We said that we would return to the Golden Legend of Charlemagne, when
examining J. Evola's assessment, and not O. Spengler's, nor any other author's,
of the emperor's historical significance and role. It would certainly be
interesting to examine Spengler's, especially since he called Charlemagne "the
Caliph of Frankistan", but it turns out that we have chosen to focus mainly on
J. Evola's, in the process of which Spengler's will be and cannot but be hinted
at.
It's as simple as that.
The second excerpt from 'Revolt against the Modern World' does not refer
specifically to Byzantium, but, more or less explicitly, to the reason why the
so-called Holy Roman empire could not be a resurrection of the best Rome : "that
which in Catholicism has a truly traditional character is not typically
Christian and that which in Catholicism is specifically Christian can hardly be
considered traditional. Historically, despite all the efforts that were made to
reconcile heterogeneous and contradictory elements, and despite the work of
absorption and adaptation on a large scale, Catholicism always betrays the
spirit of lunar, priestly civilizations and thus it continues, in yet another
form, the antagonistic action of the Southern influences, to which it offered a
real organization through the Church and her hierarchy."
Gibbon's treatment of the Merovingian period is based on primary as well as
secondary sources. The same conclusions have been reached about the Merovingians
by all historians who have cared to consult these.
Indeed, it was under Carolingian rule that papal power increased. That's
precisely one of the points we have been trying to make. It actually increased
further, bearing in mind that pope Stephen II had Childeric III (743-752), the
last of the Merovingians, deposed, shaved, and thrust into the cloister. It has
never ceased to increase since then.
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, Asdfasdsfdas Sfsdf <andreforcordelia@...>
wrote:
>
> Evola didn't touch up on the Merovingian period as much as possible in
Rivolta, however, your quote about Byzantium is not what I was referring to, and
is frankly, not my specialty.
>
> And just as one could say that it is not enough to simply read Rivolta, as one
should at least read, for example, Guenon, Bachofen, Spengler, and even Ernst
Kantorowicz to get an understanding of its skeletal foundation, one could also
say that Los' writings also must be examined in a similar way.
>
>
> I lost interest in this book after it became impossible to read, but before
this occurred I came across this: "the family history of the Merovingians forms
a wellnigh unbroken chain of shameful deeds and misdemeanours: unbridled
emotions of all kinds, measureless hatred, unfettered sensuality...sexual
watonness...."
>
> This is very similar to Gibbon's superficial treatment of the period in volume
6 of his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
>
> One could also mention it was a time when the clergy hid under rocks and in
caves because the warrior class ransacked their cathedrals daily, and they were
clearly subordinate to the knights. It was under Carolingian rule that papal
power increased.
>
>
> The Merovingian period could be viewed very richly from an Evolian perspective
were one to take the time to look deeper:
> http://www.museedestempsbarbares.fr/index_eng.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Evola <evola_as_he_is@...>
> To: evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, November 7, 2011 10:35 PM
> Subject: [evola_as_he_is] Re: Education
>
>
>
> In essence, Los' views on the genesis of the Middle-Ages is closely akin to J.
Evola's, as expressed in 'Revolt against the Modern World' - a book which should
really be read by members who wish to contribute constructively to this forum :
"The Byzantine imperial idea displayed a high degree of traditional spirit, at
least theoretically... The empire once again was sacrum and its pax had a
supernatural meaning. And yet, even more so than during the Roman decadence, all
this remained a symbol carried by chaotic and murky forces, since the ethnic
substance was characterized, much more so than in the previous imperial Roman
cycle, by demon worship, anarchy, and the principle of undying restlessness
typical of the decadent and crepuscular Hellenic-Eastem world."
>
> "In order to follow the development of forces that shaped the Western world,
it is necessary to briefly consider Catholicism. Catholicism developed through
(a) the rectification of various extremist features of primitive Christianity;
(b) the organization of a ritual, dogmatic, and symbolic corpus beyond the mere
mystical, soteriological element; and (c) the absorption and adaptation of
doctrinal and organizational elements that were borrowed from the Roman world
and from classical civilization in general. This is how Catholicism at times
displayed "traditional" features, which nevertheless should not deceive us :
that which in Catholicism has a truly traditional character is not typically
Christian and that which in Catholicism is specifically Christian can hardly be
considered traditional. Historically, despite all the efforts that were made to
reconcile heterogeneous and contradictory elements, and despite the work of
absorption and adaptation on a
> large scale, Catholicism always betrays the spirit of lunar, priestly
civilizations and thus it continues, in yet another form, the antagonistic
action of the Southern influences, to which it offered a real organization
through the Church and her hierarchy."
>
> We will return to this.
>
> --- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, Asdfasdsfdas Sfsdf <andreforcordelia@>
wrote:
> >
> > The forward perhaps appeared promising because of how Stoddard was popular
at the time, but the analysis seems trite and cliched, especially the
stereotyped idea of 300 plus years of Merovingian rule as lasciviously Roman and
decadent compared to the more chaste and farsighted Mayor domos. Perhaps lifted
directly from superficial historians such as Gibbon. Merovingian France is the
genesis of Medieval culture, the marriage of Roman and Nordic elements, like it
or not.
> >
> >
> > And yes, the photocopying was not quite in the tradition of Cistercian
scriptoriums.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: kynard13 <kynard13@>
> > To: evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, November 7, 2011 12:51 PM
> > Subject: [evola_as_he_is] Re: Education
> >
> >
> > Â
> > There's something seriously wrong with the scanning of this book.
> >
> > --- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "vnvsmvndvs" <vnvsmvndvs@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Since "the Golden Legend of Charlemagne" has been brought up more than
once, here's an interesting booklet on the subject by the Dutch scholar F.J. Los
> > >
> >
>