of the nonhuman dimension. Only the nonhuman dimension constituted the
essence and the goal of any truly traditional civilization.
The world of being and the world of becoming affect things, demons, and men.
Every hypostatic representation of these two regions, whether expressed in astral,
mythological, theological, or religious terms, reminded traditional man of the exist-
ence of the two states; it also represented a symbol to be resolved into an inner
experience, or at least in the foreboding of an inner experience. Thus, in Hindu, and
especially in Buddhist tradition, the idea of sarhsara — the current that dominates and
carries away every form of the inferior world—refers to an understanding of life as
blind yearning and as an irrational identification with impermanent aggregates. Like-
wise, Hellenism saw nature as the embodiment of the eternal state of "deprivation"
of those realities that, by virtue of having their own principle and cause outside of
themselves, flow and run away indefinitely (del peovra). In their becoming, these
realities reveal a primordial and radical lack of direction and purpose and a peren-
nial limitation. 1 According to these traditions, "matter" and "becoming" express the
reality that acts in a being as an obscure necessity or as an irrepressible indetermina-
tion, or as the inability to acquire a perfect form and to possess itself in a law. What
the Greeks called avarjKCciov and arteipov, the Orientals called adhnrma. Chris-
tian Scholastic theology shared similar views, since it considered the root of every
unredeemed nature in terms of cupiditas and of appetitus hinatus. In different ways,
the man of Tradition found in the experience of covetous identification, which ob-
scures and impairs "being," the secret cause of his existential predicament. The in-
cessant becoming and the perennial instability and contingency of the inferior region
appeared to the man of Tradition as the cosmic and symbolical materialization of
that predicament.
On the other hand, the experience of asceticism was regarded as the path lead-
ing to the other region, or to the world of "being, "or to what is no longer physical but
metaphysical. Asceticism traditionally consisted in values such as mastery over one-
self, self-discipline, autonomy, and the leading of a unified life. By "unified life" I
mean an existence that does not need to be spent in search of other things or people
in order to be complete and justified. The traditional representations of this other
region were solar symbols, heavenly regions, beings made of light or fire, islands,
and mountain peaks.
These were the two "natures." Tradition conceived the possibility of being bom
in either one, and also of the possibility of going from one birth to another, according
to the saying: "A man is a mortal god, and a god is an immortal man"" The world of
Tradition knew these two great poles of existence, as well as the paths leading from
one to the other. Tradition knew the existence of the physical world and the totality
of the forms, whether visible or underground, whether human or subhuman and de-
monic, of VTrepKOOjAta, a "world beyond this world." According to Tradition, the
former is the "fall" of the latter, and the latter represents the "liberation" of the
former. The traditional world believed spirituality to be something beyond life and
death. It held that mere physical existence, or "living," is meaningless unless it ap-
proximates the higher world or that which is "more than life," and unless one's high-
est ambition consists in participating in vnepKOopia and in obtaining an active and
final liberation from the bond represented by the human condition. According to
Tradition, every authority is fraudulent, every law is unjust and barbarous, every
institution is vain and ephemeral unless they are ordained to the superior principle of
Being, and unless they are derived from above and oriented "upward/'
The traditional world knew divine kingship. It knew the bridge between the two
worlds, namely, initiation; it knew the two great ways of approach to the transcen-
dent, namely, heroic action and contemplation; it knew the mediation, namely, rites
and faithfulness; it knew the social foundation, namely, the traditional law and the
caste system; and it knew the political earthly symbol, namely, the empire.
These are the foundations of the traditional hierarchy and civilization that have
been completely wiped out by the victorious "anthropocentric" civilization of our
contemporaries.
===================================================================
Regality
Every traditional civilization is characterized by the presence of beings who, by
virtue of their innate or acquired superiority over the human condition, em-
body within the temporal order the living and efficacious presence of a power that
comes from above. One of these types of beings is the pontifex, according to the
inner meaning of the word and according to the original value of the function that he
exercised. Pontifex means "builder of bridges," or of "paths" (pons, in ancient times,
also meant "path" 1 ) connecting the natural and the supernatural dimensions. More-
over, the pontifex was traditionally identified with the king (rex). Servius, a late
fourth-century commentator on Virgil's works, reports: "The custom of our ancestors
was that the king should also be pontifex and priest." A saying of the Nordic tradition
reads: "May our leader be our bridge." 1 Thus, real monarchs were the steadfast
personification of the life "beyond ordinary life." Beneficial spiritual influences used
to radiate upon the world of mortal beings from the mere presence of such men, from
their "pontifical" mediation, from the power of the rites that were rendered effica-
cious by their power, and from the institutions of which they were the center. These
influences permeated people's thoughts, intentions, and actions, ordering every as-
pect of their lives and constituting a lit foundation for luminous, spiritual realiza-
tions. These influences also made propitious the general conditions for prosperity,
health, and "good fortune."
In the world of Tradition the most important foundation of the authority and of
the right (ius) of kings and chiefs, and the reason why they were obeyed, feared, and
venerated, was essentially their transcendent and nonhuman quality. This quality
was not artificial, but a powerful reality to be feared. The more people acknowl-
edged the ontological rank of what was prior and superior to the visible and temporal
dimension, the more such beings were invested with a natural and absolute sover-
eign power. Traditional civilizations, unlike those of decadent and later times,
completely ignored the merely political dimension of supreme authority as well as
the idea that the roots of authority lay in mere strength, violence, or natural and
secular qualities such as intelligence, wisdom, physical courage, and a minute con-
cern for the collective material well-being. The roots of authority, on the contrary,
always had a metaphysical character. Likewise, the idea that the power to govern is
conferred on the chief by those whom he rules and that his authority is the expression
of the community and therefore subject to its decrees, was foreign to Tradition. It is
Zeus who bestows the θέμιστες on kings of divine origin, whereby θέμις, or 'law
from above," is very different from what constitutes νόμος, which is the political law
of the community. The root of every temporal power was spiritual authority, which
was almost a "divine nature disguised in human form/' According to an Indo-Euro-
pean view, the ruler is not "a mere mortal," but rather "a great deity standing in the
form of a man." 2 The Egyptian pharaoh was believed to be the manifestation of Ra
or of Horus. The kings of Alba and of Rome were supposed to be the incarnations of
Zeus; the Assyrian kings, of Baal; the Persian shahs, of the god of light. The Nordic-
Germanic princes were believed to derive from the race of Tiuz, of Odin, and of the
Aesir; and the Greek kings of the Doric-Achaean cycle were called διοτρεψέες or
διογενέες reference to their divine origin. Beyond the variety of mythical and
sacred expressions, the recurrent view of kingship is expressed in terms of an "im-
manent transcendence" that is present and active in the world. The king— who was
believed to be a sacred being and not a man— by virtue of his "being; 1 was already
the center and the apex of the community. In him was also the supernatural strength
that made his ritual actions efficacious. In these actions people could recognize the
earthly counterpart of supernatural "ruling," as well as the supernatural support of
Life in the world of Tradition, 3 For this reason, kingship was the supreme form of
government, and was believed to be in the natural order of things. It did not need
physical strength to assert itself, and when it did, it was only sporadically. It imposed
itself mainly and irresistibly through the spirit. In an ancient Indo-Aryan text it is
written: "The dignity a god enjoys on earth is splendid, but hard to achieve for the
weak. Only he who sets his soul on this objective, is worthy to become a king." 4 The
ruler appears as a "follower of the discipline that is practiced by those who are gods
among men. " s
In Tradition, kingship was often associated with the solar symbol. In the king,
people saw the same "glory" and "victory" proper to the sun and to the light (the
symbols of the superior nature), which every morning overcome darkness. "Every-
day he rises on Horus's throne, as king of the living, just like his father Ra [the sun]."
And also: 4t I have decreed that you must eternally rise asking of the North and of the
South on the seat of Horus, like the sun." These sayings from the ancient Egyptian
royal tradition bear a striking similarity to the sayings of the Persian tradition, in
which the king is believed to be "of the same stock as the gods": "He has the same
throne of Mithras and he rises with the Sun"; he is called particeps siderum and
"Lord of peace, salvation of mankind, eternal man, winner who rises in company of
the sun." In ancient Persia the consecrating formula was: "Thou art power, the force
of victory, and immortal . . .Made of gold, thou rise, at dawn, together with Indra and
with the sun. 1 " In the Indo-Aryan tradition, in reference to Rohita, who is the "con-
quering force" and who personifies an aspect of the radiance of the divine fire (Agni),
we find: "By coming forward, he [Agni] has created kingship in this world. He has
conferred on you [Rohita] majesty and victory over your enemies." 6 In some ancient
Roman representations, the god Sol (sun) presents the emperor with a sphere, which
is the symbol of universal dominion. Also, the expressions sol conservator and sol
dominus rornani imperii, which are employed to describe Rome's stability and ruling
power, refer to the brightness of the sun. The Last Roman profession of faith was
"solar," since the last representative of the ancient Roman tradition, the emperor
Julian, consecrated his dynasty, his birth, and royal condition to the brightness of the
sun, 7 which he considered to be a spiritual force radiating from the "higher worlds."
A reflection of the solar symbol was preserved up to the time of Ghibelline emper-
ors — one may still speak of a deltas solisin reference to Frederick II of Hohenstaufen.
This solar "glory" or "victory" in reference to kingship was not reduced to i
mere symbol, but rather denoted a metaphysical reality. Eventually it came to b<
identified with a nonhuman operating force, which the king did not possess in and b;
himself. One of the most characteristic symbolic expressions of this idea comes fron
the Zoroastiian tradition, wherein the hvareno {thε "glory" that the king possesses) is
a supernatural fire characterizing heavenly (and especially solar) entities that al-
lows the king to partake of immortality and that gives him witness through victory.
This victory must be understood in such a way that the two meanings, the first mys-
tical, the second military (material), are not mutually exclusive but rather comple-
mentary/ Among non-Persian people, this hvareno was later confused with "fate"
(TUX?]). With this meaning it reappeared in the Roman tradition in the form of the
"royal fate" that the Caesars ritually transmitted to each other, and in which the
people recognized an active, "triumphal" undertaking of the personified destiny of
the city (ru^r/ noXetoq), determined by the ritual of their appointment. The Roman
regal attribute felix must be referred to this context and to the possession of an
extranormal virtus. In the Vedic tradition we find a parallel notion: Agni-Vaishvanara
is conceived as a spiritual fire that leads the conquering kings to victory.
In ancient Egypt the king was not called merely "Horus," but "fighting Horus"
(Hor aha), to designate the victorious and glorious character of the solar principle
present in the monarch. The Egyptian pharaoh, who was believed to descend from
the gods, was "enthroned" as one of them, and later on in his life he was periodically
reconfirmed in his role through rituals that reproduced the victory of the solar god
Horus overTyphon-Set, a demon from the netherworld. L ' These rites were thought lo
have such a power as to evoke the "force" and the "life" that supematurally encom-
passed the king's person. The hieroglyphic for "force" (uns) is the scepter handled
by gods and kings alike. In the oldest texts, the scepter is portrayed as the zigzag bolt
of lightning. The regal "force" thus appears as a manifestation of the dazzling, heav-
enly force. The combination of signs represented the concept of "life-force" (anshus),
form a word for "fiery milk," which is the nourishment of the immortals. This word is
not without relation to uraeus, the divine flame, at times life-giving, at other times
dangerously destructive, which crowns the head of the Egyptian king in the shape of
a serpent.
In this traditional formulation, the various elements converge in the idea of a
nonterrestrial power or fluid (su). This power consecrates and gives witness to the
solar, triumphant nature of the king, and "gushes" forth from one king to the other,
thus guaranteeing the uninterrupted and "golden" sequence in the divine lineage,
which is legitimately appointed to the task of regere. Interestingly enough, the theme
of "glory" as a divine attribute is found even in Christianity, and according to mysti-
cal theology the beatific vision takes place within the "glory of God." Christian ico-
nography used to portray this glory as a halo around the person's head, thus visibly
representing the meaning of the Egyptian uraeus and of the glowing crown of the
Persian and Roman solar kings.
According to a Far Eastern tradition, the king, as a "son of heaven" who is
believed to have nonhuman origins, enjoys the "mandate of heaven" (lien ming),
which implies the idea of a real and supernatural force. Tins force that comes "from
heaven," according lo Lao-tzu, acts without acting (wei vu wei) through an immate-
rial presence, or by virtue of just being present. 10 It is as invisible as the wind, and yet
its actions are as ineluctable as the forces of nature. When this power is unleashed,
the forces of common men, according to Meng-tzu, bend under it as blades of grass
under the wind. 11 Concerning wu wei, a text says:
By its thickness and substantiality, sincerity equals earth; and by its
height and splendor it equals heaven. Its extent and duration are with-
out limit. He who possesses this sincerity, without showing himself, he
will shine forth, without moving he will renovate others; without acting,
he will perfect them. 12
Only such a man, "is able to harmonize the opposing strands of human society, to
establish and to maintain moral order in the country".
Established in this force or "virtue," the Chinese monarch (wang) performed the
supreme role of a center, or of a third power between heaven and earth. The common
assumption was that the fortunes and misfortunes of the kingdom, as well as the moral
qualities of his subjects (it is the ''virtue" in relation to the "being" of the monarch,
and not his "actions," that carries positive or negative influences on them), secretly
depended on the monarch's behavior. The central role exercised by the king presup-
posed that the king maintained the aforesaid "triumphal" inner way of being. In this
context, the meaning of the famous saying, "Immutability in the middle," may corre-
spond to the doctrine according to which, tl in the immutability of the middle, the vir-
tue of heaven is manifested." 14 If this principle was implemented as a general rule,
nothing could have changed the arranged course of human events or those of the state. 15
In general, the fact that the king's or chief's primary and essential function con-
sisted in performing those ritual and sacrificial actions that constituted the center of
gravity of life is a recurrent idea in a vast cycle of traditional civilizations, from pre-
Columbian Peru to the Far East, and including Greek and Roman cities. This idea
confirms the inseparability of royal office from priestly or pontifical office. Accord-
ing to Aristotle, "the kings enjoy their office by virtue of being the officiating priests
at their community's worship.' Mf, The first duty of the Spartan kings was to perform
sacrifices, and the same could be said about the first kings of Rome and of many
rulers during the imperial period. The king, empowered with a nonterrestrial force
with its roots in something that is "more than life," naturally appeared as one who
could eminently actualize the power of the rites and open the way leading to the
superior world. Thus, in those traditional forms of civilization in which there was a
separate priestly class, the king, because of his original dignity and function, be-
longed to this class and was its true leader. In addition to early Rome, this situation
was found both in ancient Egypt (in order to make the rites efficacious, the pharaoh
repeated daily the prayer that was believed to renew the divine force in his person)
and in Iran, where, as Xenophon recalls, 17 the king, who according to his function
was considered the image of the god of Light on earth, belonged to the caste of Magi
and was its leader. On the other hand, if among certain people there was the custom
of deposing and even of killing the chief when an accident or a catastrophe oc-
curred for this seemed to signify a decrease in the mystical force of "good fortune"
that gave one the right to be chief "—this custom gives witness to the same order of
ideas, although in the form of a superstitious degeneration. In the Nordic racial stocks
up to the time of the Goths, and notwithstanding the principle of royal sacredness
(the king was considered as an Aesir and as a demigod who wins in battle thanks to
the power of his "good fortune"), an inauspicious event was understood not so much
as the absence of the mystical power of "fortune" abiding in the king, but rather as
the consequence of something that the king, as a mortal man, had done, thus compro-
mising the objective effectiveness of his power. It was believed, for instance, that
the consequence for failing to implement the fundamental Aryan virtue of always
telling the truth, and thus being stained by lies, caused the "glory: 1 or the mystical
efficacious virtue, to abandon the ancient Iranian king, Yima. 1 " All the way up \o the
Carolingian Middle Ages and within Christianity itself, local councils of bishops were
at times summoned in order to investigate what misdeed perpetrated by a represen-
tative of the temporal or ecclesiastical authority could have caused a given calamity.
These are the last echoes of the abovementioned idea.
The monarch was required to retain the symbolic and solar dignity of invictus
(sol invictus, ήλιος ανίκητος), as well as the state of inner equilibrium that corre-
sponds to the Chinese notion of "immutability in the middle"; otherwise the force
and its prerogatives would be transferred to another person who could prove worthy
of it. I will mention in this context a case in which the concept of ""victory" became a
focal point of various meanings. There is an interesting ancient saga of Nemi's King
of the Woods, whose royal and priestly office was supposed to be conferred on the
person capable of catching him by surprise and slaying him. J. G. Frazer tracked
down numerous traditions of the same kind all over the world.
In this context, the physical combat aspect of the trial, if it had to occur, is only
the materialistic transposition of some higher meaning, and it must be related to the
general view of "divine judgments" (more on which later). Concerning the deepest
meaning of the legend of Nemi's king-priest, it must be remembered that according
to Tradition, only a "fugitive slave" (esoterically speaking, a being who had become
free from the bonds of his lower nature), armed with a branch torn off a sacred oak,
had the right to compete with the Rex Nemorensis (King of the Woods). The oak is
the equivalent of the "Tree of the World," which in other traditions is frequently
adopted as a symbol designating the primordial life-force and the power of victory. 20
This means that only a being who has succeeded in partaking of this force may
aspire to take the place of the Rex Nemorensis. Concerning this office, it must be
observed that the oak and the woods, of which Nemi's priest-king was rex, were
related to Diana. In turn, Diana was the "bride" of the king of the woods. In some
ancient, eastern Mediterranean traditions, the great goddesses were often symbol-
ized by sacred trees. From the Hellenic myth of the Hesperides, to the Nordic myth
of the goddess Idun, and to the Gaelic myth of Magh-Mell, which was the residence
of very beautiful goddesses and of the "Tree of Victory," it is possible to notice
traditional symbolic connections between women or goddesses, forces of life, im-
mortality, wisdom, and trees.
Concerning the Rex Nemorensis, we can recognize in the symbols employed
that the notion of kingship derives from having married or possessed the mystical
force of "life," of transcendent wisdom and immortality that is personified both by
the goddess and by the tree. 21 Nemi's saga, therefore, incorporates the general sym-
bol, which is found in many other myths and traditional Legends, of a winner or of a
hero who possesses a woman or a goddess. The goddess appears in other traditions
either as a guardian of the fruits of immortality (see the female figures in relation to
the symbolical tree in the myths of Heracles, Jason, Gilgamesh, and so on), or as a
personification of the occult force of the world, of life and of nonhuman knowledge,
or as the embodiment of the principle of sovereignty (the knight or the unknown hero
of the legend, who becomes king after taking as his bride a mysterious princess)."
Some of the ancient traditions about a female source of royal power 23 may also
be interpreted in this fashion; their meaning, in that case, is exactly opposite to
gynaecocracy, which will be discussed later. As far as the tree is concerned, interest-
ingly enough, even in some medieval legends it is related to the imperial ideal; the
last emperor, before dying, will hang the scepter, the crown, and the shield in the
"Dry Tree," which is usually located in the symbolical region of "Prester John," just
Like the dying Roland hung his unbreakable sword in the tree. This is yet another
convergence of symbolical contents, for Frazer has shown the relationship existing
between the branch that the fugitive slave must break off Nemi's sacred oak in order
to fight with Nemi's king and the branch Aeneas carried to descend, while alive, into
the invisible dimension. One of the gifts that Emperor Frederick II received from the
mysterious Prester John was a ring that renders invisible and victorious the one who
wears it. Invisibility, in this context, refers to the access to the invisible realm and to
the achievement of immortality; in Greek traditions the hero's invisibility is often
synonymous with his becoming immortal.
This was the case of Siegfried in the Niebelungen (6), who through the same
symbolic virtue of becoming invisible, subjugates and marries the divine woman
Brynhild. Brynhild, just like Siegfried in the Siegdrifumal I (4-6), is the one who be-
stows on the heroes who "awaken" her the formulas of wisdom and of victory cont-
ained in the runes.
Remnants of traditions, in which we find the themes contained in the ancient
saga of the King of the Woods, last until shortly beyond the end of the Middle Ages.
They are always associated with the old idea, according to which a legitimate king is
capable of manifesting in specific, concrete and almost experimental ways, the signs
of his supernatural nature. The following is just one example: prior to the Hundred
Years War, Venice asked Philip of Valois to demonstrate his actual right to be king
in one of the following ways. The first way, victory over a contender whom Philip
was expected to fight to the death in an enclosed area, reminds us of the Rex
Nemorensis and of the mystical testimony inherent in every victory. 24 As far as the
other examples are concerned, we read in a text dating back to those times:
If Philip of Valois is, as he affirms, the true king of France, Let him
prove the fact by exposing himself to hungry lions; for lions never at-
tack a true king; or let him perform the miraculous healing of the sick,
as all other true kings are wont to do. If he should fail, he would own
himself to be unworthy of the kingdom. 25
A supernatural power, manifested through a victory or through a thaumaturgical
virtue, even in times like Philip's, which are no longer primordial times, is thus in-
separably connected with the traditional idea of real and legitimate kingship. 26 Aside
from the factual adequacy of single individuals to the principle and to the function of
kingship, what remains is the view that "what has led people to venerate so many
kings were mainly the divine virtues and powers, which descended on the kings
alone, and not on other men as well." Joseph de Maistre wrote: 27
God makes kings in the literal sense. He prepares royal races; maturing
them under a cloud which conceals their origin. They appear at. length
crowned with glory and honor; they take their places; and this is the
most certain sign of their legitimacy. The truth is that they arise as it
were of themselves, without violence on their part, and without marked
deliberation on the other: it is a species of magnificent tranquillity, not
easy to express. Legitimate usurpation would seem to me to be the
most appropriate expression (if not too bold), to characterize these kinds
of origins, which time hastens to consecrate. 28
=================================================================
Polar Symbolism;
the Lord of Peace and Justice
It is possible to connect the integral and original understanding of the regal func-
tion with a further cycle of symbols and myths that point back in the same one
direction through their various representations and analogical transpositions. !
As a starting point, we may consider the Hindu notion of the cakravartin, or
"universal king." The cakravaitin may be considered the archetype of the regal func-
tion of which various kings represent more or less complete images or even particu-
lar expressions whenever they conform to the traditional principle. Cakravartin liter-
ally means "lord 1 ' or "spinner of the wheel/' This notion brings us back again to the
idea of a center that corresponds also to an inner state, to a way of being, or better
yet, to the way of Being.
Actually the wheel also symbolizes samsara or the stream of becoming (the
Hellenes called it κύκλος της γενέσεως, the "wheel of generation," or κύκλος ανάγκης,
"the wheel of Fate"). Its motionless center signifies the spiritual stability
inherent in those who are not affected by this stream and who can organize and
subject to a higher principle the energies and the activities connected to the inferior
nature. Then the cakravartin appears as the dharmaraja, the "Lord of the Law," or
the "Lord of the Wheel of the Law," 2 According to Confucius: "The practice of gov-
ernment by means of virtue may be compared to the polestar, which the multitudi-
nous stars pay homage to while it stays in its place." 3 Hence the meaning of the
concept of "revolution," which is the motion occurring around an "unmoved mover/ 1
though in our modern day and age it has become synonymous with subversion.
In this sense royalty assumes the value of a "pole," by referring to a general
traditional symbolism. We may recall here, besides Midgard (the heavenly "middle
abode" described in Nordic traditions), Plato's reference to the place where Zeus
holds counsel with the gods in order to reach a decision concerning the fate of Atlantis:
"He accordingly summoned all the gods to his own most glorious abode, which stands
at the center of the universe and looks out over the whole realm of change." 4 The
abovementioned notion of cakravartin is also connected to a cycle of enigmatic tra-
ditions concerning the real existence of a "center of the world" that exercises this
supreme function here on earth. Some fundamental symbols of regality had origi-
nally a close relationship with these ideas. One of these symbols was the scepter, the
main function of which is analogically related to the "axis of the world." 5 Another
symbol is the throne, an "elevated" place; sitting still on the throne evokes, in addi-
tion to the meaning of stability connected to the "pole" and to the "unmoved mover,"
the corresponding inner and metaphysica I meanings. Considering the correspondence
that was originally believed to exist between the nature of the royal man and the
nature produced by initiation, in the classical Mysteries we find a ritual consisting of
sitting still on a throne. This ritual appears to have been very important since it was
sometimes equated with initiation itself. The term τεθρονισμένος, enthroned, is of-
ten synonymous with τετελεσμένος, "initiate." 6 In fact, in some instances, in the
course of an initiation the θρονισμός, or royal enthronement, preceded the experi-
ence of becoming one with the god.
The same symbolism is embodied in the ziggurat, the Assyrian-Babylonian ter-
raced pyramid, as well as in the master plan of the capital of the Persian kings (as in
Ecbatana) and in the ideal image of the cakravartin 's royal palace. In these places
we find the architectural expression of the cosmic order complete in its hierarchy
and in its dependence upon an unmoved center. From a spatial perspective this cen-
ter corresponded, within the building itself, to the king's throne. Similar to Hellas, in
India we find forms of initiation that employ the ritual of the so-called mandala.
These forms dramatize the gradual ascent of the initiate from the profane and de-
monic space to a sacred space, until he reaches a center. A fundamental ritual sym-
bolizing this journey is called mukatabhisaka and it consists in being crowned or in
being given a tiara; he who reaches the "center" of the mandala is crowned as king
because he is now believed to be above the interplay of the forces at work in the
inferior nature, 7 It is interesting that the ziggurat, the sacred building towering
above the city-state of which it was the center, was called "cornerstone" in Babylon
and "link between heaven and earth" in Lhasa; 8 the theme of the "rock" and of the
"bridge" is pretty much summed up in the Far Eastern expression: "third power be-
tween Heaven and Earth."
The importance of these traces and correlations should not be overlooked. More-
over, "stability" has the same double dimension; it is at the center of the Indo-Aryan
formula for consecration of the kings:
Remain steady and unwavering ... Do not give in. Be strong like a
mountain. Stay still like the sky and the earth and retain control of power
at all times. The sky, the earth and the mountains are unmoved as un-
moved is the world of living beings and this king of men.
In the formulas of the Egyptian royalty, stability appears as an essential attribute that
complements the attribute of "power-life" already present in the sovereign. And just
as the attribute of "vital-force," the correspondence of which with a secret fire has
already been emphasized, "stability" too has a heavenly counterpart. Its hieroglyphic,
djed, conveys the stability of the "solar gods resting on pillars or on light beams." 10
These examples bring us back to the system of initiations, since they are much more
than abstract ideas; like "power" and "vital-force"; "stability" too, according to the
Egyptian tradition, is simultaneously an inner state of being and an energy, a virtus
that flows from one king to the next, and which sustains them in a supernatural way.
Moreover, the "Olympian" attribute and the attribute of "peace" are connected
to the condition of "stability" in the esoteric sense of the word. Kings "who derive
their power from the supreme god and who have received victory at his hands," are
"lighthouses of peace in the storm."" After "glory," centrality ("polarity"), and sta-
bility, peace is one of the fundamental attributes of regality that has been preserved
until relatively recent times. Dante talked about the imperator pacificus, a title pre-
viously bestowed on Charlemagne. Obviously, this is not the profane and social peace
pursued by a political government — a kind of peace that is at most an external con-
sequence — but rather an inner and positive peace, which should not be divorced
from the "triumphal" element. This peace does not convey the notion of cessation,
but rather that of the highest degree of perfection of a pure, inner and withdrawn
activity. It is a calm that reveals the supernatural.
According to Confucius a man destined to be a ruler (the "virtuous"), unlike ordi-
nary men, "rests in rectitude and is stable and unperturbed"; "the men of affairs enjoy
life, but the virtuous prolongs it." 12 Hence that great calm that conveys the feeling of
an irresistible superiority and terrifies and disarms the adversary without a fight. This
greatness immediately evokes the feeling of a transcendent force that is already mas-
tered and ready to spring forward; or the marvelous and yet frightful sense of the
numeric The pax romana et augusta, which is connected to the transcendent sense of
the imperium, may be considered one of the several expressions of these meanings in
the context of a universal historical realization. Conversely, the ethos of superiority
over the world, of dominating calm and of imperturbability combined with readiness
for absolute command, which has remained the characteristic of various aristocratic
types even after the secularization of nobility, must be considered an echo of that ele-
ment that was originally the regal, spiritual, and transcendent element.
The cakravartin, besides being the ''Lord of Peace," is "Lord of the Law" (or
cosmic order, rta) and "Lord of Justice" (dharmaraja). "Peace" and "justice" are two
more fundamental attributes of royalty that have been preserved in Western civili-
zation until the time of the Hohenstaufens and Dante, even though the political as-
pect predominated over the higher meaning presupposing it. u Moreover, these at-
tributes were also found in the mysterious figure of Melchizedek, king of Salem, one
of the many representations of the function of the "universal king." Guenon has pointed
out that in Hebrew, mekki-tsedeq means "king of justice," while Salem, of which he
is king, is not a city, but rather "peace," at least according to Paul's exegesis. Tra-
dition upholds the superiority of Melchizedeks royal priesthood over Abraham's. It
is not without a deep reason that Melchizedek was present in the enigmatic medi-
eval allegory of the "three rings," and that he declared that neither Christianity nor
Islam know any longer which is the true religion; moreover, the "royal religion of
Melchizedek" was often upheld by the Ghibelline ideology in the struggle against
the Church.
At this level, the expression "king of justice" is the equivalent of the previously
mentioned dharmaraja, designating the "universal king. 1 ' From this expression we
may gather that in this context, "justice" and "peace" do not have a secular meaning.
In fact, dharma in Sanskrit also means "proper nature of," or the law typical of a
certain being; the correct reference concerns the particular primordial legislation
that hierarchically orders, in a system oriented upwards, every function and form of
life according to the nature of every being (svadhamia), or "according to justice and
truth." Such a notion of justice is also characteristic of the Platonic view of the state;
this view, rather than an abstract "Utopian" model, should be regarded in many as-
pects as an echo of traditional orientations from an even more distant past. In Plato
the idea of justice (ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ), of which the state should be the embodiment, is
closely related to that of ΟΙΚΕΙΟΠΡΑΓΙΑ or cuique suum, that is, with the principle
according to which everybody should fulfill the function typical of his or her own
nature. Thus the "king of justice" is also the primordial legislator, or he who insti-
tuted the castes, assigned the offices, and established the rites; or, in other words, he
who determined the ethical and sacred system that was called dharmanga in Aryan
India, and that in other traditions was the local ritual system that determined the
norms for regulating individual and collective life.
This presupposes that the royal condition enjoys a higher power of knowledge.
The capability to deeply and perfectly understand the primordial laws of human
beings is the basis of authority and of command in the Far East, The Mazdean royal
"glory" (hvorra-i-kayani) is also the virtue of a supernatural intellect. And while
according to Plato 16 the philosophers (οι σοφοί) should be at the top of the hierarchy
of the true state, for him the abovementioned traditional idea takes on an even more
specific form. For Plato, wisdom or "philosophy" is understood as the knowledge of
"that which is," rather than the knowledge of illusory visible forms. The philosopher
is one who can effectively formulate laws conforming to justice precisely because
he has the direct knowledge of that which is supremely real and normative. The
conclusion Plato draws is:
Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have
the spirit and power of philosophers, and political greatness and wis-
dom meet in one, and these commoner natures who pursue either to the
exclusion of the other are compelled to stand aside, cities will never
have rest from their evils, nor the human race itself. 17
===================================================================
