MIRCEA ELIADE AND TRADITIONALISM NATALE SPINE'TO. In the extensive critical literature that has been devoted in recent years to Eliade’s intellectual development, and to his thought in general, one of the areas where the most original results have been achieved has been that of the discovery and evaluation of his links with scholars variously connected with what is commonly termed Traditionalism!. The first study specifically concerned with this topic was carried out in the 1980s by Crescenzo Fiore, who concluded, from an examination of the post- war works, that Eliade was indebted to the traditionalists for his cyclical no- tion of time (with respect to which we are held to be in a descending phase), his idea of reality as ‘imitation, participation, repetition’, and his ontologization of myth’. The links between Eliade and Evola or Guénon have been referred to by other scholars, relying partly on Fiore’s work, partly on Eliade’s post-war allusions to these three authors, and partly on new evidence which they them- selves produced. The publication in 1988 of the volumes by Mac Linscott Ricketts dedicated to the reconstruction of the “Romanian roots” of Eliade’s work, and which brought to light a considerable amount of hitherto unknown evidence, marked a turning-point in this field, as it did for the whole question of Eliade’s intellectual development in general; and the increasingly frequent translations of his early writings have significantly enriched the material at our disposal. Ricketts’s discussion does, however, have limitations: since his ac- count of Eliade’s links with traditional thought comprises only one chapter ina wide-ranging study that touches on every aspect of the scholar’s life, he has not considered the question in a specialized manner. Of the studies that do deal specifically with this subject, mention must be made of Enrico Montanari’s study of the links between Eliade and Guénon and of those between Eliade and traditional thought in general, with reference to the post-war works’; the same period is examined in an article by Daniel Dubuisson, which concentrates on ' On Traditionalism, see A. Faivre, “Histoire de la notion modeme de Tradition’; by Tradition- alism, we mean what Paivre calls “le courant pérennialiste” (31-39), For a bibliography on this subject, see 47-48, * Fiore, Storia sacra e storia profana. ’ Ricketts, Mircea Eliade. * Montanari, “Eliade e Guénon’ © Koninkligke Brill NV; Leiden, 2001 Aries Vol. Ino. 1MIRCEA ELIADE AND TRADITIONALISM 63 the philosophical and methodological levels’, and in another by Gianfranco de Turris, on Eliade and Evola®. A general assessment of relations between the Romanian scholar and Guénon has been made by Florin Mihaescu’ and by Marcel Tolcea®, and the same has been done, with a detailed analysis of the available evidence, by Claudio Mutti’. Paola Pisi has devoted a particularly long and detailed essay to the role of the traditionalists in the development of Eliade’s thought'”. All the evidence concerning Eliade’s references to Evola— original sources and secondary literature—has been described and examined by H.T. Hansen", Still unpublished is an essay by Cristiano Grottanelli, which takes the biographical evidence as the starting-point for an analysis of Eliade’s links with Guénon, Evola, Schmidt, and Jimger* These studies, the conclusions suggested by the research on Eliade’s devel- opment, and the available primary sources, together provide a basis on which we can attempt a synthesis of the influence of traditional thought on Eliade’s work. The traditionalists in Eliade’s pre-war writings ‘The first reference to Guénon—whom Eliade never met in person — probably dates from 1927: in a critique of the theosophical movement, Eliade cites Le Théosophisme, histoire d'une pseudo-religion (1921); and he returns to the same subject in 1932, leronim Serbu writes that he once possessed a copy of L'homme et son devenir selon le Vedanta, signed by Eliade and dated Cal- Dubuisson, *L’ésotérisme fascis: © De Turris, “Liniziato” ¢ il Professore” ” Mihaescu, “Mircea Eliade e René Guénon’, * Toleea, ‘Mircea Eliade’ ® Mutti, Eliade, Valsan, Geticus e gli altri © Pisi, “I “tradizionalisti”™ \\ Hansen, ‘Mircea Eliade, Julius Evola und die Integrale Tradition’. See also Muti, Julius Evola sul frome dell’Est, 11-28; Pisi, “Evola, Eliade e lalchimia, forthcoming, I would like to thank Miss Pisi for the study she sent me. Unfortunately 1 couldn’t use it because I received it ‘when my paper was already in press pro! ‘ Grottanelli, ‘Mircea Fliade, Carl Schmitt, René Guénon 1942”. At this point it should be pointed out that some of the authors mentioned in my article are adherent to extreme right move- ‘ments. The importanth question of the relation between Traditionalism and extreme right would require a separate discussion and will not be addressed here. With respect to the present article, it should be obvious that if | have to refer to writings by extreme right scholars, this in no way implies adherence to or sympathy with their politic: "* Bliade, ‘Itinerariu spiritual VIII (Teosofie?)’, 48 (see Tolcea, “Mircea Eliade’, 13; Scagno, Mircea Eliade: un Ulisse romeno’, 19), \ “Spiritualitate si mister feminin’, 203. Cf. Ricketts, Mircea Eliade, 848.64 NATALE SPINETO cutta, 18 June 1929'°, Bliade also read L 'Esotérisme de Dante (1925) and Le roi du monde (1927), which he lent to Marcel Avramescu in the early 1930s!°. In 1937 he expresses his regret that Orient ef Occident and La crise du monde moderne have not been more widely read'’, and he makes the same comment in another article in which he groups Guénon together with Bvola and Coomaraswamy'*. Eliade seems to hold Guénon in high esteem: in August 1942, he writes that Carl Schmitt ‘says the most interesting man alive today is René Guénon [and he is happy that | agree]"”’; next year, speaking about “Dr. Mario”, he says that ‘he believes René Guénon is the most interesting person of our time (1 do not always believe this, but often I do). But since he does not cite Guénon in his academic writings—not even in his bibliographies'— Ricketts concludes that he cannot have had much respect for him as a scholar. The lack of references may, however, be explained by the fact that Eliade only intended to cite works written according to a historico-philological method”. According to Mihaescu, the history of relations between the two scholars may be divided into three phases: in the first, the period of his youth, Eliade reads Guénon, admires his work, and refers to it; in the second, which extends down to the 1970s, Eliade, now integrated into western intellectual circles, makes no mention of the writings of the French traditionalist. In the last phase, when Eliade’s international reputation is assured, he starts to mention Guénon again and acknowledges his importance, though with some reservations”. As far as Evola is concerned, Eliade was familiar with his work as early as 1927, when he commented on an article of his on occultism, praising the com- petence, the command of the evidence, and the understanding of the problem 'S Mihaescu, “Mircea Fliade René Guénon’, © Muti, Eliade, Valsan, Geticus e gli altri, 36. “Ananda Coomaraswamy’, 183-189. Cf. Ricketts, Mircea Eliade, 848, “Note si fragmente’, 8. Cf. Ricketts, Mircea Eliade, 848, Other references may be found in Pisi, “I “tradizionalisti™, 46, where all Eliade’s most important allusions to Guénon’s writings are recorded "© This phrase is crossed out in the original manuscript; indeed, it does not appear in the Rumanian publication of the Journal (Eliade, Jurnaf, 19). | thank Mac Linscott Ricketts for this information, as well as for the unpublished passages of the Journal that I quote (see notes 20, and 48). * Journal, 17 February 1943. Unpublished. * There is but one exception to this, as far as I am aware: Eliade, Traité d'histoire des reli- gions, 384 (he quotes Guénon’s Le symbolisme de la crotx) ® Ricketts, Mircea Eliade, 848. However. as Pisi points out, the lack of citations does not imply a negative judgement, especially as “in his prewar writings Eliade is extremely sparing With citations and critical references’ (‘I “tradizionalisti””, 85-86, n. 21). On Eliade’s references to Guénon in the post-war years, see Montanar iade e Guénon’, 132-134; Mihaescu, ‘Mircea Eliade ¢ René Guénon’, 16-17; on Guénon’s references to Eliade, see Tolcea, ‘Mircea Eliade’. * Mihaeseu, *Mircea Eliade ¢ René Guénon’, 17-18.MIRCEA ELIADE AND TRADITIONALISM 65 that the author shows, and accepting the idea that occultism is based on con- crete experience; he criticizes him, however, for not taking account of Christi- anity™. Grottanelli comments that ‘for Eliade, in this respect closer to Julius Evola [than to Guénon], the occult mentality with its secret traditions [...] was the receptacle of a sacred power in its function of redeeming the “new man” and the Romanian nation, even though this power and redemption was meant, unlike in Evola, to be based on a “Christian” approach™. In 1935 Eliade wrote areview of Rivolta contro il mondo moderno™. He considers Evola ‘one of the most interesting minds of the war generation’ and juxtaposes him with Gobineau, Chamberlain, Spengler, and Rosenberg, while apparently consider ing him more “serious” than all of them; he says that he has published an essay ‘on him and that he has written a study of his philosophy of magic, though he has not published it. As Paola Pisi points out, the review does not correspond exactly to the content of the book: Eliade writes that Evola is ‘anti-Christian and antipolitical [...] against both communists and fascists”’, ‘an opinion about Evola which is hard to share"; moreover, he misunderstands—as we will see later—the Evolian concept of “Tradition”. The two men met in 1937 at the home of Ionescu”. Writing in 1937, Eliade describes both Guénon and Evola as “dilettantes” (the quotation marks are his own)”, probably meaning that they have no specialized competence (unlike Coomaraswamy, Andrae, Mus, and Jeremias, who are cited in the same context). Starting from 1926, Eliade became familiar with Ananda K. Coomaraswa- my’s work. Coomaraswamy was a Guénonian scholar who, however, differed from Guénon in not leaving the academic world; at that time, he had not yet * *Ocultismul in cultura contemporana’. Cf, Seagno, *Mircea Eliade: un Ulisse romeno’, 19. For a complete survey of relations between Eliade and Evola—including the secondary litera- ture—see Hansen, “Mircea Fliade" ® Grottanelli, “Mircea Eliade, Carl Schmitt, René Guénon 1942°. Hansen, discussing Eliade’s—not explicit but unmistakable—description of Evola in the novel Noudsprezece trandafiri, speaks of a Faszinationskrafi exerted by Evola on young people (Hansen, “Mircea Eliade’, 28) ® *Revolta contra lumii moderne’, 6 * ‘Revolta’, 6. ® Pisi, “| “tradizionalist ® For Eliade’s judgements on Evola’s work, see Pisi ‘I “tradizionalisti™, 82, n, 12; 88-90, n 27. Eliade’s references to Evola, mainly in his post-war writings, are reproduced in full and analysed, with an account of relations between the two scholars, in De Turris, “L’ “Iniziato” ¢ il Professore’, 219-249; on relations between Eliade and Evola see also Mutti, Julius Evola, 14-28. Wasserstrom mentions, in a note 1 Religion after Religion (261, n. 65), a study that he has written on Eliade and Evola, but he gives no details and I have not found any record of it having been published. © Eliade, *Folelorul ca instrument de cunoastere’, 28-2966 NATALE SPINETO come under the influence of the French traditionalist''. Later, in the 1930s, Eliade began corresponding with him’. In 1937 he expresses admiration for the way in which Coomaraswamy, like Guénon and Evola, shows that oriental religion and philosophy are in harmony with western “traditionalism”. For Coomaraswamy emphasized the primordial, metaphysical Tradition”, as is shown by the example of the sacred tree. These biographical facts and these—albeit scanty—references to the texts certainly indicate that Eliade paid particular attention to Guénon, Evola, and Coomaraswamy. This attention is accompanied by a series of analogies: for example, as Dubuisson notes, the symbolisms of the centre, the cosmic tree, the stairway, the labyrinth, the bridge, and those of light, the nodes, the waters, and initiation, which are all central to Eliade’s writings, are the subject of Guénon’s book Symboles fondamentaux de la science sacrée, a collection of articles that had appeared in various journals between 1925 and 1950". How- ever, the hypothesis that Eliade’s research on symbols derives from these arti- cles needs to be verified case by case, bearing the chronology in mind, of course. Beyond the personal contacts, encomiums, and analogies, the extent to which the reading of the traditionalists influenced Eliade’s writings can only be assessed on the basis of a thorough examination of the content of the writ- ings themselves. Paola Pisi has carried out such an analysis, looking for actual correspond- ences between certain writings by Eliade and the works of the three authors in question. The results of her research make it possible to clarify some key ele- ments in the Romanian scholar’s development. In the first place, they concern his researches into alchemy. Alchemy was a subject that had already been dis- cussed by Nae Ionescu, who however had merely offered a few hints: but in Evola’s writings on the subject—which had been published much earlier than Eliade’s, and were known to him—we find that they have some central themes in common. The cosmological and at the same time spiritual nature of al- chemical techniques, and the idea of nature as an organic whole whose differ- ent levels are linked by correspondences, are features that are present both in Eliade’s interpretation and in that of Evola, who in turn derives them from Guénon"’, though it should be pointed out that these are standard topics in ™ Ricketts, Mircea Eliade, 851 Nineteen letters from Coomaraswamy to Eliade, written between November 1936 and March 1940, were published by Handoca, Mircea Eliade si corespondentit sai, 215-237. ¥ ‘Ananda Coomaraswamy*. Cf. Ricketts, Mircea Eliade, 851, ™ Dubuisson, ‘La conception eliadienne du symbolise’, 32. See also Tolcea, ‘Mircea Bliade 1.1 “tradizionalisti™” , 49-50.MIRCEA BLIADE AND TRADITIONALISM 67 occultist studies. The multiplicity of meanings of the symbol is characteristic of Guénon’s thought as well’®. Eliade might also have found in Guénon the two: themes of the “centre of the world” and the celestial models of human con- structions, which he discusses in particular in Cosmologie si alchimie babiloniana (published in 1937). For the symbolism of the centre, however, we should not overlook the influence of Uno Holmberg and Paul Mus; accord- ing to Ricketts, the symbolism of the “axis mundi” comes from Coomaraswa- my and Mus, but, as Paola Pisi points out, Ricketts acknowledges that both scholars had borrowed it from Guénon”, As far as the Myth of reintegration is concerned, Pisi notes how the notions of “reintegration” and “androgyny” are typical of modern occultism and esotericism: so there are bound to be passages in the book which recall writings of the traditionalists; but Eliade quotes, ‘al- most word for word, a series of concepts and arguments from the works of Coomaraswamy [...]: the two most important chapters of the Myth of Reinte- gration, the ones that are richest in theoretical reflections, are in fact a sum- mary, with long sections copied word for word, of a 1935 article by Cooma- raswamy, “Angel and Titan”, which the Romanian scholar mentions only once, and ona very minor question’. The theme of sacrifice—and ritual—as reinte- gration is also characteristic of Coomaraswamy”. The expression “rupture de niveau’, on the other hand, is taken from Paul Mus‘. In the Comentarii la legenda Mesterului Manole Pisi finds a concept of folklore (also present in Fragmentarium) similar to that of Evola and Coomaraswamy, who in turn drew it from Guénon". In the same work we come across the notion of arche- type, linked with the ideas of participation and ritual repetition; Pisi connects the origin of the concept of archetype with Eliade’s studies on the celestial models of constructions and on human sacrifice as a repetition of the cosmo- gonic sacrifice, and notes that these motifs are present in Coomaraswamy, linked with the word “archetype”: ‘this is not just a question of terminology: Coomaraswamy had used the concept of “archetype” in the sense of “exem- plary model” long before Eliade’. Moreover, Eliade could also have found the term “archetype” in Andrae and Guénon*’. However, the sacrifices of con- “tradizionalisti"” . “tradizionalisti"™” “uadizionalisti “tradizionalisti 116, n. 135. For a reconstruction of the meanings of the term 's writings and an analysis of the perspectives that influenced his works afier the traditionalists, see Spineto, “Mircea Eliade ¢ gli archetipi’68 struction and the idea of “creative death” are not present in Coomaraswamy", and the concept of cosmogony being repeated in situations of crisis is lacking in Coomaraswamy. Claudio Mutti believes that Eliade accepted ‘the Guénonian theory of the need to resort to the wisdom of the West in order to bring Europe back to the path of tradition”*, a theory which, if we temporarily bracket out the word “tradition”, is one of the constant themes of Eliade’s work. But this conviction probably arose, even before his reading of Guénon, from his study of theosophical writings, which dates from his penultimate year in high school, when he began to develop a passionate interest in the history of religions and in the Orient”. ‘The works considered are only a small part of Eliade’s voluminous produc- tion, but it is probable that an extension of the analysis would confirm these conclusions, especially as his thesis and his articles on Yoga deal with subjects to which some exponents of traditional thought had devoted particular atten- tion, It must therefore be concluded that some central and characteristic con- cepts of Eliade’s thought derive some of their features—in some cases funda- mental ones—directly from his reading and his use of the works of the traditionalists". This is true in particular of the concepts of anthopo-cosmic correspondence, of the symbol, of the sacred centre, of the “cyclical” quality of traditional time, of human construction as a repetition of cosmogony, of sacrifice as reintegration, of androgyny, and of the archetype. Since these are all terms and notions that form an integral part of the theoretical framework of Eliade’s post-war work, it may be said that his encounter with the traditional- ists brought about a transformation. The study of Eliade’s “oeuvre” leads Mac Linscott Ricketts to date this transformation approximately to the years 1936- 1937®, The transformation may, however, be interpreted in two ways: as an adher- ence to traditional thought or as a change of perspective which is stimulated by * Pisi, “I “tradizionalisti”” , 113, n. 130. * Pisi, “| “tradizionalisti"” , 117, n, 136. * Mutti, Eliade, Véilsan, Geticus e gli altri, 20. © Bliade, Autobiography: Volume I: 1907-1937, 84-85. It may be conjectured that the first studies of the religions of India that Eliade read were books published by the theasophical move- ‘ment: in a page from a 1923 diary, the young Eliade expresses the wish to read the originals of the Sanskrit works published in translation by the theosophists (Ricketts, Mircea Eliade, 74), ‘Thus Eliade can say, in 1940, that he has some “traditionalist” views: in his Journal he writes about Tuliu, a character of the novel Miata Noud which has occult interests: “Actually, his theories are not entirely foreign to me, Tuliu will say things which [...] I have never had the courage to express in public. | have only, at times, confessed to a few friends my “traditionalist” views (to use René Guénon’s term)’ (From Eliade’s Journal, 27 July 1940; published in Eliade. Viata Nowa, 212), *” Ricketts, Mircea Eliade, 800 ffMIRCEA ELIADE AND TRADITIONALISM, 69 the reading of the traditionalists, but which gives rise to a new result. The alternative may be formulated in the words that Eliade uses in his review of Evola: ‘works of this kind can be read in many ways: as people who are ready to accept everything at our own risk or reject everything in the same manner; but also as people who are ready to welcome suggestions wherever they come from and who are happy to verify them in every circumstance”. Which of the two groups does Eliade belong to? A thorough analysis reveals that traditionalist concepts and terms are inte- grated by Eliade within a different conceptual framework. In the first place, the central notion of Traditionalism, the very idea of a primordial Tradition, is lacking in Eliade. In a book on Symbole, mythe, culture, which he was plan- ning at this time, he intended to demonstrate the universality of the metaphysi- cal traditions and the unity of symbolism, but he never speaks of “primordial Tradition”. He states that by “traditional culture”, ‘we mean [...] any culture [...] dominated in its totality by norms whose religious or cosmological (meta- physical) validity is not called into question by any member of the commu- nity’'; elsewhere, he writes that ‘in traditional cultures (India, China, etc.) there is a certain “ fidelity” to doctrines, to norms. They show no interest in “novelty”, “change”, “adventure”’. In short, the adjective “traditional” here has a descriptive significance, not a normative one®: it serves to indicate a certain type of culture, in the definition of which there is nothing that implies an adherence to Traditionalism. It is significant, moreover, that in the review of Evola quoted above he defines the notion of “traditional values” as follows: “every value that does not make life an end in itself, but considers that human existence is only a means of arriving at a spiritual, transcendent reality’. Paola Pisi points out that Eliade misunderstands Evola and that here tradi- tional values become ‘a generic “opening to the transcendent”. Eliade, then, does not adhere to traditional thought, but uses a concept of “tradition” that he has reinterpreted and stripped of those very features that were most distinctive in the traditionalists. Indeed, whereas Guénon and Evola speak of alchemy as a “cosmological and initiatic” science, Eliade uses the adjectives “cosmo- logical and soteriological”, and does not appeal to an esoteric knowledge. Again, it should be noted that Eliade uses the traditionalist concept of folklore as “degradation”, but does so imprecisely, as Guénon himself pointed out ina . “Revolta’, 6. ® “Barabadur, tempul simbolic”, n. 1 ® Eliade, Fragmentarium, 13 © ‘The formulation is that of Pisi, “I “tradizionalisti’”, 99, n. 69. * Bliade, “Revolta’, 6.70 NATALI SPINETO review, because ‘folklore constitutes a “degradation” with respect to “some- thing” different, which nevertheless remains indeterminate’. Finally it must be observed that, although the basis of the similarities between the religious facts documented by folklore lies in a common “tradition”, elsewhere Eliade speaks of a “collective unconscious” and also accepts the diffusionist theses: he does not, therefore, adhere to a strong hypothesis, but seems to leave a range of possibilities open. Nor does it seem possible to argue, as Dubuisson does, that the mere fact that he uses the term “traditional” with reference to the terms “esotericism” and “occultism” makes it possible, despite everything, to link Eliade with Guénon®. Reinterpreted in this manner, tradition loses its metaphysical connotation: the “Platonic” nature that Eliade acknowledges as characteristic of archaic societies does not in itself imply a Platonic view of reality. This difference is also reflected in the notion of “reintegration”, which is stripped of the onto- logical nature that Coomaraswamy gave it, and in the notion of “archetype”, which in the traditionalists has an exclusively metaphysical value, whereas in Eliade it preserves a variety of meanings, which I have attempted to analyse elsewhere”. As Ricketts notes, Eliade tends to replace the traditionalists” “metaphysical” with the term “cosmic. Devoid of metaphysical value, tradition is not unchanging, either, but is enriched and modified by man’s discoveries. Already in 1937, inCosmologie si alchimie babiloniand, Eliade emphasizes that technical progress (the dis- covery of metallurgy or agriculture) has the effect of changing the religious 63. s, Mircea Eliade, 856. © Dubuisson, “La conception eliadienne du symbolisme’, 30. Referring to a passage in the Cosmotogie, Grottanelli links Eliade’s attitude to Evola and Guénon with Romanian nationalism in the 1930s; ‘what dictates the Romanian’s choices is the peculiar nationalistic perspective of this son of a people which is “poor in history” and rich in archaic symbols [...]. Neither the universalism of Tradition that Guénon had reaffirmed, nor the “Arian” doctrine of resurgent nt imperialism propounded by Evola, are usable by the Romanian patriot in 1935 and 1937, For this heir of the Romantic tradition, [the reaffirmation of the “pre-Arian” roots of yogic India, and of the age-old cosmological wisdom of the pre-Roman Daci, is a distinctive sign, Which inevitably separates him from his traditionalist masters’ (“Mircea Eliade, Carl Schmitt, René Guénon 1942"), © ‘This is also true of the post-war writings, in which Eliade continues to make abundant use Of the expression “traditional civilizations”. For example, in a note to Autobiography Il: 1937~ 1960, in mentioning review by Eugenio d’Ors of Le Muthe de !’éternel retour, he writes “D’Ors appreciated especially the fact that I had brought out the Platonic structure of traditional popular”) archaic ontologies” (134, n. 2) * Pisi, “I “tradis 52, 59, 70. On the meanings of the term “archetype”, see Spineto, “Mircea Fliade e gli archetipi” * Ricketts, Mircea Eliade, 857.MIRCEA ELIADE AND TRADITIONALISM 7 heritage of the archaic cultures®; so he acknowledges that this heritage is de- pendent on historical processes. Nor does Eliade seem to accept the thesis propounded by Evola and Guénon, according to which history has a cyclical development and we are at present in a descending phase. In Cosmologia, history is presented as a series of “fundamental intuitions” or “mental syntheses” which manifest themselves, degenerate, or die, without any progression from one to the other. Conse- quent on this is also a different way of judging modernity. At the end of the Comentarii, Eliade writes: ‘Is the archaic world, which we have continually evoked in the pages of this book, so very remote from us? And does the act of “degradation” of the original metaphysical meaning, which we have also iden- tified many times, entitle us to depreciate fundamentally all that is “modern”, imposing on ourselves at all costs a pessimistic vision of history?”®. These are of course rhetorical questions, which Pisi suggests ‘constitute a dialogue at a distance with those “masters of the Tradition” (Guénon, Evola, Coomaraswa- my) whom Eliade had mentioned in the preface as emblematic examples of an antipositivistic reaction’®. On the pages that follow, Eliade stresses that the archetypes continue to act on modern man—though in a nostalgic sense— guaranteeing continuity, as against the total opposition that the traditionalists found between archaic and modern’. The difference between Eliade’s concept of time and that of the traditionalists invalidates one of Crescenzo Fiore’s ar- guments“; Guénon himself, while expressing his approval of Le mythe de I’éternel retour, criticizes Eliade’s philosophy of history”. © Bliade, Cosmologie, 12. © Eliade, Cosmologie, 10 ff; see Pisi, ‘I “tradizionalisti™, 53. In an article published in Fragmentarium, Eliade writes that “our present world finds itself at the end of a cycle” (Eliade, Fragmentarium, 94), an affimation which Philippe Baillet takes as alluding to traditionalist theories of time (Baillet, Prefacione, 22). For Pisi, by contrast, the context suggests that Eliade ‘was thinking rather of Oswald Spengler, in whom Nae lonescu was interested at the time (Pisi, ‘I tradizionalisti”’, 86). © Eliade, Comentaru, 136. “ Pisi, “I “tradizionalisti™”, 70-71 © Pisi, “I “tradizionalisti”’, 71. On this basis Eliade thought he could apply to contemporary cultural products a reverse “demystification”. with the aim of revealing the sacred elements that underlay them, On this point, see Montanari, “Eliade e Guénon’, 135-138. © Fiore, Storia sacra, 17. Ibis therefore impossible to read Eliade using traditionalist ideas as ‘a parameter: anyone who sets out to do so, as Piero Di Vona does, is bound to find a series of contradictions and inconsistencies in Eliade’s thought, If ‘we are unable to bring terminological clarity to Eliade’s perspectives, which stand in opposition to one another and lack unity” (Storia tradizione in Eliade’, 13), it is because Eliade’s remoteness from the traditionalist concepts is not a question of terms but of frames of reference. If, on the other hand, we move outside the traditionalist perspective, it becomes possible to see a greater consistency in Eliade’s position. It is true, however, that the undeniable conceptual oscillations which Di Vona notes in Eliade’s works certainly do not help to clarify the question. Reviewing the book, which was published in 1949, he considers “unclear” the notion of the72 NATALE SPINETO Eliade, then, adopts some traditionalist themes in order to insert them in a different context. But what sort of context is it? In an article published in 1937 he contrasts two ways of analysing ethnographical and folkloristic documents: the first is that of Lucian Blaga, who searches for the “style” of a culture: the second aims to ‘determine the unity of the traditions and symbols that are the foundation of the early oriental, Amerindian and occidental civilizations, as well as of the “ethnographic” cultures”. Among the representatives of the latter school, Eliade cites Guénon, Evola, Coomaraswamy, Walter Andrae, Paul Mus, and Alfred Jeremias; later he also mentions Carl Hentze. The first three figures have already been discussed in detail above: as far as the others are concerned, it should be noted that Mus refers back to Coomaraswamy; Hentze, Andrae and Jeremias have no direct connection with them. Jeremias spoke of a spiritual language common to the various cultures; Andrae was an anthroposophist—and therefore remote from Guénon’s perspective—and had insisted that symbols have a metaphysical meaning, which becomes more ob- scure with the passing of time, as the symbols become more elaborate”. Both authors are used by Coomararaswamy. It is not correct to describe all these perspectives as “traditional”; what unites them is the importance they attach to the symbol. In the same year, 1937, Eliade speaks of the rediscovery of the symbol, seeing in this rediscovery the presence of a wider cultural phenom- enon than traditional thought”. The notion of the symbol, in fact, must be taken as a starting-point for an explanation of Eliade’s interest in the tradition- alists. The symbol was a central concept in the thought of lonescu, who, how- ever, may be said to have framed it in a theistic perspective; even during his time in India Eliade realizes the value of the symbol, because he has experi- “regeneration of time” advanced by Fliade and criticizes the idea that the eyelical conceptions of time are opposed to history (Formes traditionnelles, 21 ff): Guénon, to whom Michai Valsan had spoken about Eliade, intends here to reconcile the young Romanian scholar with his own ideas, correcting those affirmations which are not compatible with his own thought (on th question, see Montanari, “Eliade € Guénon’, 146-147). When Evola in 1951 reproached Eliade With citing representatives of the academic world such as Petiazzoni but not Guénon, nor ‘other authors whose ideas are much nearer to those which allow you to take your bearings confidently in the subject you discuss’, Eliade replied, in a letter that has not been preserved, to what Evola calls the tactic of the “Trojan horse”. Once he had entered into academic culture, the scholar would be able to declare his traditionalist convictions openly. Actually, Eliade did not subscribe to the fundamental theories of the traditionalists, and anyway we know that Eliade succeeded in reaching the highest levels of the academic world in America and received many academic awards, but still continued to distance himself more and more from traditionalism. Why then did Eliade express himself in those terms? On this problem, see G. de Turtis, *L"Iniziato” e il Professore’, 243; Pisi, “I “tradizionalisti"", 73-78. A further question is why Eliade no longer cites the traditionalists after the war: see Pisi, ‘I “tradizionalisti"”, 78-80. ™ Bliade, “Folclorul’, 28. ' Ricketts, Mircea Eliade, 853. ” Eliade, Fragmentarium, 36-37. Cf. Ricketts, Mircea Eliade. 854 areferenceMIRCEA ELIADE AND TRADITIONALISM, 73 ence of it. The symbol has the same role in India as in orthodox Romania: it is areality of'a universal kind, In the passage quoted above, Eliade searches for “the unity of traditions” in the plural, that is, the element common to the vari- ous religious traditions, which, qua traditions, as we saw earlier, possess an openness towards the transcendental. And he finds this unity in the inter- cultural notion of the symbol: a notion that is central to the thought of the traditionalists, who developed it through their research on the centre, the sa- cred tree, androgyny, and the union of opposites. The anthropologists, too, had tried to justify the similarities between the various religious phenomena, but had done so by means of evolutionist principles. In the preface to the Comentarii la Legenda Mesterului Manole (1943), Eliade sets against the positivist methods of Tylor, Mannhardt and Frazer those of Olivier Leroy, Guénon, Evola, and Coomaraswamy”. Therefore, although he does not con- sider them above criticism—he writes that they sometimes have gone so far as to deny ‘the evidence of the history and completely ignored the factual data gathered by researchers’—he attributes to them the fundamental role of having supplied an alternative model to the positivist one”. It is in his search for the constants of humanity, then, that Eliade appropri- ates traditional thought”. But at this point, if he is himself to adhere to the traditionalist positions, he would have to define the symbol in a metaphysical sense. This, however, is a step that he does not take, because the basis of the unity of feeling of humankind lies, for him, elsewhere—in existential experi- ence. The universality of the concept of the coincidentia oppositorum derives, according to Eliade, from the fact that it ‘answers, undoubtedly, to a funda- mental human need, from the moment he becomes aware of his position in the Cosmos”. This awareness does not consist in a feeling of paradisiacal har- mony; on the contrary, it derives from a fall: ‘man feels himself “separated” from something, and this separation is the source of unending pain, fear and despair. He feels weak and alone; and this “something”, whatever name one bestows on it, is powerfiul and total (or more precisely, “totalized”), since it comprises all that man is of, all that is other with respect to him’”’. Every * Bliade, Comemarii. 7 In his post-war works, however, Eliade attributes this role to the phenomenologists (Pisi, “T “traditionalisti"’, 43). ® Dubuisson notes that Eliade’s and Guénon’s concepts of the symbol are similar: in both the symbol is seen as detached from its historical context; some of its isolated details are emphasized and the symbol is given a timeless and immutable meaning (‘La conception eliadienne du symbolisme’, 31). Without going into the question in detail it may be said that at any rate these elements are peculiar to Traditionalism % Bliade, Mitul reintegrdrit, 62. Eliade, Mitul reintegrarit, 624 NATALE SPINETO igious act aims to overcome this state of separation and to reintegrate the totality: the coincidentia oppositorum is not merely the objective of religion but also the means of attaining it, because every religious experience realizes the paradox of making a common object sacred”. In these words we find an anticipation of the concept of hierophany, which will not be expounded and clarified until the 7raité. As Pisi stresses, such a concept turns Coomaraswa- my’s and Guénon’s ideas on their head, because it puts ‘at the origin of the ecumenicity of the coincidentia oppositorum a natural foundation (‘the w versal human need’) in place of the super-human (the philosophia perennis)®. Evola, she recalls, had spoken in 1925, before his adherence to Traditionalism, of “an age of spontaneity”—in which there is unity between man and cosmos and there is therefore no religion—succeeded by a second stage, in which, with separation, self-awareness appears, and with it nostalgia for the original state of union“. Eliade may have taken account of these positions, but in him there is no distinction between the two stages: man, qua man, is already torn, divided. What cultural referents, then, is he linked with? Because of the rigor- ously intellectual content of traditional metaphysics, Coomaraswamy does not concern himself with “religious feeling”, while Guénon explicitly opposes the theorists of “sentimentalism”'; moreover, Coomaraswamy and Guénon do not admit the sacred-profane distinction except as a characteristic of modernity®. The use of the terms “other” and “sacred”, on the other hand, lead one to link Eliade’s ideas with those of Rudolf Otto. Pisi believes that his closeness to Otto is limited to the primacy of feeling, not its modes, because for the German scholar ‘the perception of the numinous causes as a reflex the “creatural” feel- ing of dependence, not the desire for reintegration in the unindifferentiated*’. In fact, the creatural feeling does have a place in Eliade’s conception, but it is reinterpreted as that sense of separation and tornness, which is the origin of the human longing to regain its fullness. Eliade knew Otto through Ionescu’s courses; and he had mentioned his ideas in Fragmentarium™. A second influ- ence is Kierkegaard, one of Eliade’s favourite authors in his youth; he had known him through some writings published in the series “Cultura dell’anima” edited by Giovanni Papini for the publisher Carabba**. Finally, the concept of iade, Miaul reintegrarti, 63. 60. . 104, n, 89, 04, 0, 90. 106, n, 93. I “traditionalist”, 105-106, n. 92. . Fragmentarium, 13-14, © Fliade’s first study of the Danish philosopher, whom he knew through Ttalian translations (Scagno, Liberta e terrore della storia, 124, n, 57; Eliade, Ordeal by Labyrinth.\7), dates from 1928: ‘Soren Kierkegaard’, Cuvdintul; see also “Soren Kierkegaard’, VremeaMIRCEA ELIADE AND TRADITIONALISM 73 “power”, which recalls the theories of “mana”, may be connected with his reading of Van der Leeuw, which dates from 193%°. Eliade post-war writings After the war Eliade’s references to Guénon and Evola become very rare and we might well apply to both of them what Enrico Montanari writes of Guénon, that he becomes ‘rather an object of interpretation than an interpreter’. ‘The importance he attributes to myth, his lack of enthusiasm for monotheism and a metaphysics poor in cosmology, his vitalistic concept of the “sacred”, and the hermeneutic usefulness that he accords to Jungian psychoanalysis, all these things find no parallel in the thought of the French esotericist™’, But the great- est differences between the perspectives of the two scholars lie elsewhere: we may again resort to Montanari for a formulation of them. First, according to the traditional—and not only the Guénonian—orientation, present-day civili- zation is in the last phase of a temporal cycle (“Kali-yuga”): but Eliade, whose position even in his youth did not seem compatible with these ideas, writes in 1957 that the doctrine of Kali-yuga derives from a learned reworking by the Indian priestly caste. He uses the doctrine of cosmic cycles as an example to show what happens ‘when the sense of the religiousness of the cosmos become lost’*; in other words, he cites a doctrine which Guénon considered genuinely traditional and objectively valid as an example of what happens when one departs from the tradition®”. Secondly, Eliade praises the value of the “primi- tive” cultures and considers the shaman as an archetype of the homo religiosus: therefore on this question, too, he adopts a position exactly oppo- site to that of Guénon, for whom shamanism is the degeneration of the primor- dial”. Thirdly, the different treatment of the theme of initiation should be © M. Eliade, R. Pettazzoni, L’histoire des religions a-t-elle un sens?, 177, n. 5 © Montanari, “Eliade e Guénon’, 143. Eliade, Das Heilige und das Profane, Engl. Tr, 107 (‘lorsque le sens de la religiosité cosmigue sobscurett , Le sacré et le profane, 95), © Montanari, “Eliade e Guénon’, 143, Wasserstrom (Religion afier Religion, 46) sees an ad- herence by Eliade to the Guénonian concept of time in the affirmation: “the “post-historic era” is unfolding under the sign of pessimism” (Eliade, “Some notes’, 209). But the phrase comes after a passage where Eliade, after saying that he hesitates to regard Coomaraswamy (Guénonian) as a pessimist, asserts that pessimism seems to him to have become generalized in the last few dec- ades, so much so that so that “one can almost say that, with the exception of Marxism and Teilhard’s theology, the “post-historic era” is unfolding under the sign of pessimism’. This cer- tainly does not seem to indicate an adherence to Guénon on Eliade’s part. “Montanari, “Eliade e Guénon’, 144. The French scholar does not, however, condemn sha- manism as such, but only its most recent manifestations: Pisi, ‘I “tradizionalisti™”, 116, n. 13476 NATALE SPINETO noted: in Eliade, unlike in Guénon, there is no incompatibility between initia- tion and mysticism (indeed, the Romanian scholar’s main work on initiation is entitled Naissances mystiques); there is no technical distinction between great and small mysteries; there is no trace of the theory that the reference to Tradi- tion serves to distinguish true initiations from pseudo-initiations; Eliade does not acknowledge the need to undergo a regular initiatic rite to start on a proc- ess of spiritual reintegration; indeed, he thinks that the possibility of oral—as opposed to written—transmission is barred to modern man: and he takes the opposite view from Guénon in attaching importance to “profane instruction” and considering the events of human life as “initiatory ordeal or trials". No comparably thorough analysis has been made of the influence of Evolian thought on Eliade’s post-war writings. De Turris has studied the rela- tions between Eliade and Evola chiefly on a biographical level; on the intellec- tual level he assumes that Eliade took from Evola and Guénon ‘the basis from which he subsequently developed his later theoretical construction which he “propped up” with academic and scientific references: a theory which, in the light of what has been said above, is no longer tenable. In his post-war writings Eliade refers to Evola several times without ever speaking of an affinity of views with him. On the contrary, he insists on the divergences that were noted above: ‘like René Guénon, Evola presumed a “primordial tradition” in the existence of which I could not believe: 1 was suspicious of its artificial, ahistorical character’*. Modern western culture, according to Evola, is in a state of decadence or “putrefaction”: a diagnosis which in Eliade’s view is accurate, but only for someone who believes in the existence of Tradition. ‘To the extent that I believe in the creativity of the human spirit, I cannot despair; culture, even ina crepuscular era, is the only means of conveying certain val- ues and of transmitting a certain spiritual message’. In particular, Eliade is confident about the consequences of the ‘reentry of Asia into history and the discovery of the spirituality of archaic societies’, and believes that the sacred disguised in the profane may be reached through hermeneutics”. ° Montanari, “Eliade e Guénon’, 144-145, For the notion of human experiences as of “initia- tory ordeals or trials”, see, for example, Ordeal by Labyrinth, 27. ® De Turris, “L"iniziato” e il Professore’, 245, ” Bliade, Mémoire IT 1937-1960, Engl. transl. 152. ™ Eliade, Mémoire I! 1937-1960, Engl. transl,, 152. This, according to Hansen, is the main difference between Eliade, who is optimistic with respect to contemporary man, and Evolian traditionalism (“Mircea Eliade, Julius Evola’, 40). * In the conclusion of his essay on relations between Eliade and Evola, Hansen asks himself three questions. First, are there any parallels between Eliade and the traditionalists? He answers ‘yes, but ‘in a way which is merely external, .morphological* and thus philosophically less rigid Secondly, does Fliade use—without saying so—traditional ideas? Undoubtedly, but ‘alwaysMIRCEA ELIADE AND TRADITIONALISM 7 Eliade felt closer, in his post-war writings, to Coomaraswamy, who *con- trary to René Guénon and other contemporary “esotericists” [...] developed his exegesis without surrendering the tools and methods of philology, archaeol- ogy, art history, ethnology, folklore, and history of religions”. The aspect of his thought that Eliade does not accept is his attitude towards religion, an atti- tude deriving from ‘the growing influence of Guénon’s rigid rationalism’: ‘the historian of religions is, on the contrary, fascinated by the multiplicity and variety of the ideas about God’s unique mode of being, elaborated in the course of the millennia, for every theological structure represents a new spir- itual creation, a fresh insight and a more adequate grasp of the ultimate real- ity’. In short, against the unity of the Tradition Eliade asserts the multiplicity of human spiritual creations; against its primordiality he holds that a new “theological structure” is ‘a more adequated grasp of the ultimate reality’. During his American period Eliade only had one student who worked on traditional thought: William W. Quinn Jr., who wrote a doctoral dissertation on Coomaraswamy*. Quinn is the author of a recent article in which he presents Eliade as a traditionalist scholar. His argument is based on three main pieces of evidence: first, the 1937 study mentioned above, in which Eliade speaks of Coomaraswamy in very complimentary terms, contrasting with him the phi- lologists and specialists who are ignorant of the most important aspect of cul- tures, the “metaphysical tradition”; secondly, an unpublished letter in which the expressions of respect and gratitude are repeated and the Indian scholar is called “master”; thirdly, the essay ‘Some notes on Theosophia perennis’ (1979), which has also been mentioned above. To this evidence must be added the personal experience of the author, who was introduced by Eliade to the study of Coomaraswamy, supported by him in his decision, opposed by the Chicago Divinity School, to write a doctoral dissertation on traditional phi- losophy, and, finally, supervised by him in his research, during the course of which he frequently had occasion to debate with him questions concerning the Tradition. So “I can affirm—and confirm—", he writes, ‘the primacy of the sacred Tradition in Eliade’s perspective on religions™. Quinn’s impressions derive in part from personal discussions to which only the American scholar can be privy and on which, therefore, nothing more can be said. What is possi- underpinned by his own research results’. Thirdly, was Eliade a traditionalist? “No ~ and if he was, then rather with emotional emphases of his own, based on conscious reflection, and even that only in his youth’ (‘Mircea Eliade, Julius Evola’, 38), ” Eliade, “Some notes’, 169. * Bliade, “Some notes’, 170. ™ Recently published under the title The Only Tradition ” Quinn, ‘Mircea Eliade and the Sacred Tradition’, 1528 NATALE SPINETO ble is to examine the evidence, which, in his view, attests to Eliade’s Tradition- alism. In this connection it should be remembered that the 1937 article is part of that process of assimilation of some traditionalist conceptual categories whose importance—and limitations—have been discussed above; the letter published by Quinn merely confirms the respect for Coomaraswamy of which Eliade gave numerous other signs: the fact that the Indian scholar is called “cher Maitre” is not, as Quinn seems to suggest, proof of the existence of a spiritual discipleship—in the traditionalist sense of the expression—because the French term “maitre” is not particularly strong, especially not for Eliade, who uses it of many other people besides Coomaraswamy—for example, Raffaele Pettazzoni, Vittorio Macchioro, and Giuseppe Tucci, to mention only those cases which I have been able to verify. As far as the 1979 article is con- cerned, it should be pointed out that Quinn only quotes the parts that eulogize Coomaraswamy, and that he avoids mentioning the criticisms, cited above, of some of the key concepts of traditionalist thought. Lastly, his support for Quinn’s work can of course be explained by the interest that Eliade always showed in esotericism as an entirely legitimate object of study for a historian of religions. When Quinn, who had links with theosophist circles, introduced himself to Eliade, one may well believe that the professor recognized in him certain enthusiasms that he himself had felt in his youth. Eliade had outgrown the fascination of theosophy, partly through his exploration of the theories of Steiner and his reading of Guénon’s criticisms of the movement. But then he had gone beyond the influence of both these scholars and had recognized Coomaraswamy as a model of a scholar who, without neglecting the idea of the universality of the religious fact, was attentive to history and philology. It is therefore understandable that Eliade should have recommended Quinn to read Coomaraswamy. And it is equally understandable that Quinn, having moved from theosophy to Traditionalism, as a pupil of Eliade, the only member of the teaching staff of the Divinity School who was prepared to support his research, should have wished to see his “mentor” as a traditionalist, and that this desire was so strong that he did not even notice the clear elements of criticism in Eliade’s references to Coomaraswamy. Noting Eliade’s fondness for Guénon and Evola, Dubuisson has suggested that his characteristic form of thought is esoteric. His argument rests on three facts: first, ‘the platonic theme of a double meaning (literal/secret; visible/ invisible) and of two levels of reality (mundane/transcendent)’, which, for Pierre-André Taguieff, was the ‘assumption most fundamental to the spirit of Traditionalism’ and which Eliade translates even into the opposition mass- élites; then the fact that Eliade ‘defines [...] the attitude towards interpretation which he expects from his readers’: in other words his antireductionism, hisMIRCEA ELIADE AND TRADITIONALISM 19 belief that religious facts cannot be reduced to their historical determinants: an attitude which is ‘notoriously effective. How many readers have not been led astray by him and have, due to Eliade, recognized in his thought a message which transcended all historical conditioning?"; thirdly, the presence, among the religious phenomena that interest Eliade, of ‘unusual or unexpected elements’: astrology, parapsychology, premonitory dreams, alchemy, the jour- nal Planéte, the secret and initiatic societies, Princeton gnosis, spiritualism, the theosophical society, the Osiriac mysteries, ‘most of the « revelations » and « subterranean currents » of the Christian West, and even religious aspects of the contemporary counterculture’, and the lack of faith, morality, prayer, charity, grace, virtue, study, love for one’s fellow-man, the examination of conscience, contrition, repentance, etc.'"'; in all this Dubuisson sees a celebra- tion of secret and elitist knowledge—which are contrasted with the distorted knowledge of the masses—and a rejection of the Judaeo-Christian tradition’. At this point, he wonders if these facts might place Eliade’s work in the cat- egory of esotericism. And he tries to demonstrate that this work matches the four characteristics which Antoine Faivre believes necessary and sufficient for a definition of a work as esoteric: |. ‘Belief in the existence of hidden corre- spondences connecting many different components of the universe, which are themselves connected to the great scriptures’; 2. Nature considered as ‘a book to be deciphered’; 3. The presence ‘of intermediaries—images, symbols, ritu- als, spirits — which may be used by the imagination [...] in order to penetrate the mysteries which separate the divine from the created world’; 4. A second birth, a metamorphosis of the individual caused by knowledge. Two other ele- ments are optional: belief in a primordial Tradition” and initiatic transmission from master to pupil. Now, all these aspects—except for the penultimate one —are, in Dubuisson’s view, found in Eliade, and this he takes as proof that ‘the Eliadean understanding of religion and the religious, is nothing more than a huge and artificial construction inspired by an attitude and by themes belong- ing to the contemporary esoteric tradition’, in particular the tradition which nourished the fascist regimes'*. It is obvious that what is under examination here is not the object of Eliade’s research—those “traditional” civilizations in which many of the ele- ' Dubuisson, *L’ésotérisme fascisant de Mircea Eliade’, 43. "Dubuisson, '® Dubuisson, *L’ésotérisme fascisant de Mircea Eliade’, 44 1 In fact, the first of the (wo non-intrinsic components of esotericism, according to Faivre. is the practice of concordances, of which the belief in the primordial Tradition is a particular case80 NATALE SPINETO ments mentioned are present—but his methodology, or his philosophy of the history of religions. And this philosophy is based on the concept of the symbol, in particular the natural symbol, as an intermediate reality between human experience and the sacred, on the idea that through the archetypes one can find the “essences” common to various religions, on the fact that the hermeneutics of symbols can enhance human creativity—thus giving rise to a spiritual meta- morphosis"’. These aspects are obviously not enough to justify a description of the Eliadean perspective as “esoteric”. Moreover, it does not seem to me possible to find in Eliade’s philosophy any affirmations closer than these to the four elements mentioned by Dubuisson. Antoine Faivre, the author of the defi- nition of esotericism which Dubuisson takes as his basis, notes that ‘one might expect that [Eliade] would take an interest in the philosophies of Nature, which are part of religious history. Eliade does not explicitly state what he means by Nature, and the small glimpse that he allows us evokes above all certain forms a rural imaginary, especially that of Central Europe”. It is sig- nificant, in Faivre’s view, that in the “rare texts” in which Eliade discusses modern western esoteric schools, ‘he does not seem to pay much attention to an idea-force which has a place in a history of religions, that is, the idea of living Nature, considered both as a network of correspondences or “signa- tures” that have to be deciphered and as a main character, dramatis persona, in the cosmic drama”. Nor does the second birth of the person who acquires knowledge exist as such in Eliade: he describes as initiatic trials the various experiences, spiritual and non-spiritual, which man faces during his life, and thus uses a concept of initiation which is not only remote from the esoteric perspective but quite unacceptable with respect to it, as is shown by Guénon’s harsh criticism of those who consider the difficulties of life as initiatic “trials”. Just as this element does not exist, so its consequence, the elitist view of reli- gion, does not exist either: Faivre notes that among the factors that distinguish Eliade from the Traditionalist school, which he terms “pérennialiste”, is the Romanian’s ‘disinclination to assert the spiritual superiority of an elite as against the popular masses”, Sometimes, says Eliade in a passage already "* It may be noted that these are general ideas which are found—albeit differently expressed and with different philosophical justifications and referents—in many other approaches besides Eliade’s: they appear, for example, in the religious phenomenology of Gerardus Van der Leeuw, and in some contemporary hermeneutic perspectives, such as that of Paul Ricoeur (for instani “Parole et symbole’), who often refers to Eliade, and that of Luigi Pareyson (ef. ‘Filosofia ed esperienza religiosa’), who never had any connection with Eliade. ‘% Paivre, ‘L’ambiguita della nozione di sacro in Mircea Eliade’, 369 ” Faivre, “L'ambiguita della nozione di sacto in Mircea Eliade’, 369. ™ Faivre, *L'ambiguita della nozione di sacro in Mircea Eliade’, 370.MIRCEA ELIADE AND TRADITIONALISM 81 quoted in part above, ‘the sense of the religiousness of the cosmos becomes lost. This is what occurs when, in certain more highly evolved societies, the intellectual elites progressively detach themselves from the patterns of the tra- ditional religion’. The elites, in other words, far from being the guardians of traditional religion, are its destroyers. Moreover, Eliade’s “Romanianism” in- volved an exaltation of the worth of the Romanian peasants, who certainly cannot be described as elites. Even Dubuisson’s three premises do not seem convincing: the distinction between a wordly level and a transcendent level of reality is a theme shared by many religions—including Christianity—and by the people who adhere to them, so it is not a distinguishing feature of esoteri- cism. That Eliade’s message has a literal meaning and a secret one remains to be proved: Eliade speaks only once of a “secret message” of the Traité, and it is just an emphatic way of indicating what Eliade calls the ‘implicit theology’ of his work, whose meaning may be, according to his own words, ‘easily ex- plained’ (whose ‘sens se dégage facilement’)'°. Eliade’s antireductionism— according to which religious facts must be considered without reducing them to their historical determinants—is merely a philosophical option of a hermeneutic nature, which does not in itself involve any esoteric elements. Lastly, the subjects that Eliade chose to discuss and which Dubuisson men- tions are not particularly unusual (they have long been the subject of study and research), represent only certain esoteric schools!” (Faivre speaks, as we have seen, of the “rare texts” which Eliade devotes to modern esotericism), and are only considered in a few of the Romanian author’s writings (none of which are among his best known works); and in any case, everyone is free to study what he likes and there is hardly any need to dwell on the obvious point that crimi- nologists are not necessarily criminals, moralists are not necessarily morally unimpeachable, and a person who studies esotericism is not necessarily an esotericist. More recently, Steven M. Wasserstrom has seen in Eliade an ‘inspirational if not initiatic descent from Martines de Pasqually through Louis-Claude de Saint-Martin’, deriving from René Guénon'"”. His theory is supported by vari- ous pieces of evidence: the first is the use of the term “reintegration”, which Wasserstrom says is characteristic of the Christian Kabbalists, central to Das Heilige, Engl. Transl., 107 © Bliade, Journal Il: 1957-1969, 74: For an explanation of this “implicit theology”, see Spineto, ‘La nostalgia del paradiso’, 296-297, ‘It should be noted, in passing, that Guénon would not have accepted the lumping together within the category of “esotericism” of phenomena such as astrology (regarded as a traditional science), spiritualism and Princeton gnosis. 112 Wasserstrom, Religion after Religion, 38.82 NATALE SPINETO Guénon and later Evola, and reminiscent of Martines de Pasqually’s Traité de la réintégration des Etres dans leurs primitives propriétés, vertus et puissance spirituelle divines'"; the second is Eliade’s reference to the term “tradition, which allegedly derives from Guénon and, through him, from the Martinists''*; thirdly, Wasserstrom mentions a lecture given by Eliade to an audience of masons, and later published in a masonic journal, on initiation rites in the Jewish and Judaeo-Christian traditions''’, and Eliade’s participa- tion in Henry Corbin’s project of “Spiritual Chivalry”, which found expression in the foundation of the Université de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem and whose or- gan was a series of Cahiers published from 1975 onwards"; furthermore, he claims that Eliade’s enthusiasm for the themes of the Christian Kabbalah was manifested in his undergraduate thesis on Italian Renaissance philosophy" and that his interest in Evola and Guénon, which he documents by reference to some of the texts mentioned above, show that, since Eliade never repudiated their ideas, he did not disagree with them''*. Wasserstrom’s whole book sets out to demonstrate the links between the positions of Eliade, Corbin and Scholem, the most important common element between them being their refer- ence to the Christian Kabbalah'"’; and this he takes to be an element that in- spires the whole history of religions. It is clear that Eliade’s relations with The concept of the “new man” on which Eliade often insists also occurs in Louis-Claude de Saint-Martin (Religion afier Religion, 132) Religion after Religion, 40. “ Religion afier Religion, 41. Wasserstrom quotes the passage from Eliade: “I feel that, in initiatory doctrine and rituals, { have discovered the only possibility of defending myself against the terror of history and collective distress’ (not “desires”, as Wasserstrom write: Journal 1957-1959, 86), as evidence of his personal adherence to a initiatory system, In fact the passage has a quite different meaning, as becomes clear from the rest of the passage: “I mean that if we succeed in experiencing, taking upon ourselves, or imposing a value on the terror, the despair, the depression, the apparent absence of meaning in history, as so many initiatory trials—then all these crises and tortures will take on a meaning’ (Journal II: 1957-1969, 86): in other words, the notion of initiation is a generic one, according to which the trials and sufferings of life become endurable if they are regarded as opportunities of improving oneself. [tis a conception, which, as has already been mentioned, seems unacceptable in the Guénonian perspective Inman articte published in 1979, Eliade discusses the Université without mentioning that he was one of its founding members. The omission is interpreted by Wasserstrom as evidence of his desire to conceal his links with an esoteric movement (Religion afier Religion, 42). But in fact Eliade clearly states that he belonged to the association two years later, in the diary published by Gallimard (probably far more widely read than the article published in History of Religions): it is, indeed, from his own words that Wasserstrom derives the evidence (Fragments dl'un journal HM, 241), 1 Religion after Religion, 43. ' Religion after Religion, 46. 1 ‘The other aspects of Wasserstrom’s study would require a longer discussion than is possi- bie here and one which would take us beyond the confines of the subject under consideration.MIRCEA ELIADE AND TRADITIONALISM. 83 Scholem and Corbin cannot be considered decisive evidence of the esoteric nature of his work. So all that remains is the other arguments outlined above, and these seem weak: the use of the term “reintegration” is probably a refer- ence to the traditionalists, as we have seen, but it is not evidence of a link between Eliade and the Christian Kabbalah"; the same is true of the term tradition, which the Romanian scholar uses in a sense different from Guénon’s; his lecture on initiation to an audience of masons and his participation—which was actually only nominal—in Corbin’s project of spiritual chivalry are of course not decisive proof”: and his degree thesis—as far as we know, for only part of it is extant—discusses the esoteric elements of the Italian Renaissance without devoting particular attention to the Christian Kabbalah or expressing any predilection for it. Finally, it is not true that Eliade does not explicitly distance himself from the positions of Guénon and Evola. In short, on a close inspection of the evidence Wasserstrom’s construction does not seem convinc- ing. Eliade’s reinterpretation of traditional thought. If one considers the evidence which recent research has made available to scholars, two main factors may be said to have influenced Eliade’s intellectual development: the first is the Romanian cultural climate and, particularly, the teaching of Nae onescu, through whom the young Romanian student—and later scholar—came also into contact with late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries German culture’; the second is his reading of the traditionalists, and in particular of Coomaraswamy. In both cases we may speak of a profound influence, which concerned some essential themes, but not a total influence. Neither Ionescu’s general approach, nor traditional philosophy as such, find "3 Much less does it indi Evola speaks of “reintegration” within a political project opposed to democracy and socialism: then he mentions a passage, surprisingly considering it political in nature, where Eliade merely states that the religious images of the peasants, with Christianization, were re-evaluated and reintegrated, and acquired new names; he concludes by quoting the expression “every reintegra- tion is a “totalization” (lournal 1, 26), on which he comments: “this totalization, by definition “total”, patently does not exclude the political dimension of social existence’ (Religion after Religion, 47): an obvious statement but one which adds nothing to our knowledge. In any case, by “iotalization” Eliade here means “totality of Life” (/ournat I, 26), °°" Ty 1959, Eliade gave another lecture before an audience of Freemasons, He wrote about it “Henry [Hunwald] explains that I am the only “noninitiate”: the rest of those attending are Ma- sons, [...] I was asked why I don’t become a Mason (1, who know its symbolism so well, ete.) and I reply vaguely that | am not attracted to Masonry” (Journal, 17 june 1959, unpublished) = Jonescu's influence on Eliade’s development is stressed in particular by Dandi, Mircea Eliade, 20-7184 NATALE SPINETO. any place in the form of thought which Eliade gradually develops and which reaches its definitive formulation after the Second World War. The notion of the “symbol” which he encountered in Tonescu’s courses ac- quires, through his stay in India, the density of lived experience; through his reading of the traditionalists Eliade becomes aware of how it may be used as the basis of historico-religious research and takes it as the key concept of his own approach. However, during his time in India he had also discovered the value of the sacred that descends into everyday life: from this he derives the idea of an opposition and reconciliation of sacred and profane, which consti- tutes the basis of that new formulation of the concept of the symbol which is hierophany. A second key theme of Eliade’s thought, that of the archetype, is also partly indebted to the traditional perspective, as are some characteris! motifs of Eliadian hermeneutics: the sacred centre, construction as a repetition of cosmogony, androgyny, and reintegration. Without a reading of the traditionalists, therefore, the birth of the new con- ceptual system that appears in Eliade’s works around 1936-37 would be in- comprehensible. But from a reading of the traditionalists alone, not even the key concepts of his idea of the history of religions would be comprehensible. On the one hand, the concept of the symbol and that of the archetype are fitted into a conceptual framework which Eliade derives from German philosophy: from the echoes of phenomenology, from Diltheyan historicism, from Ottian neo-Kantianism, and from Kierkegaard’s Christian thought, which he knows through Ionescu or through his own private reading; on the other hand, his studies in the history of religions—which are for him the field of application of those concepts—are embodied in figures such as Raffaele Pettazzoni, with his attention to the becoming and the newness of history. All these elements, along with others which he gradually acquires as his reading progresses, blend to- gether to form the concept of the history of religions which Eliade first formu- lates in the Traité d'histoire des religions. Natale Spineto (1964) teaches History of Religions at the Department of History of Turin Uni- versity, Bibliography Baillet, P., “Prefazione’, in: C. Mutti, Le penne dell ‘arcangelo: Intellettuali e Guardia di Ferro, Milano: Societi editrice Barbarossa 1994, 2-25. Coomaraswamy, A.K., “Angel and Titan: An Essay in Vedic Ontology’, Journal of American Oriental Society 55 (1935), 373-419. Danea, V., Mircea Eliade. Definitio sacri, Roma-Bucureti-lasi: P-C/S.F.S. 1996, Dubuisson, D., *La conception eliadienne du symbolisme’, Gradhiva 26 (1999), 25-36.MIRCEA ELIADE AND TRADITIONALISM 85 Dubuisson, D., *L’ésotérisme fascisant de Mircea Eliade’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 106-107 (1995), 44-51 Eliade, M., “Ananda Coomaraswamy’, Revista Fundaitor Regale 4:7 (1937), 183-189. —, ‘Barabadur, tempul simbolic’, Revista Fundagiilor Regale 4:9 (1937), 50-68 —, Comentarii la Legenda Mesterului Manole, Bucuresti: Publicom 1943 —, Cosmologie si alchimie babiloniand, Bucuresti: Vremea 1937. —, L'épreuve dui Labyrinthe: Entretiens avec Claude-Henri Rocquet, Paris: Belfond 1978 [Ital- jan transl. La prova del labirinto, Milano: Jaca Book 1980; English transl. Ordeal by Labyrinth. Conversations with Claude-Henri Rocquet, Chicago — London: The University of Chicago Press 1982]. —, ‘Folelorul ca instrument de cunoastere’, Revista Fundapilor Regale 4:4 (1937), 137-152 [reprinted in M. Eliade, Jnswla lui Euthanasius, Bucuresti: Fundajia regala pentru literatura si artd 1943, 28-49} , Fragmentarium, Bucuresti: Vremea 1939. . Fragmems d'un journal {: 1945-1969, Pacis: Gallimard 1973 [English transl, Journal 1. 1945-1955, Chicago — London: The University of Chicago Press 1990; Journal Il: 1957- 1969, Chicago - London: ‘The University of Chicago Press 1989] —. Fragments d'un journal I: 1970-1978, Paris: Gallimard 1981 —, Das Heilige und das Profiime: Vom Wesen des Religidsen, Hamburg: Rowohlt 1957 [transla- tion of original French manuscript. English transl.: The Sacred and the Profane: The Na- ture of Religion, New York: Harper & Row 1961; French publication: Le sacré et le pro- _fane, Paris: Gallimard 1965] —, ‘Itinerariu spiritual VIII (Teosofie?)’, Cuvdintul 3: 903 (1927), 1-2 [reprinted in Proferism romédnesc |, Bucuresti: Rosa Vinturitor 1990, 47-51] —, Jurnal, Nolumul 1 1941-1969, Bucuresti: Humanitas 1993. —, Mémoire 1 1907-1937: Les promesses de l'équinoxe, Paris: Gallimard 1980 [English transl Autobiography. Volume I: 1907-1937. Journey East, Journey West, San Francisco: Harper & Row 1981] —, Mémoire I 1937-1960; Les moissons dw solstice, Paris: Gallimard 1988 [English transl Autobiography, Volume Ul: 1937-1960. Exile's Odyssey, Chicago ~ London: The Univer- sity of Chicago Press 1988}. Mitul reimtegririt, Bucuresti: Ed. Vremea 1942 Naissances mystiques: Essai sur quelques types d initiation, Paris: Gallimard 1959. ‘Note gi fragmente’, Vremea 11-536 (1939), 8. Nowisprezece trandafiri, Paris: loan Cusa 1980 , Ocultismul in cultura contemporana’, Cuvdntul 4:943 (1927), 1-2. —,-Revolta contra lumii moderne’, Vremea 8:382 (1935), 6 ‘ome notes on Theasophia perennis: Ananda K. Coomaraswamy and Henry Corbin’, His- tory of Religions 19:2 (1979), 167-176 ‘ren Kierkegaard”, Cuvdntul 5:1035 (1928), 1-2. wen Kierkegaard’, Vremea 8:372 (1935), 5 piritualitate gi mister feminin’, Azi 1:2 (1932), 202-205, —, Traité d histoire des religions, Paris: Payot 1949. —, Viaqa Noud, Bucuresti: Editura Jumalul Literar 1999. Eliade, M. and Pettazzoni, R., L’histoire des religions a-t-elle un sens? Correspondance 1926- 1959 (N. Spineto, ed.), Paris: Editions du Cerf 1994 Evola, J., Rivolia conzro il mondo moderno, Milano: Hoepli 1934 Faivre, A., ‘L’ambiguita della nozione di sacro. in Mircea Eliade’, in: L. Arcella, P. Pisi, R. Scagno (eds.), Confronto con Mircea Eliade: Archetipi mitici e identité storica, Milano: Jaca Book 1998, 363-374 —, ‘Histoire de la notion modeme de Tradition dans ses rapports avec les courants ésotériques (XVe-XXe_ sidcles)’, in: Symboles et Mythes dans les mouvements tnitiatiques et86 NATALE SPINETO ésorériques (XVHe-XXe sidcles): filiations et emprunts, Paris: Arche & La Table d’Emeraude 1999, 7-48 , Theosophy, Imagination, Tradition: Studies in Western Esotericism, Albany: Suny Press 2000. Fiore, C., Storia sacra e storia profana in Mircea Eliade, Roma: Bulzoni 1986. Grottanelli, C.. "Mircea Eliade, Carl Schmitt, René Guénon 1942", forthcoming in: N, Spineto (ed), Interrompere il quotidiano: La costrusione del tempo nell'esperiensa religiosa Milano: Unicopli Guénon, R., La crise du monde moderne, Patis: Editions Bossard 1927 —, L'Esotérisme de Dante, Paris : Editions Bosse 1925, —, Formes traditionnelles et Cycles cosmiques, Paris: Gallimard 1970 [Italian transl, Forme tradicionali e cicli cosmici, Roma: Edizioni Mediterranee 1974]. —, L’homme et son devenir selon le Vedanta, Paris: Editions Traditionnelles 1925. Orient et Occident, Paris: Payot 1924 —, Le roi du monde, Paris: Ch. Bosse 1927. — Svmboles fondamentaux de la Science saerée, Paris: Gallimard 1962. —, Le symbolisme de la Croix, Paris: Les Editions Véga 1931 —. Le Théosophisme, histoire d'une pseudo-religion, Paris: Nouvelle Librairie Nationale 1921. Handoca, M. (ed.), Mircea Eliade si corespondengit sai, Bucuresti: Editura Minerva 1993. Hansen, HT, “Mireca Eliade, Julius Evola und die Integrale Tradition’, in: Evola, J., Uber das Initiatische: Aufsatzsammntung (HT. Hansen, ed.), Sinzheim: Frietsch-Verlag 1998, 9-50. Mihaescu, F., ‘Mircea Eliade e René Guénon’, Origin 150 (1997), 15-18. Muti, C., Eliade, Valsan, Geticus gli aliri: La fortuna di Guénon tra i romeni, Parma: Edizioni all’insegna del Veltro 1999, -, Julius Evola sul fronte dell’Est, Parma: Edizioni allinsegna del Veltro 1988 Montanay liade © Guénon’, Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni 61 (1995), 131-149. Ricketts, M.L., Mircea Eliade: The Romanian Roots, 1907-1945, Boulder: New York 1988, Pareyson, L., ‘Filosofia ed esperienza religiosa’, Annuario filosofico (1985), 7-52. Pisi, P. “I “tradizionalisti” ¢ la formazione del pensiero di Eliade’, in: L, Arcella, P. Pisi, R. Seagno (eds.), Confromo con Mircea Eliade: Archetipi mitici e identta storica, Milano: Jaca Book 1998, 43-133. —. *Evola, Eliade e Palchimia’, unpublished Quinn, W.W., Jn, The Only Tradition, Albany: Suny Press 1997 ‘Mircea Eliade and the Sacred Tradition (a Personal Account)’, Nova Religio 3: | (1999), 147-153. Ricoeur, P., “Parole et symbole’, Revue des sciences religieuses 1-2 (1975), 142-161 Scagno, R., Libertad e terrore della storia. Genest e significato dell antistoricismo di Mircea Eliade, Torino: Print Centro Copyrid 1982. —. ‘Mircea Eliade: un Ulisse romeno’, in: L. Arcella, P. Pisi, R. vgno (eds.). Confronto con Mircea Eliade: Archetipi mitici e identita storica, Milano: Jaca Book 1998, 9-26, Spineto, N., “Mircea Eliade e gli archetipi’, in: L. Arcella, P. Pisi, R. Scagno (eds), Confronto con Mircea Eliade: Archetipt mitici e identita storica, Milano: Jaca Book 1998, 447-463. ‘La nostalgia del paradiso: Religione e simbolo in Mircea Eliade’, Filosofia e teologia 6 (1992), 296-319. Toleea, M., “Mircea Eliade gi René Guénon’, Orizont 12 (1997), 13-14. Turis, G de, “Liniziato” e il Professore. | rapporti “sommersi” fra Julius Evola © Mircea Eliade’, in AA.WV., Delle roviene ed oltre: Saggi su Julius. Evola, Roma: Antonio Pellicani editore 1995, 219-249, Yona, P. di, “Storia ¢ tradizione in Eliade’, Diorama letterario 109 (1987), 8-14 Wasserstrom. 8 M., Religion after Religion: Gershom Scholem, Mircea Eliade, and Henry Corbin at Eranos, Princeton: Princeton University Press 1999.MIRCEA ELIADE AND TRADITIONALISM. 87 Mircea Eliade ¢ i Tradizionalismo Nell’ampia letteratura critica che ha riguardato, in questi ultimi anni, la biografia intellettuate di Eliade, uno dei settori in cui sono stati dati contributi pit: nuovi ed originali é stato quello della scoperta e quindi della valutazione del rapporto con studiosi legati al cosiddetto “pensiero tradi- vionale”: in particolare René Guénon, Julius Evola, Ananda K. Coomaraswamy. Scopo del pre- sente studio & prendere in esame i document relativi a questo tema ¢ fare un bilacio dei risultati raggiunti, per stabilire quanto la lettura dei tradizionalisti abbia realmente influito sull'opera di liade. Dall’analisi dei lavori del periodo romeno risulta che alouni concetti centrali ¢ caratteri- stici del pensieto eliadiano derivano, almeno per alcuni tratti talvolta fondamentali, direttamente dall’utilizzo degli scritti dei tradizionalisti tratta delle nozioni di corrispondenza antropo- cosmica, di simbolo, di centro sacro, di qualita “ciclica” del tempo tradizionale, di costruzione umana come ripetizione della cosmogonia, di sacrificio come reintegrazione, di androginia, di archetipo. Termini e concezioni tradizionaliste vengono tuttavia integrati da Eliade all'interno di un quadro concettuale differente, che non ammette il motivo fondamentale det tradizionalismo: Videa di una Tradizione primordiale metafisica e immutabile. Nelle opere del dopoguerra i rife- rimenti ai tradizionalisti sono rari ed Eliade prende chiaramente Ie distanze dalle loro concezio- ni, In generale, bisogna osservare che il contatto con le opere dei tradizionalisti ha impresso una svolta al pensiero dello studioso romeno, ma che gli stimoli provenienti da Guénon, Fvola e Coomaraswamy sono stati inseriti in una griglia concettuale differente, per la ricostruzione della quale occorre tenere conto dell'ambiente culturale romeno ed anche, pid in generale, del dibatti 1o intellettuale europeo del tempo.