Continuing disagreement about Evola, Hakl, and Hanegraaff

The special issue of Aries that dealt with Julius Evola (see post here) included an article by Julian Strube on “Esotericism, the New Right, and Academic Scholarship” that occasioned a partly critical review by Mark Sedgwick (henceforth, “me”) in this blog (here), as did the introduction to that special issue, jointly written by Egil Asprem, editor-in-chief of Aries, and Strube. The article and introduction also occasioned a formal response (available here) in the current issue of Aries (volume 26, issue 1) by myself and Francesco Piraino, writing as responsible editors of Religiographies, a journal that had been criticized by Strube and Asprem for articles about Thomas Hakl, for many years the leading promoter of Evola in the German-speaking world, that it had published. For that special issue, see a post here. Aries also published, as is normal in such cases, rejoinders by Asprem and Strube, available here and here.

Our response defended Religiographies and took issue with two claims in Strube’s article, “that ‘scholars of esotericism played a key role [in the translation and dissemination of Evola]’, and that ‘this affected not only political ideologies, but also parts of the academic field of “Western esotericism”, which remains a major obstacle to critical engagement with politics to this day.’”

We argued that in fact only two scholars of esotericism, Hakl and Joscelyn Godwin, both now retired, had played a key role in the translation and dissemination of Evola, and that “while two persons is indeed plural, the phrase ‘scholars of esotericism played a key role’ implies rather more than two persons, and this is not the case.” Neither Strube nor Asprem contested this in their rejoinders, though Asprem did describe our argument as “advanced exegesis of how many persons are required for a plural ending.”

We also argued that this had not had any significant impact on the academic study of Western esotericism, though Traditionalism in general has indeed had a significant impact on other fields. This point was important because Strube had named two scholars of esotericism, Wouter Hanegraaff and Marco Pasi, neither retired, in a way that associated them with the Far Right, and we felt it important to defend them against guilt by association.

In his rejoinder, “Distractions, a Contested Legacy, and Hidden Intentions: A Rejoinder to Sedgwick & Piraino,” Asprem dealt mostly with Hakl, repeating his criticism of the way that Religiographies handled him, and noting that his activities had “contributed to a politicized perception of the field [of esotericism scholarship], especially in the German-speaking world.” Whether one prefers the more forgiving view of Hakl’s activities of Piraino, Pasi, and myself or the harsher view of Strube and Asprem, it may well be true that his activities indeed contributed to a politicized perception of the field in the German-speaking world. This is unfortunate, but perception is not the same as reality. 

In the end, I think, the two sides are actually not so far apart. We all agree that Hakl, for example, published with politically engaged publishers like Hohenrain Verlag, which Pasi described in Religiographies as “well known for its right-wing political stance,” while Asprem objects that it is in fact “known… for disseminating extremist content, including antisemitism and Holocaust denial.” There is disagreement about exacctly how to label Hohenrain, then, but not about what it stands for.

Strube’s short note on “On the Vilification of Critics and Quality of Scholarship: A Critical Juncture in the Study of Esotericism and Far-Right Politics” deals primarily with Hanegraaff, who is criticized for having defended Hakl. Strube mentions our objection to a methodology that assigns guilt by association but does not really respond to it, instead contrasting our criticism of his methodology with our defense of Hanegraaff.

Those with access to Aries can read the original articles, the response, and the rejoinders and make up their own minds. In the end it seems to me not so much a critical juncture in the study of esotericism and Far-Right politics as a question of what one thinks of one scholar, Hanegraaff. I continue to see his work as fundamental to the whole field, and his views of Hakl as relatively unimportant. Perhaps we scholars would get further with the study of esotericism and Far-Right politics if we avoided making accusations against each other.

What sort of a perennialist was Eva de Vitray-Meyerovitch?

Two recent articles discuss the conversion to Islam of the French scholar Eva de Vitray-Meyerovitch (1909–99). They are Doha Tazi Hemida, “Another Orientalism? The Case of Eva de Vitray-Meyerovitch and Rumi,” Interventions: International Journal of Postcolonial Studies 25:4 (2023), 521-539, available here, and Samir Abdelli, “’Je ne reniais ni la Thorah ni l’Évangile.’ Eva Meyerovitch (1909-1999), devenir musulmane et rester chrétienne ?” L’Année du Maghreb 34 (2025), available here (open access).

De Vitray-Meyerovitch was brought up in France as a Catholic, abandoned Catholic practice as various doubts crystalized, and married a Jew in a civil marriage. She turned to Islam through Louis Massignon (1883-1962), reading Muhammad Iqbal (1877–1938), and translating Rumi, who she came to see as her true shaykh. In addition to this she joined the Boutchichiyya, which discovered through the Traditionalist Boutchichi Faouzi Skali (born 1953). 

Tazi Hemida and Abdelli both note the similarities between de Vitray-Meyerovitch and the Traditionalists. She read René Guénon, and occasionally cites him, for example on the nature of the Vedanta and for his argument that resemblances between different "traditional forms" were to be expected "because Truth is one" ("L’âme et le visage du soufisme," Planète 18, septembre 1964). She also cites Titus Burckhardt, and on one occasion recommended someone to read a book by Frithof Schuon. But her own mature understanding of that universal truth is soundly Islamic:

For Islam, divine revelations, which are all repetitions of a single, universal message, descend at various moments in history upon those whom God has chosen as His messengers. And since there can only be one Truth, in all times and in all places, Revelation can only be essentially the same for all of humanity. If there are differences between religious traditions, they are attributable to erroneous transmission or to purely human interpretations of the divine Word, which can lead to an alteration or even a distortion of this Revelation. ("Une doctrine de l’unicité," Le Magazine littéraire 181, février 1982).

De Vitray-Meyerovitch differs from the Traditionalists in that she was not a critic of modernity (she even welcomed Iqbal’s modernity), and did not refer to esotericism, despite her Sufism. Her universalism was in some ways in the tradition of what might be termed Massignon’s spiritual sensibility, and also followed Iqbal. In her own words (following a citation by Abdelli)

You have to be prepared for a meeting or a book to turn your life upside down. I was already on a path of free inquiry, personal interpretation, and individual research, and I found all of that concretized in a great thinker [Iqbal]. And then I was happy to realize that I was not alone, lost on a side road, but that I was, without knowing it, part of a great tradition. And that without having to renounce anything. I did not renounce the Torah or the Gospel. I simply left aside what had always annoyed me: the conciliar, dogmatic decisions of gentlemen gathered in Rome to decide that God is this or that. (Islam, l’autre visage, 1991).

De Vitray-Meyerovitch was more of a universalist than a perennialist, then, arriving at a similar destination by a different route. The title Universalité de l'Islam (The Universality of Islam) in the picture above ws not her own; it was chosen by others for a posthumous collection of her writings.

This post has been updated to correct the initial mis-statement that "She does not, so far as I know, ever cite the Traditionalists," and also to note that De Vitray-Meyerovitch recommended a book by Schuon (thanks to Samir Abdelli for that information).

Traditionalism and Eastern Orthodoxy: Call for contributions

The reception of Traditionalism has been better studied in some contexts than in others. This Call invites proposals for chapters in a forthcoming multi-author book to be entitled The Reception of Traditionalism in Eastern Orthodoxy: Mysticism and Politics, edited by Mark Sedgwick. Contributors will be invited to an authors’ workshop in Belgrade in March 2027 to discuss pre-circulated drafts (expenses covered by the organizers).

Topics to be covered include: Traditionalism in interwar Romania: Mircea Eliade and his circles; Traditionalism in Yugoslavia and Serbia; Eastern Orthodox Traditionalism in the West: James Cutsinger, Philip Sherrard, and John Tavener; Traditionalism in late-Soviet and early post-Soviet Russia; Traditionalism in Ukraine, Belarus, post-Communist Romania, and b; Aleksander Dugin and the development of Traditionalist Eurasianism; and perhaps also Traditionalism in Bulgaria, Moldova, and/or Georgia.

Chapters should cover the reception of Traditionalism in the country(ies) and period(s) in question, explaining who transmitted and developed Traditionalist thought, what aspects were stressed, glossed over, and further developed, and how this relates to the context of the place(s) and time(s).

Brief proposals (500 words), including a proposed title, should be sent to Mark Sedgwick (mjrs@cas.au.dk) before midnight CET on February 15, accompanied by a biographical note that mentions relevant prior publications. Feel free to send more than one proposal. On the basis of these proposals, actual chapters will be commissioned as soon as possible, to be researched and drafted before March 2027.

The authors’ workshop will refine the drafts and allow us to discuss how the reception and development of Traditionalism in Eastern Orthodoxy differs from what happened in the Catholic and Protestant West, and in Latin America, and to explore what this tells us about Traditionalism, mysticism, politics, and Eastern Orthodoxy.

“Traditionalism” as used in this Call refers to those working with the idea of an esoteric primordial tradition as developed by René Guénon. The book will not cover forms of traditionalism that have no connection with Guénon.

Peter Lamborn Wilson on Frithjof Schuon

This blog already has several posts on the anarchist Peter Lamborn Wilson (1945-2022), also known as Hakim Bey, one of the most remarkable former Traditionalists. See here. One (here) reports an assurance that although Lamborn Wilson was definitely “in the circle of Nasr,” he was not actually a Maryami.

Daoud El-Alquist Bey of the Moorish Orthodox Church has drawn my attention to an interview conducted shortly before Lamborn Wilson's death in which he discusses the Maryamiyya. It is with Tamas Panitz, in Conversazione (Autonomedia 2022), pp 91–97. In this interview, Lamborn Wilson makes it clear that he was indeed a Maryami.

Lamborn Wilson said he followed Frithjof Schuon because he (LW) followed Seyyed Hossein Nasr, and Nasr followed Schuon. When he met Schuon, he found him charismatic. “He was overwhelming. He'd blow you away with his absolute assurance that he was god on earth.” He became disenchanted, however, because there seemed to be one rule for “soldiers” like himself, and another rule for Schuon “and his inner circle.” “Soldiers” had to be “orthodox” and pray and fast and abstain from alcohol, but as Schuon was an avatar (divine incarnation), these rules did not apply to him. One evening in London, where Lamborn Wilson moved after leaving Tehran, he was walking across a bridge over the Thames and “I just had this vision of one of the Ismaili lmams… who told me to go drink a bottle of wine, and quit being Orthodox. So I did.”

Another moment of disenchantment came when he was talking to the British painter Cecil Collins (1908–1989) after having tea with the Neoplatonist poet Kathleen Raine (1908–2003), who “was one of the people who inspired me to get away from the Schuonites” and lived in the same house as Collins. Collins “had seen [Schuon’s paintings] and he said to me you know everything that Frithjof Schuon believes in is the exact opposite of what he does in his paintings. They're sentimental, they're like Hallmark greeting cards. Suddenly my eyes were opened, I said by god Cecil you're right, they're like Hallmark greeting cards. You can be under a spell with things like that, and not see them.”

René Guénon and the East: Call for contributions

A forthcoming edited volume entitled René Guénon and the East invites contributions.

Guénon famously placed ‘the East’ at the center of his intellectual project, conceiving it as the primary point of access to "the primordial tradition." Although his interpretations of Asian religious traditions have been highly influential, they have only rarely been examined critically by specialists in the relevant fields. This volume aims to address that gap.

The book welcomes historically, philologically, and theoretically informed contributions, including (but not limited to): critical analyses of Guénon’s readings of specific religious traditions; studies of the reception and practical use of Guénonian interpretations; reflections on the political, ideological, and Orientalist implications of Guénon’s concept of ‘the East’; and examinations of exceptional or contested cases such as Japan, Judaism, and Buddhism.

Contributions should not exceed 9,000 words, including notes and bibliography. A first draft is expected by September 2026. Further details regarding the timeline and formal requirements will be provided in due course. Interested scholars are invited to contact the editors for further information. Contact Roberto Corso and Davide Marino, davide.marino@theologie.uni-goettingen.de.