New Study on John Michell, the "Radical Traditionalist"

Marleen Thaler has just published Albion’s Sage for the New Age: John Michell, Radical Traditionalism, and the Myth of Sacred England (Sheffield: Equinox 2026). It is beautifully written and highly readable, and covers Michell and his world very well—but leaves unanswered some questions regarding his “Radical Traditionalism.” Thaler previously published an article on Michell, for which see this post.

Thaler divides Michell’s life into two periods: an “early period… with the English counterculture… psychedelia, New Age, alternative archaeology, and Earth Mysteries,” and a “late period… as an antiquarian, devoted Traditionalist, and Neoplatonist.” In her view, Michell’s most important books were The Flying Saucer Vision: The Holy Grail Restored (1967), The View over Atlantis (1969), and City of Revelation: On the Proportions and Symbolic Numbers of the Cosmic Temple (1972). These all belong to his early period, as does his role in starting what became the Glastonbury Festival in 1971. Glastonbury’s status as the pagan capital of England, perhaps Europe, is lasting monument to him, and also belongs to the early period. The late period includes his stated admiration for Julius Evola and articles in The Oldie, a publication that lay somewhere to the right of the mainstream Conservative Party. This might seem a conversion, but Thaler argues it was not: being part of the counterculture, as Michell very much was, does not have to mean that one is left wing.

The book starts with two introductory chapters, one of which introduces Traditionalism for readers who do not know it, while the other introduces “alternative theories on sacred place and nature,” an understanding of which is crucial for understanding Michell’s work. Then comes a biographical chapter. This is followed by a chapter on Glastonbury, another on Michell’s “sacred place theory,” and then “Glastonbury as spiritual hub,” which brings the two preceding chapters together.

The book covers Michell, sacred place theory, and Glastonbury convincingly and in depth. Radical Traditionalism is less well covered. Thaler notes in her conclusion that the scope of her study “precluded examining… Michell’s involvement with political Traditionalism, particularly within the frameworks of the European and North American New Right.” This is true. The book also leaves unanswered certain questions about Michell’s religious Traditionalism. Certainly, he identified as a “radical Traditionalist” and admired Evola, but who was more important for him, Evola or William Blake? How much of Evola and of Guénon can be found in his work? In quite what way was he a perennialist? Thaler has advanced our understanding of Michell considerably, but more work still remains to be done.