Evola's Preface Continued

The Second Half of Evola's Preface to Spengler's The Decline of the West

This is the second half of Evola’s Preface to Spengler’s The Decline of the West. The first half is accessible by returning to main page for The Oswald Spengler Project or by clicking the embedded link at the bottom of this post.

Here, Evola discusses Caesarism, 20th-century fascism and Nazism, and some of the technical vocabulary of Spengler’s work. A very special thank you to Pleth who translated this work.

---

EVOLA

It's worth again mentioning the phenomenon of Caesarism as conceived by Spengler. The situation would be such that during the phase of 'civilization' in each cycle (but here the reference becomes specific, it's the West that Spengler clearly has in view), after technological civilization, the reign of machinery and technicians has triumphed over everything else, it will be the powers of finance and capital that dominate (essentially under the guise of democracy), and ultimately a fight to the death will ensue between the lords of money and 'Caesar-like individuals,' identical to the struggle between economy and pure politics. The Caesar-like individuals will break the tyranny of gold and establish the era of absolute politics. Here, a curious and contradictory interference of motives arises: because at this point, according to Spengler, ethical values, race, and tradition would also miraculously revive—although is unclear how such values could have survived the destructions that characterize the entire exhausted phase of 'civilization.' It is not apparent how one can expect these 'great individuals' to develop a sense of responsibility, honor, and care for everything they, with their absolute power, will have wrested from the dominion of gold and brought back under the sovereignty of the pure political principle.

Spenglerian Caesarism is essentially defined as the formless power of single individuals, against the backdrop of Spengler's philosophy that emphasizes the primacy of reality and facts over truth, power over principles, and "life" over any form of higher existence. This sets the stage for unabashed Machiavellianism, and the prophetic prognosis, when stripped of embellishments, simply presents us with totalitarianism, reasonably seen as an inevitable phenomenon in times of "civilization." Adding traditional and aristocratic values becomes nonsensical: in that case, it would no longer concern the Caesar-like individual (assuming one follows Spengler in an abusive and unilateral interpretation of Caesar) or even a Napoleonic figure, but rather the archetype of a legitimate leader or sovereign, whose historical context isn't "civilization" but rather "culture.”

Could this ambiguity perhaps be related to the effect that Spengler's theory of the belated Caesarist era had on Mussolini? This is why he wanted Spengler's work "The Decline of the West," where this theory is emphasized, to be translated into Italian. Probably because he saw himself as one of the new rulers functioning under the absolute political principle. However, he paid little attention to the historical role, which, despite everything, Caesarism fills in Spengler's theory. It's intrinsic to the atmosphere of a dying and thoroughly degraded and desacralized civilization.

It's true, however, that following Spengler, there would be only one ethic, one imperative: the biological, to realize what corresponds to the cyclic phase in which one finds oneself living. In fact, the alternative could be stated thusly: either to be nothing, or to be what a given historical period demands, in every domain, under the guise of Destiny. And in the climate of a civilization, only the above-mentioned political forms would be up to date.

In National Socialist Germany, Spengler represented quite an exceptional case. Faced with the more intense "Caesarism" of Hitler, which was more populist in nature than Mussolini's, Spengler saw his theory almost put to the test. The man Spengler, if not the philosopher who had previously praised Cecil Rhodes, didn't feel inclined to follow it. Like Jünger, von Salomon, Blüher, and various other figures of the so-called "conservative revolution," who in many ways had laid the groundwork for National Socialism, Spengler kept himself somewhat apart. This sentiment was reciprocated: the more radical Nazi circles viewed Spengler with suspicion, not so much for his theory of Caesarism, biological irrationalism, and the will to power, but more due to the inconsistency already mentioned. This inconsistency made him appear as an advocate of conservative and aristocratic Prussian values, which were considered reactionary and suspect in those circles' eyes.

This is certainly not the appropriate place for a detailed examination of the value of Spengler's views on various civilizations and their different phases. There would be too many elements to correct, due to their one-sided or even their inaccurate presentations. Spengler is credited with the discovery of the so-called "Magian civilization" as a distinct unit. His term "Faustian civilization" and "Faustian man" has, in the meantime, become somewhat common among various writers. However, much could be said about the meaning of Faustian civilization, which Spengler identifies with the Western one, starting with Gothic culture. It's worth noting that he considers the entirety of Indo-European pre-history, to say nothing of Hyperborea, to be nonexistent, disregarding the foundational influences by that were propagated by the Gothic and Germanic cultures. He also fails to realize that some presumed specific traits of the Faustian civilization (the cult of the self, psychological analysis, the romantic drive towards the limitless, etc.) are nothing more than precursors to the crisis that would characterize Western civilization. The discussion about the opposition between Western (Faustian) civilization and classical (ancient) civilization keeps resurfacing to excess. Unfortunately, the tired arguments about Greco-Roman civilization as one of the corporeal, finite, and closed, along with the notion of "Apollonialism" being almost synonymous with all this, still prevail. Greek and Roman civilizations are considered parts of the same organism or historical cycle, almost in terms of corresponding phases of civilization and culture. However, it's well-known that they represented distinct cultural entities due to deep-seated factors. Finally, readers might be surprised to hear what Spengler has to say about Buddhism, Taoism, Stoicism, and Pythagoreanism. But as it's not our intention to delve into a critique here, readers can decide for themselves, based on their own principles, how to orient themselves and separate what, despite the confusion in Spengler's work, still holds positive value and can be appropriately utilized in morphological historiography, from what should be discarded without hesitation.

---

The style used by Spengler in this work is anything but plain, both in terms of language and articulation of thought. Therefore, if the reader feels some discomfort, they shouldn't blame the translator, whose liberties could not go so far as to rewrite almost everything in different words, taking on the responsibility of purely probable interpretations at more than one point.

Apart from the general style, there's also a special terminology or a quite particular use of common terms. The reader will gradually get used to this. Let's limit ourselves to a few observations for initial orientation.

The German term "die Antike" means "antiquity" in the specific sense of Greco-Roman civilization (so "der antike Mensch," "die antike Kunst," etc., mean the man, art, etc. of classical civilization). Spengler uses the term precisely in this sense and opposes the use of the expression "classical antiquity." Nevertheless, in certain cases, the use of this expression has been essential; otherwise, the only available Italian term is "antico" (ancient). However, it's important to reiterate that for Spengler, "ancient civilization” doesn't refer to every civilization of the past, but only to that of Greco-Roman antiquity.

When Spengler speaks of "Western civilization," he refers to the cycle of the Faustian or Euro-Western civilization (and later, also American), which he believes began around AD 1000. It doesn't encompass every Western civilization throughout different historical periods.

The German term "Landschaft" means "landscape." However, Spengler uses it in a complex sense, not merely in a picturesque or panoramic manner. He refers to the particular "nature," understood as a combination not only of geographical and climatic factors but also psychological and spiritual ones, that constitutes the mother soil of a given civilization. Translators into other languages have used corresponding terms, such as "paysage" in French and "paesaggio" in Italian.

The terms "Erleben" and "erlebnis" refer to "lived experience" and often pose challenges in translations from German. Given Spengler's irrationalistic philosophy, these terms frequently appear throughout his work. They contrast with a curious use of "Geist" and "geistig," meaning "spirit" and "spiritual," which are often employed to denote the opposite of "Erleben," encompassing intellectual, rational, abstract, and cerebral aspects. To avoid confusion, translators have sometimes taken the liberty to use these more appropriate expressions.

Readers will often have to navigate on their own, as it's not uncommon for Spengler to paradoxically associate disparate concepts under the same term "Geist," such as Enlightenment, urban rationalism, religious spirit, wisdom or gnosis, and scientific-philosophical speculation, all counterposed equally against "life" and "lived experience.”

Regarding the term "image" ("Bild"), readers must gradually get accustomed to the complex and varied ways Spengler uses it. For the challenging term "Stand" or "Stände" (caste, social class, corporation: see "Ständestaat"), and other specific terms, explanations will be provided in notes as they come up. The term "Gleichzeitig," meaning "simultaneous" or "contemporary," has been translated as "synchronous," used by Spengler for phenomena or figures that occupy the same "place" in the cycle of different civilizations (someone has instead translated it as "coeval"). Overall, it's only by gradually becoming accustomed to Spengler's style and mindset that the reader can overcome the difficulties presented by the study of this book.

[END PART 2]

---

To read the first half of the translation, view it here: