The intellectual discovery of the work of René Guénon was for
Julius Evola a decisive experience, as it was, a few years
later, for Frithjof Schuon and for Ananda Coomaraswamy. As Evola
himself put it in 'Il Cammino del cinabro', at the beginning of
the 1960's : "It is to my contacts with Reghini (and immediately
after that with Guénon, to whom Reghini drew my attention) that
I owe, first of all, my definitive liberation from certain
encrustations derived precisely from these circles [occultism and
Theosophism], and then, my definitive acknowledgement of the absolute
heterogeneity and transcendence of initiatory knowledge."

Guénon and Evola contributed in 1924 to the first issue of the
paper Atanor, edited by Arturo Reghini : Julius Evola as a
reviewer, and René Guénon with an article, without, however, these
two authors having yet established direct contact with one
another. The occasion for their direct contact came the following
year, with the publication of the first edition of 'L'Homme et
son devenir selon le Vedânta', which Julius Evola reviewed in
L'Idealismo realistico. This review was followed in the same paper
a few months later by a "rectification" by René Guénon, and this was
followed, in its turn, by a few pages of clarifications by
Evola (1). Despite their radical disagreement on most of the key
points, and the controversial tones in which they both
expressed themselves, they started a correspondence which was to last
until René Guénon's death in 1951.

A summary of this correspondence was published in La Vita Italiana
by Julius Evola himself under the title of 'Un maestro
dei tempi moderni: René Guénon'. Quite surprisingly, in the context
of a correspondence which was to last 16 more years, it was
published as early as 1935 (2). It is worth noting that, among all
the points of divergence between him and the French
metaphysician, it is that which concerns Freemasonry and initiation
which Evola chose to highlight. Neither this, nor the
question of the dependence (or not) of the Kshatriya upon the
Brahmana, and, thus, the supremacy (or not) of spiritual authority
over temporal power and the superiority (or not) of contemplation
over action, was ever resolved between them. This did not
prevent Julius Evola from acknowledging and praising right from the
start the remarkable qualities of René Guénon's work : "The
revolt against materialistic, scientistic, democratic, profane and
individualistic modern civilisation is sharp and undiluted as
in no other author. And, at the same time, the need for a full return
to those principles which, because they are above time,
are neither of yesterday, nor of today, but show a perennial
actuality and a perennial normative value, constituting the
unchanging presuppositions of any human greatness, and of any higher
type of civilisation, is precise and conscious as in no
other contemporary authors." (Introduction to the Italian edition of
"La Crise du monde moderne").

The attentive reader will certainly be interested in another
excerpt from this introduction, which refers to the Vedânta
controversy of 45 years or so earlier : "When Guénon states that his
point of view is "metaphysical", the word "metaphysical"
must not be read in the usual modern philosophical sense. Similarly,
neither his repeated use of the words "intellectuality",
"intellectual élite, "intellectual intuition", nor his speaking of
"principles", in a sense which could often make us think of
rationalism, can be allowed to lead to any misunderstanding. His
choice of words, often unfortunate, must not lead us astray. He
refers in fact to an essentially suprarational order (...). In the
guenonian sense, the "metaphysical" order transcends any simply human
faculty : but it is real, and one can be integrated into it,
providing one follows those paths, of overcoming of the human
condition in general, that all tradition has always known.
Thus, "metaphysics" here has nothing to do with philosophical
speculations and 'spiritualist' ramblings."

On the other hand, Julius Evola in this same introduction went back
over his differences with René Guénon and pointed out some of the
limitations which - from an Aryan traditional perspective - are
peculiar to Guénon's work, and lead to remarkable consequences.
Having noted that sacerdotality and warlike royalty were one and the
same thing at their origin, and that René Guénon fully acknowledged
this fact, Evola wondered on what basis the French metaphysician
could claim that the former was superior per se to the latter. This
is is an issue which René Guénon never addressed, and that his
devoted followers have always carefully avoided. The pontificating
psittacism (3) of these followers does not impress in any way those
who have better things to do than to establish who was top of the
class, and who know that, in their tradition, that is the Western
one, the political function and the spiritual function have often
been embodied by the same person. It is necessary to point out that
Guénon himself admitted to knowing nothing at all about Graeco-Roman
culture. In the same way, very few people seem to realise the absurd
contradiction which follows from Guénon's views on this matter, which
Julius Evola highlighted : "Guénon acknowledges that the tendency to
action prevails in Western peoples. Given this state of affairs, one
does not see how it can be affirmed that the only traditional form
possible for the West is of the religious type (...) that a tradition
of the religious type and, more generally, a tradition characterised
by the assertion of the primacy of knowledge over action unilaterally
considered should be the only conceivable basis for a reconstruction
of the West appears problematic." These consequences of Guénon's
views, as well as the limitations from which they derived and to
which they testified, Julius Evola attributed to a "personal
equation".

We shall attempt to reconstruct the chronological succession of the
main events which marked this "long relationship", as the preface
writer of the 19th issue of the journal of evolian studies calls it -
a relationship which, however, remained epistolary, since the two men
never met.

Julius Evola appealed to René Guénon to collaborate on the review of
initiatory studies which he was then edited, Krur - apparently, in
vain. We know, from a letter of the 6th of April 1929 sent by René
Guénon to an enigmatic character called Guido de Giorgio, that Evola
did not send Guénon the second issue of Krur, which implies that he
sent at least the first, and that Guénon felt some interest in the
work. De Giorgio, this 'unusual figure of a modern hermit", who never
wanted to publish his own writings during his lifetime, although they
were published after his death, was already engaged in correspondence
with Guénon when Julius Evola got acquainted with him. The
correspondence between de Giorgio and René Guénon allows us to learn
much about the latter's true opinion of Julius Evola, as well as
about his own "forma mentis". In a letter sent from Haute-Savoie on
the 29th September 1929, he tells de Giorgio that he has received the
lattest issue of "Ur" (4) : "I have seen these stories of mountain
climbing, indeed ; and I wondered what they had to do with the
whole thing".

In his book "Evola e il magico gruppo di Ur", Renato del Ponte noted,
rightly and rather euphemistically, not to say, charitably,
considering the outrageousness of Guénon's remark, that
"the world of mountain climbing, and its practice as an inner
discipline, was something utterly foreign to the formation of the
French scholar". The slight irony hidden in the qualification
of "scholar" is not inappropriate, since, as del Ponte was fully
aware, René Guénon was not a scholar strictly speaking. He taught
philosophy, as mentioned by his hagiographer in "La Vie simple de
René Guénon", for a few years at a French school in the Maghreb. He
tried, in vain, to graduate at the Mecca of Republican
intellectualism, namely the Sorbonne, and, according to his
biographer, always retained a grudge against the "professeur" who
refused his "thèse".

On the other hand, Evola tells us in "Il Cammino del cinabro" that in
his youth he "made a point of not wanting to accept in any way a
degree" and, as a matter of fact, he refused the one which
could have been granted to him, although he had almost finished the
related studies. "To appear as a 'doctor' or a 'professor' in an
authorised capacity and for practical goals seemed to me something
intolerable, even though, later, I found myself being continually
accorded such titles, which I do not have. Here the kshatriya would
have sympathised with the member of an old Piemont family who said
paradoxically : "I divide the world into two categories : nobility,
and those who have a degree". Bearing this in mind, the reader will
be able to appreciate to the full the confidences made to de Giorgio
by René Guénon on Evola: "I think he is intelligent, but he is filled
with prejudices ; besides, I think that he is striving after a
position in the University, and this may hamper him in many
respects." (Letter to de Giorgio of the 15th of August 1927).

Starting in 1931, the year of the publication of 'The Hermetic
Tradition', which he reviewed, Guénon collaborated with certain
papers in which Julius Evola was already writing. This collaboration
lasted until Italy went to war. It consisted essentially of
translations of articles and some chapters from his books, which he
signed Ignitus or simply R.G.. These appeared especially
in 'Diorama', the supplement of the paper Il Regime Fascista, open to
various foreign collaborators, which Julius Evola managed to publish
under his own direction from 1934 ; in this paper, the French author
published around twenty-five articles. A few months after the
publication, in 1932, of 'Maschera e volto dello spiritualismo
contemporaneo' ('Mask and Face of Contemporary Spiritualism'), he
reviewed it in Etudes Traditionnelles ; similarly, in 1933, the
German edition of 'Heathen Imperialism', that is, 'Heidnischer
Imperialismus' ; and, in 1934, 'Revolt against the Modern World'.
These reviews were far from being as favourable as the writer of the
introduction to the journal of evolian texts dedicated to the
writings of Julius Evola on René Guénon suggests, as the reader will
see when we publish some of them. That of 'Revolt against the Modern
World' may even be the least favourable one, something rather
unexpected when one knows that its outlines were checked
and 'corrected' by René Guénon himself throughout 1933.

'The Mystery of the Grail and the Ghibelline Tradition', published in
1938, was the last book by Julius Evola to be reviewed by René
Guénon. Neither the former's books on race, nor 'The Doctrine of
Awakening', were ever reviewed by him, though there is a review of an
article written by Julius Evola on the problem of race by René Guénon
writing as Palingénius (this nickname was the one he bore when he run
the paper La Gnose). This is a rather woolly article, which clearly
shows the influence of Paul le Cour, and in it he gives a definition
of 'caste' which would not displease most sociologists and
anthropologists : "no more than a mere system of labels or names for
social categories." In his later works, Guénon moved towards a more
traditional definition of caste, but, as far as race is concerned, he
never ceased to show a total incomprehension. As for Julius
Evola, 'L'Homme et son devenir selon le Vedânta' was the only book by
Guénon he ever reviewed. On the other hand, he translated 'La Crise
du monde moderne' into Italian, as 'La Crisi del mondo moderno', and
it was subsequently published by Hoepli, Milan, in 1937 ; by
Dell'Ascia, Rome, in 1953 (the text of this second edition is
slightly varied from that of the first) ; and by Edizioni
Mediterranee, in 1972 (the text of the third edition is identical to
that of the second). Let us note in passing that this was actually
the only book by the French metaphysician that Evola ever translated.
He wrote an introduction for it and made "some modifications and some
short additions", with the agreement of the author.

Editor's Notes :

(1) See our "A Controversy about the Vedânta" :
http://thompkins_cariou.tripod.com/id39.html

(2) It was most recently republished in 1972, in La Destra.

(3) Psittacism is derived from `psittacosis' which literally means
`parrot fever'.

(4) Actually, "Krur".

P.s.: http://thompkins_cariou.tripod.com/id28.html in "previously
unpublished texts in French" has been updated so as to make the
reading of Julius Evola's translation of the sixth chapter of "La
Crise du monde moderne" easier, as regards the variants it comprises
with respect to the French original.