{"id":8856,"date":"2017-01-04T23:35:22","date_gmt":"2017-01-05T04:35:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.gornahoor.net\/?p=8856"},"modified":"2020-01-04T10:06:11","modified_gmt":"2020-01-04T15:06:11","slug":"haunted-by-the-emperor","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/gornahoor.net\/?p=8856","title":{"rendered":"Haunted by the Emperor"},"content":{"rendered":"

\nEurope is haunted by the shadow of the Emperor. One senses his absence just as vividly as in former times one sensed his presence. Because the emptiness of the wound speaks, that which we miss knows how to make us sense it. ~ Valentin Tomberg<\/strong>, Meditations on the Tarot<\/em><\/p>\n

At the apex of everything, as myth and limit, the ideal of the Chakravartin<\/em>, \u201cthe King of the World\u201d, the invisible emperor, whose strength is hidden, powerful, and unconditioned. ~ Julius Evola<\/strong>, Pagan Imperialism<\/em>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Gelasian Dyarchy<\/h2>\n

Rene Guenon<\/strong> wrote an essay describing how the traditional ordering of society was based on both Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power. Ananda Coomaraswamy<\/strong> followed that up with a similar essay describing its application in Indian political thinking. Probably less well known is that the notion of the two powers is firmly rooted also in the Western tradition. The following letter from Pope Gelasius I to Emperor Anastasius in 492 summarizes this teaching:<\/p>\n

\nThere are two, august Emperor, by which this world is chiefly ruled, namely, the sacred authority (auctoritas sacrata<\/em>) of the priests and the royal power (regalis potestas<\/em>). Of these, that of the priests is weightier, since they have to render an account for even the kings of men in the divine judgment. You are also aware, most clement son, that while you are permitted honorably to rule over human kind, yet in divine matters you bend your neck devotedly to the bishops and await from them the means of your salvation. In the reception and proper disposition of the heavenly sacraments you recognize that you should be subordinate rather than superior to the religious order, and that in these things you depend on their judgment rather than wish to bend them to your will.<\/p>\n

If the ministers of religion, recognizing the supremacy granted you from heaven in matters affecting the public order, obey your laws, lest otherwise they might obstruct the course of secular affairs by irrelevant considerations, with what readiness should you not yield them obedience to whom is assigned the dispensing of the sacred mysteries of religion? Accordingly, just as there is no slight danger m the case of the priests if they refrain from speaking when the service of the divinity requires, so there is no little risk for those who disdain\u2014which God forbid\u2014when they should obey. And if it is fitting that the hearts of the faithful should submit to all priests in general who properly administer divine affairs, how much the more is obedience due to the bishop of that see which the Most High ordained to be above all others, and which is consequently dutifully honored by the devotion of the whole Church.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The obvious question, then, is why did not the Medieval civilization persist as long as other Traditional societies such as ancient Egypt, China, India, or even Rome. Clearly, the personal element entered into it, since the Pope and the Emperor often intruded into each other\u2019s domain. Then nationalism always threatened the spiritual unity and the political power of the Holy Roman Empire. That is why nationalism is anti-tradition.<\/p>\n

Although Julius Evola was wildly incorrect in assuming the Emperor had dominion over the priests, his notion that the Emperor could also possess spiritual authority is worthy of consideration. Valentin Tomberg points out that the Pope and the Emperor are \u201cposts\u201d, not necessarily different individuals. Vladimir Solovyov<\/strong> tried to bring the idea of Tsar and High Priest back into Orthodoxy. However, while the role of the spiritual authority was explicitly defined, the limits of temporal power were not. For that, we can look at the reign of the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, even though the unity he created did not survive his death.<\/p>\n

The Viking Emperor<\/h2>\n

Frederick II<\/strong> was the descendant of the Normans who had invaded Sicily, although he also had German and Sicilian blood. His intelligence was huge, in stark contrast to the mediocre leaders of our own time. He was trained in scholastic and classical philosophy, but also studied Aristotle and the Islamic philosophers Avicenna and Averroes. Fluent in six languages, he was also a promoter of the arts, particularly poetry.<\/p>\n

Frederick served as the model for Dante<\/strong>\u2019s ideas on Monarchy. Thus, for him the State was as much part of the plan for salvation as was the Church. He also seems to have been the inspiration for Evola\u2019s description of the Emperor. Frederick claimed that he was the only true individual in the State, since he is the One, not a part of another (like his subjects).<\/p>\n

As King of Sicily, he sought to unify the nation; this required several elements:<\/p>\n