This most interesting point has not been brought up before on this
forum. Whoever you are quoting in this respect, the question the
author asks shows that he or she has rather superficial views both on
Evola's stand on Christianity and on the true essence of Codreanu's
movement.
First, if it is true that Evola had "distantiated himself from some
views expressed in this writing ['Imperialismo pagano'](...) by the
time he met Codreanu", it cannot be said that he "remained the writer
of this 'anti-christian" work". By 1938, when Evola met Codreanu at
his home by Bucarest, 'Imperialismo pagano', which was not
republished in the 1930's, was almost forgotten ; it sank into
oblivion almost as quickly as it was widely talked about in the
aftermath of its publication in 1928, in part because of Evola
himself. Besides, nothing indicates that Codreanu had read it before
he met the Italian author.
Then, it is a gross over-simplification to state that 'Imperialismo
pagano' advocated purely and simply "the direct overthrowal of
Christianity and the introduction (sic) of paganism". What it called
for was a subordination of the Church as an "expression of the
spirituality of those who can only 'believe'" to "the Empire,
conceived of as incarnation of the royal spirituality of those
who 'know' and 'are'. The Eagle beyond the Cross, the solar symbol of
the right of the Fathers (Empire) beyond the lunar one of the right
of the Mothers (the Mother Church)".
The 'Iron Guard', banned in Romania for decades, was recently
authorised to reform there by the political schemers who are
currently 'managing' illegitimately, that is, democratically, this
country, but not before they had pitchforked one of their henchmen,
whose name we haven't bothered to note, into the job
of 'leader'. "Codreanu, Horia Sima, successor of Codreanu at the head
of the movement in exile, said in the French magazine 'Totalité' in
1984, was a convinced Christian, and yet the sense of his
Christianity does not refer to his person, but rather to the
political work he achieved. (...) The base of the philosophy of the
Movement is Christianity (...) The whole legionary education works on
the idea of forming a 'new man'. Now, this 'new man' conceived of by
Codreanu was nothing else but the Christian man projected into the
political field" ; to Codreanu, however, it seems that it
corresponded to a racial type, that is, the 'Dacio-Roman' one,
without any religious reference.
Others are of the opinion that Codreanu used the religious feeling as
an instrument of propaganda in a deeply Christian country.
The truth is likely to lie between both of these extremes : "What
characterises the essence of Romanian legionarism, Claudio Mutti
stresses, is a spirit transcending the religious dimension in general
and that of Christianity in particular and for which the faith of
Romanian Christian masses was the vehicle of a higher spirituality".
Eric Nolte, whom he quotes in support of his evaluation, goes
further : "The mysticism of the Iron Guard cannot be defined as
Christian - even though expressions peculiar to Christianity are
recurrent in it - since it is not centred on the eternal good, but
rather on the concrete 'blood' of its people. If it is true that
there is no break with Christian faith, the hiatus is still
undeniable".
Mutti proceeds to go through "the elements which lead [him] to see in
the Iron Guard the presence of an heritage foreign to Catholicism".
In the first place, there is the figure of the archangel Michael,
since the propitiatory formula of a Mithriac ritual mentions
explicitly this archangel as the medium by which the immortalising
force of the god is transmitted to the initiate. Now, as is well-
known, Mithraism developed all over the Romanian territory, far
before Christianisation. Under these conditions, it is quite certain
that the archangel Michael is a Christian (mis?) representation of an
entity pre-existing to the Christianisation of Dacia.
In the second place, Codreanu often refers to the distinction between
the 'great war' and the 'small war', which, asis known, was first
expressed in a famous hadith and which was dear to Evola who went so
far as to dedicate an essay to it : 'La grande e la piccola guerra',
in 'Metafisica della guerra', Ar, Padova, 2001.
In the third place, to Mutti, another element assumes in the
legionary practice a different meaning from the one it has in
Christianity : prayer. For the legionary, it is not a mere request
addressed to the divinity, a manifestation of religious
sentimentalism, but rather a compelling ritual act meant to act on
the mysterious forces of the invisible world. "Call them, Codreanu
says about these forces, attract them with all the power of your
spirit, and they will come". The legionary prayer is thus a ritual
reciting by which an act of power, and not only an act of faith, is
expressed. Singing seems to have had, beyond a sentimental
outpouring, a mantric signification. If Codreanu ascribed to singing
a fundamental importance - so much so that it was for him "one of the
four essential dimensions which are at the root of our life" -, it is
because he sensed this synthesis between rhythm and image by which
experiences of the supra-human order are sometimes expressed.
In the fourth place, the doctrine of sacrifice, which has a central
part in legionarism, does not seem, to Mutti, to be reducible to the
form it assumes in Christianity. Once again, it bears the mark of the
transmission of teachings expressed far before Christianity connected
sacrifice with the death of the 'Son of God' and with its
commemoration by means of the sacrament of the Eucharist. In the
legionary doctrine, sacrifice is justified by what Mircea Eliade
calls the "archaic theory of the periodical regeneration of sacred
forces". The 'archaic' man revives by his sacrifice the creative act
of the origins to prevent the exhaustion of sacred force. Now, the
legionary sacrifice is precisely an 'archaic' sacrifice, since the
members of the Iron Guard stated that they sacrificed themselves to
restore race and to prevent it from dying out.
On the other hand, some of these elements irreducible to Christianity
in the legionary movement were brought to light by Evola in the six
articles he published on Codreanu, of which five appeared in the
Italian press in 1938, while the last was written on the eve of his
death. Mutti, without giving its refrences, refers to a seventh
article, in which Evola points out that "the idea of the presence of
the powers of the dead - and particularly that of the heroes - by the
living, which is pregnant in the legionary movement, reflects
unequivocally some well-known forms of a pre-Christian (relations
between the gens, the ancestors and tutelary heroes) spirituality.
With respect to the relations between the State and the
Church, "Codreanu, Evola recalls in 1973, pointed out that the
historical situation of a country like Romania was favourable, since
Graeco-orthodox Christianity is foreign to the opposition between the
universality of faith and the national idea ; as national church, the
Orthodox Church could be the perfect counterpart of a renewing State
committed to a national revolution" : assuming that the Orthodox
Church was what Codreanu thought it was, Evola couldn't agree more
with him. Least but not last, Codreanu's anti-Semitism was, as
Evola's, of the racial type, and not of the religious type. In
http://thompkins_cariou.tripod.com/id15.html/, it is on this aspect
of Codreanu's thought and action that Evola tend to focus, without
criticising any of points made by the former, and we know that he was
particularly demanding on this issue.
--- In
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "lordofthespear"
<hailtocryptogram@...> wrote:
>
> This might have been brought up before, but how was it possible that
> Codreanu and Evola were - if I'm correct - befriended* with each
other?
> The anti-Judeo-Masonic stance they shared and Evola admired the
> legionary movement for it's spirit and it's ethical code, but would
> Evola's controversial 'Imperialismo Pagano' not have been a reason
> for serious collision between the two personalities?
> Although Evola might have distantiated himself from some views
> expressed in this writing (the direct overthrowal of christianity
and
> the introduction of paganism) by the time he met Codreanu, he still
> remained the writer of this 'anti-christian' work. Would this not
make
> a relationship between Codreanu - a devoted Christian who saw the
Jews
> almost literally as demons - and Evola, impossible?
>
>
>
> * I'm not completely sure this is true as I'm not totally convinced
of
> the trustworhtiness of my source.
> Beside this questionable information the only knowledge I have of
the
> 'relationship' between these two personalities is that Evola met
> Codreanu after being introduced to him by Mircea Eliade, which
wasn't
> completely coincidental I suppose. But even then it would be strange
> Codreanu shook hands with Evola, because of a possible colliding
point
> of view. Or did Codreanu, which doesn't seem likely to me,
completely
> lack any background information of the person he met?
>