Skip to search.

Breaking News Visit Yahoo! News for the latest.

×Close this window

rouesolaire · rouesolaire@yahoo.fr | Group Member  - Edit Membership Start a Group | My Groups
evola_as_he_is · EVOLA AS HE IS

The Yahoo! Groups Product Blog

Check it out!

Group Information

  • Members: 121
  • Category: Spirituality
  • Founded: Nov 19, 2004
  • Language: English

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Message search is now enhanced, find messages faster. Take it for a spin.

Messages

  Messages Help
Advanced
A Jewel of the Papacy   Topic List   < Prev Topic  |  Next Topic >
Reply < Prev Message  | 
What matters for J. Evola in history is less causes, facts, events and visible
leaders than « the dimension of depth, or the `subterranean' dimension in which
forces and influences often act in a decisive manner, and which, more often not
than not, cannot be reduced to what is merely human, whether at an individual or
a collective level." (MATR) As it is, very few studies of historical figures can
be found in his work. Charlemagne is mentioned a few times in Revolt against the
Modern World, a few times in The Mystery of the Grail, once in L'Arco e la Clava
and still once in Fascismo e Terzo Reich, without any direct assessment being
made of him and his political role and work. It is however worth pointing out
right now that in Osservazioni critiche sul razzismo Nazionalsocialista (La Vita
Italiana, November 1933), allusion is made spitefully to the fact that « ... in
Germany he is no longer called Charlemagne, but Charles the Frank, and he is
made responsible for all the greatest ills that affect Germany, when he was the
one who actually assumed the principle of Roman universality… Rosenberg once
said that the National-Socialist `Third Reich`'s model is by no means the
tradition of the Sacrum Imperium, but that of all those who rebelled against the
[Christian] Roman and imperial principle, starting with the Saxon Duke Widukind,
a proud enemy of Charlemagne, who died in the ninth century, but is now supposed
to come back to life triumphantly in the figure of A. Hitler. »

Charlemagne's racial pedigree has been the subject of some attention and, in any
case, of far more attention than other kings', long before so-called `conspiracy
theory' started to hold sway. Charlemagne's pro-Jewish policy is no longer at
issue (see, for example, Early Medieval Jewish Policy in Western Europe, Bernard
S. Bachrach). What is at issue is the lineage of the Carolingians and, more
specifically, their possible Jewish or Semitic ancestry. The Carolingian male
ancestry is usually considered to go back to Arnulf, Bishop of Metz (582-640),
who was later canonised (1), and whose ancestry is debated. « Under the
Merovingians in about 591 [the Syrians] had sufficient influence at Paris to
have one of their number elected bishop and to gain possession of ALL
ecclesiastical offices. » (2) Were they influential in the diocese of Metz at
that time ? To date, no study has been produced on the ethnic composition of the
contemporary Metz clergy. As a general rule, the racial context is almost
entirely excluded from genealogical studies.

Very few filiations of the period are proved for many generations ; for lack of
comprehensive primary sources and because of their often conflicting content,
actual genealogists acknowledge that they are often reduced to using guesses,
the most convincing of which are often based on onomastics, in reconstructing
the family tree of the Carolingians. The argument advanced by Zuckerman in his
well-known `A Jewish Princedom in Feudal France, 768-900' is that the Jewish
king of Narbonne who is mentioned in the sefer ha-Kabbalah (The Book of
Tradition), a fourteen century work, was a vassal of the Carolingians, and that
the first prince of this Jewish dynasty and exilarch, Natronai, was settled by
Charles in Narbonne, where he took on the name Makhir and married Alda, the
daughter of Pippin the short. However, « The literal truth of the Sefer
ha-Kaballah gloss, » on which this thesis rests, « that Charlemagne (or his
father [or possibly his grand-father, Clarles Martel ! – indeed, the title
`Martel' was added later, and so was `magnus', so that it is impossible to
figure out which Charles this Jewish medieval chronicle refers to]) imported a
true Davidic exilarch to found [a] Jewish dynasty in Narbonne, » « is
unverifiable » (3) and so is, thereby, the claim that the Carolingian lineage
was impacted by Jewish blood under Pippin. Could the mother of Charles, who is
not known with any certainty, be of Jewish blood ? Did he took from her or from
his father, or even from both, the physical peculiarities which tend to show a
Mongoloid or at least Eastern racial descent ? Unknown in the ancient Teutonic
world, the great cruelty he proved capable of is a trait of character which is
certainly more closely reminiscent of the kind of pleasures Mongoloid
populations are known to revel in.

In an attempt to get out of the dead end of the genealogical research process,
`When Scotland was Jewish : DNA evidence, archeology, analysis of migrations'
shifts the focus on the « cultural signs of Judaism already present in the
Carolingian dynasty. » On an even higher level, F.J. Los points at various
features of Charlemagne's character that are either hardly Germanic or clearly
non- or even anti-Germanic, such as his obsession with women and his legendary
lustfulness, which he shared with the late Merovingians, most of the kings of
the Carolingian dynasty, and, for that matter, with most Valois and most
Bourbons ; in the eyes of most historians, who portray him « as an almost
prototype of the `genuine' Teuton » because they « start out, in their outlook,
with a vague and most cloud like idea of what they understand by a genuine
Teuton » and, by implication, because their own forma mentis prevents them from
grasping what is typically Germanic, Charlemagne's `sexual unbridledness' and
ability to love truly are unmistakable signs of his `greatness' and, by
implication - as well as, so to speak, by proxy - of the said historians'.
Charles' well-known hospitality may be ascribed either to the adherence to a
Germanic custom Tacitus once prized, a custom which, however, remained a custom
and never degenerated into a rationalised and intellectualised socially oriented
practice, a socialisation device, as it did later in Europe as a result of
Christianisation, or to the observance of a Christian virtue closely linked to
the humanitarian ideal of misericordia and caritas, to the theological duty to
invite the poor and needy, the outcast, to Chrysostom's view of hospitality as a
lever for the creation of a cosmopolitan humanity. « When we read of the many
pilgrims from Great Britain and Ireland who, on their Journey to Rome, passed
through the Frankish kingdom, and who placed a heavy burden on the state
coffers, so that action had to be taken against the misuse that the pilgrims
made thereof, » it is hard to avoid the impression that these were the pioneers
of charity-business.

Charles' deep interest in pan-Germanic Grammar should also be put in
perspective, insofar as it would appear that it was not more genuine than the
revival of the ideals of ancient Rome during the so-called Carolingian
Renaissance. All the evidence suggests that it met the practical need to create
a standard Germanic language in order to make it the medium of Christian ideas.
Likewise, the reason for Charles' insistence that the oaths of loyalty he
imposed were administered in the vernacular of each region was merely one of
practicality, since it meant that those who took them could never claim that
they had not understood what was said on that occasion.

In fact, almost anything that was taken up from ancient Rome in those days was
inflected in a Christian direction, to start with the concept of `fides', which
had remained almost unaltered, as good faith in personal and international
relations within a hierarchical society, down to the Merovingians : « the
evangelising Carolingian church "preached lordship, using the same language for
political and religious obligation. `Faith' (fides) meant both Christian belief
and the bond between lord and man. The Book of Psalms, the text-book of
Carolingian spirituality, could be read as a manifesto of divine Lordship.
Christ was presented as lord of a warrior-retinue. Fidelity in political
contexts acquired strong Christian overtones. In addressing his documents,
Pippin identified his own faithful men with God's : fideles dei et regis.
Charlemagne hammered the point home when he imposed faithfulness in both kinds
on the conquered Saxons. » (4) « The virile sense of medieval fides » thus
became diluted into « the pietistic sense that has prevailed in the theistic
idea of `devotion' » long before J. Evola assumes it to have undergone this
weakening, so that it would be more accurate to say, reversing the terms of his
proposition as follows, that « During this stage [the following stage, « the
cycle of the great European monarchies »], the fides cementing the state no
longer had a warrior character, but only a religious [and political] one. » (5)
While, in imperial Rome, the Christians refused to perform the very act, «
consisting of a ritual and sacrificial offering made before the imperial symbol
», that was required to demonstrate « a superordained fides in reference to the
principle 'from above' embodied in the representative of the empire, namely, the
`Augustus' » (6), it was in the name of the same word, stripped of its Roman
meaning, and of a principle which, if it is indeed `from above', is still lower
than the Roman one, that, a few centuries later, all free men in the Frankish
kingdom were required to take an oath of fidelity to a very Christian king, who
- this is the height of hypocrisy - was to be given the title of `Augustus' by
the pope !

A closer look at the oath in question, on its content, its meaning and the
procedures by which it was sworn, is particularly instructive on this point : «
The theocratic attitude which Charles fostered towards his kingly office comes
out in the oath of allegiance which he craved from his subjects. In this oath,
they were not only called upon to pledge trueness and obedience, but also
compliance with the Jewish Ten Commandments. Not content with that, this genuine
`Teuton' so changed the oath formula after his crowning as emperor, that a still
greater emphasis was placed on the moral and religious duties of his underlings.
» (7) Besides, « ... by the beginning of Charlemagne's reign such oaths were
only sworn by important members of local elites who were personal recipients of
the ruler's goodwill and, therefore, `faithful men' of the king. In 789
Charlemagne moved to extend the practice to all free men, who were to swear
loyalty, on holy relics, to the king in the person of his local representative.
This move was a reaction to perhaps the most serious revolt of the reign, in
785-86, by a group of magnates from the provinces east of the Rhine. They had
formed a conspiracy which aimed at murdering the king if he entered their region
again, and this had been cemented by swearing oaths of mutual solidarity.
Charlemagne punished the ringleaders with blinding and the confiscation of
lands, and made them swear loyalty to him on holy relics », (8) on which perhaps
they had not sworn to murder him. In any case, Charles gladly took advantage of
this to outlaw « the swearing of mutual oaths of group solidarity, mindful of
their use in conspiracies : associations or gilds for a variety of purposes were
to be allowed, but without the swearing of oaths. Although Charlemagne
encouraged the development of relationships of lordship and personal dependence
for the purposes of social cohesion, sworn armed followings (trustees) were
outlawed... » (9) This did not prevent Pepin the Hunchback, one of Charles'
illegitimate sons, from devising another plot a few years later, nor Charles
from intensifying even further the oath's implementation. « The envoys, each of
whom was responsible for a large area had to arrange personally for oaths to be
taken by bishops, abbots, counts, royal vassals, archdeacons, canons, and other
ecclesiastical dignitaries. Every count was required to organize under the
supervision of the royal envoys the swearing of allegiance by all the
inhabitants of his county over the age of twelve, starting with holders of
public office and priests and then continuing with other free men. It did not
stop there : freed slaves and slaves who worked on lands belonging either to the
crown or to the church were also included, as were even slaves belonging to
private individuals, if they had been entrusted with duties of some importance
or were part of their owner's armed retinue. » (10) The envoys, who had first of
all to « explain with reference to ancient customs the reasons why these oaths
are necessary » would have been at a loss to do so, since this went far beyond
anything in the past ; « only the most humble of rural slaves who toiled on the
vast estates of private landowners escaped the watchful eye of the king. All
other man who lived in that immense kingdom, even when not free in legal terms,
had to undertake to obey his authority » (11) ; « obedience to a sovereign was
no longer simply a question of belonging to his people or living in his kingdom
; it had been reinforced by a personal religious commitment that brought into
play the state of one's soul in the next life. » (12). The oath, which, by then,
had become a parody, was still renewed twice before Charles' death. To crown it
all, the unhealthy character of the whole thing backfired on Charles, who,
overwhelmed by paranoid fears, ordered his envoys to make sure that those who
had taken the habit of swearing on the life of the king and of his sons should
no longer use such formula when taking an oath. (13)

The story by Notker the Stammerer of a visit Charles made to St Gall's monastic
school in 883 reveals what is perhaps the most markedly un-Germanic personality
trait of the latter : « Charles promised the poor but industrious boys, as a
reward for their keenness, later positions of office and authority, whereas he
gave the more noble-blooded but lazy boys to understand that he cared little for
"their nobility" or their "smart looks" and that they need expect nothing from
Charles. » (14) « Is this not eloquent, F.J. Los legitimately wonders, of a
bastard's hate towards the noble, and perhaps also the aversion of an alien
towards the Nordic race, which in that very nobility found its purest embodiment
? » Notker's Life of Charlemagne may indeed have been scorn by a few academics,
but this anecdote is entirely consistent with Charles' unfailing piety and the
Judeo-Christian prophecy that « the last will be the first and the first shall
be the last. »

This is hardly surprising for a man who is described as having « cherished with
the greatest fervor and devotion the principles of the Christian religion, which
had been instilled into him from infancy. » (15), an infancy Einhard, when
writing these words, seemed to have forgotten he previously stressed « It would
be folly, I think, to write a word » about, « for nothing has ever been written
on the subject » ... Charles produced a considerable amount of religious
legislation, in which, unsurprisingly, a strong emphasis was put on Christian
virtues such as chastity, humility, modesty, charity, compassion, and abstinence
from marital sex on Sunday. « He regulated Sunday rest, the assiduity of the
faithful in attending to offices, the obligation of prayer, religious feasts,
baptism, penitence, communion and so on. » (16) A further sign of un-Germanic
character is his great interest in theology, especially in issues such as the
nature of Christ and iconoclasm, the incarnation and the resurrection, not to
mention « his habit, closely linked therewith, of delving into dogmatic quibbles
and niceties » (17). His models were Biblical figures. There is nothing
anecdotal about the fact that David was the nickname he took as a member of the
academy he had founded at the instigation of Alcuin - while, for example,
Bezaleel, Moses' nephew, was Einhard's. Charles was often referred as the "new
David" by contemporary literary figures in his service. Up to Charles' death,
Alcuin, who was not afraid to call Aachen the New Jerusalem, continued to call
him David : « what is being recognised in him is no less than the sacred office
and functions and qualities of the Hebrew king. Among these qualities the Abbot
of Saint Martin de Tours mentions especially mercy, good will, a steady pity and
godliness, and above all wisdom » (18). The choice of the Old Testament Kings of
Israel as a model for Carolingian kingship goes back to Clothaire II, the first
Frankish king to be compared to David. While it is not known whether Clothaire
II assumed this comparison, it is clear that Charles self-consciously and
enthusiastically compared himself to king Josiah in his Admonitio Generalis, the
General Warning of 782, going so far as quoting 2 Chronicles 34:30, a passage
about the promulgation by the king of Judah of the rediscovered Book of the Law
to the people of Israel ; in fact, the General Warning is littered with
citations from early Church councils, from papal decretals, as well as from
Deuteronomy and Leviticus, presented as royal law. As pointed out by J.L.
Nelson, (19) « The naming and listing that were fundamental uses of the written
word in Carolingian government recall the name-lists used for political purposes
in liturgical commemoration : Memorial Books, also called Books of life,
contained the names of the saved. God read them. The ruler too wanted
name-lists, signifying his power over those named, and their claims to his
concern. Such lists were inspired by the Old Testament. The Book of Numbers set
out the work-method of Israel ; the Book of Kings showed these methods into
practice ; in enjoining that surveys be made, that lists be drawn up and kept,
Carolingian rulers followed the path of Moses and Solomon. At the same time,
their agents, and those they ruled, inscribed themselves as their collaborators
: a new Israel. »

The Jewish aura of the Carolingian rule is even more apparent in the development
of Frankish royal ritual. While, under the Merovingians, it consisted, as in
imperial Rome, in a military ceremony, from Pippin's coronation, it came to be
modelled on the anointing of the kings of Israel by priests and prophets. « ...
it had been a Roman principle since times of yore that the army conferred the
title of emperor. This 'imperatorem facit exercitus' ran abreast the concept of
the king's election which had formerly held among all Indogermanic folkdoms -
old Romans and old Teutons alike. Now that the Pope had crowned the emperor,
this office took on that same theocratic character which had been imposed on the
Frankish kingship previously by the anointment ceremony. » In « a new prologue
added to the Lex Salica, the law code of the Franks, late in Pippin's reign, »
the Franks are declared « (in language taken directly from Deuteronomy) to be a
chosen people, `beloved of Christ'. A contemporary recording Pippin's
inauguration in 751 presented the `bishops' consecration' and `the princes'
recognition' as parallel, complementary rituals, just as in the Old Testament,
king-makings were depicted as the collective act of the priests and the people
of Israel. » (20) As early as the seventh century, « a form of prayer for the
prince contained in the Mass quotes as examples for his imitation [the people's]
Abraham, Moses, Joshua and David, thus comparing the Frankish people to Israel »
(22). « The model of Christian rulership elaborated in `Mirrors of princes' was
projected mainly for kings themselves » and kings fully recognised themselves
into it, yet the model of Christian rulership was in turn modelled on Jewish
kingship. Just as the king in ancient Israel was only the representative of
Yahweh, so the Carolingian ruler was God's representative on earth, and, so to
speak, Yahweh's agent in the `Middle Ages'. It is entirely in accord with the
Israelite conception that the king's humility is also emphasised in the title of
a royal blessing-prayer which was incorporated into the rite of royal
consecration early in the Carolingian period and thence passed into general use
in the kingdoms of the Latin west, providing « an epitome of Frankish
expectations of their king in the time of Charlemagne » and also setting out «
ideas of kingship which were to remain standard throughout the Middle Ages and
beyond » (23) : 'Prospice' : 'Look down'. Just as it is the king's duty to
sustain the humble and the oppressed, so he must himself be humble and meek.
Besides, « The repeated use of the terms potentia and potestas here shows that
the invocation of divine omnipotence to sustain royal potency is no mere
liturgical cliche but conveys the central political idea of the Carolingian
period : power came from God. The king acted as his deputy in securing justice
and peace for the Christian people » (24), to the extent that he « believed his
power to depend on the Church's preservation of the Faith. » How "strikingly
original" (25) Otto III's conception of the "renewal of the Roman Empire" was is
showed by the fact that this emperor called himself, as St Paul had done, `the
slave of Jesus Christ' ; by the same token, Henry III - called the Black or the
Pious - took the title of `king of the Romans'. The ancient Romans' support for
their kings is well-known.

The bottom line is that there is no evidence that Charlemagne intended to renew
the Rome of the early Caesars, nor is there any evidence that he had a policy to
promote the cohesive program of a Roman restoration, far from it. In a new
prologue for the Frankish law code that had been drawn up under Pippin, it was
asserted that the Franks, as God's chosen people, had vanquished the impious
Romans, who had persecuted the early Christians. (26) - Rhabanus and Notker did
not see Charlemagne as the legitimate heir of the Roman empire, but as God's
chosen successor to the Christian Roman empire. As suggestively put by H.
Schutz, « The emphasis on Israel and the Old Testament contributes a
distinguishing accent to the Carolingian reconfiguration as being something
other than just an attempted 'Renaissance' of a pagan Classical antiquity. »
(27). Needless to say, Charles' and his entourage's judeophilia has never
troubled the vast majority of academic medievalists, who, because of a mix of
short-sightedness, of intellectual laziness and conformism, and of lack of
knowledge of the culture of ancient patrician Rome, which makes them lump
ancient Rome and the medieval Roman Catholic Church into the same pot and assume
the latter be the upholder of the former's tradition, do not wonder why « a
German chieftain was transformed into the Lord's anointed » (E. Gibbon) with the
magic wand of a Jewish rite. They acknowledge for some of them that it was the
non-Franks in Charlemagne's entourage who were responsible of the most explicit
articulations of the idea of the Franks as God's chosen people and refer to the
part that may have been played by his "foreign courtiers" in its genesis, but do
not venture further on this ground, on which they are ill-equipped to tread. For
Alcuin as well as for the group of ecclesiastics surrounding Charles, « the
Christian Church, and not the Roman empire, was the most majestic institution
ever to have appeared in Europe. » (28). It may well be that « The notion of an
imperial crowning arose... from the fact that these learneds, for whom the mind
world of old Teutondom no longer existed, saw in Charles no more the king of the
Franks but the leader of Christendom - « rectorem populi christiani », as Alkwin
names him in one of his letters. A greater slump in Teutonic world-outlook and
tradition cannot be imagined. » (29)

« These men, to whom among others Petrus of Pisa, a grammar-teacher from Italy ;
Paulus Diaconus, the writer of Langobard history ; Paulinus, later patriarch of
Aquileia ; Theodulf, a Spanish Visigoth, being not only Charles' best poet at
court, but also a learned theologian, belonged, as well as Dungal, an Irish man,
whose bardly gift did not stop him from withdrawing later into a monastery ; and
abbot Angilbert, whom we have already heard of in connection with Charles'
family life, and Alkwin (Alcuin), an Anglo-Saxon, who trod forth as Charles'
foremost counsellor in cultural matters ; all these men were, it is true, for
the most part Teutons, but the culture, which they brought, was no less
ungermanic in character. What
they revived at Charles' court and what they sought to impose on the folkdoms of
his kingdom-Germanic and Romanic alike – was the outlived and Christian-coloured
sham culture of the late Roman race-chaos, which here underwent its renaissance.
Just as their princely protector had his churches and palaces built on Roman and
Byzantine models, so these poets and learneds wrote Latin tracts and verses,
being in form and content nothing more than apings of antique patterns. The
cultural victory of a dying Rome over its Teutonic vanquishers... was already at
this court an accomplished fact. » (30) This process of acculturation took place
in arts, too : « Instead of continuing the … ornamental northern intertwine of
abstract, curvilinear, vegetative and animal complexes of surface covering and
space-&#64257;lling ornamentation, already found on some Roman military metal
work, Germanic personal ornaments and portable art, the Celtic, Anglo-Saxon and
other Germanic Styles found use on the largely `private art' of Christian
vessels and in the exquisitely illuminated gospels containing the continuous
texts of the evangelists, and sacramentaries containing the texts of prayers and
ritual directives of the mass. The so-called Carolingian recapitulation blurred
the contours of the component northern, Christian and Classical elements till
there developed comprehensible, often original, creative summarizing emphases on
the imaging principles of representational art for educational purposes. These,
however, were not on behalf of learning for Learning's sake, but on behalf of
learning for the sake of the Christian People, for Christianity's sake. » (31)
As emphasised by H. Schutz, « To demonstrate imperial continuity and hence the
legitimacy and divine authority of the Carolingian dynasty, this transformation
saw the Carolingians, leaning on a Rome - and Ravenna/ Byzantine- related
symbolism representing the power of the state. This was most overtly
demonstrated ideologically in some architecture, inspired by Christian Rome,
supported by less obvious literature, secular and such religious art as
manuscripts and newly carved ivories, and a general body of ideas related to
classical, Christian models. » (32) In the field of letters, a comparison
between various contemporary works show that what was often employed to write
them was « a technique of linguistic accommodation in seeking vernacular
equivalents for biblical concepts (e.g. describing Christ as the leader of a
chosen few in terms suggesting that they were members of a Germanic war-band).
What appears to be a Christian concession to the Germanic past, however, is far
from amounting to a Germanization of Christianity, but is in effect a
`Christianisierung des Germanentums`. Here, too, the Christian message imposes
itself upon Germanic tradition. » (33) The whole Germanic tradition was twisted
and assimilated into a Christian world-view, by the act of euhemerisation and by
the use of various literary devices : « Various aspects of the Christian faith
were expressed in secular and heroic images to make them familiar to the
Anglo-Saxon aristocratic warrior audience. There were however features in
pre-Christian beliefs that could not be accepted, such as the existence of more
than one god. The Church attempted to reconcile existing gods with its doctrine.
One of the ways to deal with pagan deities was to render them inoffensive by
showing how they were actually only human. They were maybe heroes, who were
mistakenly considered gods (euhemeristic approach). The success of this approach
is shown by the presence of Woden in royal genealogies as a tribal hero rather
than as a powerful god. » (34)

Charles' favourite book was Augustine's De civitate Dei, in which the hatred of
Rome has apocalyptic overtones. As stated by F.J. Los, « it was under the
influence of this book that Charles drew nearer and nearer to the vision of a
Christian world-kingdom, `Imperium Christianum', over which he, as King of the
Franks and 'defender of the Church' was called to govern, a calling which at the
same time constrained him to subject by violence the heathens into his empire…
The enforced conversion of these heathens even became the main task to which
Charles applied the might of his empire… The ideas, by which Charles came under
the sway of Augustine, have been thumbnailed by Dahn as follows : « Long before
the year 801, his conception of a ruler's duty was a theocratic one : law,
morality and religion were not distinguished in any way from one another. Law is
simply the means to the end set by morality. All morality is religious. The
Church, as the bearer of revelation, determines the morality. The King (or
Emperor) has the duty of shielding the Church. God's kingdom on earth is the
Church : Church and state forming a onehood. They form nothing more than a
sphere, the upper half (spiritual) and the lower half (worldly) make together -
`Christendom'. Charles' kingdom is fitted not only to be a community in law, but
a community of the moral Christian life. » The proposition that Charles
misinterpreted Augustine's views on the conflicting relation between the city of
God and the earthly city and that his use of force in an attempt to subordinate
the latter to the former betrayed Augustine's views is a catch-all argument that
does not withstand scrutiny. Erasmus did not know to what extent he had himself
on his mind when stating : « `Dulce bellum inexpertis [War is sweet to those who
know nothing about it]' : `Every bad thing either finds its way into human life
by imperceptible degrees, or else insinuates itself under the pretext of good'.
Elsewhere in the same text he put it slightly differently : `The greatest evils
have always found their way into the life of men under the semblance of good'.
Although Erasmus was seeking to account for the long descent from the manifestly
pacificistic teachings of Christ to the war-addicted Christian Europe of Pope
Julius II, this observation has tremendous power and persuasiveness as an
explanatory model of many historical phenomena… Erasmus was absolutely right in
emphasizing "imperceptible degrees" in the slow linking of Christianity and
force, and that, as often as not, "force" in the spread of Christianity came
about as an inadvertent consequence of decisions taken in the pursuit of other
"goods," especially divinely prescribed ones. Finally… a good of pressure to
apply force in the spreading of Christianity came from churchmen, especially
bishops and including some popes. » (35)

These "imperceptible degrees" are those of a process which can be traced back to
some books of the Old Testament : « It was by the application of various levels
of force, as well as by miracle and gifts, that Yahweh eventually converted His
chosen people into exclusive monotheists obedient to His will. Furthermore, in
some books of the Old Testament, God is recorded as having led His people in
righteous wars, even to the extent of ordering the priests into battle, setting
precedents which would be invoked repeatedly by various kinds of later
crusaders. » (36) Calls to violence are echoed in the New Testament, in Matthew
3:7-10 as well as in Matthew 10:34-39 and in a lesser known passage of this
gospel : « The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out
of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity ; And shall
cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
(13:41-42 ; see also 18:34-35) The sheer violence of the prophetic concept of a
just God is seen throughout chapter 23, which culminates in the climactic moment
of the anti-Roman Book of Revelation 19. Tertulian, in the third century,
exulted in the sufferings in store for the Gentiles : « What a city in the new
Jerusalem ! For it will not be without its games ; it will have the final and
eternal day of judgment, which the Gentiles now treat with unbelief and scorn,
when so vast a series of ages, with all their productions, will be hurled into
one absorbing fire. How magnificent the scale of that game ! With what
admiration, what laughter, what glee, what triumph shall I perceive so many
mighty monarchs, who had been given out as received into the skies, even Jove
himself and his votaries, moaning in unfathomable gloom. The governors too,
persecutors of the Christian name, cast into fiercer torments than they had
devised against the faithful, and liquefying amid shooting spires of flame! And
those sage philosophers, who had deprived the Deity of his offices, and
questioned the existence of a soul, or denied its future union with the body,
meeting again with their disciples only to blush before them in those ruddy
fires ! Not to forget the poets, trembling, not before the tribunal of
Rhadamanthus or Minos, but at the unexpected bar of Christ ! Then is the time to
hear tragedians, doubly pathetic now that they bewail their own agonies; to
observe the actors, released by the fierce elements from all restraint upon
their gestures ; to admire the charioteer, glowing all over on the car of
torture ; to watch the wrestlers, thrust into the struggles, not of the
gymnasium, but of the Flames. » (37) A decisive step was taken in this respect
with the conversion of Constantine to Christianity, not because, as a result of
the emperor's belief that he owed his victory at Milvian bridge to the «
heavenly sign », usually taken to mean the Chi Rho monogram, he had had
delineated on the sheds of his soldiers, religion became « associated in a
fateful way not only with the realm of politics but with the ultimate battle of
force, the battlefield », (38) but because an exotic and proselyte religion
became associated in a fateful way not only with the realm of Roman politics but
with the battlefield - there is a difference between the two ! This move was
the result of a radical change that had begun in the second century in the
status of the Church. From an oppressed structure and a dissident minority the
Church became a powerful and influential entity which « came to identify with
the social order and make use of and express itself through the institutions of
the social order. Rather than posing a contrast or a challenge to the social
order, church officials could now use imperial structures as allies if political
authorities sided with the particular officials on the issue in question. » (39)
As a consequence of this, the Church was able to show its true colours with
impunity, accommodating violence as easily as it had previously preached peace
unilaterally. Indeed, as pointed out by J. Denny Weaver in his enlightening
essay, « Its abstract, ahistorical, a-ethical formula permits one to claim
Jesus' saving work while wielding the sword that Jesus had forbidden. Similarly,
James Cone, founder of the black theology movement, notes how the abstract
formulas allowed slave owners to preach a salvation to slaves that preserved
intact the master-slave Relationship. » Once the institutionalised Christian
church had potentially at its disposal the mighty and coercive power of the
State, the temptation was bound to arise to use it, as did Augustine in his
struggle against the Donatists, to settle disputes within the Church, and, one
thing leading to another, to deal with all the enemies of the Church, by the
sword if need be. More generally, Augustine for a time « shrank from, and even
condemned, persecution ; but he soon perceived in it the necessary consequence
of his principles. He recanted his condemnation ; he flung his whole genius into
the cause ; he recurred to it again and again, and he became the framer and the
representative of the theology of intolerance. The arguments by which Augustine
supported persecution… were drawn from the doctrine of exclusive salvation, and
others from the precedents of the Old Testament. It was merciful, he contended,
to punish heretics, even by death, if this could save them or others from the
eternal suffering that awaited the unconverted. Heresy was described in
Scripture as a kind of adultery ; it was the worst species of murder, being the
murder of souls ; it was a form of blasphemy, and on all these grounds might
justly be punished… had not Elijah slaughtered with his own hand the prophets of
Baal ? Did not Hezekiah and Josiah, the king of Nineveh, and Nebuchadnezzar,
after his conversion, destroy by force idolatry within their dominions, and were
they not expressly commended for this piety ? St. Augustine seems to have
originated the application of the words 'Compel them to come in' to religious
persecution. » (40)

Meanwhile, orthodoxy was regulated by imperial edicts ; Theodosius, whose edict
against the mos maiorum was issued a few months after Ambrose, who had
excommunicated him, readmitted him to the Church, was a pawn in the bishop of
Milan's game ; in the first Origenist crisis, an imperial edict was obtained
forbidding all monks to read Origen ; « popular fury was deliberately excited »
against the Origenist monks of Nitria ; « ignorant deserters from the persecuted
party were made to swear that in a certain dark cavern they had seen Origen
tormented in hell fire » ; Origen's followers were « driven from Egypt, Syria,
and Cyrprus ; and inhuman attempts made to deprive them of shelter and
hospitality in their flight. All this Jerome not only sanctioned, but
instigated. » (41) In a letter of his to Theophilus, whose existence Jerome's
biographers seem to have mislaid, this defender of the weak and oppressed boasts
about the fact that he was the hidden hand behind the persecution of the
Origenists : « The rescripts of the emperors, which order the expulsion of the
Origenists from Alexandria and Egypt, were issued at my suggestion ; that the
Roman bishop detests them with so intense an aversion, is the effect of my
advice ; that the whole world has recently been in a blaze of hatred against
Origen, who was once read with perfect composure, is the work of my pen. » (42)
The following passage gives a flavour of what the practice of Christian virtues
could potentially led to, when expressed by the sword rather than by the pen : «
Though your little nephew hang on your neck, though your mother with dishevelled
and torn raiment show you the breasts that gave you suck, though your father
fling himself upon the threshold, trample your father underfoot and go your way,
fly with tearless eyes to the standard of the Cross. In these matters, to be
cruel is a son's duty. » (Jerome, Ad heliodorum) Putting it quite bluntly, «
With the advent of a Christian emperor, Constantine the Great… and the gradual
transformation of the Roman Empire into a Christian Empire, the impiety of the
Christians became the new « piety » of the Roman world. » (43) The process of
transvaluation of all values prompted by Christianity can be seen at work in the
lives of many celebrated Egyptian ascetics and notorious bands of Egyptian and
Syrian monks, as well as in the career of « a collection of « beggars,
fugitives, vagabonds, slaves, day laborers, peasants, mechanics, of the lowest
sort, thieves and highwaymen, » who found that « by becoming monks, they became
gentlemen and a sort of saints » (44), starting with Georgius of Cappadocia, who
came to be recognised as the patron saint of the English monarchy under King
Edward III : « George of Cappadocia, born at Epiphanin, in Cilicia, was a low
parasite, who got a lucrative contract to supply the army with bacon. A rogue
and informer, he got rich, and was forced to run from justice. He saved his
money, embraced Arianism, collected a library, and got promoted by a faction to
the Episcopal throne of Alexandria. When Julian came, A.D. 361, George was
dragged to prison ; the prison was burst open by the mob, and George was
lynched, as he deserved. And this precious knave became, in good time, Saint
George of England, patron of chivalry, emblem of victory and civility, and the
pride of the best blood of the modern world. » (45) It is worthwhile reminding
that George had been placed in his position by military force.

The statement of Boniface VIII that « The spiritual sword is to be used by the
Church, the temporal for the Church » reverberates with Paul's that the State «
does not bear the sword in vain » but is « God's servant for your good » (Rom.
13:4) « Long before Constantine, the Christian Church had employed all its
resources against heretics. It possessed no power of punishing them by fines,
torture or death, but it threatened them with hell in the next world and
excommunicates them in this. « Heretics, says Dr. Gieseler, were universally
hated as men wholly corrupt and lost, » and the Church pronounced against them
her sharpest penalties. These were indeed merely spiritual, but they were
transformed into temporal punishments as soon as Christianity was able to effect
the change. » (46). Before the Church was able to effect it, it used two potent
coercive instrument in its fight for supremacy : the sacrament of penance and
excommunication. Whether or not the Scriptural bases for this sacrament can be
found in Matthew 9:2-8 and in 1 Corinthians 11:27, as argued by some Christians,
the claim, made by others, that the practice of auricular confession is based on
pre-Christian European religious principles cannot be accepted without
discrimination, first of all because the notion of `sin` was unknown to the
Roman spirit and to the Greek spirit of that time. Public or private confession
existed, but it was not presented as a sacrament of divine institution, nor did
it require the ministry of a priest, let alone that it was not compulsory. « ...
the avowal of one's transgression or misdeeds towards individuals or society was
an act of justice and reparation, and a proof of repentance to which man
returning from his errors and wanderings, thought he ought to submit, either to
fulfil the duty dictated by his conscience, or to recover the esteem and
consideration he had lost. » (47). Sacerdotal confession « was introduced among
the Greeks, who had, doubtless, derived this custom from Egypt or the East.
Empedocles and Pythagoras seem to have been the first who recommended it to
their disciples as a means of expiating their sins », (48) the confession of
sins being « a condition of being admitted into the mysteries », several of
which had passed from the East. A passage in Plutarch, confirmed by a passage in
Plato, « proves to us that confession was a kind of superstition, the use of
which the priests had managed to introduce in the lower classes, for the purpose
of holding them in subjection. » (49) Likewise, the sacrament of penance, which
was introduced by Leo, aimed, on the material and external plane, at giving the
Church possession of domestic secrets and most intimate thoughts and to place
the communicants and their relatives at the mercy of the priests, while
initiating « an unprecedented movement toward introspection », (50) with
far-reaching consequences, whose close link with the development of both
rationalism and irrationalism, as well as of psycho-analysis, was missed by R.
Guenon in his review of the various stages of anti-traditional action : « While
the confessional provided parishioners with redemption, it also spurred their
development of personal conscience and an increased sensitivity to private
intentions [as opposed to the contemporary honor culture which encouraged a
heightened sensitivity to public perceptions of character]. In short, developing
notions of penance and sin as well as burgeoning anxiety over salvation helped
to turn parishioners attention away from just the consequence of their actions
on temporal things, like personal repute, toward the effect of their actions
upon spiritual matters, such as their state of grace » (51). Not to get away
from our present study by examining how the process of introspection and
self-examination set by the Church played an important in the shaping of the
modern mentality, the point is that the psychological pressure applied by the
Church on its flock through the introspective and inquisitive practice of
auricular confession and the concept of venial and mortal sins, of evil
thoughts, of eternal damnation, and so on, the breeding ground for the emergence
of a culture of guilt, had a traumatising effect on `hearts and minds'. It is
thus clear that, contrary to what J. Delumeau asserts, the process of confession
and penitence was not the antidote the Church organised against the fear which
stemmed from its frightful doctrines of sin and damnation, but a vicious circle.
It cannot be stressed enough that this fear-mongering policy was implemented
spontaneously by individuals who were themselves possessed and driven by fear,
as noted by P. Brown : « Their ambition was to make sure that a respected
Christian past got on the move again... But, if they failed, then God might
again turn his face from them. We should not underestimate the anxiety that was
the permanent shadow of the Carolingian program of correction [correcting,
shaping up, getting things in order again]. In this, Charlemagne and his court
were very like their near-contemporaries, the Iconoclast emperors of Byzantium.
Both believed sincerely that it was possible for the Christian people to err and
to incur the wrath of God. Both believed that the imperial power existed such as
to correct these errors. But, if the emperors failed in their duty, then God's
wrath would be made plain in the decline of the kingdom... » (52)

Needless to say, auricular confession of sins has been admitted among the Jews
at all times. « Another potent instrument in the fight for supremacy was the
assumption of the power of excommunication, and afterwards of interdict. The
excommunicate thus shed around him a contagion, which cut him off from all human
society, and left him to perish in misery and starvation. This was no mere
theoretical infliction, but a law enforced with all the power of the Church, and
applied so liberally that it became almost impossible for the innocent to escape
its effects. Popes granted, as a special privilege, the right not to be
excommunicated without cause. When a crime had been committed against the
Church, for which no satisfaction could be obtained on account of the power of
some haughty offender, or for any other reason, then the bishop put the whole
place in which the offender lived, or the whole district to which that place
belonged under an interdict - that is to say, he caused all offices of public
worship to cease or be suspended. All the churches of that place were closed,
and all relics which they contained were withdrawn from public view ; all
crucifixes and images of saints were shrouded; no bells were rung ; no
sacraments were administered ; no corpse was buried in consecrated ground ; and
notice had been given that this state of things would be continued until the
demands of the Church should have been fully satisfied, and the alleged injury
repaired. By this means such a ferment was raised in a whole population, that
even the most powerful were at length obliged to yield. » (53)

« The church as a visible organization never had greater power over the minds of
men. She controlled all departments of life from the cradle to the grave. She
monopolized all the learning and made sciences and arts tributary to her. She
took the lead in every progressive movement. She founded universities, built
lofty cathedrals, stirred up the crusades, made and unmade kings, dispensed
blessings and curses to whole nations. The mediaeval hierarchy centering in Rome
re-enacted the Jewish theocracy on a more comprehensive scale. » (54) By
coercion, the Church aimed at influencing and conditioning emotions, motives,
reasoning, attitudes and behaviours in order to achieve social and political
objectives.

The slow linking of Christianity and force is characterised not only by
"imperceptible degrees", ranking from theological violence to psychological
intimidation, from mental warfare to physical violence, but also by doublespeak.
The art of talking out of both sides of the mouth was perfected by Gregory, who,
some time after having urged king Aethelbert to « watch carefully over the grace
you have received from God and hasten to extend the Christian faith among the
people who are subject to you. Increase your righteous zeal for their conversion
; suppress the worship of idols ; overthrow their buildings and shrines ;
strengthen the morals of your subjects by outstanding purity of life, by
exhorting them, terrifying, enticing, and correcting them, and by showing them
an example of good Works », wrote to Mellitus, a member of the Gregorian mission
sent to England to convert the Anglo-Saxons, to reverse the order for
destruction of the temples. Against this background, it is hardly surprising
that « a bit over a century later the Anglo-Saxon monk Boniface (680-754),
working on the Continent among the Germanic peoples and destined to be
remembered as the `Apostle to the Germans', followed Pope Gregory's advice to
King Ethelbert, not to Archbishop Augustine. Both before and after his
consecration as bishop by the pope, Boniface destroyed sacred trees and shrines
during his missions among the Frisians » (55) and that « that Charlemagne a few
decades later heeded the advice sent to Ethelbert. » Nor is it surprising that
the reason why Charlemagne attacked the temple at Irminsul is not illuminated by
the official Annals at this point or by reference to earlier entries. Leaving
aside that the thesaurisation of precious metals, which was a distinctive
feature of contemporary western Church, was not foreign to the decision to smash
and destroy such sites, at which large quantities of votive treasures were
deposited - Charlemagne is recorded as having carried off the gold and silver
after destroying the Irminsul and Liudger, a missionary among the Frisians, as
having looted Frisian shrines (56) - the fact that the cutting down of the
Irminsul is not mentioned once in the various studies an author such as R.
Guenon dedicated to the symbolism of the tree as axis mundi, as a point of
connection between sky and earth, is symptomatic of a bias against European
traditional culture ; from a European standpoint, such act is the most obvious
example of anti-traditional action, and Charles cannot but appear, in this
respect as well as in some others, as an agent of anti-tradition.

Violence was used to deal with the most recalcitrant ones, as in the case of the
Saxons « ... by 785 the Frankish king Charlemagne stipulated for the Saxons a
policy of forcible conversion to Christianity, with infractions punishable by
death : "If there is anyone of the Saxon people lurking among them unbaptized,
and if he scorns to come to baptism and wishes to absent himself and stay a
pagan, let him die." » (57) Even earlier, the reviser of the Royal Frankish
Annals entered the following sentence under the year 775 : « While the king
spent the winter at the villa of Quierzy, he decided to attack the treacherous
and treaty-breaking tribe of the Saxons and to persist in this war until they
were either defeated and forced to accept the Christian religion or entirely
exterminate. » (58) « This "may he die the death" ("morte moriatur") recurs
again and again with dull sameness at the end of almost all the chapters to
follow » (59) of the Capitulatio de partibus saxoniae (60), a call to mass
murder reminiscent of Biblical passages such as 1 Samuel 15:2-3.

While establishing the ancient Saxon customs and statutes, the law eliminated
anything that was contrary to the Christian belief-system, such as cremation. It
had another fateful consequence for the Saxons, for, if « ... according to
Walther Frank - the legacy of Widukind, leader of the Saxons, met with the
imperial tradition, which was modelled on Rome and which with Charles the Great,
by iron and blood, as with any great upheaval in the history of the world, bound
together for the first time the divided and scattered world of the Germanic
stocks » (61), this political unification was pursued at the expense of the
organic unity of the Saxon tripartite social structure. While the frilingi, the
second caste, and the lassi, the third caste, were supposed to participate in
the political life at the time of the Saxon autonomy, it seems that the nobles
(the edhilingui) monopolised political power following the Carolingian conquest,
causing latent insatisfaction among the lower two of the three Saxon non-slave
castes, which the political crisis that followed the death of Louis the Pious
allowed to erupt in the uprising, or rather in the conspiracy - since, according
to Nithard, it was instigated by Lothair, who, if we still are to believe the
Frankish historian, had offered them their old ways back if they gave him
backing - known as the Stellinga's. Typically, Gerward, the author of the Annals
of Xanten, calls the frilingi and the lassi « slaves » in revolt. « … there was
the slow destruction of the freeman class, the empowering of the noble class,
and the class mobility in the later years as examples of where the class
traditions died. It can also be pointed out that although the laws of the Saxons
were written down, many new laws were added to the traditional ones with the
soul purpose of promoting the Frank government and the Christian church. The
Freeman class slowly disintegrated, those strong freemen who were wealthy or
otherwise capable, became nobles, while those who were not able to surmount the
difficulty were forced into the serf class. » (62) Louis II contributed largely
to the establishment of a two-tier Saxon society, made up of rich and of poor,
by confiscating the lands of the freemen. « In 1075, both Saxon and Thuringian
peasants revolted as they were in danger of losing their freedom since every
other region in the Germanic lands there were no longer any remaining freemen as
they had all become serfs. From this it can be determined that the central
social structure of the class had lost its strength and declined. With the
co-opting of the noble class by the Franks, the other major pillar of the Saxon
class social structure was removed, no longer was politics based upon what was
best for all three groups, instead the noble class obtained the power while the
other two classes lost their power. This resulted in the beginning of a feudal
society in Saxony although admittedly it did take a long while for feudalism to
eventually hold sway over the entire population... Class mobility in the later
years is a tremendous blow to the traditions of the Saxons as one of their
primary unwritten laws concerns the intermarriage between classes. The old law
was enforced by a death penalty, and made any mobilization between classes
nearly imposable. In the later years after the conquest, many of the freemen
moved up into the noble class, becoming a new sort of class, the ministerials,
who were special assistants to the king and rewarded with land and other
holdings. According to the article on German Feudalism, the movement of men from
freemen or even serfs took place so often and so much that it was nearly the
same as a social revolution. Many of those in political power in the tenth and
eleventh centuries were forced to find men such as bailiffs, administrators and
warriors from the freeman class, as the noble class were unwilling to perform
such duty, and as a result these people moved up in the social structure. » (63)
But the most decisive blow to the traditions and the social order of the Saxons
was the decimation by Charles of the best part of their aristocracy in Verden in
782. Those who were spared were for most of them necessarily more or less
accommodating to the Church and to its protector, when they did not simply side
with the Frankish cause. Along the same lines, « The Carolingians had no
scruples to annihilate the hereditary Alemanic nobility, among whom there had
been criticism earlier of the Carolingians, or find grounds to remove even their
relative, Duke Tassilo of Bavaria, and to replace them with Franks of lesser
origin who, as an emerging service nobility, aware of its vulnerability but
anticipating rewards and a rise in status, could be of greater service to their
families as well as to the crown. » (64). « Serviceability provider new groups
of aristocrats with the opportunities for enrichment and the rise to status… »
(65) Besides, a new group of persons came to the fore as a result of Charles'
insistence that the Christian law should be applied correctly throughout the
empire : « Charlemagne's reforms created an empire-wide `nobility of the pen',
drawn from monasteries and from the clergy. This nobility of the pen was
recruited largely from the Frankish aristocracy and from those who depended on
the aristocracy, as distant relatives and as clients. » (66) Marriage could
offer a quicker social improvement than service. Frankish sources placed birth
as the basis of nobility and showed contempt for those who had risen from below
to hold the highest positions, yet it can be felt that the time was drawing
close where one of Jerome's mottos, « noble by birth, but in Christ nobler still
», would become a topos. Class mobility, which seems to have been non-existent
in the pre-Christian Saxon society, was possible among the Franks, whose
nobility was not a closed elite. K.F. Werner has showed that Carolingian
families were of mixed origin, with Frankish, Burgundian, and Gallo-Roman
ancestors.

The assertion, made, among others, by J. Evola, « that Charles, in all his
conquests, had been driven by the wish to unite as many Teutons as possible
within his empire, envisaging thereby the foundation of a Germanic-Christian
imperial unity » is challenged by F.J. Los on two grounds. « The facts give the
lie to all this ! Among all the lands overrun by Charles, only the Saxonland had
a well-nigh pure Germanic folkhood. In a long and most bitterly waged war, this
folkdom was not only thinned-out in a most frightful fashion, but wilfully
mongrelised, for Charles resorted to deporting great sections of the population,
whose places were then taken, partly by Franks, but mainly by Slavs. Whereas the
Germanic element held way in Bavaria, it formed but a thin upper-layer in Italy
and the Spanish March, being almost wholly lacking in the lands of the Slavs and
Avars. This summary justifies the theory that Charles' conquests alienised
rather than teutonised his empire, and relatively weakened the Teuton-ness of
his Frankish state. And this must have been all the more the case when he
succeeded in bringing his plans of conquest in Spain to complete fruition. The
borders, which he gave his empire, bore no relationship to the lifeland of the
Teutons but were, in their independence of folk-boundaries, a looking-glass
reflecting clearly the cosmopolitan nature of his kingdom, » (67) which,
admittedly, was a legacy of the late Roman empire. Then, there is the issue of
the partitioning of the empire : « It is hard to link up the idea of the
`God-state' - which can scarcely be thought of otherwise than as lasting, at
least inasfar as the said term can be speak any validity on earth - with this
temporal emperorhood. Even more incompatible is the fact that Charles, in the
year 806, divided his empire among his three sons, Charles, Ludovic and Pepin,
in order to forestall after his death any strife resulting from the said
division. The setting of a `God-state' on to an equal footing with a private
possession, which after the owner's death is to be shared out among the heirs,
is impossible to our way of thinking. Yet it is a fact that the early death of
two of the three lawful sons prevented Charles' empire from falling in bits
after his death ; for as the office of emperor was destined initially to die out
again, there would have been no single bond left in that case to hold the three
parts of the empire together. The image of an indivisible state authority was
just as foreign to Charles, it seems, as it was to his Merovingian and
Arnulfingian foregoers. » (68) And so was it, apparently, to his successor,
Louis the Pious, Charles' sole surviving son, who entrusted his eldest son,
Lothair I, with the imperial title and with full authority over the empire,
while dividing it into three dependent kingdoms, one for each of his sons. The
treaty of Verdun marked the end of the Frankish empire, even though Lothair I
kept the title of emperor. Ironically enough, the treaty of Verdun, long before
the rise of nationalism in Europe, paved the way to it, by dividing the empire
into political units which foreshadowed the boundaries of modern Europe.

In terms of internal organisation, no matter the soundness of K.F. Werner's
thesis of the institutional continuity from imperial Rome to the Carolingian
period, it should be qualified. Charles was a bit more innovative in this area
than the German historian, together with F.J. Los, understands. The issue is
not, as the latter points out, that « the new features, taken on by the
apparatus of government under his rod… had been loaned moreover from the Church
», since the governmental and administrative structure of the Church was in turn
modelled after the Roman imperial government ; the issue is that, whereas in
imperial Rome the lowest-ranking officials had only one master to serve, the
Church personnel the Carolingian administration heavily depended on for the
governmental penetration of the kingdom was always tempted, by nature, to render
unto the king what is the king's and to render unto the Church what is the
Church's. « The government of the whole Empire was largely ecclesiastical, for
the bishop shared equally with the count in the local administration of the 300
countries into which the empire was divided, while the central government was
mainly in the hands of the chancery and of the royal chapel… The control and
supervision of the local institution was ensured by the characteristic
Carolingian constitution of the Missi Dominici », (69) whose prototype, rather
than « in the legati and legatarii, whom the Merovingian kings were in the habit
of sending upon commissions, and who ceased to have authority when the
particular duty assigned had been discharged » (70), is to be found, as pointed
out by F.J. Los, in the bishops' visits customary in the Church. Their authority
was entrusted to bishops and abbots, and, when the institution fell into
decline, it was the Church that demanded their re-establishment. Charles' trust
in the very individuals he had enjoined to exact the oath of fidelity from all
subjects is shown by his « care to avoid having the missatica [the areas for
which missi dominici were appointed] coincide with the dioceses of his empire »,
in order « to prevent ecclesiastical authority from too easily securing secular
sway » (71).

Then, several main features of the Carolingian government were derived from
Germanic political traditions ; such was the annual governing assembly, at which
all freemen landowners traditionally met to hear about the ordinances about
which the king had reflected and to discuss matters. This assembly was called
the Marchfield. At the time of Charlemagne, the nature of the assembly had
changed in various respects. It was no longer exclusively for warriors, and the
increasing presence of bishops at it meant that it was inconvenient to hold it
in a period approaching the Holy Week, so that it was moved to May, as a result
of which its name was changed to `Mayfield'. « An even more important change was
that not all the Franks could take part in the meetings. Now that the name no
longer signified the actual ethnic descendants of the invaders, but more
generally all the free men living in the kingdom, the presence of every Frank
would be unthinkable. The assembly now gathered together the ecclesiastical and
lay magnates - bishops, abbots, and counts… Another innovation introduced by
Charlemagne was the frequent duplication of the assembly. Apart from the Spring
assembly... it was not uncommon to hold a second meeting some time in the
autumn. In this case, the king did not convene all his warriors or even all the
lay and ecclesiastical magnates, but only those to whom he wished to give
precise instructions, such as royal envoys or missi dominici charged with
implementing some new provision or bishops called upon to discuss some
theological or liturgical problem. In the latter case, the assembly was
difficult to distinguish from a Council, and no one », that is, none of those
whose view on the matter has come down to us through contemporary sources,
which, need we add, are ecclesiastical ones, « found it surprising that a king
convened and presided over a meeting of prelates » (72) « The two ways in which
royal power was legitimized, divine will and the consent of the Franks,
coexisted not without ambiguity. Charles himself appears to have tried to find a
remedy, albeit in a rather confused manner. First, the king's direct contact
with God made it increasingly unacceptable that he should be subject to the
judgment of men. Hence the gradual dissipation of the functions of the assembly,
whose task was by Charles's time simply one of applauding, and the tendency to
turn it into into a religious occasion by taking the opportunity of this annual
gathering to bring together a council of bishops as well. Second, the king's
responsibility to the whole of Christendom meant that the consent of just the
Franks was no longer sufficient to legitimize his actions. » (73) Now that the
name (Franks) no longer signified the ethnic descendants of the invaders, but
more generally all the free men living in the kingdom, « obedience to a
sovereign was no longer simply a question of belonging to his people or living
in his kingdom ; it had been reinforced by a personal religious commitment that
brought into play the state of one's soul in the next life » (74) Once again, it
should be borne in mind that « ... Charles' striving towards the extinction of
all folkly and racial barriers… flowed quite logically from his religious and
churchly ideals. »

The thesis of the permanence of the political representations and ideas from
imperial Rome to the Carolingian times, which is deduced from the presence of
the key Roman concepts of potestas, regnum, imperium, dignitas, res publica,
etc., in the Frankish political thought, is based on the wrong assumption that
these concepts had the same content in both contexts, even though it is true
that they were already somehow altered in Imperial Rome under the influence of
Christian and Stoic teachings. `Imperium`, as theorised by Alcuin, means one of
the manifestations of God's power on his creatures. `Potestas', as the principle
of the 'regnum', is still used in the legal sense, yet with clear teleological
and eschatological overtones. (76) It is pointed out that a strict separation is
made between the auctoritas pontificum and the regalis potestas among
Carolingian authors, and it is rightly so, even though this separation would
have been best formulated as « The priestly power and the royal power are
divided » than as « The priestly and the royal power are divided« , (Epistola,
CCLV), by Alcuin, who chose his words. » More than a separation, what statements
like this convey, in a thinly disguised manner, is the subordination of the
potestas regali to the auctoritas pontificum : « The former bears in its tongue
the key of the heavenly kingdom, the latter bears the sword of revenge upon
evildoers » (ibid.). The former is the Church. The latter is the empire. The
former`s function and dignities are set out as essential, spiritual ones. The
latter's function as a temporal and instrumental, coercive one. Roman 13, which
is unanimously considered as a charter of Christian obedience to the Roman
authorities, is instead an overwhelming blow against the maior potestas, in so
far as « non est potestas, nisi a Deo » (Roman 13:2) ; Paul commands the
Christians to submit to civil authority only to the extent that God has
appointed that authority ; J. Evola failed to notice this subtle difference,
and, as a result, assumed Paul`s statement to mirror the Roman and traditional
view on the interaction between human institutions and supernatural order, « a
hierarchical view that saw the leaders as representatives of a power from above
», the consequence of which « was to confer a spiritual and religious value upon
every loyalty and every political discipline » (77) : not only, according to the
Italian author's own views, not to mention R. Guenon's, there is nothing purely
spiritual about a theistic religion such as Christianity, in which the personal
God (Gott) is the beginning already of relativity, but Christianity, as a
religion addressed to all men, accessible to all, systematically rejecting no
class or race, was in every single respect the exact opposite of the mos
maiorum, a purely domestic and ethnic religion. While hundreds of years of
exegesis and tons of ink have successfully managed to render Paul's
crystal-clear message ambiguous to those who cannot prevent themselves from
counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, the ambiguity in most
of the formulations of political ecclesiology is yet to be brought to light.
Gelasius's Duo sunt is symptomatic of this ambiguity : « In one reading,
potestas implied real power supported by physical force, while auctoritas only
signfied a moral authority. Another interpretation takes the auctoritas to
signify the right to govern and the potestas only to be a delegated authority.
Yet a different reading considers the two terms to mean the same. » (78) In a
letter to Charles, Alcuin suggested that his potestas also required more fervent
evangelist zeal. (79) He did not need to. As implied by Augustine himself, « the
Christian emperor will make the empire recede into the Church, and later Western
rulers, in particular Charlemagne, read the City of God in just this light, and
saw themselves as exercising a particular pastoral office… Augustine also, as in
his attitude to the coercion of the Donatists, opens up almost unlimited
possibilities for interpreting coercion as 'pastoral` coercion. So that later, a
ruler like Charlemagne comes to see himself, without incongruity, as a kind of
bishop with a sword, and his court theologians no longer talk, like Pope
Gelasius, of two powers, imperial potestas and ecclesial auctoritas within one
mundus, but of potestas and auctoritas within the single ecclesia » (80), ruling
over the « human race » - an expression that was first used in a Roman context
by Cicero, avowedly under the influence of Stoicism.

In conclusion, it is not without reason that in National-Socialist Germany
Charlemagne was no longer called Charlemagne, but Charles the Frank, and he was
made responsible for all the greatest ills that affected Germany ; it is clear
that the principle he assumed was not that of Roman universality, but that of
the Church internationalism ; it is also clear that the weak and shord-lived
Sacrum Romanorum Imperium Nationis Germanicae was not in any way the bearer of
the Roman tradition, but a Christian creature, or rather an entity with a Roman
body, a Germanic soul, and a Judeo-Christian spirit : even though Otton I
managed to merge the Empire and the Sacerdoce, the spiritual and the temporal
power, this merger was defined exclusively by Christian values ; Dante himself
acknowledged that the imperium and the sacerdotium were both established by God
- we may return to this point, which is absolutely essential to understand why
the Ghibelline project was doomed from the outset, in a critical review of the
chapter of `Men among the Ruins` called `Tradition - Catholicism - Ghibellinism
' ; if it is easy to see why the Church regarded a patriot like Widukind as a
'rebel', especially as it seems he had in mind to unite under a single banner
against papal-Frankish prevarications the Germanic tribes which refused to
convert to Christianity, J. Evola's use of the same term to call the Saxon Duke
does him no credit.

In 800, to quote O. Spengler, it was the sun of the Arabian Civilisation passing
on from the world-cities of the East to the countryside of the West. If it is
true that « In theory, the Western world accepted Christianity but for all
practical purposes it remained pagan », at least until the sixteenth century,
when post-Tridentine Catholicism tried to reassert its dominion, it is also true
that the process of Christianisation of the society and of the souls, as part of
a larger process of Easternisation, accelerated dramatically under Charlemagne,
the first Frankish king to have adhered fully and self-consciously to
Judeo-Christian values and to have promoted them aggressively, the first
Frankish ruler whose court was controlled by men of the Church, whose influence
persuaded him that the best way to advance the Christian way of life was through
education. For centuries, most of the cultural and intellectual expressions
derived from Christian ideas and values remained for the elite and had little
meaning for most laymen, who, however, were familiar with and attuned to a few
core concepts, starting with the dogma of the equality of all human beings
before God and its correlate idea of the equality of all people before the law.
Having made headway into people's minds, they crystallised spontaneously in the
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and, as MASS communication
and the expansion of education acted as a sounding board for them from the
mid-nineteenth century onwards, they showed their true colours in the rise of
the concept of `social justice', which finds it source in the Old Testament and
was later enthusiastically brandished by Basil and Chrysostom. The values
millions of young Europeans were confronted with at school in the late
nineteenth century were directly derived from the Christian world-outlook. Long
before the aristocratic concepts of liberty, equality, and fraternity were
secularised and democratised by humanism, the Judeo-Christian teachings had
corrupted and prostituted them by bringing them within everyone`s reach. Just as
priests of the lower clergy were the first ideologues of the Revolution, so it
was not for nothing that, as showed by F. Engels, the lower clergy supplied the
ideologues of the Reformation and of the revolutionary peasant movement. Very
few revolutionaries, including rabid anti-Christian ones, were aware that the
revolutionary programme implemented in many respects the hidden agenda which is
contained in the Old Testament. Nor were Christian counter-revolutionaries aware
of it. Despite the fact that Republicans replaced progressively priests as
teachers all over Europe, the notions and values pushed on the young minds
within a school system run by Free-masons remained the same in substance. As a
formal de-Christianisation, that is, the decline in the influence of
Christianity, both as a religion and as a cultural phenomenon, and maybe also
the weakening of religious feeling and the curtailment of religious practice,
was under way, there ensued a process of hyper-Christianisation of the souls,
which was to be all the more effective that it was not consciously felt within a
completely secularised framework. In their self-hatred and in their humanitarian
values, the dumb-witted European masses, on which the « cultural parasite » more
than ever in office in occupied European countries relies to carry on importing
smoothly as many coloured people as possible into Europe in order to turn it
into a Third-World region, are Judeo-Christianised, Easternised, to the core.
While the academic staff are increasingly unsure that they can prove for good
that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a fake before the pension they might
get is dramatically reduced, it is not without interest that we have noted that
the Gnostic owner of a well-known Italian website dedicated to esotericism,
coming down from his ivory tower with the speed of a falling share, has posted
onto the related forum a message about the current 'financial crisis' in Western
countries, and, more specifically, about the Jesuit who has just been parachuted
as figurehead of the ECB by superiors unknown.

The time is gone when it was fun to be ironic about « the imaginary terror of
the `yellow peril'. »


(1) D.H. Kelley, A New Consideration of the Carolingians, New England Hist. and
Gen. Reg. Vol. CI, 1947, pp 109-112 ; A. Wagner, English Genealogy, pp 31-32.
(2) http://www.cephas-library.com/catholic_race_change_pt_4.html
(3) http://www.nltaylor.net/pdfs/a_Makhir.pdf
(4) J.H. Burns, The Cambridge history of medieval political thought c. 350-c.
1450, p. 221.
(5) J. Evola, Revolt against the Modern World, p. 327.
(6) Ibid. p. 282-283.
(7) F.J. Los, The Franks, p. 60.
(8) J. Story, Charlemagne : Empire and Society, p. 80.
(9) Ibid.
(10) A. Barbero, Charlemagne, p. 149.
(11) Ibid.
(12) Ibid., p. 150.
(13) Ibid, p. 151.
(14) F.J. Los, op. cit. p. 50.; see
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/stgall-charlemagne.asp
(15) http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/einhard.asp#Piety
(16) P. Riche, La vie quotidienne dans l'Empire Carolingien, p. 230.
(17) F.J. Los, op. cit. p. 55.
(18) R. Folz, The Coronation Of Charlemagne, p. 98.
(19) J.L. Nelson, 'Literacy in Carolingian Government', in R. McKitterick, The
Carolingians and the Written Word', p. 296.
(20) F.J. Los, op. cit. p. 64.
(21) J. Nelson, The Frankish World, 750-900, p. 169.
(22) R. Folz, op. cit., p. 19.
(23) J. H. Burns, The Cambridge history of medieval political thought c. 350-c.
1450, p. 217.
(24) R. McKitterick, Carolingian Culture : Emulation and Innovation, p. 58.
(25) J. H. Burns, op; cit., p. 245.
(26) Y. Hen, M. Innes, The Uses of the Past in the Early Middle Ages, p. 235.
(27) H. Schutz, The Carolingians in Central Europe, p. 37.
(28) P. Brown, The Rise of Western Christendom : Triumph and Diversity, p. 439
(29) F.J. Los, op. cit. p. 63.
(30) Ibid., p. 64.
(31) H. Schutz, op. cit., p. 6.
(32) Ibid., p. 8.
(33) D. H. Green, F. Siegmund, Continental Saxons from the Migration Period to
the Tenth Century. p. 5-6.
(34) Inscriptions and Communication in Anglo-Saxon England
http://docs.exdat.com/docs/index-74224.html
(35) J. Muldoon, Varieties of Religious Conversion in the Middle Ages, p. 51.
(36) Ibid., p. 52.
(37) G.W. Foote, J.M. Wheeler, Crimes of Christianity,
http://www.ftarchives.net/foote/crimes/c1.htm
(38) J. Muldoon, op. cit., p. 53.
(39) J.D. Weaver, Violence in Christian Theology,
http://www.crosscurrents.org/weaver0701.htm
(40) W.E.H. Lecky, History of Rationalism in Europe, vol. 2, in
http://www.ftarchives.net/foote/crimes/c1.htm
(41) J. Martineau, The rationale of religious enquiry, or, The question stated
of reason, the Bible, and the Church ; in six lectures, p. 220
http://www.archive.org/stream/rationalereligi00whitgoog
(42) Ibid.
(43) Dr. Robert L. Wilken, from Christian History magazine no. 27,
http://www.chinstitute.org/index.php/chm/first-century/persecution/
(44) http://www.ftarchives.net/foote/crimes/c1.htm
(45) English Traits, R. W. Emerson ; see also
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/george.html
(46) http://www.ftarchives.net/foote/crimes/c1.htm
(47) C. Lasteyrie, The History of Auricular Confession, religiously, morally,
and politically, p. 49.
http://ia600308.us.archive.org/21/items/a589775001lastuoft/a589775001lastuoft.pd\
f

(48) Ibid., p. 56-57.
(49) Ibid., p. 57.
(50) J. Delumeau, Sin and Fear : the Emergence of a Western Guilt Culture
13th-18th Century, p. 1, in D. Thiery, Polluting the sacred: violence, faith,
and the 'civilizing' of parishioners, p. 8.
(51) Ibid., p.9.
(52) P. Brown, The Rise of Western Christendom, 2nd edition, p. 440.
(53) G.W. Foote, J.M. Wheeler, op. cit.
(54) P. Schaff, History of the Christian church, Volume 5, Part 1
(55) L.G. Duggan, 'For Force is not of God ?' Compulsion and Conversion from
Yahweh to Charlemagne, in Varieties of religious conversion in the Middle Ages,
J. Muldoon, p. 57.
(56) D. H. Green, F. Siegmund, op. cit., 302-303.
(57) L.G. Duggan, op; cit., p. 49.
(58) in B.W. Scholz, Carolingian chronicles : Royal Frankish annals and
Nithard's Histories, p. 51.
(59) F.J. Los, op.cit., p. 75.
(60) http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/carol-saxony.asp
(61) J. Evola, L'Arco e la Clava, 3rd ed., p. 149.
(62) http://www.branmyson.com/history_papers/saxon_paper.php
(63) Ibid.
(64) H. Schutz, op. cit., p. 22.
(65) Ibid., p. 27.
(66) P. Brown, op. cit., p. 442.
(67) F.J. Los, op. cit., p. 55.
(68) Ibid., p. 64.
(69) In H.J. Berman, Law and Revolution : the Formation of the Western Legal
Tradition, Volume 2, p. 569.
(70)
http://www.third-millennium-library.com/PDF/Medieval-History/decline-of-missi-do\
minici-in%20Frankish-Gaul.pdf/
p. 4
(71) Ibid., p. 12.
(72) A. Barbero, op. cit., p. 144-145.
(73) Ibid. p. 143.
(74) Ibid. 50.
(75) F.J. Los, op. cit., p. 66.
(76)
http://documents.irevues.inist.fr/bitstream/handle/2042/34646/AUGUST_2003_49_323\
.pdf?sequence=1

(77) J. Evola, Men among the Ruins, p. 208.
(78) L. Melve, Inventing the Public Sphere : the Public Debate during the
Investiture, p. 258.
(79) V. Serralda, La philosophie de la personne chez Alcuin, p. 466.
(80) J. Millbank, Theology and Social Theory : beyond Secular Reason, p. 425.







Mon Dec 26, 2011 12:41 am

evola_as_he_is
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
< Prev Message  | 
Expand Messages Author Sort by Date

What matters for J. Evola in history is less causes, facts, events and visible leaders than « the dimension of depth, or the `subterranean' dimension in which...
Evola
evola_as_he_is Offline Send Email
Dec 26, 2011
12:41 am

Perhaps the last remnants of Saxon autonomy lie in the unique "Plaatdeutch" dialect of the region. Witikind was followed by a slew of noble Saxon rebels who...
Asdfasdsfdas Sfsdf
andreforcord... Offline Send Email
Dec 26, 2011
2:23 pm

"Regarding the lasciviousness of Charles the Frank, it seems to have run in the bloodline before and after his reign and clearly illustrates a non-royal...
Evola
evola_as_he_is Offline Send Email
Dec 26, 2011
2:31 pm

Just found this information today, can't say more about it : http://americanfront.info/2012/01/29/julius-evola-conference-in-brazil/  Just found this...
Lupus
phrasena Offline Send Email
Feb 1, 2012
3:43 pm

Copyright © 2012 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Copyright Policy - Guidelines NEW - Help