Skip to content

Nicola Bizzi

The Initiatory Ecstasy. From Giordano Bruno to Arturo Reghini – Nicola Bizzi (2024)

This is the title that brought me to Nicola Bizzi, but the third one that I read. It was merely accidental that I read them in chronological order. In his other works, Bizzi also refers to Reghini, but I found the current title first because it has Reghini in the title.

The Initiatory Ecstasy is different from the other two books that I reviewed in that it is less about a specific theme. The book is about philosophy, initiation and ‘wisdom’ and -as we are used to by now- from the perspective of the still existing “Mother Eleusis” current of initiation (see my review of Reflections on the Origin of Freemasonry).

Bizzi shares some ideas with Julius Evola, but is also critical. One time he calls a view of Evola “essentially incomplete and misleading”. Also he is no uncritical follower of Reghini, but as you may guess, there are references here to more than one Italian thinker. Especially interesting are references to authors and titles that I am unfamiliar with.

With a lot of Plato and neo-Platonists, Bizzi sketches a nice picture of “Philo-Sophia”. Of the three books that I read, this one is the most interesting so far. Again, it is but a small book (98 pages), but there are also some larger titles available from Amazon.

Just as in the other two books that I just reviewed, I cannot follow, or even disagree with some things that Bizzi writes, but on the other hand, it is never a bad idea to take note of different opinions. The present title is somewhat less pedantic than the other two. It works better for me when an author just gives a view rather than telling that others are wrong.

2024 Edizioni Aurora Boreale, isbn 979-1255044840

One Single Primordial Tradition? – Nicola Bizzi (2023)

In this little book (59 pages) Bizzi takes a stand against the Traditionalist idea that there is a “transcendent unity of religions; that there is one Source. He bluntly claims that:

the Mystery Traditions of the Eleusinian Mother branch has always vigorously opposed such a view. (Note: “Mother” means the purest and most original branch of the Eleusinian Mysterial tradition and its priesthood. Its derivations (such as, for example, the Orphic branch and the Samothracian branch) were conventionally called “Daughter”.

Yet, I find his reasoning unconvincing. It seems that Bizzi is of the opinion that long ago a rift occurred between “Titanic” and “Olympian” traditions. The “Olympian” version prevailed and Traditionalists talk about that “Olympian” source. Bizzi’s own Eleusinian organisation can be traced back to the “pre-Olympian, and therefor pre-Hellenic, Titanic” branch.

So yes, for us Eleusinians there is a Primordial and original Tradition.

Just not the same as that of the Traditionalists… They are talking about an “Olympian” tradition and Eleusinians are talking about a “Titanic” tradition.

In my opinion the entire discussion is flawed. When -with Traditionalists- you say that there is one Divinity (how can there be multiple?), then there is the one Source, is there not? Does it really matter if one or more traditions sprang from that Source, if these traditions split and split again or if at some point, there was a new, but direct link to the Source? So Bizzi’s Tradition is another (older) one than that of initiatic organisations or religious traditions of today, that does not really answer the question that is asked in the title.

That said, Bizzi’s approach to the subject is somewhat different and therefor ‘refreshing’. Even though I do not agree with everything he writes, the book is somewhat interesting.

2023 Edizioni Aurora Boreale, isbn 979-1255044178

Reflections On The Origin Of Freemasonry – Nicola Bizzi (2019)

It will be obvious what this little book (55 pages) is about. It is a bit odd that the back cover speaks of: “The historian, Freemason and Eleusinian initiate Nicola Bizzi” while in the book he only seems to say that his is an Eleusinian initiate (even though he does one time refer to “our Temples” in a Masonic context).

It is exactly because of that “Eleusinian” initiation that Bizzi claims that he knows the true origin of Freemasonry, while Masons and even Masonic scholars do not.

I agree with Bizzi that Freemasonry did not start in 1717, but in my view Bizzi is a bit too easy in concluding that the lodges formed the Grand Lodge of London and Westminster were part of a continuing esoteric tradition from times past and that later reforms continue to build thereon.

Apparently mostly based on the (in)famous The Temple and the Lodge (1989) of Baigent and Leigh, Bizzi sees the origin of Freemasonry in the Knight Templars. Following Thomas Paine (1737-1809) in a 1805 text (Origin of Freemasonry) the other origin is “Celtic-Druidic”. Does Bizzi really think that people interested in the history of Freemasonry do not know these works? Baigent / Leigh has been available for three decades by the time that Bizzi published his reflections; Paine’s text can be found online and much has been written since, but more debunking both claims that supporting them. It would have been nice had Bizzi presented something new to rekindle the theory that he puts forward.

All in all this publication only claims to know more than other publications, but there is nothing in it that helps people who are interested in the subject. It is somewhat refreshing to run into thinkers such as Guénon and Reghini, but claims such as: “But even with regard to the templar component of Freemasonry, as far as it is fully traceable and documentable” without adding anything to what is already publicly available is not really helpful.

Not a boring read, but also not something that ads anything to available literature.

2019 Edizioni Aurora Boreale, isbn 8898635788