¶7 Moreover, although this obliges us to speak of ourselves, which is not in our habit, we must formally declare this: to our knowledge, there is no one who has expounded authentic Oriental ideas in the West, except ourselves; and we have always done so exactly as any Oriental would have done who had found himself led to do so by circumstances, that is to say, without the least intention of ‘propaganda’ or ‘popularisation’,1 and solely for those who are capable of understanding the doctrines as they are, without there being any need to denature them under the pretext of bringing them within their reach; and we will add that, despite the decadence of Western intellectuality, those who understand are still less rare than we would have supposed, while obviously being only a small minority.2 Such an undertaking is certainly not of the kind that Mr. Massis imagines — we dare not say ‘for the needs of his cause’, although the political character of his book might authorise such an expression; let us say, to be as benevolent as possible, that he imagines them because his spirit is troubled by the fear that the presentiment of a more or less imminent ruin of Western civilisation gives rise to in him;3 and we regret that he has not been able to see clearly where the true causes likely to bring about this ruin lie, although he sometimes shows a just severity towards certain aspects of the modern world.4 This is even what causes the continual wavering of his thesis: on the one hand, he does not know exactly who the adversaries are that he should be fighting, and, on the other hand, his ‘traditionalism’ leaves him very ignorant of everything that is the very essence of tradition, which he visibly confuses with a sort of politico-religious ‘conservatism’ of the most external order.5
←
→

Summary

Guénon declares that, to his knowledge, no one in the West has expounded authentic Oriental ideas except himself, and that he has always done so without any intention of propaganda or popularisation, solely for those capable of understanding the doctrines as they are. He adds that despite the decadence of Western intellectuality, those who understand are still a small minority. He explains that Massis imagines such undertakings because his spirit is troubled by fear of the imminent ruin of Western civilisation, regretting that Massis has not seen the true causes of this ruin. He notes that Massis’s thesis continually wavers: he does not know exactly who his adversaries are, and his ‘traditionalism’ leaves him ignorant of the essence of tradition, which he visibly confuses with an external politico-religious conservatism.

General notes

  1. sans intention de « propagande » ou de « vulgarisation » — Rendered as ‘without the least intention of “propaganda” or “popularisation”’. Guénon clearly distinguishes his approach from that of the ‘propagandists’ he criticises in Massis. He seeks neither to convert nor to simplify doctrines to make them accessible to the greatest number. He expounds Oriental ideas as they are, for those who are capable of understanding them. ↩︎
  2. ceux qui comprennent sont moins rares qu’on ne le suppose — Rendered as ‘those who understand are less rare than one might suppose’. Guénon shows a certain optimism: despite the intellectual decadence of the West, there still exists a minority (small but real) capable of understanding authentic traditional doctrines. It is to this minority that he addresses himself, not to the general public. ↩︎
  3. peur de la ruine de la civilisation occidentale — Rendered as ‘fear of the ruin of Western civilisation’. Guénon diagnoses Massis’s deep motivation: a real fear, but poorly directed, in the face of the decline of the West. This fear blinds him to the true causes of this decline and pushes him to attack false enemies (the ‘Oriental propagandists’). ↩︎
  4. juste sévérité de Massis envers le monde moderne — Rendered as ‘just severity of Massis towards the modern world’. Guénon recognises that Massis is sometimes right in his criticisms of modernity (for example, his attack on materialism, relativism or cultural decadence). But this partial lucidity makes his errors regarding the East all the more regrettable. ↩︎
  5. confusion entre traditionalisme et conservatisme politico-religieux — Rendered as ‘confusion between traditionalism and politico-religious conservatism’. Guénon makes a crucial distinction: true traditionalism (attachment to universal metaphysical and spiritual principles) is very different from political and religious conservatism (defence of institutions, customs or external dogmas). Massis, according to Guénon, confuses the two: he defends an external and rigid form of the Christian tradition (political Catholicism, monarchism, nationalism) without understanding its inner and universal essence. ↩︎