One
of dominant paradigms of modern society is fragmentation.
In the world of popular culture this translates into dazzling
distractions and endless ephemera, while in the world of
academia it engenders over-specialisation and an unspoken
refusal to even attempt to understand the “bigger picture,”
especially from a metaphysical perspective.
In this atomised environment, anyone extolling a cohesive
vision that is marked by traditional values – not to mention
high standards – automatically becomes an anomaly. So it
is the case with Dr. Stephen Flowers, who is the rarest
of breeds: a scholar with spirit, one who is single-minded
yet open-minded. For more than a quarter-century he has
dedicated his energies toward unraveling the mysteries not
only of the ancient symbolic alphabet of the Runes, but
also of the deepest realms of the Germanic myth and culture
from which they arose. For Flowers, this quest is summed
up in a single word, RUNA, which is the old Gothic language
form of “rune” and was equivalent to the Greek term mysterion
(“mystery”). It was in the early 1970s that Flowers
heard this word audibly whispered in his ear, and since
that time he has tirelessly pursued a path of understanding
its implications.
Following graduate work in Germanic and Celtic philology
under the esteemed professor Edgar Polomé (1920–2000), Flowers
received his Ph.D. in 1984 with a dissertation entitled
Runes and Magic: Magical Formulaic Elements in the Elder
Tradition (later published by Lang, 1986).
In the mid-1980s Flowers also began a more public writing
career under the name Edred Thorsson. His books on the Runes
and Germanic magic (Futhark, Runelore, At
the Well of Wyrd, Rune-Might, Northern Magic,
The Nine Doors of Midgard, and A Book of
Troth) have become classics of sorts, and although they
are aimed at the occult book market, they reveal a depth
of understanding and degree of knowledge that is unusual
to find in this genre.
Under his own name he also published less speculative material,
for example Fire & Ice, about the German
magical order the Fraternitas Saturni, and his translation
of the Galdrabók, a medieval Icelandic grimoire.
His interest in Germanic topics extends not only to the
distant past, but also into more recent and controversial
manifestations, such as the völkisch period at the
turn of the 19th century or the esoteric aspects of the
Third Reich, and his translations of Guido von List’s Secret
of the Runes, S. A. Kummer’s Rune-Magic,
or the writings of Karl Maria Wiligut (The Secret King:
Himmler’s Lord of the Runes) all shed scholarly light
on these topics. He has also written Lords of the Left-Hand
Path, a lengthy study of darker occult currents,
and an innovative analysis of ancient Greek magical texts
entitled Hermetic Magic.
Unlike many who possess academic credentials, Flowers was
never content to relegate his interests to a purely intellectual
level, and thus he has long been active in the contemporary
revival of Germanic heathenism, variously called Odinism
or Ásatrú (a coinage derived from Old Norse, meaning “loyalty
to the gods”). He was an original member of Stephen McNallen’s
seminal organisation the Ásatrú Free Assembly (which still
exists today as the Ásatrú Folk Assembly), and in 1979 founded
his own initiatory group, the Rune-Gild, dedicated toward
the serious exploration of the esoteric and innermost levels
of the Germanic tradition, as well as the greater Indo-European
culture of which it is but one branch.
Underlying all of his work is a belief in the profound importance
of traditional Germanic thinking and the eternal relevance
of its mythological expression. After all, English is a
Germanic tongue, and our society – fragmented or decayed
as it now may be – owes its true origins as much, if not
more so, to northern Europe than to Athens or Rome. Dismayed
at the ongoing erosion of support for Germanic studies at
most universities across the Western world, Flowers has
recently unveiled his latest project: the Woodharrow Institute.
This non-profit educational institution aims to maintain
and foster the tradition of Germanic scholarship, offering
courses and publications, and interacting with academic
circles wherever possible. Besides administering the Institute,
Flowers and his wife Crystal also direct the Rûna-Raven
publishing house, which issues an ongoing catalog of titles
concerning varied aspects of ancient Germanic culture, along
with specialised language studies and works in related areas.
–
Michael Moynihan
Michael
Moynihan: Can you recall what initial event or events
led to your setting out upon the path you’ve taken toward
understanding the mysteries of the Germanic tradition?
Stephen
Flowers: I started out my “career” in understanding
the mysteries of the Germanic tradition as what I would
later come to understand as an “occultizoid nincompoop.”
I was interested in a variety of pretty nutty things. One
of my first passions was monster movies. Perhaps Famous
Monsters of Filmland was my first bible. My “favourite
monster” was the one created by Frankenstein. There was
simply something about the “Gothic,” Germanic origin of
the myth that appealed to me. Before that I can remember
being drawn to all things Germanic (and Scandinavian) the
films The Vikings (which I saw during a childhood
trip to San Antonio) and the Fall of the Roman Empire
vaguely inspired me with certain scenes of Germanic
“barbarism.” Later this slightly matured into an interest
in the Morning of the Magicians/Spear of Destiny mythology,
and culminated in my “hearing” the word RUNA in 1974. This
was a catalyst for a quantum leap in my development. It
caused me to delve into the scientific and academic basis
of what it was that had so fascinated me from childhood.
All of this experience laid the foundation of the nature
of my own teaching, following this pattern: (irrational)
inspiration, leading to (rational) objective study, leading
to (subjective) internalisation, which ultimately leads
to objective enactment (= understanding/personal transformation).
Michael:
What brought about your initiation into organised Ásatrú
or Odinism, and how do you look back on this period now?
Stephen:
Back in the mid-1970s there were only a very few individuals
entertaining the idea of the revival of the old Germanic
religion. My own individual journey started as early as
1972. However, I will say that it remained rather haphazard
and undirected until 1974 when I heard the word RUNA whispered
in my ear. But even then, with the inspiration from a higher
source, the struggle to understand the full significance
of it all was a significant one that had to be carried out
in the earthly plane. I saw notices in places like Fate
magazine for the Ásatrú Free Assembly and was intrigued,
but for some reason I thought it unwise to contact this
group until I had something significant to offer. By 1975
my work had taken the direction of being more guided by
scholarly discipline. Once I had made significant progress
in the reformulation of my runic philosophy (which found
expression in the manuscript that became Futhark)
and in my graduate studies at the University of Texas at
Austin, I felt prepared to make contact with Ásatrú groups.
I first met the leader of the AFA, Stephen McNallen, at
the first AFA Althing in the summer of 1979. Meeting Steve
was a life-changing experience for me. He is an embodiment
of a kind of Germanic spirituality that puts words into
action. It was at that time that I was named a godhi
[the Old Norse designation for a spiritual leader] in
the AFA. It is now the only credential that I hold as being
of any significance in the world of Ásatrú /Odinism. Despite
whatever history might have passed in the late 1980s and
early 1990s, there can be no doubt that Stephen McNallen
is the guiding light of American Ásatrú. I count Steve McNallen
as a friend and colleague and very much value the fact that
it was from him that I received my godhordh – or
“authority as a godhi.”
Michael:
You have often spoken about how essential disciplined
scholarly training can be for understanding the esoteric
aspects of the religion and how to most effectively put
these into practice. Presumably, such an exchange also functions
simultaneously in the reverse direction – in other words,
what positive ways did your active involvement with the
religion impact your academic work?
Stephen:
The esoteric, spiritual aspects function as initial
forms of inspiration to the mind. This is essential to the
Odian approach to life. First there is an “irrational,”
or supra-rational, impulse – a bolt out of the blue that
sets the conscious mind on its mysterious course. That impulse
can, for many, be a disorienting stroke from which they
never recover. They simply sink deeper and deeper into a
sea of subjectivity. For another group, the subjectivism
is eventually re-balanced with rational work. Understanding
of the inspiration is gained, without “explaining it away.”
The allowance of subjective inner experience and insight
to coexist with objective, rational analysis is essential
to the process of truly understanding the tradition in a
scientific way, as well as to the process of personal development
based on the traditional symbology.
It was noted by outside observers, my mentors in the academic
world, that I had an uncanny ability to make sense of obscure
myths and to apprehend the hidden connections between and
among various mythic structures. This ability stemmed from
my inner experience which was constructed on a basis lying
outside the purely rational models. If one is trying to
delve into the mysteries of the symbolic culture of an archaic
world – one very much separated from our own contemporary
society and values – then obviously some key must be found
which is something other than plodding logic or wild speculation.
For me this key is the balanced openness to the mythic spirit
of Odin. I was lucky enough to have academic mentors who
supported me in this approach, who were themselves spiritual
men. Without their inner support I could not have achieved
whatever it is I have achieved.
Michael:
Why is the notion of a scholar of pre-Christian religion
who actually adheres to the spiritual ideas that he also
studies such a radical one? Is this simply a byproduct of
the situation in the West where any religious path outside
of the “mainstream” monotheistic faiths is painted as cultic
and marginal?
Stephen:
I think this attitude stems almost entirely from two
sources: 1) the antagonism of the materialist worldview
toward the traditional spiritual one, and 2) the opportunity
the adherents to the materialistic worldview have taken
to attack the spiritual view based on historical events
surrounding World War II. This materialist worldview is
“monotheistic” in the sense that it allows for only one
set of orthodox values. In this way it is really a secularised
form of monotheistic religion. The Judeo-Christian system
of thought has lent itself very well to being secularised
in such a way that it can be turned into a model for modern
political and economic theories. As a side-note, Islam has
been much more stubborn in its adherence to its original
values, which has caused it to be very much “out of step”
with its monotheistic cousins.
Judaism and Christianity can be tolerated by the establishment
scholarly world because they can be viewed as theoretical
prototypes of the materialistic and positivistic model that
now dominates thought in the West. Earlier traditional models
are seen not so much as a threat to religion as they are
seen as a threat to the monolithic political and economic
order. The pre-Christian, traditional philosophies are too
divergent and multivalent to be coerced into one single
“market” of ideas. This points to the fatal hypocrisy of
the current crop of modernistic “thinkers,” who spout off
about “multiculturalism” and tolerance, but who exclusively
support monolithic socio-economic models that enact the
opposite of what they publicly espouse. Surely the ancient,
traditional and pre-Christian world is more in line with
what really sounds best to most people. Are not ancient,
pre-Christian Athens or Alexandria more ideal models for
the future over medieval Rome or Constantinople?
Clearly the animosity to those who see value in pre-Christian
models stems not from the religious side of the debate,
but rather from the secular challenge traditionalism poses
to the current political order. What is needed is a campaign
for the re-education of the academic world to show that
the idealised future is one that is more likely to be based
on the mosaic of pre-Christian traditions than it is to
be based on the monolithic Christian model.
Scholars of pre-Christian tradition must indeed be sympathetic
and even empathetic to the paradigms they are studying.
If they do not have a subjective link to the paradigm they
are seeking to understand, then they have categorically
placed an insurmountable barrier between themselves and
the “object” they seek to understand. Hence they have in
fact disqualified themselves from ever being able to really
understand the patterns of thought in question.
Michael:
You have always tried to encourage those involved in
neo-heathenism to uphold a higher intellectual standard,
and whenever possible to actively pursue serious academic
study. Have you noticed any significant number of people
willing to rise to the challenge?
Stephen:
To this point I would say that there has indeed been
a significant number of people who have taken up
the challenge to pursue academic goals as a way to put their
inner, spiritual lives on a more firm foundation. The number
may be significant, but not large. It is hoped that with
the advent of the new Woodharrow Institute a greater number
of people will “get” what it is I am trying to convey in
this trend. The whole “neo-pagan” world has been made a
part of the Bohemian “underground” sort of mentality of
the Anglo-Saxon (this includes the imitative American) culture.
What I am trying to do is simply call the Anglo-Saxon culture
back to its more organic Germanic roots. This includes the
way in which the idea of “neo-paganism” is approached.
As I outlined in my essay “How to Be a Heathen,” printed
in the volume Blue Runa (Rûna-Raven, 2001), there
was a time when “pagan knowledge” indicated something that
was rigorous to begin with, and gradually evolved to higher
realms of the ordinarily ineffable. “Christian faith” was
something which opposed “pagan knowledge” and was characterised
by subjectivism and infinite appeals to unverifiable authorities
from the beginning to the end of the process. In this way
it can be seen how the typical “New Ager,” or “wiccan” [sic]
is in fact paradigmatically much closer to the original
Christian model of thinking than is the average “Christian
believer” today. Serious Christian seminarians would not
think of ignoring the study of Latin, Greek and Hebrew,
yet the many aspirants to the “priesthood” of Ásatrú today
think that learning Old Norse is an unreasonable thing to
require. It is remarkable to note how many people don’t
even get the grammar of their supposed “Norse name” right!
The reasons for this apparent virtual hostility to learning
are a part of the Anglo-Saxon “anti-egghead” mentality.
By contrast it can be noted that some of the turn-of-the-century
German revivalists were in fact professors, e.g.
Jakob Wilhelm Hauer (Tübingen) and Ernst Bergmann (Leipzig).
This inner cultural bias must be first recognised before
it can be overcome. Do not think for a minute that I am
extolling the great wisdom or character of the typical modern
academic. The academy is presently in decay. However, the
basic and systematic knowledge possessed by those who have
spent decades in specialised studies, and who have been
the traditional recipients of knowledge handed down from
several previous generations of scholars is a resource that
is indispensable to us.
Michael:
While your focus is usually on traditional Germanic
or northern European culture and religion, you have also
addressed other areas in some of your work, such as with
the book Hermetic Magic. What was your reason for
doing so – and how do these seemingly distinct realms fit
together or cross-fertilise?
Stephen:
In Hermetic Magic I concentrated on the operations
from the Greek magical papyri that made use of the symbolic
power of language and the alphabet (i.e., the more Greek-influenced
operations). Indeed there is a great deal of possible cross
fertilisation between the Germanic and Greek traditions
of verbal and alphabetic magic. The book Hermetic Magic
was an experiment in the use of the principle of RUNA in
the decoding of a tradition other than the Germanic. It
proved to be generally successful. Much of what Hermetic
magic was all about has been lost in the Golden Dawn/OTO-style
magic of the Victorian gents. Hermetic Magic is an
attempt to go ad fontes, i.e., back to the sources
of what Hermetic magic is, in order to arrive at a fresh
and eternal perspective on the power of the human will.
This is an exercise in the power of RUNA, Mysterion,
as I see it. Hermetic Magic shows what can be done
with the principle of RUNA/Mysterion. That it has
been generally ignored by the run-of-the-mill “hermetic”
crowd is a sign of just how esoteric the actual tradition
is.
Michael:
The work of Georges Dumézil, the French scholar of Indo-European
comparative religion, has been a strong influence on your
own outlook. What do you consider to be the most important
aspects of his work, and why did they resonate with you
to such a degree?
Stephen:
First of all, I suppose I came to it as a matter of
tradition. My own teacher, and Doktorvater, Edgar
Polomé, was a (qualified) Dumézilian. Beyond what I learned
in his classrooms, however, I saw that his objective studies
(which involved making detailed dossiers of the various
Indo-European Gods, etc.) coupled with his structuralist
approach allowed for the beginnings of a contemporary and
living synthesis of ancient ideas with those of Jung and
others. The ideas of Dumézil are 1) accurate and objectively
verifiable to a great degree, and 2) are potent tools for
current self-transformational work.
Michael:
In recent years there seems to be a consistent effort
on the part of certain segments of the academic community
to discredit Dumézil’s work, and especially his formulation
of the tripartite/tri-functional model. Such attempts are
reminiscent of those directed against Mircea Eliade and
other scholars of religion and myth. Why this animosity,
and what are these discreditors so afraid of?
Stephen:
They are afraid of the resurgence of Indo-European culture.
They have intellectually invested in the idea that internationalism
is good and that anything that glorifies the non-European
world is preferable to anything that seems to lend prestige
to European culture. All of this is so ironic because the
ideals from which they draw are entirely of European origin.
Nevertheless, as a matter of ideology, but probably more
as a matter of an intellectual fashion trend, the academic
establishment frowns on anything that they see as “glorifying”
the European culture. They would probably argue that their
reasons for this vaguely have something to do with Germany
in the 1930s. In conversations with German academics in
runology I discovered that the same things are happening
at German universities now as happened in American ones
in the 1980s and 1990s – anything relating to ancient or
medieval northern Europe is being dismantled.
There is also the fear that Europe will really be able to
make peace within itself based on the Indo-European model,
rather than the Christian and/or Marxist model. This would
discredit their intellectual prejudices once more. Specifically
on Dumézil and the tripartite theory, his theories have
the potential of forming the basis of a pan-Indo-European
cultural unity. They are the greatest challenge to Christianity
and to materialistic positivism in the 20th century. So
it is not without some justification that Dumézil has been
so widely attacked. His theories do pose a challenge, and
are not merely intellectual curiosities. They call for some
sort of action and some sort of change on the part of the
reader of his ideas.
The dirty little secret is probably merely that in academia
the study of old languages and ancient history is hard,
whereas what they are replacing all of this with is relatively
easy. So that the “war on the Indo-Europeans” is really
part of the general “dumbing down” of the academy.
Michael:
Not so long ago you attended an international scholarly
conference on runology in Denmark.
What were your impressions about how this discipline is
faring in today’s academic world?
Stephen:
The academic field of runology, like any other academic
discipline, is subject to the dictates of fashion and changing
intellectual trends. (This is where an academic discipline
differs from a Traditional discipline.) Most of the 19th
and early 20th century runologists accepted the relationship
between religion or magic and the runes as a given fact.
They accepted this uncritically because it appeared to them
(perhaps rightly) as the most obvious conclusion based on
all prima facie evidence. Because they were uncritical
in their acceptance, however, this left the door open to
a subsequent generation of runologists to question the earlier
generation’s assumptions. In the world of science this is
a good thing. If those who did not question the “magical”
nature of the runes had not been so uncritical, then a deeper
and more insightful exploration of the idea of runes and
magic might never have been undertaken.
I was very gratified to have younger individuals – many
still students – at the runic conference discreetly approach
me and tell me that part of the reason they came to the
conference was to meet me, and that they had first been
exposed to the wondrous world of the runes and the esoteric
Germanic tradition through my more “popular” works.
The changing face of academia dictates that what is “in”
today, will be “out” tomorrow. The seeds of the next generation
of runologists have already been planted. On some level,
perhaps, those who are foes of tradition have sensed this.
Their strategy is perhaps to prevent the seeds from growing
by not allowing the seeds to exist in fertile soil. The
whole fields of runology, comparative religion, Indo-European
studies, etc., are being systematically rooted out of academic
institutions. Especially in America
this is occurring with simultaneous impetus both from the
“right” and from “left.” The international left sees the
European tradition as being in power, and their myth of
the dialectic determines they should seek to disestablish
whatever is in power for “revolutionary” reasons. The right,
on the other hand, is dominated in America
by a Christian sentiment, which sees interest in our ancient
traditions as being hostile to the Christian model. It is
interesting to note that these apparently divergent interests
of the “left” and “right” are, in America at least, in agreement
that at least one of their common “enemies” is the organic
national traditions of Europe.
This is occurring not just in America,
but in Europe as well. Recently the position of Prof. Dr.
Klaus Düwel at the University of Göttingen in Germany
was terminated by the administration of the university.
At the runic conference in Denmark
the runologists signed a petition aimed at the university
administration to ask that this prestigious position be
maintained. The roots of the academic study of runes at
that institution go back to the Grimms.
Michael:
Is the founding of the Woodharrow Institute for Germanic
and Runic Studies in some ways a response to the current
situation regarding these areas of study?
Stephen:
The Woodharrow Institute is not only a response to this
current situation in academia, but also to shortcomings,
as I see them, in the “esoteric subculture.” The Institute
stands apart from the current “magickal subculture” in that
it is informed by, and on its most basic level must conform
to, all the legitimate rules and regulations of scientific
procedure – all of which are beneficial to the overall process
if kept in perspective. These methods infiltrate our way
of approaching esoteric areas, or areas of inner work, as
well. As has always been the case with the Rune-Gild – which
in the future will be re-established within the context
of the Woodharrow Institute – we start with what is objectively
known and move from that base into an exploration of the
darker corners of the unknown.
So the Woodharrow Institute is intended to meet a challenge
from two ends of a pole: it is to bring an objective and
scientific basis to the beginning of inner work, and to
re-envision the final purpose or aim of intellectual work
itself as a completion of the self. It is to bring objective
standards to a morass of subjectivity (the occultizoid culture)
and to bring inner purpose to the often sterile and pointless
pursuits of academia. This is a formidable challenge, to
be sure. Yet this is what makes it worth undertaking.
Michael:
What role do you see the Institute ultimately fulfilling,
and how might it interact with more established or formal
academic institutions?
Stephen:
It is clear from what has already been said that the
academic discipline of runology, as well as those of older
Germanic studies and Indo-European studies, etc., are in
trouble. If scientific runology is left to its normal cycle
of intellectual fashion, there is no harm done. The radical
traditional runologist would be free as always to partake
of the fruits of that intellectual labour and have his inner
work enriched by it. However, if the traditional academic
fields are uprooted and marginalised to extinction then
this would no longer be possible.
The Woodharrow Institute is designed to be a refuge for
the academic tradition – and to foster to some extent a
sort of guerrilla scholarship. The basic work for the Institute
must not in any way be compromised by “occult thinking”;
it should be entirely historical and academic. We will “play
the scholarly game” according to its rule and according
to its standards. Then and only then can the Institute fulfill
another of its major tasks: to act as a “think tank” for
those interested in inner work. The fact that the word “academic”
is used to describe only that kind of work which is “purely
scientific,” is in a sense a misuse of the term. Plato’s
school, the Academy, from which our modern use of the term
is ultimately derived, did not have as its final aim the
production of scientific data limited to what can be quantified
and objectively known. That was only a stepping stone to
the true purpose of the school, which was the transformation
of the individual into a higher form of being – in other
words, the final “product” was the completed soul. This
whole ultimate purpose has been lost in the modern academic
institution, except perhaps where secret pockets of scholars
might preserve it unofficially.
The Woodharrow Institute seeks to restore the complete model
of the old Academy in a Germanic context. As such its ultimate
purpose is transformational, and not merely “scientific”
as understood in modern parlance. Participants in, or members
of, the Institute will, however, not be required to pursue
this inner work as any sort of prerequisite for membership.
The Institute will develop a full range of areas of interest
and research.
It is hoped that the Institute will in the future be able
to establish good relations with mainstream academia. We
could offer practical programs in language study, experimental
archeology and, most importantly, experimental or experiential
ideology. Our mission in mainstream academia would be merely
to restore traditional areas of study where they have been
lost and to help retain them where they are in jeopardy.
The Institute then has two main purposes in the world:
1) to act as a refuge for displaced scientific work in the
fields of runology, Germanic studies, and general Indo-European
studies; and 2) to act as a think tank for individuals interested
in making use of the scientific work as a basis for inner
development. The Woodharrow Institute is a weapon in the
struggle against both modernism and occultizoid subjectivism.
Michael:
In the ancient Germanic cosmology, a cyclical dynamic
exists where the old order collapses and is torn apart from
both within and without, but this is a necessary step that
precedes the unfolding of a new beginning. Is it a stretch
to look at contemporary events in this light? And if not,
what is the best way for the aware individual to approach
the present situation?
Stephen:
It is my contention that traditional views are eternally
valid and ever-meaningful. The Germanic cosmology, ragnarök,
which can actually refer to the beginnings, middle or end
of the cosmological process, involves at the end of the
process certain ages. These are referred to in the poems
of the Elder Edda with terms such as the “Wolf Age,”
which refers to the “greedy,” “covetous,” or “appetitive”
nature of the age. Clearly the world as a whole is in a
“Wolf-Age.” The individual, and certain groups of elect,
can, as Julius Evola put it, “ride the tiger.” This means
that certain individuals and groups can, exercising their
will against the grain of consensus reality as informed
by Tradition, lay the personal and transpersonal foundations
for the next (inevitable) cyclical development. This next
cycle will (naturally) be more imbued with Tradition, as
the developmental wheel turns.
Portions
of this interview with Dr. Flowers have previously appeared
in the British journal Rûna: Exploring Northern European
Myth, Mystery and Magic, available from BM: Sorcery,
London WC1N 3XX, UK.
To learn more about the Woodharrow Institute, or to request
a catalog of books available from Rûna-Raven Press, contact
PO Box 557, Smithville, Texas 78957, USA.
