Is Amorc Rosicrucian?

* ’■'i'v

.* A ; %m /

4-

ARIES - JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF WESTERN ESOTERICISM 14 (2014) 73-94

ABIES

BRILL

hriU.com/arie

Is AMORC Rosicrucian? Cecile Wilson Carleton University cecilewilson@rogers. com

A b stract The Ancient and Mystical Order Rosae Crucis (AMORC) is one of the most important "Rosicrucian" organizations in the world. This Order presents itself as the authentic heir to the Rosicrucian tradition, announced in the famous manifestos of the seventeenth century: the Foma, the Confessio and the Chymical Wedding. In addition, AMORC pub­ lished its own manifesto, the Positio Fmtemitatis Rosae Crucis, in 2001, described by the Order as the "fourth R+C Torch". This suggests a close harmony between the doctrines of AMORC and those expressed in the original manifestos, a harmony that would justify the use of the epithet "Rosicrucian" for the Order - but does such an accord really exist? In cases where it fails in whole or in part, does one discover other similarities between the production of AMORC and the manifestos o f the seventeenth century, which might justify this claimed kinship? In order to answer these questions, this article will draw a comparison between ideas concerning such themes as phibsophia perennis, the Book of Nature, alchemy, Christianity, karma, and reincarnation in the Foma and in texts published by AMORC between 1917 and 1928. In addition, the original manifestos will also be compared, in terms of their literary genre, to two contemporary publications of AMORC: the Positio Fmtemitatis and Rosicrucian History and Mysteries (2003).

Keywords Rosicrucianism - Ancient and Mystical Order Rosae Crucis (AMORC) - Harvey Spen­ cer Lewis - Rosicrucian manifestos - alchemy - reincarnation1

1

Introduction

In the first quarter o f the seventeenth century, three manifestos were published that w ere later to be know n collectively as the Rosicrucian manifestos. These

texts w ere the Fcuna Fratem itatis (1614)1 the Conjessio Fratem itatis (1615), and the Chymische H ochzeit Christiani Rosencreutz Anno 1459 (The Chem ical Wed­ ding o f Christian Rosenkreuz in the Year 1459,1616). Four hundred years later, the adjective “Rosicrucian” still graces the nam es o f a num ber o f contem po­ rary esoteric organizations. In this article I w ill exam ine one in particular, the A ncien t and M ystical Order Rosae Crucis (AMORC), also know n as the “Rosi­ crucian Order”, in order to evaluate its relationship to the early manifestos and its claim o f being “Rosicrucian” AM ORC represents itself as the legitim ate successor to the seventeenthcentury Rosicrucian legacy. In 2001, the organization released a m anifesto enti­ tled the Positio Fratem itatis Rosae Crucis and identified it as being ‘in the same tradition as ... the first three M anifestos’ and *the fourth R+C Torch’.1 There are tw o questions arising from this claim that I w ish to exam ine. First, w hile m any points o f AM ORC’s doctrine harm onize w ith those o f the seventeenthcentury manifestos, there are also points on w h ich they either differ in tone or have no equivalent at all in the first Rosicrucian texts.12 If w e accept equiva­ lency w ith the ideas expressed in the seventeenth-century manifestos as the basis for determ ining w hether som ething can be called Rosicrucian or not, on w h at basis does AM ORC claim to be not only a Rosicrucian organization, b u t part o f the seventeenth-century lineage? Second, does any sim ilarity exist betw een the m anner in w h ich AM ORC and the writers o f the early m ani­ festos present their philosophies? In other words, i f insufficient ground can be found to validate AM ORC’s use o f the adjective “Rosicrucian", does the orga­ nization share any sim ilarity w ith the seventeenth-century texts, other than doctrinally? I w ill attem pt to answer these questions in the follow ing ways. First, I w ill exam ine a num ber o f texts from the early days o f AM ORC, com paring their points o f doctrine w ith those o f the original m anifestos and highlighting any similarities and differences— as well as lacunae— that m ay becom e e vid e n t The texts I w ill use were, in the first case, published b y AM ORC from 1917 to 1928 and coincided w ith the leadership o f the organization’s founder, Harvey Spencer Lewis (1883-1939). The ideas o f the original m anifestos w ill be taken

1 Anonymous, Positio, 5, cover page. See also Lewis, ‘A uthentic and Complete History’, 207, in which he claims that ‘[t]he real name of the genuine body [ofRosicrudans] is The Ancient and Mystical Order Rosae Crucis (or Rosy Cross, Rose Croix)’. 2 For ease of discussion, I will use the term “Rosicrucian’ to refer both to members o f AMORC and the writers o f the first manifestos, as well as the manifestos themselves. This is not intended to imply any historical confirmation of a link between the two groups but merely a similarity in how they choose or chose to be identified.

from the Fama. Second, I will consider h ow the genres o f representation used b y the Fama, the Confessio and the Chem ical Wedding influenced the reception o f the Rosicrucian ideas they presented. I w ill then com pare these genres to two contem porary AMORC publications, the aforem entioned Positio Fratem itatis Rosae Crucis and the 2005 English publication o f Rosicrucian History and Mysteries b y Christian Rebisse, the nom -de-plum e o f a Rosicrucian arch ivist3

2

AM ORC in th e C onstellation o f M odern R osicrucian Groups

Not all groups choosing to adopt the name “Rosicrucian” have received equal attention from scholars o f western esotericism. This has certainly b een the case for AMORC, particularly w ith regard to studies in English.4 These range from a few pages in Christopher McIntosh’s The Rosicrucians: The History, Mythology, and Rituals o f an Esoteric Order to a com pletely incorrect entry in the D ictio­ nary o f Contemporary Religion in the Western World, w hich appears to equate AMORC w ith the Rosicrucian Fellowship o f M ax Heindel.5 Furthermore, those works that do include inform ation on AM ORC tend to focus on historiography, ritual or structure and not doctrine.6 Contrast this w ith the scrutiny given in print to the Hermetic Order o f the Golden Dawn. For example, the Dictionary o f Gnosis and Western Esotericism (2006), a landm ark resource for the academ ic study o f western esotericism, allots a little more than six pages to the Herm etic Order o f the Golden Dawn, w hile AM ORC only appears as part o f a larger entry for ‘Rosicrucianism III: igth -2oth Century’ and occupies not quite a single page. To be fair, one could argue that the Golden Dawn has had a greater im pact in both the esoteric and w ider worlds through the activities o f its m em bers or form er members, such as Aleister Crow ley and the poet W.B. Yeats. On the other hand, AMORC has m anaged to survive various schisms and endure from its inception in 1915 to the present day. Furthermore, AM ORC appears to have a

3 This book was originally published in French as Rose-Croix histoire et mystires. 4 AMORC has received more attention among French scholars: see in particular Robert Vanloo’s detailed examination of the group in Les Rose-Croix du Nouveau Monde. 5 Partridge (ed.), Dictionary o f Contemporary Religion, 227. In Faivre and Needleman (eds), Modem Esoteric Spirituality, AMORC suffers a fate similar to other post eighteenth-century groups, who, in total, receive a page and one half in a twenty-four page chapter by Roland Edighoffer entitled ‘Rosicrucianism: From the Seventeenth to the Twentieth Century’. 6 See Vanloo, Les Rose-Croix du nouveau monde and Introvigne, ‘Rosicrucianism IIP for exam­ ples of this.

sizable, w orldw ide m em bership, delivering its products in nineteen languages and having representation on the local level on all six continents.7 Recently, the Order has developed a strong online presence w ith hom e pages for each o f the target languages, and, in the case o f the English language jurisdiction for the Am ericas, a website, a social networking presence, online discussion forums, a peer-reviewed journal published in five languages (English, French, German, Spanish, and Portuguese), a biannual m agazine w ith each edition covering a specified them e related to AM ORC’s brand o f Rosicrucianism, and w eekly lessons for m em bers only. International conventions have been held in locations around the world, such as Sweden, Germ any and Brazil. Verifiable statistics are difficult to obtain. Requests for m em bership num ­ bers elicit general responses, m aking it difficult to assess and com pare the influence o f various organizations. However, the extensive geographical pres­ ence o f AM ORC, its populist appeal, its widespread internet presence, as w ell as its capacity to generate splinter organizations (the Confraternity o f the Rose Cross and the A ncien t Rosae Crucis, also know n as ARC), indicate that more scholarly attention to the Rosicrucian Order is due.

3

The Fou n d in g o f AM ORC

For details o f both AM ORC’s history and the life o f its founder, Harvey Spencer Lewis, w e m ust rely on Lewis’ ow n version o f events as described in various publications o f the Order— m ost notably the series o f articles entitled "The Authentic and Com plete History o f the A ncien t and M ystical Order Rosae Crucis’ appearing in The M ystic Triangle in 1927-1928, as w ell as the biogra­ ph y Cosmic M ission Fulfilled written b y his son and successor in the Order, Ralph M. Lewis.8 A ccording to various accounts, H. Spencer Lewis (as he pre­ ferred to be know n) w as brought up in a fam ily o f devoted Christians and had

7 In his preface to Vanloo’s Las Rose-Croix du nouveau monde, 12 Serge Caillet calls AMORC “the most prosperous and most well-known by far* o f the New World Rosicrucianisms (‘de loin la soci^te la plus prosp&re et la plus connue’).

8 The ‘A uthentic and Complete History1appears in The Mystic Triangle in the issues of Septem­ ber to December 1927 and January 1928. Taken together the five issues cover the proposed history of AMORC from the time of the Egyptian pharaohs up to the declaration by the French Grand Council and Grand Lodge that Spencer Lewis was the representative of AMORC in America. These texts and additional issues of the Triangle also serve as the foundation for later accounts of the history of AMORC, such as those found in Introvigne, Rebisse and Vanloo.

always been interested in spiritual and scientific matters. He also showed an aptitude for art and m usic.9 As a young man he founded the N ew York Institute for Psychical Research and there m et a wom an w ho was active in the Theosophical Society and a co-M asonic organization.10IThis w om an was M ay Banks-Stacey. According to Rebisse’s account, it w as Banks-Stacey w ho was the first to suggest to Lewis a link betw een Rosicrucianism, Egypt and reincarnation, all o f w h ich w ould becom e pillars o f AM ORC’s doctrine.11 Banks-Stacey’s association w ith the Theosophical Society is significant b e ­ cause it offers a plausible explanation for the high degree o f similarity betw een some o f the core beliefs o f the Theosophical Society under Helena Petro­ vna Blavatsky (1831-1891) and AMORC. Indeed, a great num ber o f the topics favoured b y the two groups sound alm ost identical: a wisdom tradition, eso­ teric Christianity, the existence o f a lodge o f invisible masters overseeing and advising the activities o f their subordinates (the Great W hite Brotherhood), Tibet and Egypt as repositories o f esoteric knowledge, reincarnation, karma, the natural progress o f mankind, and alchemy.12 In fact, Lewis, w riting under the pen nam e o f Royle Thurston in the Rosicrucian periodical the M ystic Tri­ angle, describes Blavatsky as ‘one o f the m ost beautiful and inspiring mystics o f the past centuries’.13 On the other hand, in ‘Rosicrucian Pretensions’, Lewis denies any link b e ­ tw een the Theosophical Society and AM ORC.14 He is intent on carving out an identity for AMORC as a “pure” Rosicrucian body and he gives the criteria for the creation o f such a body: it m ust be done through ... the sponsorship and guidance ... [of] ... a superior Rosicrucian body possessing and retaining the ancient authority, ritual, constitution and

9

Rebisse, History and Mysteries, 153-154.

Io

Vanloo, Les Rose Croix, 106 says that the Institute (or Society, as it appears with both titles in AMORC’s publications) for Psychical Research ‘had been a cover nam e... for a flourishing society of Rosicrucian research’ (T Institut... n’ aurait ete qu’unnom de couverture... pour une florissante society de recherches rosicruciennes’).

II

Rebisse, History and Mysteries, 157-159. A key point here is that Blavatsky had consid­ ered naming her society the “Rosicrucian Society” but chose “Theosophical” instead. See Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke (ed.), Helena Blavatsky, 7.

12

This similarity with the teachings of the Theosophical Society also explains AMORC’s resemblance to the teachings of other esoteric organizations that derived from Theosophy, such as Rudolf Steiner’s Anthroposophy.

13 14

Lewis, 'What is Wrong with Theosophy?’, 184. Lewis, ‘Rosicrucian Pretensions’, 241.

system as w ell as the pure teachings, FREE FROM AN Y ALLIANCE WITH ANYTHING BUT PURE ROSICRUCIANISM.15 This passage provides the rationale behind Lewis’ unflagging insistence that he possessed the proper papers, jew els, and constitution to legitim ise AM ORC’s use o f the word “Rosicrucian”. According to Rosicrucian History and Mysteries, H. Spencer Lewis w as in­ form ed b y a vision that he m ust go to France and be initiated into the Rosi­ crucian Order. The opportunity apparently arose in 1909 w h en his father w ent on a business trip to France and asked his son to accom pany him. The vari­ ous accounts in The M ystic Triangle and Cosmic M ission Fulfilled go on to say that once in Paris, Lewis contacted a bookseller dealing in esoteric books, and through various mysterious contacts eventually ended up in an area outside o f Toulouse. There, he w as initiated into a French branch o f AM ORC and dele­ gated w ith the responsibility o f re-establishing the O rder in Am erica, bu t not before 1915. Lewis then returned to the United States and began to prepare for his mission b y reading all he could about Rosicrucianism and review ing the ‘hundreds o f pages o f secret m anuscripts’ he had brought b ack w ith him.16 AM ORC cam e into existence on 1 April 1915 in N ew York C ity w ith a charter signed b y Harvey Spencer Lewis as the Grand M aster General, Nicholas Storm as the D eputy M aster General, and Thor Kiim alehto as Secretary General.17 The first m eeting in the tem ple took place on 13 M ay 1915.18 A ccording to Lewis, the institution o f the Rosicrucian Order in Am erica was acknowledged b y the ‘Supreme Council o f the Order in France’, and he began to receive a series o f coded m anuscripts containing ‘the teachings and rituals’ o f the Order.19 Lewis apparently decided, however, that the contents o f the m anuscripts were not conveyed in a m anner that w ould entice Am erican minds. He set about rewrit­ ing the rituals and teachings in a language more am enable to the contem porary Am erican, w h ile at the sam e tim e preserving their essential co n te n t20

15

Lewis, ‘Rosicrucian Pretensions’, 241. Block letters in the original.

16

Lewis, Cosmic Mission Fulfilled, 105.

17

Rebisse, Rosicrucian History and Mysteries, 172,176. The reproduction of the charter on page 172 shows a blank space for the signature of the Grand Matre, who was May BanksStacey. This document is also available online at http://www.rosecroixjoumaLorg/ resources/documents/rosicrucian_documents/indexhtml (accessed 28 August 2013).

18

Lewis, Cosmic Mission Fulfilled, 129.

19 20

Lewis, Cosmic Mission Fulfilled, 130. Lewis, Cosmic Mission Fulfilled, 131.

For the next few years, the Order was unsettled, relocating first to San Fran­ cisco, then to Tampa, Florida, until it finally settled in San Jose, California. This location currently houses the Grand Lodge for the English Language Jurisdic­ tion o f the Americas. After Lewis died, he was succeeded as Imperator or leader o f AM ORC b y his son, Ralph Lewis. It was the younger Lewis w ho instituted the correspon­ dence system o f study that AM ORC used for m any years and continues to use today, albeit in electronic form. In the 1980s there w as a schism w ithin the orga­ nization. After Ralph Lewis died, his position was taken b y Gary Stewart, w ho had been appointed b y Ralph as his successor. Stewart was accused o f improper financial dealings, however, and rem oved from his p o s t A t this point, Christian Bernard was appointed Imperator, or leader o f the Order, and its operational world headquarters m oved from San Jose to the Chateau d’ Omomrtlle in Nor­ mandy, France, w here it remains today.

4

The D octrines o f AM O R C and the Fam a Philosophia Perennis

The foundation o f AM ORC’s w hole system is the idea o f a philosophia perennis perpetuated b y those initiated into the teachings o f the m ystery schools o f E gypt A s m entioned above, AM ORC’s doctrine exhibits m any similarities w ith that o f the Theosophical Society, and like Blavatsky, Lewis looked to Atlantis, Egypt, and Tibet as repositories o f ancient wisdom .21 But whereas Blavatsky’s later writings demonstrate a shift towards a perspective centred on India and Tibet, Lewis stayed focused on Egypt. In an article w ritten under the pen nam e o f Royle Thurston in July 1927, Lewis claim ed that the Order’s tradition extends to the mystery schools that m ay have begun in som e eastern land, such as India or Persia, bu t since there is no recorded history o f these early schools,

21

See Lewis [ps. Thurston], ‘Some Notes on the History of Roscrucians’, 150; Lewis, ‘A uthentic and Compete History1, 207; Lewis, W e Introduce the Master Amatu1, 345-346. Unto Thee I Grant by Sri Ramtherio is identified on the National Library of Australia website with Ramatherio as a pseudonym and H. Spencer Lewis as an additional author. It seems likely that this book was written by Lewis himself. In a promotion for the book in The Mystic Triangle, 3.9,142 the book is described as being written ‘over 2,000 years ago, contain[ing] the true, secret doctrines of Thibet [sic] Lewis describes the book as ‘the most remarkable explanation [of karma] ever given in any occult work1, and goes on to say ‘[t]he book will become a companion and guide for every day and every year of your life’.

AM ORC ascribes its origin to the m ystery schools o f ancient Egypt, w h ere ‘the Rosicrucian principles [were] highly developed’.22 In a subsequent five-part series on the ‘A uthentic and Com plete History o f the A ncient and M ystical Order Rosae Crucis’, Lewis goes into great detail regarding his conception o f h ow these schools w ere founded b y Pharaoh Thutm ose III and refined b y Am enhotep IV (Akhenaten). A ll authority for the establishm ent o f Rosicrucian fraternities ultim ately stems from Egypt, in Lewis’ view, and it is from Egypt— via a ‘com m and’ from Charlem agne— that the Order m akes its first appearance in Germany.23 A c ­ cording to Lewis’ chronology, a lodge was established in noo in Worms. By the beginning o f the fifteenth century, the num ber o f Rosicrucians in Germ any was n o t very large, so in 1399, according to Lewis’ account, a young m an nam ed Christian Rosenkreuz journeyed to Egypt and petitioned the Supreme Council for perm ission t o re-establish the Order and rejuvenate its life’ in that coun­ try.24 In 1401, Rosenkreuz returned to Germ any w ith that warrant, and issued a num ber o f manifestos (Lewis uses that word) w ith the assistance o f three M as­ ters o f pre-existing Lodges in Germany. These m anifestos apparently produced their desired effect and a n ew tem ple was opened in Leipzig in 1410. Rosenkreuz died in 1484, but not before giving instructions for the sealing and re-opening o f his tomb.25 Lewis vacillates in his opinion o f the character o f Christian Rosenkreuz. He cannot seem to decide i f Rosenkreuz is real or n o t In the above exam ­ ple, Rosenkreuz is a living person responsible for reviving Rosicrucianism in Germany. In other articles, Lewis says ‘there was no person b y the nam e o f Rosenkreuz w h o had that nam e as a legitimate name, and w ho nam ed the Order after his ow n nam e’; furthermore, ‘Christian R osenkreuz... was m erely a pen-nam e used on som e propaganda books, and means, w hen translated from the German, “The Christian Rosy Cross”’.26 W hen the tom b w as opened in 1604, continues Lewis, the brother o f the fraternity charged w ith looking after the papers contained therein sent the doc­ um ents on to ‘one very advanced Brother o f the Order— Sir Francis Bacon’.27

22

Lewis [ps. Thurston], “History o f Rosicrucians’, 150; Lewis, ‘Authentic and Complete His­ tory1, 207.

23

Lewis, ‘A uthentic History1, 241,

24

Lewis, Authentic History1, 241.

25

Lewis, Authentic History1, 241-242.

26

Lewis, “Reincarnation and Astrology1, 640; Lewis, “Rosicrucian Pretensions’, 241.

27

Lews, Authentic History1, 242.

Lewis claim s that it was Bacon (1561-1626) w h o wrote the Fama and that he com m issioned Johann Valentin Andreae (1586-1654) to translate i t Bacon was so successful at keeping the truth secret, according to Lewis, that people m is­ takenly believed it was Andreae or Rosenkreuz w ho had started the frater­ nity, whereas it was only the re-em ergence o f a long-existing tradition. Thus AM ORC places the seventeenth-century m anifestos w ithin the context o f Egyp­ tian perennialism. This emphasis on Egypt contrasts sharply w ith the em phasis the country receives in the Fama. W hen Rosenkreuz journeys to Egypt, he stays there only a short w hile to observe its flora and fauna, com pared to the three years he spends in Damascus and tw o years in Fez.28 W hat is similar betw een AM ORC’s doctrine and the seventeenth-century manifestos is the idea o f a perennial philosophy. The Fama calls the 'Philosophy* o f the Rosicrucian brothers ‘not a n ew invention, but as Adam after his fall hath received it, and as Moses and Solom on used it’, as w ell as ‘Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras ... Enoch, [and] Abraham ’, and as it is preserved in the Bible.29 Like the Fama, Lewis’ article nam es the Greek philosophers as conveyors o f the primordial tradition, but neglects to m ention any biblical figures.30 The frames o f reference for the writers o f the seventeenth-century manifesto clearly reflect the authorities o f their times, the Christian church and the Greek inheritance o f the western intellectual tradition. The Book o f N ature W hat are the contents o f AM ORC’s philosophia perennis’l A m ajor aspect is access to know ledge o f the divine through the study o f nature and its laws. In one article, Lewis waxes poetic on the ability to com m une w ith God w hen we participate in 'the natural elem ents o f religion’: ‘Through the daisy God revealed to me in unm istakable language, the infinite w isdom o f his mind, the superiority o f His ways and His laws’.31 This interest in nature and how it works dictates som e o f the topics that AM ORC’s literature addresses. Lewis further defines natural law as ... that Law or set o f laws decreed in The Beginning by the Divine M ind as the working basis o f all creation and w ith out w hich no manifestation

28

Vaughan (ed.), Fama, 5,7.

29

Vaughan (ed.), Fama, 28-29.

30

Lewis, ‘A uthentic History*, 238.

31

Lewis, ‘God Spoke’, 95.

can occur and e x is t Such laws are un iversal... [and operate] on all planes and in all kingdom s.32 The existence o f natural laws that can be discovered and used to advantage elim inates the possibility o f laws that are beyond nature (‘supernatural’ laws) in Lewis’s opinion; miracles are m erely the result o f understanding and apply­ ing these natural laws to achieve a desired e ffe c t As a consequence, m any o f the books recom m ended b y Lewis cover topics that inquire into natural structures and processes, such as psychology, health, anatomy, physiology, physics, ch em ­ istry, biology, and evolution.33 The sixth degree o f AM ORC’s system o f study is devoted entirely to the functioning o f the bod y and the m aintenance o f health through applying techniques that promote proper breathing, harness ‘the h eal­ ing Forces o f the Universe' and cause ‘rapid changes in serious conditions’.34 These operations are m ade possible through the understanding and m anipu­ lation o f the ‘organs, nerves, and plexuses o f the Human Body function in their relation to the Psychic and Cosm ic Forces o f the Universe’.35 W here conven­ tional science and AM ORC’s teachings on natural law differ, one is warned that the writers o f profane textbooks have still n o t succeeded in reaching the truth, w hich has been know n to Rosicrucians for centuries— another confirm ation o f the b e lie f in a perennial philosophy.36 The esteem ed place that nature occupies as a source o f w isdom is im m e­ diately evident in the Fama’s juxtaposition o f the knowledge o f nature and C h rist The docum ent opens w ith the statem ent that the people o f that era are, through God’s goodness, ‘attain [ing] more and m ore to the perfect know ledge o f ... Jesus Christ and Nature’.37 The text goes on to say that if the ‘Learned’ o f the tim e were not so proud and greedy, they w ould seek knowledge in the

32

Anon., Dictionary of Rosaecrucian Terms’, Mystic Triangle 3.8 (1925), 120. Although the author is not specified, it is in all likelihood H. Spencer Lewis.

33 34

Lewis, *New Books’, 107-108. Rosicrucian Manual, 72. The Manual was first published in the 1918 ‘B’ issue of Cromaat: A Monthly Monograph for the Members ofAM.O.R.C. There was no reference to specific degrees in this version, only to the fact that they existed and that the ‘Higher Degrees’ contained more lectures than the lower degrees. The Rosicrucian Manual began being promoted in the August 1927 issue of The Mystic Triangle. It has undergone several editions since then; the earliest edition I was able to consult was the ninth edition (1944)- It is possible that the contents changed over the years.

35

Rosicrucian Manual, 72.

36

Anon., ‘Important Science Notes’, 82.

37

Vaughan (ed.), Foma, 1.

Book o f Nature, as did their role m odel Paracelsus and their founder Christian Rosenkreuz.38 According to the Fama, Rosenkreuz had translated the Book M. (Liber m undi or Book o f the World/Nature) from Arabic into Latin and carried it w ith him back to Europe.39 AM ORC’s recom m endations to study nature res­ onate w ith the Fama’s opinion o f the study o f Nature. A lchem y A them e that is com plem entary w ith the study o f nature is the subject o f alchemy. In its early publications, AM ORC displays an am bivalent attitude toward the subject. For exam ple, an article entitled ‘A n A lchem ical Parable’ states that ancient alchem ical texts are often construed as containing either literal instructions for laboratory procedures or pure ‘sym bolism ’. The article com es dow n som ewhere in the middle. It offers a story, the alchem ical parable o f the title, but notes that certain bolded letters in text, w hen decoded using a ‘sym bolical alphabet’ learned in the second degree o f AM ORC’s studies, w ill yield the true m eaning o f the parable.40 W hether that m eaning is physical or psychological, the uninitiated reader is left to guess. In ‘The A lchem y o f Marriage’, the discourse is not, as one m ight expect, on the psychological aspects o f a union, but rather the im portance o f sublim ating one’s w ill to the ‘divine intelligence and divine w ill’ as it operates through natural attraction to choose one’s ideal, pre-determ ined mate.41 This article on marriage is preceded by one detailing an apparently success­ ful transm utation o f silver into gold by the French alchem ist Francois JollivetCastelot (1874-1937). The article reports that the news o f this transm utation was picked up by several im portant newspapers, including Le Figaro and M on­ treal’s La Presse. The article contains a detailed report o f the m ethodology and results o f Jollivet-Castelot’s alchem ical operations, albeit w ith some salient details om itted at the alchem ist’s discretion. The report contains chem ical formulae, explanatory notes, and a reproduction o f Jollivet-Castelofs signa­ ture, and gives the impression o f the seriousness w ith w hich Jollivet-Castelot treated his enterprise. The article also m entions that Lewis had experienced similar success w ith one o f his experim ents in transmutation.42 In an arti­ cle entitled ‘The Science o f A lchem y’, Lewis (again under the pseudonym o f

38

Vaughan (ed.), Fama, 2-7,10.

39

Vaughan (ed.), Fama, 5.

40

Anon., ‘Alchemical Parable’, 95.

41

Lewis, ‘Alchemy of Marriage’, 121.

42

Fra Fidelis, “Modem Alchemy’, 118-120.

Royle Thurston) com m ends alchem y for the contributions it has m ade to the understanding o f the laws governing m etals specifically and nature in gen­ eral.43 O f all the articles I examined, only one article, appearing in the M ay 1926 edi­ tion o f the M ystic Triangle, suggested there was an alternative to the predom ­ inant emphasis on physical or m aterial alchemy. ‘The A rt o f Transmutation’ is cited as the translation o f an article appearing in the French periodical La Rose Croix, o f w h ich Jollivet-Castelot w as the publisher.44 The translation states that •wealth and pow er are spiritual’, not m aterial and that the ‘true gold’ is found w ithin the individual, yet the article goes on to em phasize the m aterial aspect o f Jollivet-Castelofs work, rather than its potential spiritual or psychological implications. This is despite Jollivet-Castelofs com m itm ent to disarm am ent and Christian com m unism 45 Although the Rosicrucian brothers described in the Fama seem ed to be familiar w ith physical alchemy, the transm utation o f metals w as n o t a priority for th e m Instead, they express their adm iration for Paracelsus (1493-1541), for exam ple, w h o used his alchem ical practice to further his understanding o f nature and to m ake medicines. The m em bers o f the fraternity w ere instructed to follow a similar path, the first rule o f their order being “to cure the sick, and that grafts’.46 Too m uch emphasis on the gold-m aking aspect o f the alchem ical art could easily lead one into the ways o f the deviL A true philosopher had better things w ith w h ich to occupy himself, as the founder o f the fraternity was said to demonstrate.47 Rosenkreuz w as credited w ith the ability to transmute base m etals into gold b u t he valued ‘Heaven, and ... M an’ more that the Vain glory and pom p’ such success could bring.48 It appears as though the fraternity presented in the manifestos placed less stock in the ability to transmute metals than did the early AM ORC.49 Christianity

Despite including the Greek philosophers and Islamic alchem ists on the list o f Rosicrucian m em bers throughout history, and despite avowing that their

43

Lewis, ‘Science of Alchemy1, 149-

44

Vanloo, L’ Utopie Rose-Croix, 286, n. 100.

45

Vanloo, L’ Utopie Rose-Croix, 288,290-291.

46

Vaughan (ecL), Fama, 14.

47

Vaughan (ecL), Fama, 29-31.

48

Vaughan (ed.), Fama, n.

49

The important contribution of the Chemical Wedding will be discussed below.

organization is ‘open to all w ho are worthy, regardless o f race, religion, creed or SCHOOL [of esoteric thought]’, AM ORC displayed a prim arily Christian orientation in its early days.50 The D ecem ber 1928 issue o f the M ystic Triangle even suggests ideas for Christmas gifts and Rosicrucian Christmas cards. In addition, there are a num ber o f articles dealing w ith the life o f Christ, but they present a decidedly unorthodox view. In one exam ple that is identified as a translation o f ‘an Old and Authentic Record’, Lewis provides an account w ith a Hellenic-Egyptian perspective o f the Im m aculate Conception and birth narrative. In this version, the High Priest Joachim is a m em ber o f one o f the sects o f the Great W hite Brotherhood, M ary is a vestal virgin o f the tem ple o f Helios, and Joseph is a m em ber o f the Brotherhood and a subject o f ‘the Kingdom o f Ra’.51 The point that the story seeks to illuminate, however, sounds quite orthodox: ‘J esus [was both] hum an and divine’.52 In harm ony w ith the perennialist philosophy expressed b y Lewis and AMORC, Christ is view ed as one o f a series o f hallow ed masters w hose presence on earth was intended to assist mankind. Lewis is against w hat he calls degenerate forms o f Christianity that preach letting one's neighbour suffer in order that they atone for their sins, and in favour o f the brotherly concern and assistance advocated b y true Christianity.53 The Fama also takes a strong Christian stance, as im plied b y the given nam e o f the founder o f the fraternity. The altar in Rosenkreuz’s tomb is marked w ith the inscription Jesus m ihi omnia (Jesus is everything to m e).54 The Lutheran predisposition o f the authors o f the Fama is inferred by the statem ent that the brothers o f the fraternity use the ‘two Sacraments ... o f the first renewed Church’ w hich identifies them as followers o f Luther.55 Not surprisingly for that tim e period, w hen Europe was on the verge o f the Thirty Years War, the brothers o f the Fama express a virulent attitude towards Catholicism and Islam, despite— in the case o f Islam— Rosenkreuz’s appreciation o f the knowledge he gained from Islamic sources while in Dam ascus and Fez.56 This sectarian attitude contrasts strongly w ith AM ORC’s avowed religious pluralism.

50

Lewis, ‘A nother Message to Theosophists’, 159. Capitals in the original.

51

Lewis, ‘Divine Birth of Jesus’, 44.

52

Lewis, ‘Divine Birth of Jesus’, 45.

53

Lewis, ‘Reincarnation Misunderstood’, 122.

54

Vaughan (ed.), Fama, 21.

55

Vaughan (ed.), Fama, 28.

56

Vaughan (ed.), Fama, 13-14.

R eincarnation a n d Karm a Up to this point w e have seen that the early AM ORC and the seventeenthcentury m anifestos share an interest in perennial philosophy, nature as a source o f wisdom , alchemy, and a preference for Christianity. But there are also points on w h ich th ey appear to differ significantly. Two o f these are the doctrines o f reincarnation and karma. For Lewis the central point o f reincarnation is its statem ent that the difficul­ ties m an faces in life are the result o f his ow n actions dem onstrating ‘ignorance, misunderstanding, and w ilful [sic] disobedience’, and not the result o f punish­ m ent b y God. Reincarnation, Lewis says, is evidence o f m an’s essential divine nature and his progression towards ultim ate perfection, in contradistinction w ith the doctrine o f predestination, w h ich m etes out salvation and dam nation w ith no consideration w h ether the individual has m erited one or the other through his actions.57 Lewis thinks that the doctrine o f reincarnation is not incom patible w ith Christianity; in fact, he thinks there are m any passages in the Bible that are only com prehensible i f one considers reincarnation a real­ ity.58 O n the other hand, Lewis says that abstention from b e lief in the doctrine o f reincarnation does not prevent one’s progress in AM ORC’s course o f study.59 Reincarnation also enters AM ORC’s version o f the legend o f Rosenkreuz. In one o f his instalm ents on the ‘authentic’ history o f the Rosicrucians, Lewis says that Rosenkreuz suspected th at the grandson o f one o f his brethren w ould one day be reincarnated as the Grand M aster o f Germany. Therefore, Rosenkreuz gave instructions for ‘certain signs and seals’ to b e buried along w ith him in his tom b to test the lad’s m em ory o f his previous incarnation w hen he w as present at the opening o f Rosenkreuz’s tom b at a future tim e.60 These ideas o f karm a and reincarnation have m uch more in com m on w ith Blavatsky’s and Steiner’s conceptions o f spiritual evolution than the doctrine o f the seventeenth-centuiy manifestos. These tw o concepts reflect the project o f occult thinkers in the late nineteenth and early tw entieth centuries to m arry science and a pure religion to produce an alternative to the ‘‘m aterial” or “degenerate” religion o f their tim es.61 The focus on the evolution o f the indi­ vidual indicates Lewis’ idea o f reincarnation, like Blavatsky’s, is w estern in orientation, rather than eastern.62 In one sense, he is replicating Blavatsky’s

57

Lewis, ‘Reincarnation Misunderstood', 122.

58

Lewis, ‘Reincarnation and Old Age’, 567-568.

59

Lewis, ‘Reincarnation and Old Age’, 566.

60

Lewis, ‘Authentic History’, 241241.

61

Hanegraaff, New Age Religion, 471-482.

62

Hanegraaff, New Age Religion, 283.

conception o f reincarnation and karma as a purgatory o f the here and now, in w h ich the trials and tribulations o f the individual are the result o f actions he or she took in a previous life. There is, however, a nuance o f difference betw een Blavatsky’s presentation o f karm a and Lewis’. In the Secret Doctrine, Blavatsky defines karm a as ‘the LAW OF RETRIBUTION’, w hile Lewis equates it w ith the idea o f ‘Com pensation’ or ‘j ustice’, saying that karm a brings consequences that can be rewards as w ell as punishm ents.63 Not surprisingly, the words ‘karma’ and ‘reincarnation’ do not appear in the Fama. Although the concept o f reincarnation had been present in clas­ sical tim es and was discussed b y Isaac Luria (1534-1572), Guillaume Postel (1510-1581) and Giordano Bruno (1548-1600), concentrated intellectual debate around reincarnation occurred later in the seventeenth century.64 The idea o f karma seems to have only b een introduced into occult discourse in the nine­ teenth century by Blavatsky’s version o f Theosophy.65

5

France and G erm any

One m ight well ask w h y Lewis was instructed to go to France and not Ger­ many, the place where the seventeenth-century manifestos originated. The answer m ay lie in Lewis’ fam ily history. His grandm other was apparently a firstgeneration Am erican w ith a French heritage and Lewis claim ed that his father Aaron was fluent in French, so it is possible that the younger Lewis m ay have had a cursory knowledge o f French.66 The question o f H. Spencer’s facility w ith the French language arises from Robert Vanloo’s observations regarding some o f the docum ents that Lewis presented as evidence o f his authority to reinvigorate the Rosicrucian Order in Am erica, w hich by AM ORC’s account had been previously d o rm an t Vanloo has noted that a letter appearing to com e from a m em ber o f the French Rose-Croix contains mistakes in the use o f accents that no native French speaker w ould make; in particular, tw o accents from the nam e o f the purported author o f the letter are om itted.67 Similar deficiencies, as Vanloo calls them, appear in the

63

Goodrick-Clarke (ed.), Blavatsky, 192 (capitals in the original); Lewis, ‘The Doctrine of Reincarnation’, n4-iis.

64

Zander, ‘Reincarnation II’, 984.

65

Zander, ‘Reincarnation II’, 986.

66

Lewis, Cosmic Mission Fulfilled, 24-25; Rebisse, Rosicrucian History, 153.

67

Vanloo, Rose-Croix du Nouveau Monde, u3-ii4.

Pronunziam ento o f 1916, a docum ent stating that the Supreme W orld Council has granted Am erica a n ew status as an independent jurisdiction under the direction o f ‘the M ost Perfect M aster “Profundis"'.68 A t the tim e that Lewis claim ed to have undergone his initiation in France, there were m any esoteric groups in existence in that country, som e o f them Rosicrucian in name. Two o f the m ost w ell-know n w ere the 1’ Ordre de la RoseCroix catholique du Temple et du Graal o f Jos^phin P61adan (1858-1918) and 1’ Ordre Kabbalistique de la Rose-Croix o f Gerard Encausse (Papus, 1865-1916).

In the 1930s Lewis was also active in the FUDOSI, a federation o f initiatory soci­ eties, and held the position o f one o f its three imperators or leaders. Through this federation he was acquainted w ith other European societies that were not M asonic in affiliation.69 France also figures prom inently in Lewis’ conception o f the history o f the Rosicrucian Order. In the ‘Authentic and Com plete History* he states categori­ cally that “the Rosicrucian Order in Germ any was NOT established b y Christian Rosenkreuz or b y Andrea Valentin [sic] or Johann Valentine Andrea [sic], nor b y M artin Luther, in 1615'70 The Order, Lewis says, was established in Tolosa [Toulouse], France in 804, w h en the philosopher A m aud received a patent from the Rosicrucian lodge in Thebes to establish the first subsidiary lodge in Europe.71 Toulouse thus becam e the hom e o f the “high council’ that was responsible for granting charters to other lodges throughout Europe.72 Thus, b y stating that he received his initiation in Toulouse, Lewis w as asserting his connection w ith an old and valid authority.

6

C on tin u ities and D iscon tin uities

W e have seen that on one level the Fama and the publications o f the early AM ORC share certain com m onalities at the level o f doctrine: a b e lie f in a peren­ nial philosophy; an appreciation o f nature as a source o f know ledge about the world; the essential goodness o f man; and a predom inantly Christian perspec­ tive. They also exhibit discontinuities: reincarnation and karma, as w ell as a distaste for physical alchem y in the Fama versus AM ORC’S positive valuation

68

Vanloo, Rose-Croix du NouveauMonde, 116-120.

69

Vanloo, L'Utopie Rose-Croix, 331-332.

70

Lewis, ‘A uthentic and Complete History’ 241; capitals in the original.

71

Lewis, ‘Authentic and Complete History*, 240.

72

Lewis, ‘Rosicrucian Pretensions’, 241.

o f the insight physical alchem y can provide for understanding natural laws. On another micro-level, there is further differentiation betw een the view points expressed in the Fama and AM ORC’s publications: a perennial philosophy orig­ inating w ith Adam and the Hebrew patriarchs versus a perennial philosophy traced back to the Egyptian mystery schools; a Lutheran version o f Christianity versus an esoteric version o f Christianity and an acceptance o f other religions. Yet there is also an unexpected connection betw een tw o apparently unrelated ideas. For AMORC, reincarnation is evidence o f the ultim ate perfection o f the individual, im plying the essential goodness o f hum ankind ju st as the idea o f the m icrocosm does in the Fama, w h ich proclaim s the advent o f an age w hen ‘finally M an m ight thereby understand his own Nobleness and Worth, and w h y he is called M icrocosm us’.13 The Fama and AM ORC are both optim istic con­ cerning hum anity’s future.

7

G enre as R epresentation

W here does that leave our assessm ent o f w hether AM ORC can legitim ately call itself “Rosicrucian”? Before arriving at a conclusion, I w ould like to consider the m anner in w h ich the writers o f the seventeenth-century manifestos conveyed their ideas and com pare this w ith the w ay in w h ich the contem porary AM ORC has represented itself in tw o recent publications. The Fama and the Confessio b o th are w ritten in a style that addresses its readers directly and presents the existence o f the mysterious brotherhood as a fact. In the Confessio, especially, the writers make religious and political state­ m ents and deny any grounds for being accused o f heresy or disloyalty. Despite this appearance o f fact, however, the Fama contains a key that suggests things are not w hat they seem on the surface. In Rosenkreuz’s tomb, the brothers find the ‘Vocabulary’ o f Paracelsus, a physical im possibility because the historical figure o f Paracelsus was not b o m (1493) until after Rosenkreuz was said to have been sealed in his tom b (1484). The appeal to m ythology is m ade even more clearly in the Chem ical Wedding. H ow are we to understand this story? It is the tale o f Christian Rosenkreuz’s invitation to, and participation in, a bizarre w edding that involves a hidden goddess, beheading, tongues o f fire, hom unculi and alchem ical processes. The unusual imagery makes it impossible to consider the story a sim ple narrative o f an actual event and pushes us into the realms o f m ythology and psychology,7 3

73

Vaughan (ed.), Fama, 2.

w here it is up to the reader to derive m eaning, if not truth, based on his own experience and interpretation and to determ ine w h at relation the story has to the alchem ical process alluded to in the tide. The Positio o f the contem porary AM ORC is clearly m odelled on the earlier manifestos. N ot only does the publication declare itself to b e ‘the fourth R+C torch’, it also states that, as ‘the Rose-Croix o f today1, the Rosicrucian Order has decided to advise hum anity o f the dangers it is facing and to provide solutions for m itigating this ‘unprecedented existential crisis in all spheres’ in a m anner faith fu l to our Tradition and our Ideal’.74 Hence, the Positio uses a genre similar to that o f the Foma and the Confessio, addressing the readers direcdy. The nam e o f the docum ent not only denotes the content o f the m od em m anifesto bu t also reinforces the idea o f the Positio’s location as the continuation o f a tradition established in the seventeenth century b y the authors o f the original manifestos. The Fama, the Confessio and the Positio are all mirrors o f their times. O n the one hand the Fama bem oans the scholarly rejection o f the know ledge o f nature gained through contact w ith the w ise m en o f the east and the alchem ical studies o f Paracelsus, and on the other hand, it celebrates the positions o f both m an as the small mirror o f the larger cosm os and the Book o f Nature as a source o f divine wisdom . This m anifesto also warns against the threats posed to the ‘renew ed’ church b y Catholicism and Islam and the focus on the m aterial use o f alchemy. Likewise, the Positio warns its readers against the threats it sees as m ost potentially dam aging to mankind. N ot surprisingly, however, the locus o f dan­ ger has shifted. Instead o f pointing out the existing m enaces to a particular brand o f Christianity, the Positio urges its readers to consider the perils to one’s soul posed b y the broader problem s o f ‘individualism and materialism’ that have perm eated all kinds o f hum an endeavours. This materialism has trans­ formed politics and science, it says, into materialistic religions. A s a remedy, AM ORC proposes ‘hum anism and spirituality1 as the m eans for ensuring ‘the realization o f a Divine Plan and ... an ideal society upon earth’.75 Religions themselves, according to AMORC, have lost m uch o f their relevance to people’s lives because they have failed to adapt to changing societies. Eventually, the Positio says, i f the m ajor religions do not integrate the changes in perspective brought b y scientific discoveries and ‘the evolution o f hum an consciousness’,

74 75

Anon., Positio, 5. Anon., Positio, 5,7.

they w ill either disappear or coalesce into one, single hum an religion, based on the know ledge o f divine laws.76 AMORC's vision o f hum anity's destiny is one in w h ich people respect each other’s differences and do not see them as an im pedim ent to essential unity. The cultivation o f virtues supporting a m orality that prizes tolerance, therefore, is one o f the concerns expressed in the Positio.77 The desirable virtues are acquired, according to the Positio, through the transm utation o f faults into these virtues b y the process o f ‘spiritual alchemy'.78 The m anifesto goes on to say that, although Rosicrucians practiced m aterial alchem y in the past, they also practiced spiritual alchemy. ‘Contem porary Rosicrucians’, the Positio says, ‘give priority to this form o f alchem y’,79 unlike the priority given to physical alchem y in the articles appearing in the early periodicals o f AMORC. Like the Faina, the Positio sees nature as a source o f wisdom , bu t reflecting the tim es in w h ich it w as written, the Positio also decries the effects that man’s activities have had on the planet. A lthough the Positio states that it believes hum anity w ill endure as a spiritual entity no m atter w h at happens to our material world, the m anifesto exhorts individuals to do their parts to protect nature and lessen the dem ands on the earth as a result o f hum an activities.80 Rosicrucian History and Mysteries takes on a daunting task. Rather than cre­ ating a phantasy (like the Chym ical Wedding), it purports to present a historical account o f w h at it considers the Rosicrucian tradition stretching from the N ew Kingdom o f Egypt into the twenty-first century. In this sense, it is m uch broader in scope than the story o f Christian Rosenkreuz and the establishm ent o f his fraternity in the Fama. On the other hand, both the History and the Fama present a story w ithin an historical context, even though both texts contain hints that w e should not necessarily read them as fa c t The author o f the History admits at one point that the story o f Lewis’ initiation in Toulouse as described in AM ORC’s early texts is ‘symbolic to a great extenf. This admission in a w ork that contends to be a history is not as serious a problem as w e m ight expect, in Rebisse’s view. ‘W hat is fundam ental’, Rebisse says, ‘is the spiritual aspect* o f Lewis’ tale.81 Despite w hatever historical validity Lewis had tried to procure w ith “evidence” o f patents, letters, jew els and the recognition o f continental

76

Anon., Positio, 6-7.

77

Anon., Positio, 7.

78

Anon., Positio, 16.

79

Anon., Positio, 16.

80

Anon., Positio, 23,19-20.

81

Rebisse, History and Mysteries, 170.

Rosicrucian organizations, w h at is truly significant, according to Rebisse— and b y extension the contem porary AM ORC— is the spiritual m eaning one derives from a story, w hether that story is fact or fiction. This puts the genre o f the History in question: h o w m uch is fact, h o w m uch is fiction? In a passage discussing Descartes, Rebisse says that [a lth o u g h Ren£ Descartes w as not a Rosicrucian in the fullest sense o f the word, w e m ay consider him to be a Rosicrucian to the extent that, at a given m om ent in his life, he took an interest in the Rosicrucians.82 According to this statement, it seem s AM ORC believes one can be called “Rosi­ crucian” sim ply b y sharing aspects o f the world-view expressed in the seven­ teenth-century manifestos.

8

C onclusion

Does AM ORC have a legitim ate claim to use the w ord “Rosicrucian” as an adjec­ tive for its organization? On the basis o f historical evidence o f a direct link to the seventeenth-century manifestos, no. On the basis o f doctrinal similar­ ities, it depends h o w strictly w e w ant to apply our criteria and w h at points o f doctrine w e w ish to em phasize. If w e take into consideration h ow the social, political and religious contexts have changed over time, w e m ay grant a cer­ tain parallelism. Both the seventeenth-century m anifestos and AM ORC’s early publications exhibited a degree o f preference for Christianity, the seventeenthcentury Rosicrucian texts m ore than the early tw entieth-century ones. Both phenom ena assuredly adhered to a perennialist outlook, although the sources o f that perennialism differed. Both expressed a b e lief in man’s goodness. If w e are charitable, w e m ay count the fact that both phenom ena take an interest in alchem y at all as a point o f concurrence. On the other hand, w e m ay easily deny any legitim ate claim to the adjective on the basis o f AM ORC’s unorthodox vision o f Christ and its emphasis on karm a and reincarnation. W hat suggests to me the possibility that AM ORC m ay legitim ately use the adjective “Rosicrucian” is not ju st som e doctrinal similarities. It is the com ­ bination o f these similarities w ith an em ulation o f the process used b y the historical authors o f the seventeenth-century manifestos. Both Lewis and the unknown authors o f the original tracts m anipulated fact and fiction to create a

82

Rebisse, History and. Mysteries, 89.

m ythology that w ould challenge orthodoxy and stimulate personal engage­ m ent in the quest to develop a spirituality relevant to the worlds in w hich they found themselves.

B ibliography Anonymous, ‘A n Alchemical Parable for Our Second Degree Members’, American Rosae Crucis 2.3 (1917), 95. --------- [H. Spencer Lewis?], ‘Dictionary of Rosaecrucian Terms’, Mystic Triangle 3.8 (1925), 120-123. --------- [‘Research Department’], ‘Important Science Notes’, American Rosae Crucis 3.3 (1920), 82-84. ----------, Positio Fratemitatis Rosae Crucis, n.p.: Supreme Grand Lodge o f the English Language Jurisdiction, 2007. Edighoffer, Roland, ‘Rosicrucianism: From the Seventeenth to the Twentieth Century’, in: Faivre, Antoine and Jacob Needleman (eds.), Modem Esoteric Spirituality, New York: Crossroad 1992,186-209. Fra Fidelis, *Modem Alchemy and Transmutation’, Mystic Triangle 4.6 (1926), 118-120. Frater Nedla, C.C. 'Sir Francis Bacon, the Mystic’, American Rosae Crucis 3.3 (1920),

51-55Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas (ed.), Helena Blavatsky, Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books 2004. Hanegraaff, Wouter J., New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the Mirror o f Secular Thought, Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1998; originally published Leiden; New York, N.Y.: Brill, 1996. Introvigne, Massimo, ‘Rosicrucianism III: igth-2oth Centuiy’, in: Hanegraaff, Wouter J. (ed.), Dictionary o f Gnosis and Western Esotericism, Leiden: Brill 2006,1018-1020. Lewis, H. Spencer, ‘The Alchemy of Marriage’, Mystic Triangle 4.6 (1926), 120-122. --------- , ‘A nother Message to Theosophists’, American Rosae Crucis 2.5 (1917), 158-160. --------- , ‘The Authentic and Complete History of the Ancient and Mystical Order Rosae Crucis', Mystic Triangle 5.8 (1927), 206-213. --------- , ‘The Authentic and Complete History of the Ancient and Mystical Order Rosae Crucis’, Mystic Triangle 5.9 (1927), 238-242. --------- , ‘The Divine Birth of Jesus’, American Rosae Crucis 3.2 (1920), 43-45--------- , ‘The Doctrine o f Reincarnation’, Mystic Triangle 5.5 (1927), 114-116. --------- , ‘God Spoke’, Mystic Triangle 3.7 (1925), 95,105. --------- , ‘The Imperator Speaks About Some New Books’, Mystic Triangle 3.7 (1925), 107-108. --------- , ‘Reincarnation and Astrology’, Mystic Triangle 6.10 (1928), 638-640.

--------- , ‘Reincarnation and Old Age’, Mystic Triangle 6.8 (1928), 566-572. --------- >'Reincarnation Misunderstood’, Mystic Triangle 6.3 (1928), 421-422. --------- , 'Rosicrucian Pretensions’, Mystic Triangle 4JI (1926), 238-242. --------- [ps. Royle Thurston], ‘The Science o f Alchemy1, Mystic Triangle 3.10 (1925), 149-150-

--------- [ps. Royle Thurston], ‘Some Notes on the History o f Rosicrucians’, Mystic Triangle 5.6 (1927), 150. --------- , ‘We Introduce the Master Amatu’, Mystic Triangle 5.12,345-348. --------- [ps. Royle Thurston], ‘What is Wrong with Theosophy?’, Mystic Triangle 3.12 (1925-1926), 181-182,184-185. Lewis, Ralph M., Cosmic Mission Fulfilled, San Jose, CA: Supreme Grand Lodge of AMORC, 2nd ed. 1977. McIntosh, Christopher, The Rosicrucians: The History, Mythology, and Rituals o f an Esoteric Order, Boston, MA and York Beach, Me: Weiser Books 1997. Partridge, Christopher (ed.), Dictionary o f Contemporary Religion in the Western World, Leicester, England and Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press 2002. Rebisse, Christian (pseudonym), Rosicrucian History andMysteries, SanJose, CA: Grand Lodge o f the English Language Jurisdiction 2005. Rosicrucian Manual Prepared under the supervision o f H. Spencer Lewis, San Jose, CA: Supreme Grand Lodge o f AMORC, gth ed. 1944. Vanloo, Robert, Les Rose-Croix du nouveau monde: aux sources du rosicrucianisme moderne, Paris: Claire Vigne £ditrice 1996. Vanloo, Robert, L’ Utopie Rose-Croix du XVIIe sikcle a nos jours, Paris: Editions Dervy 200L Vaughan, Thomas [ps. Eugenius Philalethes] (ed.), The Fame and the Confession o f the Fraternity ofR£: Commonly, o f the Rosie Cross, London: Giles Calvert 1652. Zander, Helmut, 'Reincarnation II: Renaissance— present* in Hanegraaff, Wouter (ed.), Dictionary o f Gnosis and Western Esotericism, Leiden: Brill 2006,984-987.