A new book, Ivan Aguéli: The Pearl upon the Crown by Oliver Fotros (which seems to be a pseudonym) argues that Ivan Aguéli's influence on René Guénon was far greater than is commonly realized, giving detailed comparisons from both men's writings, and asking why this influence has not been noticed before. The book, which is 110 pages long and self-published, is available from Amazon.
I think Fotros is probably more or less right, and I actually make a similar argument in my chapter on "The significance of Ivan Aguéli for the Traditionalist movement" in the forthcoming (in April) collective work on Aguéli, Anarchist, Artist, Sufi: The Politics, Painting, and Esotericism of Ivan Aguéli (Bloomsbury).
9 comments:
I admire your ability by avoiding at any price to quote my long articles and works since 23 years about Cheykh Abdul-Hedi Aguéli;
I'm the 1st in France and in french (a long time before M.Sedgwick e tutti quanti) who wrote serious and extensive articles about Ivan Aguéli ,e.g. in Revue Vers la Tradition (VLT ,1998-1999); afterwards on line : http://dinul-qayyim.over-blog.com or : www.alsSimsimah.com/ Jean Foucaud. I have the original texts in swedish, arabish, german,italian ..etc.. and I am a linguist.
So i'm very astonished about this suspect persistence by not quoting ya nameand my works...
Jean Foucaud (born 1942 : I'm not a beginner!)
Many thanks to Jean Foucaud for drawing my attention to these articles. I don't know whether Oliver Fotros was aware of them, but I myself was not. A pity I did not discover them earlier.
As stated in Fotros' work, Frithjof Schuon told Kurt Almqvist that Guénon had relied on Aguéli (published in 1977). I find no references to this in the works of Monsieur Foucault? And also Michel Valsan stated this with regard to "Ampleur and exaltation" in his book on Guénon (1984). That is not a secret...What is new in Fotros' work is the systematization and extent of the plagiarism.
As early as in a letter dated May 24, 1932 and currently kept in Guénon's family archives in Cairo, Marcel Clavelle (Jean Reyor) mentioned to René Guénon a rumor according to which his books were inspired by Aguéli's work:
«Il me revient que De Mengel m’a raconté une chose invraisemblable vous concernant: il paraît que la substance de “l’Homme et son devenir”, du “Symbolisme de la Croix” et des “États multiples” est tirée d’un ouvrage d’Abdul-Hâdi [Aguéli] publié au Caire! Heureusement qu’il a été imprimé dans la Gnose, au moment où Abdul-Hâdi y collaborait, que ce dernier ne connaissait ni les doctrines hindoues ni le Taoïsme... Mais on m’a bien raconté aussi que Champrenaud vous avait dicté le début du Symbolisme de la Croix paru autrefois, en se faisant la barbe!! Il n’y a pas à répondre à de pareilles âneries.»
Translated: "I just remembered that De Mengel told me an incredible thing concerning you: it seems that the substance of “Man and his becoming” , of “The Symbolism of the Cross” and of “The Multiple States of the Being” is drawn from a Abdul-Hâdi's work published in Cairo! Fortunately, it was printed in La Gnose, when Abdul-Hâdi was collaborating in it, that the latter knew neither Hindu doctrines nor Taoism... But I was also told that Champrenaud had dictated to you the beginning of the Symbolism of the Cross, while shaving!! There is no answer to such nonsense."
Unfortunately we do not have Guénon's response, but Clavelle was satisfied with it and he was even encouraged by Guénon to publish more articles of Aguéli in le Voile d'Isis.
More to come soon.
It's not clear what's being insinuated here. If Ivan is the source of Guenon's work, does that make Ivan the king of the world? Or is it that the subsequent articles published about Ivan by Guenon and his associates were meant to discourage such line of thought?
I recall Guenon chastising Ivan's imprecise manner of expressing esoteric concepts. Further, Guenon was upset at Ivan for talking about the "Marian" way of achieving initiatic results, since it would jeopardize Guenon's mission, if many of his readers instead of seeking to satisfy his impossibly rigid conditions for "regular" initiation, opted to use more "irregular" techniques, such as the one highlighted by Ivan.
The public manner Guenon deals with Ivan doesn't really demonstrate respect, since Guenon corrects him and suppresses the ideas he brings up, almost as if he was dealing with an amateur who isn't aware of the mission at hand...
Thank you to (Anonymous) for the very interesting quote. I also agree with him that Guénon treated Aguéli as if he was a mere "link in the chain" to be neglected (pp.87 in Fotros' book). But it is astounding that for 100 years noone has asked for proof of Guénon's direct connection to Shaykh Elish... which according to Fotros probably is a constructed myth (pp.46). But why would any person in their right mind ignore footnotes to texts that have already been published - and then even take extra paragraphs from the ignored source, put them in and claim it is one's own? Can't get my head around that!
After reading Oliver Fotros's book (clearly a pseudonym), I am surprised at all the conspiracy theories that arise from the disappearance of the footnotes from the original articles published in La Gnose, after the articles were developed into books. The author offers a lot of hypothesis, all attacking Guénon's character, but what came to my mind when I read the findings was that Aguéli was himself just reusing a terminology that he had heard from others when he studied sufism. Aguéli was not the "creator" of traditional terms, since tradition is not linked to any individuals. Had Guénon kept the footnotes, he would have confused the readers into thinking that Aguéli had invented the traditional terms, which should not be possible. In the same token, no one should read Guénon assuming that he invented these terms and expressions (translated from Arabic).
To me this needs to be seen in light of the chain of traditional individuals who erase themselves behind the content of the doctrine they transmit from generation to generation. Because let's be honest, neither one of these individuals was going to be rich or famous with their books, or trying to be a guru. Giving Guénon a bad intent through the analysis of a few footnotes is judging his character based on a conspiracy theory that is seen through modern eyes, and out of context.
It is mind boggling that after Guénon has engaged in cases of clear plagiarism, he still goes on to state that "as far as we are aware, there is no one else [except me] who has expounded authentic Eastern ideas in the West..." - not that "self-effacing" is it..?
(Quote in "Crisis of the Modern World", p.103 in the Sophia Perennis edition. This is also quoted by Chacornac's Guénon biography p.67 of the Sophia Perennis edition.)
And let us not forget that the followers of Guénon have for decades reproached Mircea Eliade for not having given Guénon enough credit when using his works in his books... why do they not then say that also Guénon "was not the creator of traditional terms" - as Anonymous does above in the case of Aguéli being plagiarised by Guénon...
Also, let us not forget that many of the people who disparaged Aguéli also attacked others they considered threats to the myth of Guénon's uniqueness - such as Frithjof Schuon - who evidently pointed out to others that Guénon had taken terms from Aguéli.
Lets be honest: not only was Aguéli's works ripped off, his very identity - his standing with Shaykh Elish - was hijacked and attributed to Guénon - who had never met the Shaykh, never spoken to the Shaykh and never written to the Shaykh. Where did Guénon meet Shaykh Elish? When did Shaykh Elish speak to Guénon? Where is the correspondence between Guénon and Elish? Is it too much to ask for some proof..?
Could people posting comments please try to use moderate language? Discussing influences is one thing. Accusing people, even dead people, of dishonesty—which is what some people now seem to be doing—is another thing. Guénon had many sources that he did not footnote, as he did not generally footnote his sources anyhow. He was not writing articles for social-science journals, which have different requirements.
Post a Comment