Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
(ENE (jUENON
SI)Ir<I
;\ l' 'J' l-1
i\ N 1)
rrr lVl.P
l < > vv1:
'Tmnslntccl b)'
Henry D. Fohr
crfitetf uy
Samuel D. h1hr
,.,.
Sophia Perennis
Ghent, NY
CONTENTS
Authori ry 6 Hierarchy 7
AUTHORITY
& HIERARCHY
THROLIG l lOVT the various ages of history, and even well
before what are conventionnllr known as historical times, we find
(as fnr ns the concordant evidence of oral and written tradition per
mits) 1 clues of a freq uent opposition between the representatives of
two powers, one :;piritual nnd the other temporal. This opposition
cnn be discerned despite the special forms sometimes nssumed by
these two powers in <lthlpting to different circumstances of time and
pl<lCe. This does not mean however that the opposition and the
struggles it engendt..TS are 'as old as the world', as this much-abused
expression would imply. Such would be a manifest exaggeration, for
all traditions tench that in order for this opposition to arise human
ity had to reach a phase quite distant from the pure primordial spir
ituality. Besides, these two powers di d not originally exist as
sep<trate functions exercised by different individuals. On the con
t rary, they were two indivisible aspects of the common principle
from which they both proceeded , linked indissolubly in the unity of
a synthesis that W<lS at once superior and anterior to their distinc
tion. Hindu doctrine expresses exactly this when it teaches that i n
the beginning there W<lS only one caste. The name Hnmsn given to
this single primordi<li caste ind icates spirituality of a veq' high
l. In the beginning, tht''<' traditions wert always oral, and sometimes, a s with
th, t:,lts, n.:ver wrilltn dnwn: th.:ir concordance proves their common origin and
thus th.:ir connection l\'ilh a primordial trnclition, as well as the strict fidelity of the
oral transmission th< m;inlt:n<llf(<' of which is ont> of tlw primary functions of the
spiritu<ll authority.
, lifl'? The)' on the other hnnd, carritcl the \Vay ( 1ho) in their soul and were Autono
mous Individuals; as such, they saw the perfections of their weaknesses' (Tao Te
(As has been pointed out elsewhere (The Ki11g of rile World, ..:hap. 7, n8, and
.:hap. 9, n 21, and The Multiple Swtes of tlw Bci11g, chap. 6, n6), Gu,lnon relitd for
his texts from the Chinese tradition on a rendtring that diverges somewhat from
any current English version. Eo.)
3. Tire Crisis ofthe Modem \l'orld, chap. 6. On the principle of the institution of
castt.'S, see frllrodrtctionto tile Study of tire l-li11dll /)octrille. pt. 3, chap. 6.
>I< 9
1.
annihilated the rebd Kshatriyas at a time wh en the ano:stors of th.: HindtiS still
11
all), the true pri m o rdial tradition. This symbolism could give rise to
many further rellect ions that would be out of place here, but which
we will perhaps expl<lin on another occasion.6
It is not our intention here to trace everything back to its origins,
;md all our examples will be drawn from epochs much closer to us,
corresponding to what we may call the last part of the Kali-Yuga.
This is a time acce!'!'ible to ord i na ry history since i t begins precisely
in the sixth century before t h e Christian era. It was nonetheless nec
essary to give this brief summary of the elements of the whole of
traditional h isto r y without which the rest would only be under
s t o o d i mperfect l ) !'or one cannot really understand any epoch
except by assigning it its proper pl<1ce in the whole of vhich it is but
one element; it is thus, <1S we have recently shown, that the particu
l<lr characteristics of the modern age can only be explained if one
c o nsiders it to be the final phase of the Kali-Yuga.7 We are fully
aware that this S) nt he t ic po i n t of view is entirely contrary to the
s piri t of analysis that governs the development of'profane' science,
the only one known to most of our contemporaries, yet it is all the
more essential to clearly a ffi rm this point of view because it is very
much misunderstood; i t is moreover the o n l y one that can be
n d o pted by all those who wish to remain in strict conformity with
true traditional orthodoxy, and not make any concession to the
modern spirit which, as we cannot repeat often enough, is one with
the spirit of the anti-tradition itself.
No doubt, the pre vniling te ndency at present is to treat the facts
or 1 he most rem ott: pt:riod of history, such as those to which we have
just alluded, a s 'kcnda ry', or even as 'mythical'; an d the same
a pplies to other far less ancient facts-some of which will concern
us in what follows-since they are inaccessible to the means of
,
',
'
6. It should also bt IH>lt'd that these two symbols-the wild boar and the bear
do 1101 necessnril)' appt'<ll' in con1bat with e.-.ch other or in opposition. They can
also sometimes repr<''<'llt tht spiritual and temporal powers, or the two castes of
tht' I )ruids and tlw f\nihb. in t hdr "''rmal a:1d har!llonious relationship. This is
tsptcially dear in thi. k,nd of l\krlin and Arthur, who are in fact the boar and the
hear. w.., shall exph1in this point of S)'mholism in another study. [See The Wild
llo;1r and tht lkar', in .\)'111/c>/.< 4Stcrrd Sci!'ncc, chap. 24. Eo.l
'
7. S<'e
>I
13
to maintain this reserve. This having been said, we think that the
subject of our study can now be approached directly without tarry
ing further over these preliminary observations, which were meant
only to define as clearly as possible the spirit in which we write and
also the spirit in which this study should be read if one really wishes
to understand its meaning.
FUNCTIONS
OF PRIESTHOOD
& RoYALTY
THE opposition between the spiritual a n d temporal
powers is fou.nd in one form or another among almost all peoples.
This is not surprising since it corresponds to a general law of human
history, rel.ating moreover to the system of 'cyclical laws' that we
have frequently <liluded t o throughout our works. In the most
ancient periods this opposition is usually fou n d in traditional
accounts expressed in symbolic form , as in the case of the Celts
mentioned above; but it is not this aspect of the question that we
propose especially to develop here. For the moment we shall restrict
ourselves to two hisloricnl examples, one taken from the East and
the other from the \\'est. In India the antagonism between the spiri
tual and the temporal is found in the form of a rivalry between the
Brahmins and the l<sh<ltri)'as (about which we shall recall some epi
sodes presently); in medieval Europe it appears especially in the so
called dispute between the priesthood and the empire, even though
it had other more particular aspects that were equally characteris
'
tic, as we shall see in what follows. It is only too easy to point out
I. Wt c.:ould ensily lind 111:111)' lllclrt' t'xampks, especially in Ihe East: in China the
sJrul<'s that took pi;Kc' in <:ert;lin epochs between Taoists and Confucianists,
whos.: rt'spec.:Jive doCir incs .ll'c linkcd lo Ihe domains of the two powers, as we shall
cxpl.1 in (;uer; ;111d i n 'I iht'l. Jlw lwst ilily hown inilially by lhe kings toward Lama
islll, whkh t'nded nol only i n lhe latter 's triumph, but in the complete absorption
nf Jht' lt'lll('Ora( p011'L'J' ll'ilhill lht 'lhtO<:riltic' OrganizatiOn th at Still txiStS today.
!This \\'\ll'k was wrilk'n in1y2g.
En. I
that the same struggle continues to this day, although due to the dis
order of the modern world and the 'mingling of castes' it is compli
cated by heterogeneous elements that may sometimes conceal it
from the notice of a superficial observer.
Jt is not that an)10ne has contested (at least generally speaking and
notwithstanding certain extreme cases) the fact that each of these
two powers, which we can call sacerdotal power and roy<11 power, for
such are their true traditional names, had its own purpose and its
own domain; in the final analysis, the dispute usual!)' bears on!)' on
the question of the hierarchical relationships that should exist
between them. It is a question of a struggle for supremacy, a struggle
invariably arising in the same manner: having first been subject to
the spiritual authority, warriors, the holders of the temporal power,
revolt against this authority and declare themselves independent of
all superior power, even trying to subordinate to themselves the
spiritual authority that they had originally recognized as the source
of their own power, and finally seeking to turn the spiritual author
ity to the service of their own domination. This alone should suffice
to show that in such a revolt there must be a reversal of normal rela
tionships; but the point becomes all the more clear when these rela
tionships are considered, not as between two more or less clearly
defined social functions naturally tending to encroach upon one
another, but as between two separate domains in which these func
tions are respectively exercised. It i s in fact t h e relationships
between these domains that must logically determine those between
the corresponding powers.
However, before tackling these considerations directly, we must
make some remarks that will facilitate their comprehension by pre
cisely defining certain terms which will come up often in our discus
sion. This is all the more necessary in view of the fact that in current
usage these terms have taken on quite vague meanings sometimes
far removed from their original ones. First of all, if we speak of two
powers, and if we do so in cases where it becomes necessary for var
ious reasons to maintain a certain external symmetry between them,
we prefer to use the word 'authority' rather than the word 'power'
for the spiritual order. The word 'power' can then be reserved for the
temporal order, to which it is better suited when taken in its strictest
sense. In fact, the word 'power' almost inevitably evokes the idea of
strength or force, and above all the idea of a material force,2 a force
which manifests itself visibly and outwardly and afflrms itself by the
use of external means, for such means indeed characterize the tem
poral power by very definition.3 On the contrary, spiritual author
ity, interior in essence, is affirmed only by itself, independently of
any sensible support, and operates as i t were invisibly. If we can
speak in this context of strength or force, it is only by analogical
transposition, and, at least in the case of a spiritual authority-in its
purest state so to speak-it must be understood that it is an entirely
intellectual strength vvhose name is 'wisdom' and whose only force
is th<1t of truth.4
The expressions sacerdotal power and royal power, which we
have just i n troduced, call for even more explanation here. What
exactly is meant by priesthood and royalty? To begin with the latter,
we can say that the royal function includes everything that in the
social order constitutes what is properly referred to as the 'govern
ment'; and this is so even if the government does not take the form
of a m011<1rchy. This function belongs properly to the entire Ksha
triya caste, for the king is no more than the first among them; it is in
a way twofold: administrative and judicial on the one hand, and
m i l i tary on the other. With regard to its regulatory and stabilizing
function it must ensure the maintenance of internal order, and with
regard to its function of protecting the social org<nism i t must
maintain outward order. These two constituent elements of the
royal power are symbolized i n diverse traditions respectively by the
scales and the sword. We see from this that royal power is indeed
2. One could moiTOvt'r ;1lso include in this notion the for<:t' of will, which is not
'm;Htrial' in the strict sense of the \\'Ord but whi<.:h for us is still of the same order
sin.;e it is t:sstntially oriented toward action.
k;.l111tm,
which
dtnotes 'force'.
4. In Hebrew, the distinction indkattd here is marktd by the use of roots that
corrt-spond with each other but differ by tht prtse111:e of the letters mp!t and
kopll
Sud1 also ar(' the roars /we and flak, co11 and ka11, th e first forms designating the
attributions of the sacerdotal power, the second those of the ro)al J'O"'<'r (see Tile
Ki11:;: c( til. World. chap. o).
t8
Vcdo tht Brahmins arc represt'ntcd as corrtsponding to the mouth of Purmlw con
sidertd as 'Univers;l tan', whc:reas the Kshatriyas correspond to his anns bec;ust'
tl1tir functions relate essentially to action.
19
olhtr, has sometime iv<'ll ris, ll'ithin the priesthood itself to two divisions, of
f
of the two great divisions com
which a cler example> b found in Tibet: 'The irst
prises thoe who p1'<'adl ohtrvance 11f moral precepts and the monastic rule as the
1man of salvation, and the sccond nll who prefer a purely inteUectual method (the
"direct path"), liberatin tht nne who follows it from all laws whatsoever. lt i s
eS<'Illi<l that the folln11-..r o f tht'S<' two systems b e kept strictly separate from each
othcr. The monks attached In the fi rst system rarely fail to recognize that the virtu
< HIS
tion for a higher p;ll h. A for the; partis;ms of the stcond S)1Stem, all without excep
tion fullr bdicve in the hcndiccnt d'k<:ts of strict fidelit)' tO the moral laws and also
to tlws.: tkcrced espci;lll for tht mtmhers of the Sangha (Buddhist community).
,\l ,r.:owr. all are un;mimnus in ckclaring that tht first of the two methods is more
rt'<:on1mendable for tlk m<iorit of ptople' (Alexandra David-Nee!, 'Le Thibct
;-,I)'Sii<l u<", in the /?1'1'11<' de Pori>. Febn1<1ry 15. 19!8). This passage seemed worth
quotin in full even thnuh <:crtain of its cxpr<ssions call for some reservations: for
t 11'<1
othtr; hut on the othn h.tnd. the rok of contingent means, which is that of rites
and nbscr\'anas of all nrts and thtir subordination with respect to the purely
intdk<:tual path, art d,lincd here quite cit'arl)' nnd in a manner conforming strictly
to the ttachings of the l lindu dodrinc t>n the same subject.
tual many things that are in our view of a purely temporal and human order. But
this must not prewnt u s from acknowledging that thl'rt: are in his hook very inter
esting considerations that are in many respects true.
The distinction made in Catholicism between the 'teaching Church' and the
'Church taught' ought precist'l)' to be one between 'those who know' and 'those
who believe', but though this is so in principle, in the present state of things is it still
so in fact? We will content oursl'lws with raising this qut>stion, as it is not for us to
resolve it, and besides, we have not the means to do so. Indeed, though many an
indication leads us to fear that the reply can onI)' be neg;Hive, we l.ty no claim to an
exhaustive knowledge of the present organization of the Catholic church, and can
onl)' express the wish that there lllrt)' still exist within this Church a center where
not only the 'letter' but also the 'spirit' of the traditional doctrine is integral!)'
conserved.
-I 2 1
<J. We hav;; had ocotsion to point out in ;mother st udy a case that illustr;ttes
what we are saying here: whtrea the Brahmins h ave nlways applitd themselves
<tlmost exdusivdy, nt least for their pt'rsonal practict', to the immediate realization
of linal 'Deliwrance', the Kshatriyas developed by p re ference the stttd)' of condi
tioned and transitory state:> corrtsponding to the various stagt'S of the two 'ways of
tht nwnifested lfOrlcl', called tlet'n-ylina and pitri-)'lilla (Man 11/1(1 His /Jecuming
10. In India, such is the case of the ltiluisas and the f>11rritws. whtrcas the studr
of tlw l'eda pro perl y concerns the Brahmins bt'Gt use it is the principle uf :all sacred
kllowletlgt. Besides, as we shall set later, the distinction between tht objects of
tudr s u it abl<c' for the two castes corresponds in a general way to that of the two
parts nf till' traditilHl called i n the Hindu doctrine sltmti <llld smriti.
I I . \Vt' ;are still speaking of tlw Brahmins ;md Kslwtri yas taken ;IS a whole. If
th tre are individual exceptions, they do not in any way affect tht principle of caste
itsdf. proving on I)' that the application of this principle can only be "pproximatt',
t'Spccially undtr the conditions of the Kali- Y11g11.
>I<
23
from tht pritsts or from tht mil i ta r)' dass, since the military class had eminence
honour becaust of v;linur, and tht priest because of wisdom. But he who was
<ppninttd from tlw n 1i l i t1ry das ll'as nt once mnde one of the pri ests nnd a partic
ip.ml in their philnophy, ll'hkh, f\1r the most part, is veiled in myths and in words
mnwining dim rdkxiuns and adumbrations of the truth. . . .' ('Isis and Osiris', in
1'/utarclt: Mom/in, vnl. ,._ tr. Frank Cok Babbitt !Cambridge: Harvard University
Prcss, 1993 l, par. 9, p .' ). It is In be noted that the end of this passage contains a very
t':q>lidt indkation of the douhlt nw:ming of the word 'revelation' (cf. The King of
tlte I \n/if, ch a p. 4. n )l.
1 5. I t should be added that in India the third caste, that of the Vaishyas, whose
proper functions an thust nf the' economic order, also has access llJ an initiation
t'nlitling it to the qunlitie. which it has in common with the first two, of iirya or
' nuhk' and of dJIUn or'twice- hnm'. The knowledge belongi n g properly to this caste
repre't'IIIS moreovt'r, in prindple at lr:st, onl)' a limited portion of the 'lesser
lll)'>ll'ri.:s', such as II'<' h.ne dt:lintd them; but this is a point we need not stress here
sin.:e thL ubject of the ('I'L'S<'llt study is only to consider the relati ons between the
lirst two c<Jstes.
16. We cn say lhL'll that tilL' . piritu;J ( p01wr belongs 'formally' to the sacerdotal
c,Jstt. whtreas tJ1e tcm(H>ral pom:r hdongs 'eminently' to this same sacerdotal caste
,Jnd 'formally' to tlw rn.JI caste'. iust as accord ing to Aristotle the superior 'forms'
COil Iii in 'eminently' thL inl-rior 'forms'.
.uul
were preserved for a long time in the ancient guilds, and the
second-that of 'royal arL' -had a curious destiny, for it was trans
mitted right up to the time of modern Freemasonry, in which of
course it subsists, in company with many other terms and symbols,
only as a misunderstood vestige of the past.17 As for the designation
'sacerdotal art', it has entirely disappeared; nevertheless, it was apt
for the cathedral builders in the Middle Ages, just as it was for the
art of the temple builders of antiquity. But a confusion between the
two domains must have taken place due to an at least partial Joss of
the tradition, itself <r consequence of the encroachment of the tem
poral upon the spiritual; and thus it was that even the very expres
sion 'sacerdotal art' was lost, doubtless toward the ti 1ne of the
Renaissance, which marks in all respects the consummation of the
rupture of the Western world with its own traditional doctrines.18
17. Apropos of this it should be noted that among the Romans, Janus, who was
tilt! god of initiation into the mysteries, was at the same time the god of tht Collegia
1-'oiJromm. This conntction is particularly significant from the point of view of the
correspondence indicated hert. On the transposition by which all urt as wdl as all
science can receive a properly 'initiatic' value, see Tire Esoterim1 ofDame, (hap. 2.
Ill. Some fix tht date of this loss of the ancie111 traditions precisely in the mid
dle of the fifteenth century, a loss th,uled in 1459 to the reorganization of the broth
ject, than one may at first think (d. '111e Kiug ofr!Je I\1orld, chaps. 8 and 11 ).
3
l(NOW LED G E
& AcTI ON
VVE HAVE
same limits as action, within the limits that is to say of the world
that can properly be called ' h uman', including in this term moreover
possibilities much more extensive than those usually imagined.
Spiritual authority on the contrary is based entirely upon knowl
edge, since, as we have seen, its essential function is the conserva
tion and teaching of doctrine, and thus its domain is as limitless as
truth itself.1 What is reserved for this authority by the very nature of
things-what it cannot communicate to men whose functions are of
another order because their possibilities do not include it-is tran
scendent and 'supreme' knowleclge,2 which lies beyond the 'humnn'
domain and even, more generally, beyond the manifested world
that is to say, knowledge which is no longer 'physical' b ut 'meta
physical' in the etymological sense of the word. It should be clearly
understood that there is no question here of any wish on the part o f
the sacerdotal caste to keep t h e knowledge of certain tr uths for
itself, but of a necessity that results directly from the differences of
nature existing among beings, differences that, as we have already
said, constitute the raison d' etre and the foundation of caste dis
tinction. Those who are made for action are not made for pure
knowledge, and in a society constituted on truly spiritual bases each
person must fulfill the function for which he is really'qualitied'; oth
erwise, all is confusion and disorder and no function is carried out
as it should be-which is precisely the case today.
'vVe are well aware that by reason of this very confusion the con
siderations we are setting forth here can only appear quite strange
to the modern West, where what is called 'spiritual' usually has only
a remote connection with the stricti)' doctrinnl point of view and
with knowledge free of all contingency. Here one cnn make n rather
curious observation: today people are no longer content simply to
distinguish between the spiritual nnd the temporal, which is legiti
mate and even necessary, but also want to separate them radically;
I. According
to
are considered identi<:al in th supreme Principle, whi<:h is the meaning of the for
mula Sntyrrw jwimrm Anmllllm /Jmlrmn.
2.
>I
27
ch.nge, laws that nrc merely the reflection o f the trnnsccndent principles in nature,
the latter being nothing other than the domain of change. Moreover, the Latin
111111/rn and the Gre<k physi both express the ick: of'bec.:oming'.
6. This is why the word 111elck, which menns 'king' in H.:brew and Arabic, has :t
the same time, and indeed foremost, the meaning of 'envoy'.
I 29
vis-a-vis spiritual authority is vain and ill usory: separated from its
principle, it can only exert itself in a disorderly way and move inex
orably to its own ruin.
Since we have just spoken of the 'mandate of Heaven', it will not
be out of place to relate here how, according to Confucius himself,
this mandate was to be carried out: 'In order to make the natural
virtues shine in the hearts of all men, the ancient princes first of all
applied themselves to governing their own principality well. In
order to govern their principality well, they first restored proper
order in their families. In order to establish proper order in their
families, they worked hard at perfecting themselves first. In order to
perfect themselves, they first regulated the movements of their
hearts. To regulate the movements of their hearts, they first per
fected their will. To perfect their will, they developed their knowl
edge to the highest degree. One develops knowledge by scrutinizing
the nature of things. Once the nature of things is scrutinized,
knowledge attnins its highest degree. Knowledge having arrived at
its highest degree, will becomes perfect. Will being perfect, the
movements of the heart are controlled. The movements of the heart
having been controlled, every man is free of faults. After having cor
rected oneself, one establishes order in the fmnily. With order reign
ing in t h e family, t h e principality is well-governed. With the
principality being well-governed, the empire soon enjoys peace.'7
One must admit that this is a conception of the role of the sover
eign that differs singularly from what this role is imagined to be in
the modern \!Vest, making it all the more dillicult to put into prac
tice, although also giving it an altogether different significance; and
one can note in particular that knowledge is indicated explicitly as
the primary condition for the establishment of order even in the
temporal domain.
It is easy now to understand that the reversal of the relationships
between knowledge nncl action in a civilization is a consequence of
the usurpation of supremacy by the temporal power; this power
must in fact claim that there is no domain superior to its own,
which is precisely that of action. If matters stopped there, however,
7. 'ln-Hio, pt.
1,
tr. P. Cntvrt'ur.
we would still not have reached our present impasse, where knowl
edge is denied any value. Por this to take place, the Kshatriyns them
selves had to be deprived of their power by the lower castes.8 Indeed,
as we observed earlier, even when the Kshatriyas rebelled, they still
had a tendency to affirm a truncated doctrine, one falsified by igno
rance or denial of all that goes beyond the 'physical' order, but one
within which there still remains certnin real knowledge, however
inferior. They mnde a pretense of passing off this incomplete and
irregular doctrine as the expression of the genuine tradition, an
attitude-condem nable though it may be as regards the truth-not
altogether devoid of a certain grandeur.9 Besides, do not terms such
as 'nobility', 'heroism', and 'honor' designate in their original accep
tations qualities that are essentially inherent to the nature of the
Kshatriyas? On the other hand, when the elements corresponding to
the social functions of a n inferior order come to dominate in their
turn, all traditional doctrine, even if mutilated or altered, disap
pears entirely; there subsists not even the slightest vestige of 'sacred
science', so that the reign of 'profane knowledge' is ushered in, the
reign, that is, of ignorance pretending to be science and Inking plea
sure in its noth ingness. All of which can be summed up in a few
words: the supremacy of the Brahmins mnintains doctrinal ortho
doxy; the revolt of the Kshatriyas leads to heterodoxy; but with the
domination of the lower castes comes intellectual night, and this is
what in our day has become of a West th<lt th reatens to spread its
own darkness over the entire world.
Some will perhnps repronch us for speaking as i f castes existed
everywhere, nnd for improperly extending to all social organiza
tions designations that properly fit only India; but since these latter
ll. In panic:ular, th fact of according a prpondcrant impo rlancr to cunsider
alions of an economic ordtor, whic:h is a very striking characteristic of our times,
ma)' be reg<Jrdcd as a sign of domination by lht' Vaishyas, whos, approximate
\1. This atl illlde of tht rebel Kshatri)as could he c:haracleriz,d q11ite exactly by
all hough lh trc is doubtlt'ss a ccn.rin conneclion lwlwt:en the two: 'Luciftrianism' is
the refusal
to
normal relatiomhips and of tht hierarchical order, the lotter being often a conse
qlttnce of the former, just as aflt:r his f<1ll Lucifer bt:c.tmt Sman.
>I< 31
32
4
B RA H M I NS
& l(SHATR I YA S :
THE I R R ES P E C T I V E
N AT U R E S
W r s o o M and strength: such are the respective at-trib
utes of Brahmins and Kshatriyas, or, if one prefers, spiritual author
it)' and temporal power; and it is interesting to note that among the
nncient Egyptians one of the mennings of the symbol of the Sphinx
joined precisely these two attributes, viewed according to their nor
mal relationships. In fact, its human head can be considered as rep
resenting wisdom and its leonine body as representing strength. The
head is the spiritual authority which directs, and the body is the
temporal power which acts. It should be noted moreover that the
Sphinx is always represented at rest, for the temporal power is taken
here i n the 'non-acting' state, i n its spiritual principle where it is
contained 'eminently' and therefore as a possibility of action only,
or, to put it better, in the divine principle, which unifies the spiritual
and the temporal because it lies beyond their distinction and is the
common source whence both proceed-the first directly, and the
second on I}' indirectly through the mediation of the first. Elsewhere
we lind a verbal symbol that by its hieroglyphic constitution i s an
exact equivalent of the Sphinx: this is the word Druid, which is rend
as drtt -l'id, the first root signifying strength and the second wis
dom.1 Besides showing that royalty is contained implicitly within
the priesthood, the union of the two attributes in this name, like
I. This name mureo1er has a double meaning related to )'t't another S)mbnlism,
rim or dcm, likt tl1l' I.Min I'OI.mr, dtsignating both strtngth <1nd the oak (in Cretk
othtr
to
34
>I
that of the two elements of the Sphinx in one and the same being, is
doubtless a memory of the remote epoch when the two powers were
still united in the state of primordial indiffcrentiation, in their com
mon and supreme principle.2
We have <dread)' dedicated a special study to this supreme princi
ple of the two powers,3 in which we indicated how this principle, at
first visible, became invisible and hidden, and retreated from the
'external world' in proportion as the latter moved away from its pri
mordial state-which was to lead inevitably to an apparent sunder
ing of the two powers. We also showed how this principle is found,
under various names and symbols, i n all traditions, and how it
<1ppears in particular in the Judeo-Christian tradition in the figures
of Melchizedek nnd the Magi-Kings. Here we will simply recall that
in Christianity recognition of this unique principle still subsists, at
least theoretically, nnd this is confirmed by the nffirmation of the
two functions of priesthood and royalty as inseparable in the person
"of Christ. From a certain point of view, when these two functions
are related in this way to their principle, they can also be envisaged
as complementary; in this case, although the second has its immedi
ate principle in the first, there is a kind of correlation between the
two in their very distinction. In other words, from the moment the
priesthood does not hold the regular, effective exercise of royalty, the
respective representatives of priesthood and royalty must then
derive their power from a common source that is 'beyond caste'.
The hierarchical difference between them lies i n the fact that the
priesthood receives its power direct!)' from this source, with which
it is in immedinte contact by its very nature, whereas royalty, owing
vision, but also to the mistletoe: thus, til'll-l'irl is the mistletoe of the oak, which was
in fact one of the principal S)mbols of Druidism, and at the same time it signifies
tht' man in whom abides wisdom sustained by strength. lvloreowr, the root dru, as
'
is st'en in the cquiv:llt'nt Sankrit forms dhru and dhri, includes the idt'.l of stabilit)',
which is also one of the meanings of the symbol of the tre<' in g<'ntr-.1 and of the
oak in particular; and this sense of stability corresponds wq exactl}' to th<' attitude
of the Sphinx in repose.
2. As we pointed out above in thr citation from Plut;uch, thl' incorporation in
Egypt of the king inlo the priesthood was like a Y<'Stige of this ancit-nt state of
affairs.
>I<
35
rdr\nc: w what
aid .1bnut tht Sphinx, it is l'O be noted that the latter repre
ent 1-lnmwkhis or 1-fomltll.:hc>uti. th ' Lord of the Two Horizons', that is the princi
ple llllitin the two wnrlds, tht stnsi blt and the su prasensible or the t errest rial and
the .:destial; <111d th is i, <lilt' crf tlw reawns why, during the early period of Chris
tian it)' in Eg)'pt, th t Sp hi n x ll'as regarded as a S)'mbol of Christ, another reason
hti ng that the Sphi ll \, like tht griftin spoken of by Dante, is 'the animal of two
ll.ll urt's' a nd as suc:h rcprtstnts the union of the divine a nd human natures in
< :hrist. Ytt th ird l't'<IS<lll .:an ht fou nd in the <lSpect by which it represents, as we
ha\'t' s;id, tht union of the tll'o powers-spiritual and temporal, priestly and
1'<1)'<11-in their suprt'lllt' principle.
5. l molved here i the traditional idea of t he 'three worlds' which we have
cxplaimd t'lsewhere nn \';Jriou o.:casions. From this point of view fO)'<llty corre
sponds to the 'terrt,tri<li \\'ll rld', the priesthood to the 'inttrmediate world', <llld
thcir .:ommon princi pic- tn the 'ct'il'st ial world'; but it should be added that from
tlw time this principlc lw.:.llllt' i rl\'isibl t l'O mrn. the p riesthood came t.o outwardly
rq>rt'Stnt the 'celestial \l'nrld ' as \I'dI.
h. Tht sum total of .111 ht'i ng.,. rhus divi ded into the stable and the ch anging, is
dt.:ign.lltd in Sanskri t h the c:ompoite term stlulvartl-jangolllo; thus all brings.
a..:cording to their n<Jt ur.:. st;md principally in rela tion either with the Brahmins or
with th.: Kslwtri)'<ls.
1\\'
8. 1o the three gumrs correspond the symbolic colors: white to $ttltln, red to
rnjm, and black to lmuns. As regards our prest:nt subjeCI, the first two of tlwse col
ors also symbolize spiritual authority and temporal power respective!), ;md it is
inttn:sting to note npropos of this that the 'bmmer' of the kings of Fran(c: wns red;
the I.Ht'r substitution of white fur red as the roy:I color marks in a w:y the usurpa
tion of one of the attributes of the spiritual authority.
imperfectly, the Sanskrit term blwkti, that is to say the path that
takes as its point of departure an element of an emotive order; and,
although this path is found outside of strictly religious forms, the
role of the emotive element is nowhere so developed as here, where
it colors the expression of the entire doctrine with a special tinge.
This last remark all ows us to understand the true raison d'etre of
these religious forms: they are especially suitable for races whose
<lptitudes are generally speaking directed above all toward action,
those races, that is, which, when envisaged collectively, exhibit a
preponderance of the 'rajasic' element that characterizes the nature
of the Kshatriyas. This is the situation we find in the Western world,
which is why, as we have explained elsewhere,9 it is said in India that
if the West were to return to a normal state and acquire a regular
social organization, many Kshatriyas would be found there but few
Brahmins; and this also explnins why religion, understood i n its
strictest sense, is properly Western, and also why there does not
seem to be a pure spiritual authority in the West, or at least an)' that
asserts itself outwardly as such with the characteristics we have just
described. Nevertheless, adaptation to a religious form, like the
establishment of any other tradil'ional form, is the responsibility of
a true spiritual authority in the fullest sense of this term; and this
authority, which then takes on a religious appearance, can at the
same time also remain something else in itself so long as there are
true Brahmins at its heart, by which we mean an intellectual elite
that remains aware of what lies beyond all particular forms, that is
to say of the profound essence of the tradition. For such an elite the
form can only play t h e role of 'support', while also providing a
means for those who do not have access to pure intellectuality to
participate in the tradlition; but the latter naturally do not see any
thing beyond the form, for their own possibilities do not let them
go any further. Consequently, the spiritual authority need not show
itself to them under any other aspect than that corresponding to
their nature,10 although, exterior as it may be, its teaching is always
9. The Crisis of rhe Mod('I'll I Vvrld. chap. J.
1 0.
Symholically. it is said that when the gods appear tO men thq alwa)'S adopt
38
12. When 'supreme' knowledge has been forgotten there exists only a 'non
edge, for only its virtuality subsist due to I he comervation of tht.> 'lrtter', and noth
ing remains but a simple belit.>f shared by all without exception. We must add I hat
the two cases bdng distinguished hlrt theoreticalI)' e<ln in fact also bto combined, or
at ltast they can occur concurrmtly in the same milieu and can r.ciproc;lll)' condi
tion one anoth.r, so to spt';lk. Btlt no matter, for on this point
makt any application to specific f.1cts.
1\'e
do nut intend to
reality, but is this still the case? L ' This would be all the more difncult
to determine beclll se when true intellectuality has been lost as com
pletely as it has in modern times, it is natural that the superior and
'interior' part of the tr<ldition should become more and more hid
den and inaccessible, since those who are capable of understanding
it ;ne no more th<Hl a tiny minority. Until we have proof to the con
trary, we claim that such is the case, and that consciousness of the
integral tradition, with all that it implies, still subsists effectively
among some few, however small their number may be; besides, even
if this consciousness had entirely disappeared, the fact remains that
hy 1 he mere conscrvat i(m of the 'letter' and its protection from any
alter<Hion, every regularly constituted traditional form nlways main
l<lins the possibility of its own restoration, which will one day take
place if among its representatives there are those who possess the
rtq uisite intellectual aptitudes.
In any case, even if by some means we had more precise informa
tion on this subject, we would not be obliged to state it publicly
un less we were led to do so by exceptional circumstances, and the
reason is this: an ;nl thority that is only religious is nevertheless, even
in the most unfavorable ,;ase, still a relative spiritual authority; we
mean that, without being a fully effec tive spiritual authority, it
nonetheless bears this within itself from the beginning as a virtual
ity; and from this very fact it cnn always carry out this function
externally; 1 4 it thus legitimately plnys this role vis-a-vis the tempo
ral power, and it must be truly considered as such in its relations
with the latter. Those who have understood our point of view will
D. This question ..:orreponds, in ;mother form, to the one raised earlier on the
uh.krt nf the 'teach in Church' and the 'Church taught'.
I 1. It should bt t'k.rl IWic'd th;lt those who thus fulfill the external function of
tlw Bra hmins with!)UI rtall having th requisite qualifications are even so not
usurpers, as would he rd>d Ksh;ltriyas if thq were to take the place of the 13rah111ins in ordt'l' to set up a di1<rgcnt tradition. This is merely a situation arising from
th, unf,11orable conditi>ns nt' ,, parti cular milieu, a situation moreover th at ensures
tlw mainto:nance of th, do((rino: in tht fullest measure compatible with these con
ditions. In th t worst i n,t.llll.'<', on could always apply here the saying of the Gos pel:
'The scrihts and thto Ph;lrit'<'> sit on l\lostos's stat; so practice and observe whatever
th,y tdl you . . . .' ( " I.H I. 1,\: l-.1).
40
5
THE D E P E N D E N C E
OF ROYALTY ON
P RIE STHOOD
LET us now direct o u r attention to t h e relationship
between the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas in the social organization
of India. To the Kshatriyas normally belongs outward power since
the field of action, which concerns them directly, is the external and
perceptible world; b ut this power is nothing without an interior
principle, a purely spiritual one, that incarnates the authority of the
Brahmins and in which it finds its only real guarantee. We see here
that the relationship between the two powers could still be repre
sented by that between the 'interior' and the 'exterior', a relationship
that in fact symbolizes well that between knowledge and action or,
to put i t differently, between the 'mover' and the 'moved', taking up
again the idea we explained above in reference to Aristotelean the
ory as well as Hindu doctrine. 1 It is from the harmony between this
'interior' and 'exterior' -a harmony moreover that 1nust not be
conceived as n kind o f 'parallelism', which would imply an igno
rance of the essential differences of the two domains-that there
results the normal life of what can be called the social entity. By the
use of such an expression, we do not mean to suggest any sort of
comparison of the collectivity to a living being, especinlly as certain
people have abused this notion in the strangest way in recent times,
I . I-Iere ont could
>I< 43
ihdf ont of the two ltilui>tt:.. the: ntlwr being the Rrimriymw. This chnrncttr of the
1!/romod Giln exph1im th<' ust it makc:s of n martial symbolism, comparable in cer
tnin rtspects to tha t ,1r tlw 'hnlr war' among the Muslims. There is moreover an
'in1wr' wny of readinJ:! this hook, ,,hkh gi les it its profound meaning, and it is then
calltd the Atmn-Gitii.
(>. The axis and tit< pok arc above all symbols of the one principle of the two
pow,rs, as we haw explai1wd in the Ki11g ofthe World; but they can also be applied
tn 'pi ritual authorit) in rdatinn tn ttmporal power, as we are doing here, because,
b l't'<lSon of its essenti;l attrihutt of knowledge, this authority is e fecti vely part of
thl' immutability of tht SliiH'<'Illt' principle, which is what these symbols fundamen
tally xpress, and lso ><'<'<Ill<\ a we said above, it represents this principle directly
in rtlation tu the extanal world.
'
9. According to another S)'mbolism they are also the keys to the gates of the
'Celestial Paradise' and the ''terrestrial i>aradise', as we shall later see i n one of
I 45
Dante's texts; but it would perlwps not ht opportunt', at least for the present, to
);i\'1:' certain p recise 'technic<11 ' details on the 'power of the keys', nor to explain vari
ous other things conntcted more or ltss direct!)' with them. If we bring up this sub
it is only so tha t those who have som e knowledge of these things may see
that our rtserve is delilwrate and not due to any obligation.
lO. As for the transmission of ro)al power there are howt'l'er exctptional cast's
whtr, for sptcial reasons it is conferrtd directl y by representatives of the supreme
pmwr. the source of tht other two: thus kings Saul and David wrre not anoimid by
tht' high pritst bnt hy the prophet Samuel. This can be compared w ith what we said
dstl,hae ('f'ltc Ki11g of rite Worlrf, chap. 4) on the threefold ch;nackr of Christ as
propht't, priest, and king in connection with the respective functions of tht three
i\lagi-Kings, 1vho themselves correspond to the 'three worlds', as we recalled in a
previous note, the 'propht'tic' function here irnpl)ing a direct inspiration and cor
rtsponding pmperly to the 'celesti<1l world'.
I I . rite Cri;is vf the Modem World, dwp. 2.
ject here
a.:cornplished in tht i\lh .:tnt.un before the Christian era, an epoc h the special
dJar;l(tt'l' of which ll'l' haw prt'l'inusl)' dr;wn attention to (The Crisis oj'rhe Modern
,,,t inn' is i n rtali ty su l 'r<:nlt' a..:tivit in <til its plt'nitude; but, precise!)' becmtse of its
total an d absolute dt.trtCk' l', t hi., a.:tivit)' does not appear outwardly like activities
that <ll\' particular, dtJ<nni ncd. and rt'1.11ive.
1 3 . It is dtar from this that ther.: is no opposi tion in principle between 'lhoism
and Confu.:ianism, 11hi..:h nre not and c;umot be rival schools, since each has its
Oll'n slwrplr distinct dom.1in. l f th.:rc h;ll'l' n.:vert'heless been disputes, at t i mes even
1ioknt ont'S (as Wt' nott'd .thmc'), thcSt' were due above all to the misunckrstand
in:,:\ and th t' exclusi1i,rn nf tllt' Cnnfu.:ianisls, who wtre forgetfu l of the example
48
some go yet further i n this direction, even as far as to deny the very
value of knowledge as such, and also, proceeding quite logically
for the two things are closely linked-to the negation pure and sim
ple of aU spiritual authority. This last degree of degeneration, which
implies domination by the lowest castes, is one of the characteristics
of the final phase of the Knli- Yuga. If we consider religion in partic
ular, since t his is the special form that the spiritual takes in the
Western world, this reversal of relations can be expressed in the fol
lowing way: instead of regarding the entire social order as deriving
from religion, as being suspended from it so to speak and finding its
principle therein (as was the case in medieval Christendom, and as
it was equally in Islam, which is quite similar to it in this respect),
today people see religion at most only as one element of the social
order, one element among others of equal value. This is the enslave
ment of the spiritual to the temporal, even i t s absorption by it,
pending the inevitable complete negation. To consider things in this
way amounts perforce to 'humanizing' religion, that is, to treating
religion as a purely human fact of the social order, or better stiU, o f
the 'sociological' or psychological order, depending o n one's prefer
ence. I n truth, this i s no longer religion, for religion essentially
includes something 'supra-human' lacking which we are no longer
in the spiritual domain, for the temporal and the human are essen
tially identical, as we explained earlier. Thus we have here a veritable
implicit negation of religion and the spiritual, whatever the appear
ances may be, a negation such that the explicit and avowed negation
will amount less to the establishment of a new order than simply to
the recognition of a fait accompli. I n this way the reversal of rela
tions prepares directly for the suppression of the superior term
something it already implies, at least virtually-just as the revolt of
the Kshatriyas against the authority of the Brahmins prepares for
and summons as it were the ascendancy of the lowest castes, as we
shall see. And those who have followed us this far will easily under
stand that there is something more in this parallel than a simple
comparison.
6
T H E REVOLT OF
THE J(SHAT R I YAS
A M O N G a l most all peoples a n d throughout diverse
epochs-and with mounting frequency as we approach our times
the wielders of temporal power have tried, as we have said, to free
themselves o f all superior authority, claiming to hold their power
from themselves alone, and so to separate completely the spiritual
from the temporal, or even to subordinate the first to the second.
This 'insubordination', taken in the etymological sense, has pro
ceeded to differing degrees, the most advanced also being the most
recent, as we indicated in the preceding chapter. It has indeed never
gone so far in this direction as in modern times, and above all it
seems that the various ideas that went along with it in former times
were never so integrated into the general mentality as they have
become during the last centuries. In this connection, let us repeat
what we have already said elsewhere on 'individualism' considered
as a characteristic o f t he modern world: 1 the function of the spiri
tual authority is the only one that relates back to a supra-individual
domain; and from the moment this authority goes unacknowl
edged, it is logical that individualism should immediately appear, at
least as a tendency if not a s n well-defined affirmntion,2 since all
other social functions. beginning with the 'govern mental' (which is
that of the temporal power), are of a purel)' human order, individu
alism being precisely the reduction of the whole of civilization to
I . The Crisi.< ofthe Modem World, chap. 5
2. \\'hatevtr form it lllil)' take, this affirmation is in realit)' a mort' or ks$ dis
50
>f<
'
>I<
51
',
'
( ;1\'t'(l'.
5. Tht' fact that :-.h;ik;nllllni himstlf was born a Kshatriya cannot he invoked as
an argumt:nt agaimt \\'hat Wt' S<l)' htre about the original Buddhism and a later
dtviation, for this fa..:t L\111 1\'r)' kgitimately be explained by the special conditions
of a certin epoch, conditi<lns rt'sldting from cyclic laws. Moreover, it can be noted
in this 1\'spect that ( :hri't to<) is dtsct ndl'd not from the priestly tribe of Lrvi, but
fr\'111 tht royal tribe of lu,tah.
>r 53
7
THE U s u R PATI ONS
o F RoYA LTY & THE I R
Co NSEQUENCEs
I T is sometimes said that history repeats itself, but this is
false, for there cannot be i n the un iverse two beings or two events
strictly alike i n all respects; if there were, they would no longer be
two but, since they would coincide in everything, they would merge
purely and simply in such a way that there would be but one and the
same being or one and the same event.1 Moreover, the repetition of
identical possibilities impl ies the contradictory supposition of
a limitation of u n iversal and total possibility, and as we have
explained in detail elsewhere with all the necessary elaborations,2 it
is this which allows us to refute such theories as those of 'reincarnn
tion' and an 'eternal return'. But another no less false opinion, which
is quite the opposite of this one, is the contention that historical
facts are entirely dissimilar and that there is nothing common
among them. The truth is that there are always dissimilarities in cer
tain respects and similarities in others, and that, as there are differ
ent types of beings i n nature, so there are also (in this domain as i n
all t h e others) different types o f facts; in other words there are facts
that are the manifestation or expression of one and the same law in
I. Leibnitz enlied this the 'principle of indiscernibles'. As we have alr<ady had
occasion to point out, Leibnitz, in contrast to other modern philosophers. pos
sessed some traditional info rm ation, which was however fragment<tl')' and insuffi
cient to permit him to free himself from certain limitations.
2. The Spiritist Fol/ncy, pt. 2, chap. 6.
55
diverse circumstances. This is why one sometimes encounters simi1<1 1' situations which. if one neglects their differences and focuses
only on their similarities, can give the illusion of a repetition. I n
real it}' there is never identity between different periods of history,
but there is correspondence and analogy, just as there is between the
cosmic cycles or the multiple st;ltes of a being; and just as different
beings cnn pass through similnr phases-with the one reservation
that there are modalities proper to the nature of each of them-so
too can peoples <llld civiliz<llions.
Despite very grl'<lt differences, then, there is, as we have shown
above, nn incon test<lble ;lnalogy (perhaps never sufficiently re
marked upon bef>re) between the social organization of India and
that of the Western !\Iiddie Ages; between the castes of the one and
the classes of the t>ther there is only a correspondence, not an iden
tity, but this correspondence is nonetheless of the greatest impor
tance because it serves to show with particular clarity that all
institutions presenting a truly traditional character rest on the same
natural foundations and in the final analysis differ from one another
only by the adaptations required by varying circumstances of time
and place. It should be clearly noted moreover that we do not in any
W<l)' mean to suggest that Europe in this epoch borrowed this notion
directly from Jnd i<l, for this seems quite unlikely; we say only that
there are here two <lpplications of one and the same principle and
that fundamentall this is all that matters, at least from our present
point of view. We shall therefore set aside the question of a common
origin, which in <ln}' case could only be found by tracing it back to
the most remote past, lor this origin would go back to the filiation
or the different trnditionnl forms with the great primordial tradition
and so, as should be re<ldily apparent, would be complex indeed. If
we nevertheless raise this possibility, it is because we do not in fact
believe that such precise similarities can be satisfactorily explained
outside of a regul<lr and elfective transmission, and also because we
f1nd i n the Middle Ages many other concordant indications that
show quite clearly that there still was in the West at that time a con
scious link, at least for some, with the true 'center of the world', the
unique source or ;lll orthodox traditions, whereas i n the modern
epoch, on the contrMy, we see no such thing.
56 >!<
S P I R I T U A L A U T H O R I T Y & T E M P O R A L POWER
4. On this subject see our study 'Saint l.lernard' J111sights i11to Christimr Esotcr
ro J , where we showe.d that the characters of both the monk and the
knight were united in the p.:rson of Saint Bernard, author of the rule of the Order
of the Temple which he later called 'God's militia'. This explains his continual role
as peacemaker and arbitrator between the religious and pol itical powers.
imr, chap.
Tile
>I 57
58
6. This reservation concerns the supreme principle of the spiritual and the tem
poral, which is beyond all particu l ar f<.Hms, and the direct rrpres<'ntatives of which
obviously have the right of control over both domains. But the act ion of this
supreme principle in the present state of the world is not being exercised visibl)', so
that one may S<l)' that all spiritual au t hority appears outwardly as supreme, even if
it is only what we have called a relative spiritual authori ty, and even if, as in this
C<lSe, it has lost the key to the traditional form it is charged to conserve.
7. The same holds true for 'papal inf<lllibility', the proclamation of which has
8. This explains not only the destruction of the Order of the Temple but also,
and even more visibly, what was called the debasement of the coinage, two facts
that are perhaps more close ly related than might at first glance seem apparent. l n
any case, i f tht contemporaries o f Philip the Fair considered this debasement a
crime on the part of t he king, it must be concludtd that by changing the standard
of coin.-.gt on his own initiMive he excteded the acknowledged rights of the royal
power. Here is an indication well worth holding i n mind, for in antiquity and in the
Middle Ages the question of coinage had certain aspects entirely unknown to the
moderns, who confine themsdws to a nwrely 'economic' point of view. Similarly, it
has been noted that the symbols figuring on Celtic coins can only be explained in
reference to the doctrinal knowlrdge that was reserved to the Druids, which implies
their direct intervention in this domain. Such control by the spiritual authorit)'
must have lasted lllltil nearly the end of the Middle Ages.
iF 59
ruin;9 and if France was the first European country where the mon
archy was abolished, it is because 'nationalization' had started there.
Besides, we scarcely need recall how fiercely 'nationalist' and 'cen
tralist' the Revolution was and also what truly revolutionary use was
made throughout the nineteenth century of the so-called 'principle
of nations';tO there is therefore a rather singular contradiction in the
'nationalism' proclaimed today by certain avowed adversaries of the
Revolution and its work. B u t the most interesting point for us at
present is the following: the formation of 'nations' is essentially one
episode in the struggle of the temporal against the spiritual; and if
we want to get to the root of the matter, it may be said that this is
precisely the reason why it proved fatal to the monarchy, which,
even at the moment when it seemed to be realizing all its ambitions,
was only rushing to ruin. 1 1
There is a kind of political (and therefore entirely external) unity
that implies a disregard, if not the denial, of the spiritual principles
that alone can establish the true and profound unity of a civiliza
tion, and 'nations' are an example of this. During the Middle Ages
there existed throughout the West a real unity, based on properly
traditional foundations, which we call 'Christendom', but when
these secondary unities of a pmely political-that is to say temporal
and no longer spiritual-order were formed, this great unity of the
West was irremediably broken and the effective existence of Chris
tendom came to an end. Nations, merely the dispersed fragments of
what was formerly Christendom, false unities substituted for the
true one by the temporal power's will to dominate can, given the
' very conditions of their origin, survive only by opposing each other
9. To this struggle of royalty against the feudal nobility one can quite strictly
apply the Gospel saying: 'And if a house is divided against itself, that lwuse will not
be able to stand.' [Mark 3 :25).
I 0. It should br noted that this 'principle of nations' was exploited especially
against tl1e papacy and against Austria, which represented the last vestige of the
heritage of the Holy Roman Empire.
I I . Where the monarchy has maintained itself by becoming 'constitutional' it is
no more than a shadow of itself and has hardly more than a nominal and 'represen
tative' existence, as is expressed by the well-known formula, 'the king reigns, but
does not rule.' This is truly nothing but a caricature of the former monarchy.
This is why the idea of a 'It-ague of na ti ons' can only be a utopian ont with
no r<.:<tl signil-icanct; tlw national form is tssentiallr hostile to tht recognition nf an)'
unit)' superior to its own. Besides, according to present-day conctptions, only a
unit)' of <HI exd1tsinly tempontl and ht:ncr all the more ineffectual order would he
imolvtd, which could onlr ben parody of the true unit)'
13. As we haw noted elsewhere
compelling .1ll men indiscriminate!)' to takt part in modern wars, th.: cssenti;l dis
tinctions among the social functions are t'ntird)' ignored, this being moreover a
logical conseq11t:nce of \gnl itari;nism'.
11. l\loreovt'l", this conception
63
to descend any lower; and even if such an event were not to have
\vider implications, one may suppose that this phase will be at the
very least, for the West, the end of the modern period.
A n historian conversant with the above-mentioned facts could
no doubt develop these considerations almost indefinitely, search
ing out more particular details that would emphasize even more
precisely what we principally wanted to show here: l 8 the too little
known responsibility of the royal power for the origin of the whole
modern disorder, this first deviation in the relations between the
spiritual and the temporal which leads inevitably to all the others.
But this cannot be our role; we wished only to give some examples
in order to shed light on a wider synthesis, and so we must be con
tent to consider only the main trends of history, and limit ourselves
to the essential indications that stand out in the course of events.
18. It would be interesting for instance to study from this point of view the role
of Richelieu, who was bent on destroying every last vestige of feudalism and who,
while fighting the Protestants in France itself, forged an alliance with them abroad
against what remained of the Holy Roman Empire, that is, against the vestiges of
the former 'Christendom'.
8
THE TER RES T R I A L
& CELESTI A L
PA R A D I SES
T H E political constitution of medieval Christendom was,
as we have said, essentially feudal; it found its consummation in a
function that was truly supreme in the temporal order, that of the
emperor, who was, with respect to the kings, what the kjngs were in
turn to their vassals. I t must be admitted however that this concep
tion of the Holy Roman Empire remilined somewhat theoretical
and was never fully realized, doubtless through the fault of the
emperors themselves, who, misled by the extent of the power con
felTed upon them, were the first to contest their subordination to
the spiritual n uthority, from which however they held their power
even more directly thnn did the other sovereigns.1 This came to be
known Inter as the feu d of the priesthood and the empire, and its
diverse vicissitudes are well enough known that we need not recall
them even summarily here, all the more so as the details are of little
importance to our present purpose. What is more interesting is to
understand what the emperor ought truly to have been and nlso
what could have provoked the error that led him to mistake his rela
tive supremacy for an absolute supremacy.
The distinction between the papacy and the empire originated in
a way from a division of powers that in ancient Rome were united
l . Tht Holy Roman Em pin.' begins with Chnrlem;lne, nnd it is wdl knom1 that
it was th popt who conft'ITCd on him his imperial dignil)' his succt'ssors also being
ltgitimized only in this way.
in a single person, since during that period the lmperntor was at the
same time Po11tijex Maximus;2 but we do not think that it is neces
sary in this special case to inquire how that union of the spiritual
and the temporal is to be explained, for this would risk involving us
in some rather complex considerations.3 The pope and the emperor
vvere in any case certainly not the 'two halves of God' as Victor Hugo
wrote but much more precisely the two halves of the Christ-Janus
figure which certain representations depict holding a key in one
hand and a scepter in the other, emblems respectively of the priestly
and royal powers united in this figure as i n their common princi
ple.4 This symbolic assimilation of Christ with Janus as the supreme
principle of the two powers is the very clear sign of a certain trndi
lionnl continuity (too often ignored or deliberately denied) between
ancient Rome and Christian Rome; and we must not forget that in
the Middle Ages the empire was just ns 'Romnn' as the papacy. But
this same figure also explnins the error we just pointed out and
which was to prove fatal for the empire: this error lies, in brief, i n
regarding as equivalent the two fnces of Janus; these are indeed so i n
appearance but, when they represent both the spiritual a n d the
2.
'
'
>I< 67
68 I< S P I R I T U A L AUTHORITY
these with difficulty) can reach this goal, unless a free mankind
enjoys the tranquility of peace and the waves of distracting greed
nre stilled, this must be the constant aim of him who guides the
globe and whom we caLl Roman Prince, in order that on this
threshing floor of life mortals may exist free and in peace.5
This text calls for a number of explanations in order to be perfectly
understood, for we cannot doubt that beneath a language purely
theological in appearance are concealed much deeper truths, con
forming moreover to the habits of its author and of the initiatic
organizations to which he belonged.6
On the other hand-let us note in passing-it is quite astonishing
that the one who wrote these lines has sometimes been represented
as an enemy of the papacy; he no doubt did, as we have already said,
denounce the insufnciencies and imperfections he snw in the papacy
of his dny, and particulnrly the consequent, too rendy recourse to
purely temporal means of action, which hardly befitted the exercise
of spiritual au thority. But he knew enough not to impute to the
institution itself the defects of the men who represented it tempo
rally, something that modern individualism does not nlways know
enough to do.7
I< 69
r< 71
ll'hich links all the st:llt'' of tilt' hl'i ng togtthrr, is the principle Hindu doctrine calls
lludrlhi, a name of ll'hich thl root .:xpresses essentially the idea of'wisdom'.
13. Sec M1111 nnd I-Ii; lin-omi11 occonfing 10 the Vediill/11, chap. 1.
1-1. In this regard nnl' might draw certain conclusions from the fact thnt in the
k11'ih tradition, 1\'hi.:h i tlw snmce <llld starting-point of all that can
<IS
be called
link with it), the dtsign:Hion '/(mrh or 'Law' is applied to the whole of the sacred
72
whom most of the books dealing with this application are especially
intended. Slnuti is the principle from which all the rest of the doc
trine derives, and knowledge of it, implying that of the superior
states, constitutes the 'greater mysteries'; knowledge of smriti o n the
other hand-that is, of applications to the 'world of man' ( under
standing by thi s the integral human state considered i n the full
amplitude of its possibilities)-constitutes the 'lesser mysteries'. 1 5
Slzruti is direct light which; like pure intelligence (here equivalent to
pure spirituality), corresponds to the sun; and smriti is reflected
light which, like memory, the name of which it bears (and which is
t h e 'temporal' faculty by very definition), corresponds to th e
moon.16 T his is why t h e key t o the 'greater mysteries' is made o f
gold a n d that t o t he 'lesser mysteries' of silver, for gold and silver are
alchemically exact equivalents to what the sun and the moon repre
sent in the astrological order.
These two keys-those of Janus in ancient Rome-were one o f
the attributes o f the sovereign pontiff, to w h om the function o f
'hierophant' o r 'master of t h e mysteries' essentially belonged. Along
vvith the very title Pontifex Maximus they have remained among the
principal emblems of the papacy; and the words of the Gospel con
cerning the 'power of the keys' (as moreover for many other points)
fully confirm the primordial tradition.
We can now understand even more completely than before why
these two keys are at the same time those of spiritual and temporal
books. We see this to be evid<nce of the special aptness of the religinus form to peo
# pies in whom the nature of the Kshatriya predominates, and also of the particular
importance the social point of view assumes in that form, these two considerations
moreover being quite closel)' linked.
l S . It must be dearly understood that in <lil t hat we say it is always a question of
knowledge that is not only theoretical, but effectivt>, and that in consequence it
essentially includes the corresponding realization.
16. In this respect it should be noted that the 'Celestial Paradise' is essentially
the Bml111w-Lokn, identified with the 'spiritual sun' (ivlnll n111i His Becomi11g nccorrl
22), and
Paradise' is described as touching the 'sphere of the moon' (The King of the
\1\'or/rl,
chap. 6): in the symbolism of the Divine Comedy the summit of the mountajn of
Purgatory is the boundary of the human or earthly individual state and the point of
communication with the cdestial, supra-individunl states.
II<
73
On
this subjec.:t
St'C
esoterica di Dantt', in II
Tlu:
I< 75
2 1 . "'" should mw .rwtr not wdl th.tt if thtrc are in the Gospels words and
d,,d t hat tnable us to .lltrihuk the: kt's and the barque directly to Saint Peter, it is
hcl.'au'c from its origi n the: I'' I'")' w.1s predestinc:d to be 'Roman' by reason of the
>itu.Hion of Rome '" tlw t.tpit.ll nf tl1< West.
22. D;Hlte indeed IH,lkt, a di>tinct <Illusion to this in one of the passages of t he
(Prmrdim,
1 1 , 1-1/1), and it is not unintcntionally that he r.calls this allusion in the last canto of
till' pocm (Pnmdi.<
:-> )\ 1 1 1
2.1. Atuui-/lod/111; ,,.,. ,\/1111 cud Hi; /lt'comiug cccordiug to the Vcdtiutn, chap. 23
2-1. It is this same l.<>lllfl'<''t that is someti mes rtpresented under the lgure of a
w,tr. Wt h aw pointcd out 1.'.1rlic:r thr use of this symbolism in the l.llwgrwar/-C,
Ittl as
wdt as mnong tht -Ju,lim. and it ca n be.' addc:d that a symbolism of the same kind
c.111 ht fou nd in tht thil.th it: ron1.1111:' \lf the Middle Ages.
76
>!<
25. This is what the different meanings of the Hebrew word Shcki11ah indicate
very clearly; besides, the two aspects we mention here are those designated by the
words Gloria :111d Pox in the formula Glorin i11 excelsis Dco, ct i11 term Pax ho111i11i/J11s
/Jo11ae l'OIIIIItatis [Luke 2:14J, as we have explained in our stud)' J'he Ki11g of the
World.
26. This is related to the symbolism of the two oceans, that of the 'upper waters'
and that of the 'lower waters', which is common to all traditional doctrines.
27. On this point a parallel could be drawn with the teachings of Saint Thomas
Aquinns mentioned earlier, as \\'el l as with the text of Confucius that we cited.
28. We have said elsewhere that 'peace' is one of the fundamental attributes of
the 'King of the World', one ofwhose aspects is presented by the emperor. A second
aspect finds its correspondence in the pope, but there is a third, the principle of the
two others, which has no visible representation in this organization of 'Christen
dom' (on these three aspects, see The King oftlu World, chap. 4). It is easy to under
stand in the light of all these considerations that Rome was for tht: West an image of
the true 'Cen<::r of the World', of the mysterious Salem of Melchizedek.
>I< 77
to
tiw rolts of Datttt''s three guides, Virgil, Beatrice, and Saint Bernard, to tlwst of the
tempr;rl p01wr, the spiritual mtthnrit)' and thl'ir common prind1lle. As regards
Saint lkrnard, this last poinl should be related
to
9
TH E I M M U TA B L E LAW
T H E teachings of all traditional doctrines are, as we have
2. All these senses, as well as that of'law', are included in what Hindu doctrine
designates by the word rlhnmw; the accomplishment by each being of the function
suitable to its own natme, on which caste distinction is based, is called svarlhnrmn,
which could be compared with what Dante designates as the 'functioning of his
O\vn powers" in the text we mentioned and commented on in the preceding chap
ter. On this point, one may also refer to what we have said elsewhere about 'justice'
considered as one of the fundamental attributes of the 'King of the World' and
about his connection with 'peace'.
I<
81
83
84
atld this can never be taken away from it because i t contains some
thing higher than purely human possibilities; even weakened or
dormant, this part still incarnates 'the one thing needful', the only
thing that does not pass away.6 Patiens quia tetema [patient because
eternal I is sometimes said of spiritual authority, and rightly so; not
of course that any of the external forms it may assume will be eter
nal, for every form is only contingent and transitory, but because in
itself, in its true essence, it partakes of the eternity and the immuta
bility of the principles; and this is why, in all conflicts that pit tem
poral power against spiritual authority, one can rest assured that,
whatever the appearnnces may be, i t is always the latter that will
have the last word.
6. We are thinking here of the well-known nrrative from the Gospel in which
Mar)' and Martha ma)' be considered to S)'mbolize the spiritual and the temporal
respectively, insofar s thq correspond to the contemplative life and the active life.
According to Saint Augustine (Comm Fatt>/11111,
the same
symbolism in the two wives of Jacob, Leah (lalJOrrriiS) representing active life and
R:tchel (1isum pri11cipium) representing the contemplative life. Moreover, in 'Jus
tice' :m summed up all the virtues of active life whereas in 'Peace' tht perfection of
tht' contemplative life is rc.tlized; and here we find the t wo fundamental attributes
of 1\lelchizedek, that is of the common principle of the spiritual and temporal pow
ers which govern the dom.1ins of the active life ond the contemplative life respec
tivt!l)'. Furthermore, also according to Saint August ine (Scmron XLIII 011 tire Words
of' lmi11h, chap. 2), reason is at the summit of tlw inferior pan of the soul (s:nses,
memoq, and reflection) and the intellect is at the summit of its superior part
(which knows the eternal ide.1s that are the imnllltable reasons of things); to the
first belongs science (of earthly and transitory thing
s) and to the second Wisdom
(knowledge of the absolute and the immutable), tht' first being related to active life
and the second
to
the individual and tht supra-individual faculties, and between tht two orders of
knuwledge that correspond respec tively then.'tu; and
1w
the fol lowing text of Saint Thomas Aquinas: l)icellriiiiiJ IJIIOd ,:iwt
I.I'I'Illt
fJI'OCedere 11/ll'i[Willll'
NA'I'URALI
I'Hil.OS(>I'IIIAIO,
tNTEl.LECTUA I. I I'I!lt
RA1'10NAIII
procedcn: allribllilllr
U I V I N A I!
'Wisdom', which corresponds most exactl) to the distinction between the two parts
of the soul, the inferior .md the superior.
1NDEX
Anglica11(ism) 62, 63 n 17
Apoc<llypse 81
Christianity 35 114, 66 n 2, 71 n 14
Argonauts 75
Church of England 63
Arnu11z 51-52
Austria 6o 11 10
Confucianism(ists) 15 n 1, 46, 47
1115
Beatrice 77 n 29
13enda,Julien 20 n S
Bl111g11l'nd Citci 43 n 5 , 75 n 24
blll1kti 37
114, 84 n 6
lJmlzma-Loka 72 n 1 6
David-Ned, Alexandra 1 9 n7
de Maistre, Joseph 62
democratic 62, 83
De J\!lvnardziu 22 11 13, 67-68, 74,
77
dlzor11111 So n 2
Dlwmw-Shilstm 71
Divine Co111cdy 22 n 13, 72 n 16, 75
n22, 77 n29
Catholic esoterism 77 n 29
Druidism 33 n 1
Druid(s) 11 n 6 , 33, ;S n 8
22
n 1 4 , 33, 34 n 2, 35
114
Charbonneau-Lassay, L. 66 114
England 63
Charlemagne 65 n 1
China 15 n 1, 46
Christ 34,35 114, 4 5 1 1 1 0 , 5 1 115,66
114, 69 1 1 9
C hri:;t-Janus figure 66
n1S, 6s. 77
Freemasonry 24