The Mission of Monarchic Legitimism in the Postmodern Era

1) An integral part of the Indo-European tradition is the idea of a sacred monarch. Perhaps this element is inherent in the primordial tradition as a whole. This statement has repeatedly tried to challenge and even put forward the idea that the Indo-Europeans are inherent in some kind of “republicanism”. However, this statement does not correspond to either academic data or traditional data obtained from sources such as mythology.

2) Modern science knows little about the social structure of primitive Caucasians. However, the Guanche tribes that lived in the Canary Islands are described in detail. The Guanches were a relic of the Cro-Magnon racial type, i.e. the original primitive Caucasians. The Guanches had a fairly extensive system of class hierarchy and, what is especially curious, they had a monarchy. It was a monarchy of the so-called tribal type with a ladder system of inheritance. That is, the main attention was focused not on the personality of the monarch, but on his family affiliation. At the same time, power, as a rule, was transferred not from father to son, but from older brother to younger. Thus, the supremacy in the clan belonged biologically to the eldest man. The families of the leaders-monarchs were revered by the Guanches as sacred and exercised collective suzerainty over the tribes, similar to that which the Rurik dynasty exercised in Kyivan Rus. Despite the relatively weak property stratification among the Guanches, the person of the king was surrounded by a cult, which testifies to his sacralization. The communication of the king with his subjects included worship rituals, such as, for example, kissing his feet. The funeral of the king was accompanied by human sacrifices. It is curious that there was a cult of the remains of the founder of the sacred royal family, very reminiscent of the Christian cult of the relics of saints. Thus, the only Proto-Caucasians described in historical time not only had a monarchical form of government, but also betrayed it with a pronounced sacred character.

3) In the era of antiquity, the idea of ​​the sacredness of royal families received its logical continuation. In almost all ancient Greek policies that had a monarchical form of government, monarchs were considered relatives of the gods, not in a symbolic, but in the direct sense of the word. It should be noted that the divine origin of representatives of the royal families was not questioned even in the policies, whose inhabitants preferred a democratic form of government. In ancient Rome, even in its republican era, some aristocratic families erected their genealogy to the gods. It is curious that Julius Caesar was proud that “his family goes back to the kings on his father’s side, and to the gods on his mother” this circumstance suggests that the Caesarian revolution, which destroyed the republic and founded the empire, was somewhat more complex, in a metaphysical dimension, than simple replacement of democracy with dictatorship.
4) In pre-Christian Europe, there was also a cult of sacred royal families. The monarchs of the ancient Germans raised their clan to the gods, primarily to Odin. The hypothesis of the “republicanism” of the ancient Germans, put forward in the 19th century, does not hold water. It was brilliantly refuted by M. Blok in his fundamental work “Kings-Wonderworkers”. A quote from which, devoted to this problem, should be quoted in full: “Perhaps I will be reproached for not saying a word on these pages about the once famous theory, according to which the Germans were originally republicans. In fact, everyone knows that a whole historical school, predominantly German, considered the German royal power to be a late institution, which appeared, at least among the Western Germans, only after such a great upheaval as the era of conquests. At the risk of being accused of a dismissive attitude towards predecessors, I will, however, say the following: this theory, in essence, does not even deserve a detailed refutation. When its proponents try to rely on the texts, and not just captivated by the seductive mirages of the Enlightenment or Romanticism, they become victims of a double misunderstanding, which explains everything. First, these defenders of retrospective republicanism uncritically use the terminology of Latin authors; when they described the German society, they used the name of those, speaking of the leaders of large tribes; the leaders of tribal associations of a smaller scale were called principes; if we translate these terms into French or German without a preliminary explanation, it will simply be nonsense: in terms of modern sociology, both principes and reges are none other than kings, in other words, monarchs who receive power by inheritance. I deliberately talk about hereditary power, because it is with it that the second of the misunderstandings I mentioned is connected. From the indisputable fact that elections played a large part in the proclamation of principes and even reges, these authors conclude that both, but above all the principes, were purely elected magistrates and, so to speak, presidents of the republic in miniature. However, to say so is to forget that, along with personal legitimacy, there was also generic legitimacy; if a people chooses its leaders exclusively from among the members of a single clan, who pass on their power from generation to generation along with blood, we can and must speak of hereditary power; meanwhile, in my opinion, the usual state of affairs among the ancient Germans was just that. (4) (p. 656-657).

It is curious that the ancient Germans often chose leaders who did not have royal status and were nominated due to personal qualities. However, this in no way canceled the admiration for the divine kings, who had a sacred status due to their origin. The relationship between the function of monarchs and leaders is analyzed by Julius Evola in his work “Fascism: View from the Right”: “From the point of view of pure doctrine, it cannot be said that diarchy is necessarily mixed as the result of some unworthy compromise. It may also have traditional legitimacy, as typified by the ancient Roman dictatorship. However, it should be clearly understood that the ancient Romans understood the dictatorship not as a “revolutionary” institution, but as an institution provided for by the system of current legislation as a temporary measure, valid until the end of an emergency or the solution of difficult tasks that require the involvement of all the forces of the nation. Traditional (not only European) regimes also knew systems of dual power such as rex and dux, rex and heretigo or imperator (primarily in the military sense of the last word). The first embodied the pure sacred and unshakable principle of supreme power and authority; the second received emergency powers in turbulent times or for the solution of special tasks and affairs not befitting the rex by the very nature of its higher function. Unlike the monarch, who drew his authority from the purely symbolic function of non-action, which has, so to speak, an “Olympic” character, the dux had to be distinguished by special personal qualities. (7) (c. 300-301).

5) The ideas of the sacralization of royal families were not alien to the ancient Slavs, for example, the Rurik dynasty was considered to be descended from Dazhbog. The version according to which all Slavs are “grandchildren of Dazhbozhim” is widespread, however, the likelihood that it is true is extremely low. The vast majority of scientists who have studied this problem believe that the concept of “Dazhbozh’s grandson” applied exclusively to Rurik and his descendants. Although the question is still controversial in the scientific community. “First, he put into circulation the metaphor “Dazhdbozh’s grandchildren” – the unknown author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”, in relation to the Rus peoples to highlight their kindred community and the need to stop strife and rally in the face of the threat of external enemies: “Then, under Olza Gorislavlichi, strife spread, Dazhdbog’s grandchildren died, it became empty in the princely mansions.” “Resentment arose in the troops of Dazhbozh’s grandson, the virgin entered the land of Troyanov, splashed with swan wings on the blue sea near the Don, splashing, drove away the times of abundance.”

Many researchers consider two passages about Dazhdbog, from the “Word” and the chronicle, as parts of one Slavic myth about the origin of princely power.
According to this theory, Dazhdbog was the first king of the Slavs, and the princes, including the current ethnic Russians, are the descendants (“grandchildren”) of Dazhdbog.

This theory is derived from the works of the “Bavarian Geographer” (IX century). But, about who is called “Dazhbozh’s grandson”, scientific disputes are still ongoing and there are several points of view. In a systematic way, they are reduced to the following provisions.
A number of researchers understand by the grandson of Dazhbog not the entire Russian people, but a certain social stratum: some – ratays, smerds (A.A. Potebnya), tillers (A.K. Yugov, referring to the first fragment); others – Russian warriors (Buslaev, Famintsyn); the third – Russian princes, princely family (N.G. Golovin, S.A. Gedeonov, Vs. F. Miller, Barsov, Barsov, M.N. Tikhomirov, etc.).
Miller, who supported this point of view, considered the expression “Give me God’s grandson” not a reflection of the mythical genealogy of the princes, but just a decorating epithet (“sun-born”).

Some commentators and translators of the “Word” understood a certain historical figure as Dazhdbozh’s grandson: A.S. Shishkov – Prince of Kyiv; Rybakov – “Russian prince from the Dnieper region”; Sreznevsky and A.V. Longinov – Vladimir “Red Sun”, connecting him with the sunny Dazhdbog, and N.S. Tikhonravov – Oleg Svyatoslavich. Moreover, according to E.V. Anichkov, in one case, Dazhdbog should be understood as Prince Igor Svyatoslavich, and in the other, Chernigov or Chernigov Rus.
Robinson believes that in the first case, Oleg Svyatoslavich was named the grandson of Dazhdbog, and in the second, Igor Svyatoslavich.
At the same time, Robinson proceeds from his hypothesis about the connection of the solar Dazhdbog and the entire solar theme of the “Word” with the Olgovich family.

A completely new point of view on the expression “Dazhbozh grandson” was expressed by V.L. Vinogradov. In her opinion, in the “Word” by Dazhdbog is meant not a god, but a man with the name Dazhdbog. As you can see, how many scientists have so many theories, but there is no agreement.
The most successful hypothesis, according to the author, is probably the one according to which “Dazhbozh’s grandson”, i.e. a descendant of the solar god, the princely family of Rurikovich, Russian princes, is named in the “Word”.
This hypothesis corresponds to the ideas of the ancient Slavs about their state power. As the Russian historian Miller pointed out, descent from a deity has always and everywhere been the privilege of kings, princes, aristocracy, but by no means the entire nation.
The designation in the “Word” as a descendant of the solar Dazhdbog of precisely the princely family, finds confirmation in the “Word” itself in the metaphor “prince-sun”; But a solar eclipse portends the captivity of Igor and other princes, the return of Igor from captivity is compared with the radiance of the sun in the sky.

The use of the epithet “golden” in the «Word», which always characterizes here belonging to the princely life, speaks of the connection with the sun of the princes. Gold symbolizes the light of the sun in world mythology, it is an absolute metaphor for the light of the sun.
6) After the adoption of Christianity, the sacralization of royal families took on a different character. Particular emphasis began to be placed not so much on the lineage, but on the ceremony of anointing, thus the church tried to put the royal birth under control. However, in the end, the traditional line of sacralization of origin as such prevailed. It was rethought in a Christian spirit, but its essence remained the same. The description of medieval culture is replete with facts confirming this. A kind of summary of the Christian sacralization of royal blood can be a quote by Joseph de Maistre that “God makes kings in the literal sense. He prepares the royal families, watches over their maturation in the midst of a cloud that hides their origin. Then they sprout, crowned with glory and honor; they conquer – and this is a great sign of their legitimacy. They rise as if by themselves, without violence, on the one hand, without a clear intention, on the other. It’s a kind of wonderful calm that’s hard to put into words. Legal usurpation seems to me the most appropriate (albeit somewhat bold) expression for defining this kind of origin, which time is in a hurry to sanctify. “The ratio of the meaning of anointing and origin perfectly illustrates the statement of Louis XIV used by him in his Memoirs: sacred, more august…” but blood has the advantage.”

7) In the era of Modernity, monarchical families found themselves in an extremely ambiguous position. Even in those countries where the monarchy was preserved, it was actually turned into a mechanism; this brought a flurry of criticism to the dynastic monarchy not only from the left, but also from the right, from traditionalist positions. “The time of kings is over. What is now called the people is unworthy of having a king,” F. Nietzsche stated bitterly. The idea that a monarch, by the grace of God, is no longer possible, because he simply will not be considered as such, was put forward by Donoso Cortés. In this regard, his sympathies turned to the dictatorship. Julius Evola was also very critical of contemporary monarchies, which, however, did not prevent him from remaining a staunch supporter of the dynastic monarchy. Ernst Junger was also very critical of the monarchy, whose attitude towards it ranged from openly negative (in the 1920s) to neutral-skeptical (in his work Rivarol). Nevertheless, the main thing cannot be taken away from the modern representatives of the august families: their origin, their blood. The modern representative of the royal family may even deny his sacred status, however, he cannot cease to be what he is. Even less important is what other people think of him. In any case, representatives of the most august families remain special beings in whose veins the blood of pre-Christian gods and Christian saints flows. In this context, it is curious that representatives of all the royal families of Europe have their own genealogies, at least several Christian saints generally recognized in the east and west. Turning to the Vedic tradition, one can criticize the modern august families based on the assertion that: “an uninitiated brahmana is no better than a sudra.” However, in doing so, we must not forget that a sudra will remain a sudra anyway. And an uninitiated brahmin can potentially go through the procedure of a second birth and acquire his metaphysical status in its entirety.

8) It is necessary to dwell in more detail on the assessment of the dynastic monarchy in the classical philosophy of integral traditionalism. The works of Julius Evola certainly play a special role. As mentioned above, Julius Evola sharply criticized the practical implementation of the monarchical principle in the form of modern constitutional monarchies. However, the monarchical principle itself was of fundamental importance for him, far beyond the bounds of profane politics. To illustrate, it is necessary to quote a rather extensive quote from the thinker: “Any traditional form of society is distinguished by the presence of beings who, due to their innate or acquired superiority in relation to the ordinary human condition, embody the living and active presence of a higher power at the very heart of the transient order. According to the inner meaning of his etymology and the original meaning of his function, this is precisely the pontiff, the “builder of bridges” or “roads” – pons in ancient times also meant the road – between the natural and the supernatural. In addition, the pontiff was traditionally identified with the king. “According to the customs of our ancestors, the king was at the same time a pontiff and a priest,” reports Servius, and in the Nordic tradition it was said: “Let the leader become a bridge for us.” Thus, the true rulers invariably personified the life that is “beyond life.” Due to its very presence or thanks to their “bridge-laying” mediation, thanks to the power of the rites, which gained effectiveness due to their power and their institutions, of which they were the center, spiritual influence permeated the whole world of people with its light, taking root in their thoughts, intentions, actions: creating a barrier to the dark forces of the lower nature; ordering all the diversity of life in such a way that it can serve as a virtual basis for the realization of light; providing general conditions of well-being, “health” and “happiness”.

The primary basis of the power and rights of kings and leaders, that is, what forced others to obey them, revere them and honor them, in the world of Tradition was precisely their transcendent superhuman quality, which was not just an empty figure of speech, but powerful and causing sacred awe reality. The greater the ontological rank of what precedes and transcends the visible and temporal was recognized, the more such beings were recognized as having a higher, natural and absolute right. The purely political conception of sovereignty, which arose in later times of decadence, and which asserts that power is based on brute force and coercion, or such naturalistic and transient qualities as intelligence, wisdom, dexterity, physical courage, careful concern for the collective welfare, is absolutely alien traditional societies. On the contrary, this basis has always had a metaphysical character. That is, for the world of Tradition, the idea that power is given to the ruler by those whom he governs is completely unacceptable, and his authority is an expression of society and is subject to his sanction. Zeus himself gave qemisteV to the kings of divine origin, where qemis (themis – approx. trans.), as a law given from above, is completely different from what will later be called nomoV (nomos – approx. transl.), the political law of society. Thus, any worldly power was based on the spiritual dominion of the “divine nature, hidden under the human appearance.” For example, according to the Indo-Aryan tradition, the supreme ruler is not a “mere mortal”, but “a great deity in human form.” The Egyptians saw in their pharaoh the incarnation of Ra or Horus. The kings of Alba and Rome personified Janus; Assyrian – Baal; Iranian – the God of light; likewise Tiu (aka Tyr – approx. transl.), Odin and Ases were North German rulers; the Greek kings of the Doric-Achaean cycle were called diotrefeeV or diogeneeV, which indicated their divine origin. Behind the variety of mythical and sacred images, the understanding of royalty as “immanent transcendence”, that is, present and acting in the world, remained an invariable principle. The king – a non-human, sacred being – by his very “being”, his presence was the center, the peak. At the same time, it contained the power that gives effectiveness to the ritual actions performed by him, in which they saw an integral part of the true “reign” and the supernatural pillars of the common life within the framework of the Tradition. Therefore, the royal dignity was recognized in a natural way. He practically did not need material strength. He asserted himself primarily through the spirit. “Brilliant is the rank of a god on earth,” the Indo-Aryan text says, “but it scorches the weak with its radiance. Only the one who has the courage to do so is worthy to become a king.” The ruler appears “a follower of the teachings of those who are gods among men.” (11) In the practical issues of current politics, Evola also emphasized the fundamental role of the monarchical principle: “In almost all traditional states, the Crown served as the basis for embodying the supreme and immutable principle of pure political authority. Therefore, it is safe to say that without a monarchical idea, a true right-wing movement is deprived of its natural center of gravity and crystallization. This is easy to prove on historical examples, which, however, is beyond the scope of our story. The most indicative in this regard is the epoch that is closest to us, when even regimes that partially retained their normative traditional character lost their monarchical structure. In the atmosphere that prevailed then, even the once-existing aristocratic and oligarchic republics would immediately turn out to be perverted. The reasons for this situation are rooted in an even more distant past. (7) (p. 299).

9) In the postmodern era, the whole world is essentially an illusion. Clarity and clarity are completely absent. Only the legitimacy of traditional institutions is in question. Increasingly, there are doubts about the reality of the transmission of traditional influences, which are replaced by forces behind which there is a counter-initiation. Of particular concern is the fact that in this atmosphere, evil (of course, in the metaphysical, and not the moral sense of the word), can take on the guise of good. It is about this scenario that the concept of antichrist known in the Christian tradition warns. In this era, the idea of ​​legitimism takes on a special meaning, since lineage and blood remain factors that are almost impossible to simulate. Adherents of the “great parody” can dress themselves as saints, heroes, and even fighters for traditional values, but they cannot change their origin. This allows us to hope that representatives of the sacred families living in our world can play an important, perhaps decisive role in resisting the forces of evil. Indeed, by the very fact of their existence, they testify to the living, real presence of a supernatural element in the world of modern humanity.

Yurchenko E. A.
Candidate of Philosophy, Associate Professor of the Department of Philosophy and Pedagogy of the National Transport University (Kyiv, Ukraine), co-founder of the Ukrainian Traditionalist Club, ideologist of modern Ukrainian nationalism.

  1. Блок Марк. Короли-чудотворцы: Очерк представлений о сверхъестественном характере королевской власти, распространенных преимущественно во Франции и в Англии / Пер. с фр. В.А. Мильчиной. Предисл. Ж. Ле Гоффа. Науч. ред. и послесл. А.Я. Гуревича. – М.: Школа «Языки русской культуры», 1998. – 712 с.
  2. Генон Рене. Кризис современного мира / Рене Генон. – М.: Эксмо, 2008. – 784 с.
  3. Генон Рене. Символика креста. М.: Прогресс-Традиция, 2004. – 704 с.
  4. Грейвс Р. Мифы Древней Греции. Пер. с англ. Под ред. и с послесл. А.А. Тахо-Годи. – М., Прогресс, 1992. – 624 с.
  5. Донцов Д. Де шукати наших історичних традицій; Дух нашої давнини. – К.: МАУП, 2005. – 568 с.
  6. Дугин А.Г. Философия политики. – М., Арктогея, 2004 – 616 с.
  7. Эвола Ю. Люди и руины. Критика фашизма: взгляд справа / Юлиус Эвола; пер. с исп. В.В. Ванюшкиной. – М.: АСТ: АСТ МОСКВА: ХРАНИТЕЛЬ, 2007. – 445 с.
  8. Эвола Ю. Лук и булава. Пер. с исп. В.В. Ванюшкиной. – Санкт-Петербург: «Владимир Даль». 2009. – 382 с.
  9. Эвола Ю. Метафизика войны / Пер. с англ. – Тамбов, 2008. – 168 с.
  10. Эвола Ю. Мистерия Грааля (электронный ресурс). Пер. с итал. А. Дугина. Режим доступа:
  11. Эвола Ю. Восстание против современного мира (электронный ресурс). Пер. В.В. Ванюшкиной. Режим доступа:
  12. Юнгер Э. Ривароль. (электронный ресурс). Режим доступа:
  13. Мифы народов мира. Энциклопедия в 2-х томах / Гл. ред. С.А. Токарев. – М.: Сов. энциклопедия, 1992. – Т. 2. К-Я. – 719 с.
  14. Фігурний Ю.С. Історичні витоки українського лицарства: Нариси про зародження і розвиток козацької традиційної культури та національне військове мистецтво в українському вимірі. – К.: Видавничий дім «Стилос», 2004. – 308 с.
  15. Однороженко О. Українська (руська) еліта доби Середньовіччя і раннього Модерну: структура та влада. – К.: Темпора, 2011. – 422 с.; іл.
  16. Большаков А.А. За столпами Геракла. Канарские острова. – М.: Гл. ред. вост. лит. изд. «Наука», 1988.
  17. Птифис, Жан-К. Людовик XIV. Слава и испытания / Жан-Кристиан Птифис; пер. с фр. И.А. Эгипти. – СПб.: Евразия, 2008. – 382 с.
  18. Гай Светоний Транквилл. Жизнь двенадцати Цезарей. – М.: Наука. 1964. – 375 с.
  19. Священное тело короля: ритуалы и мифология власти / (отв. ред. Н.А. Хачатурян); Ин-т всеобщ. истории РАН; МГУ им. М.В. Ломоносова. – М.: Наука, 2006. – 484 с.
  20. Эвола Ю. Языческий империализм. (Электронный ресурс). Перевод А. Дугина. Режим доступа:
    Юрченко Э. Миссия монархического легитимизма в эпоху Постмодерна / Эдуард Юрченко // Традиция. Материалы Международной конференции по традиционализму «Against Post-Modern World». — 2012. — Вып. 4. — С. 155—167.
    © 2012