amorc origins
gls
On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 22:40:34 -0700 (PDT), fr_me...@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:
>Greetings,
>
>You pretty much got the jist of it. Good memory. Vanloo seems to
>believe she didn't know much about Crowley and his reputation,
>especially since back then he was fresh in America. Crowley describes
>the NY upper class teosophic ladies as sheepish. But I imagine it was
>a good arena for him to pose and impress people. He seems to think he
>master the social bit and even brags about "saving" HSL from making a
>fool of himself.
Thanks for the links. Much of what's there I haven't seen before --
especially the letter from amorc written to Koenig (there's only a
dial-up connection where I live, so for the past few years I haven't
been doing much research on the net), but before I get to other
topics, is the reference mentioned by Crowley in his diary or
confessions? And are you talking about the "grand old lady" comment or
something else? The page numbers in the footnotes listed by Vanloo do
not match my versions of crowley's works so I can't find his reference
(or, which is quite possible, I'm simply not seeing what's in front of
me) I would prefer to read it in the context in which it was written
before responding, so if you could add a page number or two, it would
be helpful.
<snip>
Now, to some comments from the links. I never really thought I would
revisit these things again, but, alas ...
The overall impression I'm getting regarding amorc's new historical
position is that they're trying to introduce a new initiatic link by
suggesting hsl received authority through clovis lasalle/peladin and
ultimately through papus by indirectly connecting hsl with the entire
Order Martiniste, Rose Croix Cabalistique, Salon de la Rose Croix,
etc. phenomena through the introduction of Clovis Lasalle as the
go-between. After all, he was a photographer, in Toulouse, knew
Peladin and since hsl mentioned meeting a photographer (amongst many
others), that must, therefore, be the case (round peg, square hole in
my opinion). Nevermind that what they're producing is completely
contrary to what hsl wrote (I'll touch on this in my response to ben,
later).
According to the Enc. Universalis, the R+C Cabalistique/Ordre
Martiniste has nearly 5000 members in several countries (including
the US) in 1900; Dr. Paul Naudon wrote, in "La Franc Maconnerie" (pg
110) that both orders combined had 120 lodges in 1909; and hsl writes
in Am Rosae Crucis (or an early mystic triangle -- I'm writing this
from memory) that he hadn't heard of Papus until 1915 or 16. Surely,
if hsl connected with Clovis Lasalle, he would have been awakened to a
rather extensive R+C network, but he wasn't and I find that a big
problem in their version.
What prompted me thinking about this again is the letter from amorc to
Koenig regarding the distancing of Reuss from hsl. Reading that letter
was the first time I've seen that amorc is acknowledging being in
possession of the Passenger list of the SS Amerika of the Hamburg
America Shipping Line (later named the *SS America* when the Americans
got hold of it in WWI). That list they are referring to is the same
list I've been talking about for a number of years (although I've
referred to it as the passenger manifest but more accurately it was a
brochure given to all passengers). By acknowledging having the
passenger list, they also acknowledge having found tucked within the
pages: 1. A British Library reading room ticket issued in HSL's name
for August 3rd, 1909; a handwritten message on a piece of scrap paper
written in a magical text; and printed in the brochure, that one of
the ship's officers (I've been saying steward, but the amorc letter
say's first officer -- my memory may be faulty here so I won't argue
the point) was an "A. Reuss". AMORC mentions nothing about the reading
room ticket or the scrap of paper, but they do eventually deny that
"A. Reuss" was Theodore Reuss. Keeping in mind Reuss' full name was
Karl Albert Theodore Reuss, it's very conceivable that Reuss went by
the name of Albert at times. But that by itself wouldn't necessarily
prove that A Reuss was also T. Reuss. I think the clincher here is
found in the letters between Reuss and lewis.
Amorc is now claiming the *only* letters between Reuss and Lewis were
written circa 1921 and were primarily on the topic of having a
Rosicrucian tour to the Oberammergau Passion Plays although a gage of
amity, the council (TAWUC), and a convention were discussed. Those set
of letters were kept in a large blue bound book which contained all
AMORC documents and was kept in the 3rd safe in the Imperator's
office. It's true that those letters aren't really all that
interesting. What is interesting is Reuss' address -- the same address
of either the Munich or Hamburg (I forget which) Office of the Hamburg
America Shipping Line. Furthermore, those weren't the only letters
between HSL and Reuss. Filed in the 2nd safe in the Imperator's office
were a number of files containing rituals, correspondance, etc. There
was a wealth more of correspondance between Reuss and Lewis filed
there. There was a gap of 2 or 3 years between the letters filed and
those in the blue book -- meaning there is a wealth of correspondance
prior to 1921. And the address on most of those letters was also the
Hamburg America Shipping Line. Theodore Reuss *was* on the SS Amerika
with hsl and his friend; hsl did disembark the ship in Southhampton
and was in England for several days before continuing on to France.
I agree with VanLoo that the OTO wasn't the authorizing body for
amorc, but I'm convinced that Reuss was the individual giving hsl his
contacts and clovis lasalle wasn't one of them.
With regards to Pronunziamento #1, the copy on microfilm in the New
York public library is as VanLoo states, the original. The copy sent
to him by amorc was a blank -- an extra printed copy. Usually when an
organization was started back then, an announcement would be made in
the newspapers or libraries. HSL, to document the founding decided to
use the library -- so it was put there by lewis or under his
authority. As to the original, I saw it in the amorc archives in 1983
and I remember wondering why "o.t.o." was in the box.
There was also a comment made by Peter Koenig stating that the letters
between Crowley and Lewis were no longer in the amorc archives. Those
letters were never kept in the safes, but rather in filing cabinets in
the secretary's office. When I left there in 1990 there were a number
of letters between crowley and hsl and rml still in the files. It is
true though, that a lot of the files were stolen over the years. Curt
Warren (who owned the security company amorc contracted) told me he
had taken a number of files over the years. ... so if more went
missing, I'm not surprised
the long and short of it is, I think the new amorc is hedging a bit on
the history and aren't exactly being intellectually honest in their
presentation and in so doing are leaving the hsl legacy behind. That,
in my opinion, is very wrong and in the long term, will be quite
destructive to amorc. HSL was very clear about his initiation and
authority. He identified who the people were. By trying to present new
contacts under the guise of recent research findings is, in my
opinion, an attempt at a whitewash of something they don't wish to
find out more about.
>Sincerely,
>Al :)
gls
fr_me...@yahoo.co.uk
I tried to mail you the info on the finnish RC, but your mail doesnt
seem to accept incoming fire?
Thanks for a long and thorough elaboration. I didnt think I would
stroll down this memory lane again either, but your account deserves a
few comments.
Also, a good thing that you separated this from the other thread,
because it started to bother me posting amorc history under a heading
attacking your character.
> topics, is the reference mentioned by Crowley in his diary or
> confessions? And are you talking about the "grand old lady" comment or
> something else? The page numbers in the footnotes listed by Vanloo do
I also spoke from memory, so I should clarify: I was referring to
Vanloo speculating in his article about who the lady in Crowleys
confessions was. He seems to think it could have been May. It's
probably impossible to verify, and it is a long shot, but it would be
funny if it was. On the other hand, NY didnt have a shortage of old
tea-drinking theosophy ladies.
> The overall impression I'm getting regarding amorc's new historical
> position is that they're trying to introduce a new initiatic link by
> suggesting hsl received authority through clovis lasalle/peladin and
Yes, I agree their new approach opens for association to the Peladan
link, but not because of Peladan, but because of the archaeological
society Midi Toulouse from memory here, never mind the details) and
the connection to Count LaPasse. I personally think that after Gerard
Galtier published his book on the "Children of Cagliostro", it lifted
neoRosicrucian history to a new level. The Lapasse link is elobarated
in his book, as well as many other hitherto less known AMORC
relations.
I know you reject AMORCs Lasalle allegations, and this is one of the
few points where we differ. I am inclined to accept this as plausible,
because Lewis himself named Lasalle as an important connection. Lewis
does not claim to have been initiated by Lasalle, we both know who did
that, only that he associated with him when over there. Since Clovis
Lasalle indeed was a member of the THE SAME archeological group that
hosted Lapasse (the initiator of the Peladan lineage to Hieronymous),
it is not far fetched that he was the same Lasalle Rosicrucian HSL met
in Toulouse in 1908.
I have not seen any evidence that Lasalle knew Papus, so your argument
here seems to be invalid. Papus was in Paris, and it was Peladan who
brought that lineage to the bohemians there. However, Peladan didn't
introduce this link at first, but joined what already floated around
(i.e. the papus groups, guaitas OKRC, etc), and only later did he do
his own thing with that lineage from his brother Adrien, which derives
from Lapasse. I've not seen any evidence that he initiated Papus,
Guaita and the others into it. So we should distinguish between the
Paris Rosicrucians of the various federations, and the Toulouse
rosicrucians who were next to extinct (which I suspect is why Peladan
revived it in his own somewhat extreme version in Paris and could get
away with it).
So I can easily imagine Lewis encountering Lasalle without getting the
references to Paris. And given that they were in Toulouse at the time
and were meeting completely different people, even if Lasalle had
relations to Papus & co and even if he had it already back then, it
needn't have been a topic surfacing during the brief time he met with
Lewis. After all, Lewis was out to get access to that other person
whom he disguised as Raynaud Bellcastle-Ligne (RBL).
What are the odds for there being TWO Lasalles in Toulouse at that
time who both were Rosicrucians, photographers and knew RBL.
In fact, given that Christian Bernard/Rebisse makes a great effort to
emphasize the links to Papus, Jollivet-Castelot, Chaboseau, Peladan,
et al, and given that he is ok with name-dropping Lasalle, it is
strange that they completely ignore the RBL relation which is the most
essential of Lewis initiation. In fact, its strange that they mention
Lasalle at all.
> was the first time I've seen that amorc is acknowledging being in
> possession of the Passenger list of the SS Amerika of the Hamburg
Yes I noticed this, and that is only to your credit. Everything you've
mentioned here, you've mentioned to me PRIOR to AMORC admitting this,
I still have the emails and their dates, so I can testify to this.
> the point) was an "A. Reuss". AMORC mentions nothing about the reading
> room ticket or the scrap of paper, but they do eventually deny that
> "A. Reuss" was Theodore Reuss. Keeping in mind Reuss' full name was
> Karl Albert Theodore Reuss, it's very conceivable that Reuss went by
> the name of Albert at times.
Yes, he was known for posing under different versions of his name,
apparently because he acted as a spy/informer (probably a desperate
move to earn money).
This probability is enforced by HSL also using the name Albert when
portraying him in The White Book.
> prior to 1921. And the address on most of those letters was also the
> Hamburg America Shipping Line. Theodore Reuss *was* on the SS Amerika
> with hsl and his friend; hsl did disembark the ship in Southhampton
> and was in England for several days before continuing on to France.
Which is where he first met with another fellow related to all of
this, right?
> I agree with VanLoo that the OTO wasn't the authorizing body for
> amorc, but I'm convinced that Reuss was the individual giving hsl his
> contacts and clovis lasalle wasn't one of them.
I agree that Reuss would never have tipped him of about Lasalle,
because these were very different circles of initiates. Reuss had
relations to Papus of course, but he was mainly of the German milleu,
and Lasalle was soruthern France of the Lapasse milleu.
But the Reuss link is the only explenation for how Lewis ended up
collaborating with Tranker. This point is important, because if Lewis
had Papus relations prior to this, he would have skipped Tranker and
directly bonded with Hieronymous. He didnt. Instead he wasted his time
on the Tranker project, then got in touch with Jollivet Castelot (I
suspect via August Reichel, who knew both Castelot and Tranker), and
eventually through Castelot he got in touch with Hieronymous. Than he
immediately severed his ties with Tranker and went for the french/
belgian circles and FUDOSI.
> authority. As to the original, I saw it in the amorc archives in 1983
> and I remember wondering why "o.t.o." was in the box.
Why did you wonder? You were already aware of the links to Reuss and
Crowley.
> There was also a comment made by Peter Koenig stating that the letters
> between Crowley and Lewis were no longer in the amorc archives.
That's what they told him.
> true though, that a lot of the files were stolen over the years. Curt
> Warren (who owned the security company amorc contracted) told me he
> had taken a number of files over the years. ... so if more went
> missing, I'm not surprised
We can only hope he published them. Since he is one of those who fell
out of the SGL during the post-Stewart purge, he have no reason to
keep them secret. In fact, since he is interested in AMORC history (he
wrote some articles for the Rosicrucian Chronicles, among else
speculating upon the Lewis initiation) he should realize he can earn
money by publishing them.
> the long and short of it is, I think the new amorc is hedging a bit on
> the history and aren't exactly being intellectually honest in their
> presentation and in so doing are leaving the hsl legacy behind.
Yes, but: and/or they don't have all the information anymore.
A final point I might as well raise when this can of worms is already
opened:
In "Martinist Documents" (an old amorc publication similar to
"Rosicrucian Documents") there is indisputable evidence of contact
between Lewis and Dupre already in 1913. This is very strange. Regard:
Dupre (frenchman living in Egypt) and Semalais (Greek living in Egypt)
run their own Rosicrucian Order (O.L.E.) already back then AND they
knew the gangs in Paris (papus et al). However, they corresponded with
Lewis through their other body which was Elus-Cohen. Now, Lewis didnt
involve himself in Martinism until later (the FUDOSI era), so why
would he be interested in E-C already back then?
Even if he was made an honorary E-C member or even received an
initiation (which is also strange since he didnt make any big mention
of this, yet choose to use his later Elus-Cohen/Martinism contacts),
why would he disregard their Rosicrucian links? Remember that he was
somewhat desperate for Rosicrucian connections back then which could
justify his AMORC project (which I doubt could be justified by his
1908 initiation, and probably they didnt even know about AMORC). Could
it be as simple as Lewis not understanding that O.L.E was Rosicrucian
just because they didnt use the term RC in the name of this order?
Either way, what a wasted opportunity for Lewis ;) Could have saved
him much energy and effort to affiliate himself with OLE or at least
get a direct link to Papus already then. Obviously Dupre didnt mention
the Paris Rosicrcuians to him, and even if Dupre had his owhing in
Cairo, he knew Papus well. This just goes to show that the same could
have happened between Lewis and Clovis Lasalle.
This point has bothered me for years. Perhaps someone can shed more
light upon it. I could of course just contact OLE in Greece and ask if
they have anything in their archives about this, but I have moved on
researching this so it would be a task for someone else.
Sincerely,
Al :)
gls
<bsc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> In my opinion, I'm not so sure it was a step forward. It is in the
>> sense there is an attempt at documentation, but in some instances the
>> same old game is being played -- make the round peg fit the square
>> hole. One of the reasons why I say this is I know that present day
>> amorc has documentation about 1909, the journey, and contacts which
>> they feel they want to ignore and replace it with speculation masked
>> as documented research to try to force a history that is more in
>> agreement with what others in the esoteric community find acceptable.
>
>
>Ben:
>
>Dear Gary, I'm glad for the documentation in it . . . but I'm
>interested in your comment about contacts they want to ignore and
>forcing a history that suits others in the esoteric community. Can
>you please elaborate a bit?
I elaborated more on the forcing the history in my response to al, but
my reference to the contacts they want to ignore, I'll say here.
The first would be Theodore Reuss. HSL met him on the SS Amerika in
1909. In that he's mentioned in the passenger list as a ships officer
(A. Reuss) and that his address, for years, was the Hamburg America
Shipping line office pretty much tells us that he was indeed on the
ship.
Now, who he advised hsl to meet while in france, I don't know and we
have to rely upon what hsl wrote for that. Ultimately, he ended up
meeting two people (one initiatically, the other physically) in
Toulouse. I've posted this information here before, in 2005 I think,
but after correspondance with the city in 1983, we located Joseph de
Belcastel (1860-1942) and his uncle, Jean Baptiste Gaston Gabriel
Marie Louis Lacoste, Baron de Belcastel (1821-1890). But it's hsl's
description of these individuals in his manifesto that we find that
the above two are who he was referring to (only he put the uncle's
birth at 1831 and didn't mention he was already dead by 1909. But it
was in the dream hsl had where his presence was important. Also of
interest, which further adds credence in my opinion, is that there was
a niece involved as well referenced both by hsl and the history of the
family, who disappeared during the first war.
The point is, we've identified who. The job now is to connect the
individuals as being involved with Rosicrucianism in some way. By
diverting attention away to something else isn't going to accomplish
that. But as I've said before, what's important to amorc is the
initiation had in dream.
>I take it you mean AMORC today is then not the AMORC of old that
>dismissed everything else as 'inauthentic' ? Or are they worried
>about potential smears were some of HSL's 1909 associations to become
>better known?
In my thinking, the amorc of today is perpetuating the same position
that the amorc of yesterday took. That being, to apologise for its
existence. And yes, they (both) are/were worried about potentiial
smears because they can't reconcile their own mysticism. AMORC
professes to teach the inner contact, the inner life, but they behave
as if they don't believe such is possible by apologising for their
existence. They're afraid to admit that the ultimate authority came in
a dream (by "dream" here, I'm meaning "inner contact"). What does the
fama say? Once a year the R+C meet in the House of Spiritus Sancti.
That is an inner contact. AMORC needs to make a decision. Either they
will be a mystical order or a charitable/fraternal order.
>However, re the tail wagging the dog, I do think to an extent that
>their hand has been forced by the work of Roggemanns, Vanloo, Koenig,
>Milko and probably in all honesty by what is said on here.
Their hand needs to be forced and I think all the works mentioned are
great and the best thing to happen. If they chose to follow the legacy
of their founder (hsl), they'll swim. If not, they'll sink.
>Most of their members know zip about the real history and it must
>worry them slightly to have conceded the field to non-members.
>
>I commented some time back that there are instances where the Rebisse
>history seems to have made an attempt to address some of the most
>strident criticisms of Vanloo etc, but without actually being adult
>enough to name the guy and recognise his argument in the first place,
>which is a bit odd.
Ampeercha's child, arrogance.
>> I see amorc being more apologetic about its existence, especially
>> regarding its history, than assertive, and as such, the tail ends up
>> wagging the dog. And when there are attempts at assertion, it's
>> presented as aggression. I feel amorc should present their case openly
>> and honestly and not mickey mouse their way through their own history.
>
>
>Ben:
>I suppose that having 'mickey moused' their way for so long, it's hard
>to change tack. A pity because the method is clearly inadequate to
>present what is in essence a very rich and full story.
agreed
>> >I don't agree with all of it by any stretch, and there are things like
>> >the 'May Banks Stacey' story that I'm still suspicious
>>
>> You probably know this, but her name was Mary Banks. Her husbands name
>> was May Stacey.
>
>Ben:
>The thing with her is that when I read things like the Denise
>Clairembault letter (admittedly in translation), it seems to confuse
>things by referring to 'May Banks Stacey' and I'm not that sure
>they're not confusing the mother with the son.
that was a common error for years. As I recall, the person who started
the research on Mary Banks was Ron Cappello and he had done some
pretty intense research. How David Rocks suddenly appeared, I don't
know, but if I recall correctly, it was through ron that her actual
name was cleared up.
> Taking your mother to
>a place like the Philippines in the 1890s would seem unusual, it had
>two wars in succession and was pretty lawless at the time.
She wouldn't have gone before 1902 when Fort Stotsenberg was founded.
That was the year the US declared the insurgency over (even though the
last of the fighting didn't stop until 1913). With such a
pronouncement, stationing there wasn't only for TDY. Families could
live there as well. I'm not sure when her son was stationed there, but
stationing at the fort would have to have been after 1902. If he
fought there, he could've been there before then.
>(snip) and she did profess
>> to have rosicrucian connections and did give hsl some jewellery. I've
>> seen it, but nothing that can be said to be Rosicrucian. Her husband
>> was a Mason and that is how hsl got the masonic rosicrucian emblem
>> that amorc touted around for awhile.
>
>Ben:
>I think that jewel is pictured in the Wikipedia article on AMORC and
>there's no way in the world it's as old as it is said to be. I think
>the Masonic Rose-Croix is a likely source for this connection. Quite
>possibly that was the basis of Julius Sachse's claimed R+C connection
>too.
The cross depicted was one of the original designs by hsl circa 1915.
The cross give by Mary banks was a scottish rite R+C emblem. I just
noticed they said she was from an English lodge, uh, no and I also saw
reference to an apron owned by Napolean -- uh, no. As for Sachse ...
it's too late at night to touch that one ...
<snip>
>My feeling is that her R+C
>> connection was through her husband having been a Scottich Rite Mason.
>> Also, it's a good possibility that she was a theosophist associated
>> with their inner circle. I once tried to trace her back to India to
>> the Theosophical Society's hq thinking maybe she came out of their
>> alleged R+C circle, but couldn't actually place her there.
>
>Ben:
>Well, that was what Clairembault seemed to hint at - maybe Besant's
>Order of the Star in the East ? But he (?) also references the
>Masonic OES. I'm not quite sure what he's getting at there.
>
>Couldn't
>> get her past the Philippines where her husband was stationed.
>
>
>Ben: Wasn't it her son,Cromwell, who was based there? The husband died
>in 1886, at which time the Philippines was a Spanish colony.
yes, my error ... too many late nights I think
<snip>
>Regards
>
>Ben
best
gls
fr_me...@yahoo.co.uk
Now that you have revealed the name of HSLs initiator, the cat is out
of the bag. You asked me to keep it confidential 10 years ago (was it
because you waited to see what the AMORC book had to say about it
first?).
But since this is now public knowledge, we can arrange two interesting
lineages from the Chain of Cagliostro:
Count Alessandro Cagliostro (Joseph Balsamo) (1743-1795)
Baron de Sangro, father of [a paralell lineage from here to A.A. in M-
M]
Prince Balbiani de Palermo (1761-1840)
Charles de Paravey (1787-1871)
Viscount Louis Charles Edouard de Lapasse (1792-1867)
Eugène Aroux (1793-1859) / Paul Lacuria (1806-1890) / Simon Brugal
(Firmin Boissin) (1835-1893)
Dr. Adrien Péladan (1844-1885)
Joseph "Joséphin" Aïme Péladan (1859-1918)
Emile Dantinne (1883-1969) / Gary de Lacroze / Count Antoine de la
Rochefoucauld (1891-??)
AND
Count Alessandro Cagliostro (Joseph Balsamo) (1743-1795)
Baron de Sangro, father of
Prince Balbiani de Palermo(1761-1840)
Charles de Paravey (1787-1871)
Viscount Louis Charles Edouard de Lapasse (1792-1867)
Jean Baptiste Gaston Gabriel Marie Louis Lacoste, Baron de Belcastel
(born in Toulouse on 26th October, 1821-1890)
Joseph de Belcastel (1860-1942) (and not Clovis Lasalle, but maybe a
friend of his)
Harvey Spencer Lewis (1884-1939)
My opinion about the rumour that HSL had "admitted" to the FUDOSI that
his initiation was fake, is that it isnt true. FUDOSI was fetishistic
about lineages, since this was one of the criteria on authenticity for
them, distinguishing them from lots of other groups. On the contrary,
I think the Toulouse connection was the very reason that the somewhat
arrogant europeans accepted this somewhat superficial american into
their ranks, in the first place.
Whatever was claimed in the aftermath of FUDOSI between the RML and
Mallinger faction, is irrelevant. Hieronymous was out of the picture
by then, and bitterness tainted several of the members. There was lots
of rumours on either side. What matters is what happened between
Hieronymous and HSL, and what they believed.
Put yourself in HSLs shoes.You have an initiation from Toulouse, but
disconnected from the source. You need credit from abroad in order to
get your project up and running at home. You settle with other
"rosicrucian" conenctions through the years, but change them out since
you are not pleased knowing they are very different from what you
really got involved in originally. Finally one day, lo and behold -
you learn about another branch from Toulouse, most likely of the same
lineage (I know you disagree with this Gary) - its christmas!
No wonder HSL rushed in his move from Tranker and Pansophia to
Hiernoymous and FUDOSI.
Just a vivid sequence in my minds eye.
Sincerely,
Al
Sid
Good to see some more 'history' again, thanks.
On 7 Apr., 08:21, gls <g...@blackland.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 04:07:18 -0700 (PDT), Ben Scaro
>
>
> <bsc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> In my opinion, I'm not so sure it was a step forward. It is in the
> >I take it you mean AMORC today is then not the AMORC of old that
> >dismissed everything else as 'inauthentic' ? Or are they worried
> >about potential smears were some of HSL's 1909 associations to become
> >better known?
>
> In my thinking, the amorc of today is perpetuating the same position
> that the amorc of yesterday took. That being, to apologise for its
> existence. And yes, they (both) are/were worried about potentiial
> smears because they can't reconcile their own mysticism. AMORC
> professes to teach the inner contact, the inner life, but they behave
> as if they don't believe such is possible by apologising for their
> existence. They're afraid to admit that the ultimate authority came in
> a dream (by "dream" here, I'm meaning "inner contact"). What does the
> fama say? Once a year the R+C meet in the House of Spiritus Sancti.
> That is an inner contact. AMORC needs to make a decision. Either they
> will be a mystical order or a charitable/fraternal order.
>
>
The meeting takes place on the 'Day C'.
'C' is the Roman numeral for the number 100
In one of the drawings in the Naometria you will find that the numbers
on the stones add up to the number 100 and form a cross 'above' and
'below' i.e.,
The 4 stones 'above' total = 48 triangulated = 1176
The 4 stones 'below' total = 52 triangulated = 1378
-----
100
Could this mean that the 'day C' is any day that the Temple above/
below is in sync?
In another drawing which I call the 'clock of God', the numbers on the
24 hour 'clock' in each corner (Homo 1, Bos 2, Aguila 3, Leo 4 i.e.,
4+10+16+22 = 52; also add up to the number 52/52°°°= 1378. When both
drawings are looked at together you will see that the foundation
stones upon which the Temple is built also total 52. Each corner stone
12,24,48,72 = 156 which is 3 x 52.
The Latin word SALVE meaning "Be Ye well" (welcome/greetings) also
adds up to the number 52 when using the numerical sequence of
Studion's index. The only person I know who is greeted 3 times is
Hermes Trismegistos. Could this be the arrival of Hermes in Europe as
CRC? Not just the greeting on the 3 points of the triangle but that
the greeting is the triangle?
The year of the birth of CRC is a simple mathematical formula hidden
within the clock of 24 hours i.e., see the names of the 12 sons of
Joseph and the 12 sons of Jakob on the 'clock of God' i.e., a bit like
a 'zip' when opened. The same numbers when added together will give
you 156 which is the Temple, and the same numbers when triangulated =
1378.
Interestingly, each hour of the clock is 90 years i.e., 24 x 90 = 2160
= one cycle of the sign of the zodiac. Here you will find the 108/216
cycle. 20 x 108 = 2160. You can build a Tetrahedron with 20 table
tennis balls. The 'clock' is anticlocwise because it is astrological/
astronomical.
Best I can do for now.
Sid
>Regards
>
> >Ben
>
> best
>
> gls
Ben Scaro
We seem to be firming up around some link between Reuss and Lewis much
earlier than I was aware of, whatever AMORC wants to allege.
On the links between Mary Banks (I think it's time to start calling
her that) and Crowley . . .
I wonder if it wasn't a simple case of Lewis meeting Crowley, but
rightly surmising that turning up to a roomful of Blue Masons with AC
in tow would have been instant suicide for his esoteric career.
To get around this, maybe he borrowed documents from Crowley,
presumably signed by Reuss, and enlisted Mary Banks (who may have had
some air of grandeur) to furnish them to the assembled gathering.
Vanloo himself asks the question - what was it Lewis had in 1915 that
swayed the gathering that he didn't have in his earlier failed attempt
to found AMORC 1913-14?
On this interpretation, given Mary Banks was not part of the whole
scheme, just a friend of Lewis helping him out, it would explain the
absence of her signature on the Pronunziamento No.1.
After all, if she was only there to convey documents and look
impressive, and given that as much as she liked Lewis, she probably
knew her young friend was prone to telling tall stories (!) she might
have been wary of putting her signature to anything.
Any thoughts ?
Ben
fr_me...@yahoo.co.uk
I agree, society have evolved sufficiently to grant her a full
independent name 8-)
As to your theory, that's a plausible as anything else. I like it :)
An additional reason for her not contributing to the founding charter
is that she was perceived to be "above" HSL in the hierarchy, and a
representative of the "old school" (previous cycle) if not also
another "jurisdiction" (the orient). It could be troublesome for HSL
to be the top dog with full control, which obviously was a priority
early on due to all the problems, if she was completely on board in
AMORC. That would have challanged his authority plus it would have
given doubters, usurpers and what have you, direct access to one of
the mysterious sources. So perhaps it was never an issue for him
either to include her like that. Obviously it was adequate to spread
her stardust and thats that. So why wouldn't it be intentional?
As for dragging aunt Alice along to the meeting in NY - was he really
that famous already back then? Was this after the tabloid smearing him
as the worlds most evil man (we may laugh about this now, but we
haven't evolved that much considering he pro Iraq invasion media
campaign on Saddam Hussein). I'm to lazy to check that out myself,
right now.
Sincerely,
Al :)
fr_me...@yahoo.co.uk
Sid,
Good to see more "substance" again. History is fun, but its not what
the Work is about, so thanks for this interesting contribution. I
learned something new, and numbers are one of my favourite teabags :)
Sincerely,
Al :)
gls
On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 23:05:02 -0700 (PDT), fr_me...@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:
<snip>
>> topics, is the reference mentioned by Crowley in his diary or
>> confessions? And are you talking about the "grand old lady" comment or
>> something else? The page numbers in the footnotes listed by Vanloo do
>
>I also spoke from memory, so I should clarify: I was referring to
>Vanloo speculating in his article about who the lady in Crowleys
>confessions was. He seems to think it could have been May. It's
>probably impossible to verify, and it is a long shot, but it would be
>funny if it was. On the other hand, NY didnt have a shortage of old
>tea-drinking theosophy ladies.
At this point, I don't know and wouldn't want to venture a guess. I'm
going to think on it a bit ...
<snip>
>I know you reject AMORCs Lasalle allegations, and this is one of the
>few points where we differ. I am inclined to accept this as plausible,
>because Lewis himself named Lasalle as an important connection. Lewis
>does not claim to have been initiated by Lasalle, we both know who did
>that, only that he associated with him when over there. Since Clovis
>Lasalle indeed was a member of the THE SAME archeological group that
>hosted Lapasse (the initiator of the Peladan lineage to Hieronymous),
>it is not far fetched that he was the same Lasalle Rosicrucian HSL met
>in Toulouse in 1908.
Yes, I disagree ... not necessarily that Clovis Lasalle was involved,
but because Clovis Lasalle is *not* the Lasalle referenced by Lewis.
For amorc to argue that he is would be to contradict what hsl wrote
about his initiation as well as what his son wrote in his father's
biography.
In the Manifestos, hsl says nothing about being instructed to meet
with a photographer upon his arrival to Toulouse. Where the
photographer is introduced is in Cosmic Mission Fulfilled and, I
believe, A Pilgrim's Journey to the East. What is said in those
accounts is that hsl is to meet the eminent photographer M___ (no
other name or initial is mentioned). He (hsl) also describes that the
photographer spoke no English and when the man saw the hsl wasn't
understanding what was being said in French, the photographer resorted
to communication through writing. Naturally, as you said, Lasalle was
not the initiator.
Of the initiation's aftermath, hsl writes in the manifestoes: The man
who acted as Chairman of the meeting -- and really assumed the
Mastership of the ceremonies, was Lasalle. I met him twice after this
occasion, and found him to be a very kindly and truly lovable mystic
who seemed to be waiting for the Great Adventure - the Crossing of
the Mundane Threshold. It was he who spoke in fair English.
The first time hsl meets Lasalle was immediately *after* the
initiation and the man speaks English. HSL met the photographer
*prior* to the initiation at a different location and the man speaks
no English ... Lasalle and the photographer cannot be the same person
if we are to believe hsl's account. By amorc saying they *are* the
same person, they must necessarily contradict hsl's account.
>I have not seen any evidence that Lasalle knew Papus, so your argument
>here seems to be invalid.
I didn't mean to imply that if hsl and clovis lasalle had met, then
hsl would necessarily have to be connected with Papus. My point was
that Lasalle, because of his R+C connections, would have most
certainly *known* about Papus and the number of lodges and members in
Paris. If I was Lasalle and someone came to me saying they were
looking for Rosicrucians, the first thing I would've asked was "have
you been in contact with the folks up in Paris"? In that hsl writes he
never even heard of Papus until years later tends to make me wonder
how he could have missed that connection ... but, as you say, it's
quite possible the subject never came up, but to my thinking, it's odd
that it didn't.
<snip>
>What are the odds for there being TWO Lasalles in Toulouse at that
>time who both were Rosicrucians, photographers and knew RBL.
There were, as I understand, a lot of Lasalles in Toulouse, but I
still think trying to connect the photographer dot to the lasalle dot
isn't going to make a straight line. With that said, though, assuming
RBL came out of the LaPasse tradition, it would be reasonable to
believe that Lasalle may have been involved or at least knew about
what was going on. I certainly have no objections to that possibility.
However, one would think he would have some words to say about it as
well, but my understanding is that he is silent about it ... but, to
be honest, I dug very little in that area.
>In fact, given that Christian Bernard/Rebisse makes a great effort to
>emphasize the links to Papus, Jollivet-Castelot, Chaboseau, Peladan,
>et al, and given that he is ok with name-dropping Lasalle, it is
>strange that they completely ignore the RBL relation which is the most
>essential of Lewis initiation. In fact, its strange that they mention
>Lasalle at all.
Yes, that seems pretty strange to me, too ... thus the birth of my
opinion of hedging into an "obscure" initiatic link. It seems to me
the other shoe hasn't dropped yet and we can expect a new historical
find sometime in the future.
>> ...Keeping in mind Reuss' full name was
>> Karl Albert Theodore Reuss, it's very conceivable that Reuss went by
>> the name of Albert at times.
>
>Yes, he was known for posing under different versions of his name,
>apparently because he acted as a spy/informer (probably a desperate
>move to earn money).
>
>This probability is enforced by HSL also using the name Albert when
>portraying him in The White Book.
I had completely forgotten about that and here my life would've been
so much easier had I remembered ... thanks al ...
>> prior to 1921. And the address on most of those letters was also the
>> Hamburg America Shipping Line. Theodore Reuss *was* on the SS Amerika
>> with hsl and his friend; hsl did disembark the ship in Southhampton
>> and was in England for several days before continuing on to France.
>
>Which is where he first met with another fellow related to all of
>this, right?
I've been thinking yes for quite some time now.
<snip>
>> authority. As to the original, I saw it in the amorc archives in 1983
>> and I remember wondering why "o.t.o." was in the box.
>Why did you wonder? You were already aware of the links to Reuss and
>Crowley.
Wondering in a different way ...
>> There was also a comment made by Peter Koenig stating that the letters
>> between Crowley and Lewis were no longer in the amorc archives.
>
>That's what they told him.
They might have been telling the truth as there was a lot of rifiling
of paper, robes, swords, rings, etc during the first few days of the
confusion. But by 1990 the letters that were in the files were pretty
uninteresting.
>> true though, that a lot of the files were stolen over the years. Curt
>> Warren (who owned the security company amorc contracted) told me he
>> had taken a number of files over the years. ... so if more went
>> missing, I'm not surprised
>
>We can only hope he published them.
I seriously doubt he will.
> Since he is one of those who fell
>out of the SGL during the post-Stewart purge,
He wasn't in the SGL. His friend Russeff and later, Thompson (if I
have his name right) was, however.
> he have no reason to
>keep them secret. In fact, since he is interested in AMORC history (he
>wrote some articles for the Rosicrucian Chronicles, among else
>speculating upon the Lewis initiation) he should realize he can earn
>money by publishing them.
He knows he might end up with a jail sentence, too. His partner in the
security business was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to prison for
armed bank robbery (10 years worth of robberies) and the police had
good reason to believe Curt was involved. When they searched his
partner's home, they found a number of stolen objects from amorc
including a large meterorite that was once on display in the
planetarium and reported stolen. My sources told me that when the
partner was arrested, a lot of amorc paperwork found itself being
transfered from home to a different storage location before leaving
the state.
<snip>
yes, and someone else besides me as well.
>
>Sincerely,
>Al :)
gls
gls
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 01:37:24 -0700 (PDT), fr_me...@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:
>Gary,
>
>Now that you have revealed the name of HSLs initiator, the cat is out
>of the bag. You asked me to keep it confidential 10 years ago (was it
>because you waited to see what the AMORC book had to say about it
>first?).
Not really although I must admit there was a part of me wondering what
they were going to do with all the pieces they had in front of them.
No, the reason was I wanted to release the info in the CR+C first --
which I did at the end of the ninth degree back in 2001.
>But since this is now public knowledge, we can arrange two interesting
>lineages from the Chain of Cagliostro:
>
>Count Alessandro Cagliostro (Joseph Balsamo) (1743-1795)
>Baron de Sangro, father of [a paralell lineage from here to A.A. in M-
>M]
>Prince Balbiani de Palermo (1761-1840)
>Charles de Paravey (1787-1871)
>Viscount Louis Charles Edouard de Lapasse (1792-1867)
>Eugčne Aroux (1793-1859) / Paul Lacuria (1806-1890) / Simon Brugal
>(Firmin Boissin) (1835-1893)
>Dr. Adrien Péladan (1844-1885)
>Joseph "Joséphin" Aļme Péladan (1859-1918)
>Emile Dantinne (1883-1969) / Gary de Lacroze / Count Antoine de la
>Rochefoucauld (1891-??)
>
>AND
>
>Count Alessandro Cagliostro (Joseph Balsamo) (1743-1795)
>Baron de Sangro, father of
>Prince Balbiani de Palermo(1761-1840)
>Charles de Paravey (1787-1871)
>Viscount Louis Charles Edouard de Lapasse (1792-1867)
>Jean Baptiste Gaston Gabriel Marie Louis Lacoste, Baron de Belcastel
>(born in Toulouse on 26th October, 1821-1890)
>Joseph de Belcastel (1860-1942) (and not Clovis Lasalle, but maybe a
>friend of his)
>Harvey Spencer Lewis (1884-1939)
Under this lineage it would be very reasonable to think Clovis Lasalle
and Joseph de Belcastel were acquainted. I think what is needed now,
if one wants to show a physical lineage, is documentation connecting
the Viscount with the Baron. I don't think it will be too hard of a
task.
>
>My opinion about the rumour that HSL had "admitted" to the FUDOSI that
>his initiation was fake, is that it isnt true.
That's my opinion as well considering the timing the rumor was
released and who it was released to.
<snip>
>Put yourself in HSLs shoes.You have an initiation from Toulouse, but
>disconnected from the source. You need credit from abroad in order to
>get your project up and running at home. You settle with other
>"rosicrucian" conenctions through the years, but change them out since
>you are not pleased knowing they are very different from what you
>really got involved in originally. Finally one day, lo and behold -
>you learn about another branch from Toulouse, most likely of the same
>lineage (I know you disagree with this Gary)
only insofar that the photographer was clovis lasalle and that clovis
lasalle was the grandmaster as hsl's biographer put it.
> - its christmas!
a number times over, I think ...
>
>No wonder HSL rushed in his move from Tranker and Pansophia to
>Hiernoymous and FUDOSI.
Well ... another can of worms ... how much of the FUDOSI was hsl's
doing? I think much more than is being admitted ...
>Just a vivid sequence in my minds eye.
>
>Sincerely,
>Al
best
gls
Ben Scaro
>
> Now, who he advised hsl to meet while in france, I don't know and we
> have to rely upon what hsl wrote for that. Ultimately, he ended up
> meeting two people (one initiatically, the other physically) in
> Toulouse. I've posted this information here before, in 2005 I think,
> but after correspondance with the city in 1983, we located Joseph de
> Belcastel (1860-1942) and his uncle, Jean Baptiste Gaston Gabriel
> Marie Louis Lacoste, Baron de Belcastel (1821-1890). But it's hsl's
> description of these individuals in his manifesto that we find that
> the above two are who he was referring to (only he put the uncle's
> birth at 1831 and didn't mention he was already dead by 1909. But it
> was in the dream hsl had where his presence was important. Also of
> interest, which further adds credence in my opinion, is that there was
> a niece involved as well referenced both by hsl and the history of the
> family, who disappeared during the first war.
Ben:
Hi Gary, What do we know about the niece and her role ?
> In my thinking, the amorc of today is perpetuating the same position
> that the amorc of yesterday took. That being, to apologise for its
> existence. And yes, they (both) are/were worried about potentiial
> smears because they can't reconcile their own mysticism. AMORC
> professes to teach the inner contact, the inner life, but they behave
> as if they don't believe such is possible by apologising for their
> existence. They're afraid to admit that the ultimate authority came in
> a dream (by "dream" here, I'm meaning "inner contact"). What does the
> fama say? Once a year the R+C meet in the House of Spiritus Sancti.
> That is an inner contact. AMORC needs to make a decision. Either they
> will be a mystical order or a charitable/fraternal order.
Doesn't part of that incongruity stem from HSL's approach himself?
While we can debate the extent of it, it seems he spent at least a
little time after 1909 trying to ensure he could furnish something of
the nature of the founding document for a fraternal order.
At least that's the way I interpret things like the Toulouse 'charter'
and while I don't know, I assume Vanloo is right and that he told the
assembled group in 1915 that he'd get something concrete on paper from
the OTO.
With hindsight, he was probably damn lucky he didn't, but that's
another issue, LOL.
Cromwell Stacey's exploits seem to have been noteworthy:
I believe from the second one, he was in the PI from 1899-1914.
Regards, Ben
fr_me...@yahoo.co.uk
> Yes, I disagree ... not necessarily that Clovis Lasalle was involved,
> but because Clovis Lasalle is *not* the Lasalle referenced by Lewis.
Ah, but what if its the other way around - what if he IS the lasalle
referenced as lasalle, but not as the photographer. If he was in the
same circle as the photographer, they could share interests, perhaps
even met that way. Only, Lewis wouldn't have much reference to the
photographer since he didnt speak english, which makes his
identification with his occupation (or hobby, or what he came out as
to Lewis) stronger. Whereas Lasalle was easier to regard as a person
since they communicated. Anyway, we only have amorcs word that clovis
lasalle was into photography right? Im not disputing this, i just dont
remember, and if they are trying to force a connection deliberately,
thats unethical, which means that "painting" on the truth won't be
much difference. But it should be verifiable to find out whether
Lasalle was a photographer or not.
I tend to concure with you that Lasalle was probably not the
photographer but rather the lasalle of Lewis account. If the met only
twice, I dont think the first subject would be Papus. Besides, another
reasonable explenation of why the paris bohemians wasnt mentioned is
that Lasalle didnt have high thouight of them (if he knew them at
all). These guys are the old aristochracy, with noble titles like
counts and barons. They are bound to be somewhat snobbish. Clovis
Lasalle lived 1864-1937 and therefore was not approaching death by old
age, at the time he met lewis. But lewis doesnt say the expectation of
death is connected to age. In fact, if lasalle was expecting to die,
it is more likely to be of a diagnosis (which he apperantly survived,
given it is the same person). Because you just dont know if it is of
natural expiration. And if he was so old that he was dying, it is
doubtful he would be an active translator for Lewis. But this is all
just speculation, of course.
> if we are to believe hsl's account. By amorc saying they *are* the
> same person, they must necessarily contradict hsl's account.
Im glad you clarified your point. I havnt consulted the pilgrimage and
the other source in a long time. I remember first having read about
lasalle in the RC Q&A, but had forgotten this point about the
photographer. So you are right, we cant have it both ways. But he has
to be one of the 2. Occams razor tells me Lewis is right and lasalle
is lasalle and the photographer is M.
> Paris. If I was Lasalle and someone came to me saying they were
> looking for Rosicrucians, the first thing I would've asked was "have
> you been in contact with the folks up in Paris"?
Unless they were impostors and a kindergarten to him. Certainly they
operated at a much higher level of publicity and organization, then
these fragmented, quiet chaps did.
> >What are the odds for there being TWO Lasalles in Toulouse at that
> >time who both were Rosicrucians, photographers and knew RBL.
> There were, as I understand, a lot of Lasalles in Toulouse,
Yes, and if our Lasalle was a local he had his family. This means
Clovis could be the son of Lewis' lasalle for instance. Its quite
possible. But Clovis is bound to be associated with these people in
some way. Such a small group as those Rosicrucians were, there
wouldn't be many rosicrucian lasalles.
> still think trying to connect the photographer dot to the lasalle dot
> isn't going to make a straight line.
Agreed.
> RBL came out of the LaPasse tradition,
I guess we dont have to call him raynaud belcastel-ligne anymore.
> it would be reasonable to
> believe that Lasalle may have been involved or at least knew about
> what was going on. I
Now we agree.
>certainly have no objections to that possibility.
> However, one would think he would have some words to say about it as
> well, but my understanding is that he is silent about it ...
Who would have what to say about what? Lasalle would have talked about
Lapasse to Lewis, you mean?
> > Since he is one of those who fell
> >out of the SGL during the post-Stewart purge,
> He wasn't in the SGL. His friend Russeff and later, Thompson (if I
> have his name right) was, however.
Ah, you picked up on it: I confused him with Warren Russef.
> Under this lineage it would be very reasonable to think Clovis Lasalle
> and Joseph de Belcastel were acquainted. I think what is needed now,
> if one wants to show a physical lineage, is documentation connecting
> the Viscount with the Baron. I don't think it will be too hard of a
> task.
You're right. Clovis and Belcastel Jr. lived pretty much during the
same lifespan.
Now, the Barons of the Belcastles are bound to have known the Viscount
Lapasses. If anyone shared anything, it was these folks. Nobility in
the same area, delving into rosicrucianism, associating themselves in
the midi archaeological (smokescreen) circle. The world isnt THAT big,
after all :) Either the lineage is identical or they are intertwined
(same source).
> >you learn about another branch from Toulouse, most likely of the same
> >lineage (I know you disagree with this Gary)
> only insofar that the photographer was clovis lasalle and that clovis
> lasalle was the grandmaster as hsl's biographer put it.
Then thats settled. Verification will have the last word, though.
> >No wonder HSL rushed in his move from Tranker and Pansophia to
> >Hiernoymous and FUDOSI.
> Well ... another can of worms ... how much of the FUDOSI was hsl's
> doing? I think much more than is being admitted ...
HSL was the physical contributor at least. He flushed the money in. In
return he got a closed circle with his past, and the perfect
"authorization". He had exaggerated his mandate, but FUDOSI would
certainly grant him the symbolic, spiritual and moral confirmation for
his dear child AMORC.
Sincerely,
Al :)
Ben Scaro
> Gary et al,
>
> > Yes, I disagree ... not necessarily that Clovis Lasalle was involved,
> > but because Clovis Lasalle is *not* the Lasalle referenced by Lewis.
>
> Ah, but what if its the other way around - what if he IS the lasalle
Dear Al, Gary
I'm sorry to sound like a dill, but could one of you two gentlemen
recap on this issue ?
I don't think I was in at the start on this debate about Lasalle -
probably it started before I ever took an interest - and am unsure of
what the issues are ? I take it there's some confusion about
Lasalle's identity ?
Best regards
Ben
Sid
> return he got a closed circle with his past, and the perfect
> "authorization". He had exaggerated his mandate, but FUDOSI would
> certainly grant him the symbolic, spiritual and moral confirmation for
> his dear child AMORC.
>
> Sincerely,
> Al :)
Ther are many thousands of' 'children' out there, each with their own
'history'.
Something for everyone I guess.
Sid
fr_me...@yahoo.co.uk
Sid, yes, today there are several grandchildren, notwithstanding :)
> I'm sorry to sound like a dill, but could one of you two gentlemen
> recap on this issue ?
Yes, I've been rambling on from memory without source checking. Very
bad. Did that now; RC Q&A + History, Confessio FRC, Whitebook D,
Cosmic Mission fulfilled, R+C Documents, Cro Maat, etc. I did not
check all the American RC, Digest, Mystic Triangle, etc. Its not that
important ;)
First a correction: Gary, what we remembered from the whitebook was
Reuss-Willsson, not Karl Reuss. My mixup was to the charter Reuss
issued, where he calls himself Albert Karl Theodor Reuss. Obviously A.
Reuss if you have to boil it down. What matters is not what Lewis
called him, but what he called himself.
As for Lasalle. I had completely forgotten that he was supposed to be
the master of ceremony. This means he was ritualistically involved
with Lewis, and that should explain why CB emphasizes Lasalle. Nowhere
does Lewis say that Lasalle actually initiated him - and he gives many
detailed descriptions in the Confessio. My last initiation was
conferred to me by a gentleman who did not conduct the very rite, but
appeared in the climax to transmit the power. So even in ceremonial
initiations, the conductor of the rite and the initiator need not be
the same person. Even less in Lewis case, since his real initiation
(the one he himself refers to) happened at night. My feeling is that
the reality of Lewis was that he was initiated ordinarily in the
ritual, but that the authority to establish AMORC US came to him at
night from the old count.
He seems to have met Lasalle at least 3 times. He calls him only Mr. L
in cosmic Mission, but we know its Lasalle when we compare the
descriptions in RCQ&A and Confessio. By the same reasoning, the
photographer, has to be someone whose name begins with M, since he is
referred to as Mr. M. But he doesn't seem to be all that important to
the process anyway.
I'd much rather find out who Professor X is, the antiquarian book
dealer in Paris who pointed him to Toulouse. Apparently a free mason,
but not a rosicrucian. Strange indeed that he didnt mention Papus &
co. I'd much rather expect the professor to mention them, than Lasalle
to do so.
Ben, the confusion here is as to what role Lasalle had, and if the
historic person Clovis Lasalle is the same Lasalle that Lewis mentions
or if he is "The photographer Mr. M" that lewis mentions. CB has
drummed Clovis Lasalle up to be both. As Gary says, thats a
contradiction if we are to believe Lewis own account, which is the
source.
But now I am going to dig up what CB actually claims about Lasalle,
because memory alone isn't sufficient nor fair to judge by.
Sincerley,
Al :)
gls
Just a quick note here as today is going to be a really busy day for
me, but:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 07:31:21 -0700 (PDT), fr_me...@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:
<snip>
>As for Lasalle. I had completely forgotten that he was supposed to be
>the master of ceremony. This means he was ritualistically involved
>with Lewis, and that should explain why CB emphasizes Lasalle.
According to the confessio, it reads: "The man who acted as Chairman
of the meeting -- and really assumed the Mastership of the ceremonies,
was Lasalle."
Lasalle first appears *after* the initiation (both parts) and chairs
the meeting. According to the confessio, he was not ritualistically
involved with hsl. According to hsl's account, the only "people"
involved was what first appeared as a light and then elongated to
reveal the personality that first appeard to hsl a year before in the
church experience he had; and the Count (Baron) who appears at the end
of the first part of hsl's inner journey who tells him to lie down and
go to sleep. After hsl fell asleep, the 2nd part continues and hsl is
led through the remaining experience by the personality (light
mentioned above).
> My last initiation was
>conferred to me by a gentleman who did not conduct the very rite, but
>appeared in the climax to transmit the power.
My main concern here ... Where did you find the above? It's not in the
confessio (at least in the original English). The initiation was over
by the time he met Lasalle.
<snip>
>Sincerely
>Al:)
best
gary
fr_me...@yahoo.co.uk
> >As for Lasalle. I had completely forgotten that he was supposed to be
> >the master of ceremony. This means he was ritualistically involved
> >with Lewis, and that should explain why CB emphasizes Lasalle.
> According to the confessio, it reads: "The man who acted as Chairman
> of the meeting -- and really assumed the Mastership of the ceremonies,
> was Lasalle."
> Lasalle first appears *after* the initiation (both parts) and chairs
> the meeting. According to the confessio, he was not ritualistically
> involved with hsl.
According to the conefessio and the RCQ&A and the Cosmic Mission he
was involved ritualisticly in that he was the conductor of the
ceremony. Not the initiation though.
>According to hsl's account, the only "people"
> involved was what first appeared as a light and then elongated to
> reveal the personality that first appeard to hsl a year before in the
> church experience he had; and the Count (Baron) who appears at the end
> of the first part of hsl's inner journey who tells him to lie down and
> go to sleep.
Yes, and leads him through the chambers over the different thresholds.
He has the function of psychopomp for HSL.
>After hsl fell asleep, the 2nd part continues and hsl is
> led through the remaining experience by the personality (light
> mentioned above).
Which is consistent with the incubating "hesychia" initiatory
experiences of the different "oulis"/"iatromantis" figures (healer
prophets) of the ancient world, such as Parmenides, Empedocles,
Pythagoras, etc.
> > My last initiation was
> >conferred to me by a gentleman who did not conduct the very rite, but
> >appeared in the climax to transmit the power.
> My main concern here ... Where did you find the above? It's not in the
My own experience ;) See, I was trying to make the point, without
distinguishing clearly that this sentence wasn't about HSL, that the
initiator transmitting the flow doesn't need to be the conductor of
the ritual.
In Lewis case, Belcastel Jr. is the physical initiator although the
true initiator is Belcastel Sr. - and Lasalle is a chap leading the
rituals and meetings he participated in. I get the feeling that
Lasalle was some sort of Lodge Master and that Belcastel was the
Secretary (he is referred to as that in RCQ&A).
Lets recap to the public sources where he shares details from the
initiation:
*Rosicrucian Questions & Answers with complete History
*Cosmic Mission Fulfilled
*Cro Maat
*Confessio FRC
*A Pilgrims Journey to the East
*Several articles in American Rosae Crucis, Mystic Triangle,
Rosicrucian Digest
In addition there is
*Oral relation from Imperator to Imperator
*The Ralph Lewis fond (allegedly containing HSLs notebooks, address
book, as well as correspondence between HSL and different related
persons, among else Clovis Lasalle).
The controversial point about Lasalle, which I agree with, is the
claim made by Christian Bernard that Clovis Lasalle is the mysterious
person he met in Capitols "Salle des illustres" (12.11.09 at 10.00
pm), the photographer Mr. M, who pointed him to Belcastel & co. It
does not fit with what HSL himselves claims, which is that this was Mr
M, whereas Lasalle was mr. L, whom he met several times during the
stay, but not prior to making contact. In fact, Lewis makes a point
about Lasalle being so fluently in English that his translator just
sat and relaxed with a drink in the sun all day, while they talked
directly. He would not have brought the translator had he already met
Lasalle, and it is also far fetched that they guy putting him in touch
with Belcastel & co would be the conductor of the rituals. If it was
Lasalle, he would just tell Lewis that he was himself a representative
of this Rosicrucian group.
It seems to me that Bernards researchers have cuffed up this person,
and because he was a well-known photographer as well as a member of
the Societe Archeologiqye du Midi, they assume (or pretends) that he
is identical with the photographer M. More likely, the photographer M
knew about this Rosicrucian group because he was a friend or colleague
of Lasalle, through photography. Im sure they have dug up the right
Lasalle, they've just put him into the wrong role.
As for the place of the initiation, it has to be the home of Baron
Belcastel, right outside Toulouse. But whereas Bernard confirms what
everybody knows, namely that the initiation didnt take place in the
Donjon of the Capitol, he also says that it is a matter of discretion
because his initiator demanded it (this has not only to do with
esoteric concerns, but also political reasons) to keep the specific
place and the identity of the involved confidential. He claims to know
these details himself and admits that a few others knows them. He also
alleges that Lewis took a snapshot of it and he has this photo (no,
not the photo of the Capitol Donjon).
The relationship with Reuss is hinted at, in that Lewis in a letter to
his wife explains that he has encountered in flesh the man he had seen
under his mystic experience the years before, and that this meeting
took place in the boat that brought him to France, and had led him to
getting in touch with the rosicrucians in paris. In Cosmic mission RML
says: "there were incidents on board the steamer (SS America) that
mystified Harvey at the time.".
Whether this was Reuss or not (which highly probable, because there is
no alternative explanation as to when they met, and Reuss was a man
with incredible many contacts), the "rosicrucians" in Paris must have
been the Masonic book dealer Lewis talks about. This professor of
languages at ------, Boulevard St. Germain (about 45 y), was not
perceived as a Rosicrucian by HSL. He didnt seem to want to help Lewis
either, until after he had proved himself to him. How did he do this?
By a few clues which can be interpretated as masonic. Pr. X was not
impressed with Lewis account of why he wanted to find the
Rosicrucians, and also he brushed aside his profane credentials. It
took the word seeking the Light/Lux which is essential in masonic
symbolism, as well as the piece of paper he had received on the boat
(which, if it was by Reuss, would probably be stuffed with masonic
insignia, title, symbols, etc). Yet, X didnt point him to Papus & co,
but sent him southwards.
Eventually he met the eminent photographer M in Toulouse. Nowhere is
he described as a rosicrucian, and this chap didnt even speak english,
so the communication was very limited. This is when they had to resort
to writing on paper (since HSL knew a little bit in writing). This
chap gave Lewis the right name and address.
Here the real cloak and dagger effects set in. In order to cover the
true whereabouts, he deliberately alters the story by identifying the
place with the Donjon (which he did visit earlier that day, but there
is a time gap) and that he went there for the initiation. Bernard
claims it is another Donjon, probably the tower of the Belcastels.
He doesnt mention meeting Lasalle until afterwards, because he goes
straight to the reception of the initiator, the mystic experience at
night, and only the day after things are back to normal with
socialising, dinner, ritual, etc. But since both mr. M and Clovis
Lasalle were famous photographers, it is very likely that it was via
Lasalle Lewis got to the Belcastel. This is just speculation, but it
is logic. It's doubtful Mr. M would know how to send him straight to
the sanctum sanctorum. Most likely he contacted Lasalle, who made the
arrangements of lodging Lewis in the Belcastel home (though they could
have done this by phone, so he needn't have met him until the day
after). Thats where he experiences the initiation at the late evening
of Tuesday 12.11.09.
This is all really nitpickings. But it is the different details that
animates the story so it becomes history.
Sincerely,
Al :)
Sid
> This is all really nitpickings. But it is the different details that
> animates the story so it becomes history.
>
> Sincerely,
> Al :)
Greetings Al,
May I ask if you are/were a member of AMORC/CR+C?
Thanks.
Sid
fr_me...@yahoo.co.uk
I don't like discussing myself in the public. You can mail me if you
like, and get all the answers. Everything we write here is written in
digital stone and never goes away.
Sincerely,
Al :)
Sid
That's ok Al. I was just wondering because most members of AMORC/CR+C
who have had some experience of group work in a Lodge would know the
task of The Conductor, and especially if they have witnessed some of
the initiations and have worked as an Officer in one of those
positions. This would not be the case if you or others were only Home
Sanctum members of the Order. I'm quite sure that HSL & RML were
writing for the member AND the public. I think that there is a
difference between information that is for the public, about the Order
and its history etc., and information that is for the student upon the
path and the initiate. This is not to say that they both have to
belong to the Order to understand and experience the transmission of
information through personal experience.
Best regards,
Sid
fr_me...@yahoo.co.uk
Good points.
I have copies of the AMORC rites and knows how they unfold physically.
But as to the subject, we have to consider the following:
Would the initiation rite of HSL be identical to that of AMORC?
And independent of this, what kind of initiation rite was it? Would it
be equal to free initiator? (AMORC does not practise that, the closest
is the Imperator instalment which is just a ceremonial for the
installation and not transmission of power. An exception is what
Stewart testifies to have received from Lewis, in which case the line
is broken in present AMORC).
Considering the different initiation rites that exist, and limiting it
to those that can be defined as "rosicrucians" (especially in a broad
sense), it would certainly open different possibilities.
A Conductor of the rite is technically speaking the person opening the
Temple, presenting the Tast/Work and closing it. In between there, it
is possible for another emeritus to enter the stage, to do a lecture,
meditation, initiation or whatever is the agenda. In AMORC too, that
has been practiced, for instance if a Grand Master visits a lodge, he
or she can enter in between and address the members.
But I do not think the rite HSL experienced was identical to AMORC
rites. I believe it would be closer to what Lapasse practised, and
perhaps also Peladan.
Another point is this: Did he receive any kind of initiation ritual at
all? Perhaps he only gathered in an ordinary Temple rite?
Maybe someone else can shed light on this. I dont have the answers.
gls
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 17:52:19 -0700 (PDT), fr_me...@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:
>Sid,
>
>Good points.
>
>I have copies of the AMORC rites and knows how they unfold physically.
>
>But as to the subject, we have to consider the following:
>
>Would the initiation rite of HSL be identical to that of AMORC?
Do you mean is the initiation rite hsl received to empower him to lead
the work of the R+C the same initiation rite used to pass the
tradition onto Ralph and then myself? If so, this is loosely referred
to as the imperator's initiation and isn't part of the amorc ritual
set. It is also separate from what you read in the Confessio as that
was hsl's initiation into Rosicrucianism in general and that
initiation was the basis for amorc's first degree initiation.
The so-called imperator's initiation is the passing on of a lineage in
the spirit of law 4 in the fama.
>And independent of this, what kind of initiation rite was it? Would it
>be equal to free initiator?
That's how I would describe it. It's not really the passing the mantle
of Imperator to another, but rather, the passing of a lineage from
which the individual serving as imperator derives to a successor so
that when that successor becomes imperator, he/she has a lineage
behind them.
> (AMORC does not practise that,
Not in the sense that the martinists do, but it's the same kind of
thing with passing the the R+C lineage. It's done prior to the
initiator dying.
> the closest
>is the Imperator instalment which is just a ceremonial for the
>installation and not transmission of power.
Correct regarding what the Imperator installation is. It was written
by Ralph so I was the first one to receive it. Neither ralph or hsl
had anything similar (outer ceremony). I understand christian didn't
use the ceremony ralph wrote but, as I understand it, used one written
by raab. Why he didn't use ralph's. I don't know. Maybe he realized
that receiving public recognition for something he never received
wasn't a good idea.
> An exception is what
>Stewart testifies to have received from Lewis, in which case the line
>is broken in present AMORC).
In lieu of what we've been posting here, I started wondering about
that. Christian has demonstrated that he can hijack a corporation and
twist it to meet his ends. But he can't hijack a lineage. Being that
he's apparently authorizing research to try and show that amorc was
legitimate insofar as initiatic lineage goes, it seems to me he's
opening a pandora's box for himself if he's thinking of trying to
include himself as part of that lineage.
<snip>
>But I do not think the rite HSL experienced was identical to AMORC
>rites. I believe it would be closer to what Lapasse practised, and
>perhaps also Peladan.
agreed.
>Another point is this: Did he receive any kind of initiation ritual at
>all? Perhaps he only gathered in an ordinary Temple rite?
These types of initiations aren't garnished with pomp and glory.
They're simple and effective designed to be done anywhere at anytime.
>Maybe someone else can shed light on this. I dont have the answers.
hope I helped ...
>
>Sincerely,
>Al :)
gls
gls
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 15:39:43 -0700 (PDT), Ben Scaro
<bsc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Hi Gary, What do we know about the niece and her role ?
First, hsl identified her as the baron's daughter, but we know she was
the niece. I don't know what her role was, if any. only that she
disappeared during the war. As I understand it she served as a nurse
but I may be mistaken.
>> In my thinking, the amorc of today is perpetuating the same position
>> that the amorc of yesterday took. That being, to apologise for its
>> existence. And yes, they (both) are/were worried about potentiial
>> smears because they can't reconcile their own mysticism. AMORC
>> professes to teach the inner contact, the inner life, but they behave
>> as if they don't believe such is possible by apologising for their
>> existence. They're afraid to admit that the ultimate authority came in
>> a dream (by "dream" here, I'm meaning "inner contact"). What does the
>> fama say? Once a year the R+C meet in the House of Spiritus Sancti.
>> That is an inner contact. AMORC needs to make a decision. Either they
>> will be a mystical order or a charitable/fraternal order.
>Doesn't part of that incongruity stem from HSL's approach himself?
I think sometimes folks will confuse (as in failing to differentiate)
hsl's public writings with his private writings. The former are often
made with many embellishments (i.e., in his confessio, Lasalle served
as a chairman of a meeting (master of ceremonies), but in his public
description Lasalle was a grand master -- which gives us an entirely
different conception of what went on. And in that sense, yes, I would
agree that much of the problem originated with hsl, which, over the
years the problem was compounded by amorc. In my opinion, he shouldn't
have written about it publicly except in the most simplest terms and
only to illustrate a point. If he simply said publicly he was
initiated in an esoteric way by the Baron and then told of his mission
by another R+C adept named Lasalle, and then elaborated in more detail
privately as he did in his confessio, we probably wouldn't be having
this problem now ... but that's just how I would've done it. I don't
profess to know why hsl chose to do it differently. He probably had
his reasons.
>While we can debate the extent of it, it seems he spent at least a
>little time after 1909 trying to ensure he could furnish something of
>the nature of the founding document for a fraternal order.
yes ... people were probably wanting something more concrete that they
could understand in a material way. That's probably one of the reasons
why rosicrucianism in its purest form remains as a loose knit
confederation of initiates and individual adepts of varying lineages
thereby avoiding the trappings of elaborate organizations, rites, and
the like. It seems ironic to me -- people seek the pure form of
rosicrucianism but choose to do so in elaborate settings. A big
contradiction in my book ...
>At least that's the way I interpret things like the Toulouse 'charter'
>and while I don't know, I assume Vanloo is right and that he told the
>assembled group in 1915 that he'd get something concrete on paper from
>the OTO.
I would think he may have said something that the OTO, or more
correctly, T Reuss helped him sort things out. But then, he may have
been under a veil of secrecy and couldn't mention those involved
names. I recall rml refused to identify Sar Hieronymous as Emile
Dantinne because he took an oath and promised to keep his identy
secret. Same type of thing perhaps -- considering the climate back
then.
>With hindsight, he was probably damn lucky he didn't, but that's
>another issue, LOL.
I don't know. He may have taken some heat back then by some people,
but I don't think there was really anything wrong with being
associated with the OTO (or any other esoteric order, lineage, etc) on
a friendly basis. But, he didn't and look at the heat generated over
the years ...
>
>Cromwell Stacey's exploits seem to have been noteworthy:
>
>http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9D0DE1D7173DE733A25752C1A96F9C946497D6CF&oref=slogin
>
>http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Re7Qon5MZq0C&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=cromwell+stacey+philippines&source=web&ots=OuwHrB88yI&sig=ExuTiAj3G5m_wei6i_LxdMa0Ago&hl=en#PPA118,M1
>
>I believe from the second one, he was in the PI from 1899-1914.
>
>Regards, Ben
>
best
gls
fr_me...@yahoo.co.uk
> >Would the initiation rite of HSL be identical to that of AMORC?
> Do you mean is the initiation rite hsl received to empower him to lead
> the work of the R+C the same initiation rite used to pass the
> tradition onto Ralph and then myself?
Yes. Thanks for clarifying. There is a tendency to read the current
customs retrospective, not taking heed for historical changes.
> If so, this is loosely referred
> to as the imperator's initiation and isn't part of the amorc ritual
> set. It is also separate from what you read in the Confessio as that
> was hsl's initiation into Rosicrucianism in general and that
> initiation was the basis for amorc's first degree initiation.
And so the question is where and when did he receive this Imperators
initiation?
> The so-called imperator's initiation is the passing on of a lineage in
> the spirit of law 4 in the fama.
Right. A spiritual transmission relating the egregore.
> >And independent of this, what kind of initiation rite was it? Would it
> >be equal to free initiator?
> That's how I would describe it. It's not really the passing the mantle
> of Imperator to another, but rather, the passing of a lineage from
> which the individual serving as imperator derives to a successor so
> that when that successor becomes imperator, he/she has a lineage
> behind them.
Which suggests that with such a free initiator ("Imperator") lineage,
one can be Imperator or not. An Imperator would then strictly speaking
be a function for the organization.
> > (AMORC does not practise that,
>> Not in the sense that the martinists do, but it's the same kind of
> thing with passing the the R+C lineage. It's done prior to the
> initiator dying.
And of course many other groups practise this, even in the near and
far orient. Even within gnostic and esoteric christian traditions.
> > the closest
> >is the Imperator instalment which is just a ceremonial for the
> >installation and not transmission of power.
> Correct regarding what the Imperator installation is. It was written
> by Ralph so I was the first one to receive it. Neither ralph or hsl
> had anything similar (outer ceremony).
Interesting that RML choose to mark it with an outer ceremony which
may be said to have mostly a symbolic value. Would you say he thus
tried to make a statement?
> I understand christian didn't
> use the ceremony ralph wrote but, as I understand it, used one written
> by raab. Why he didn't use ralph's. I don't know.
Perhaps due to the above statement issue?
>Maybe he realized
> that receiving public recognition for something he never received
> wasn't a good idea.
And there is that. Albeit why care about that when it didn't refrain
him from operating under the title of Imperator (as opposed to just
"chairman of the board").
> > An exception is what
> >Stewart testifies to have received from Lewis, in which case the line
> >is broken in present AMORC).
> In lieu of what we've been posting here, I started wondering about
> that.
Though for a while there was many rumours circulating that he sought
various initiations, and that he even received one from a certain Sar
Hieronymous (not the Dantinne one).
>Christian has demonstrated that he can hijack a corporation and
> twist it to meet his ends. But he can't hijack a lineage. Being that
> he's apparently authorizing research to try and show that amorc was
> legitimate insofar as initiatic lineage goes, it seems to me he's
> opening a pandora's box for himself if he's thinking of trying to
> include himself as part of that lineage.
It seems to me the effort is to regard the organization (whatever that
is and means) as the one with a "lineage" (history) and separating it
from the matter of an individuals role.
> <snip>
> >But I do not think the rite HSL experienced was identical to AMORC
> >rites. I believe it would be closer to what Lapasse practised, and
> >perhaps also Peladan.
> agreed.
And Dantine I would add.
> >Another point is this: Did he receive any kind of initiation ritual at
> >all? Perhaps he only gathered in an ordinary Temple rite?
> These types of initiations aren't garnished with pomp and glory.
> They're simple and effective designed to be done anywhere at anytime.
True. Many such lineages can in various traditions be passed on from
individual to individual, and sometimes completely void of any ritual
ceremonial (although there is still an element of rite, even if only
by a few words, gestures or what have you).
> >Maybe someone else can shed light on this. I dont have the answers.
> hope I helped ...
Sure, but we're not quite there yet ;)
Sincerely,
Al :)
fr_me...@yahoo.co.uk
Greetings,
> I think sometimes folks will confuse (as in failing to differentiate)
> hsl's public writings with his private writings.
It would be less confusion if there wasn't inconsistencies here. It
seems to me to be due to the sloppiness, as we psychologically tend
not to be as rigorous when acting in contemporary time as we expect
from our predecessors in history.In fact, we are not always aware of
living history. The incidents of 1990 debated in this forum
demonstrates that. Spontaneity and the lack of foresight often
complicates such matters.
>The former are often
> made with many embellishments (i.e., in his confessio, Lasalle served
> as a chairman of a meeting (master of ceremonies), but in his public
> description Lasalle was a grand master -- which gives us an entirely
> different conception of what went on. And in that sense, yes, I would
> agree that much of the problem originated with hsl, which, over the
> years the problem was compounded by amorc. In my opinion, he shouldn't
> have written about it publicly except in the most simplest terms and
> only to illustrate a point.
I'd say thats precisely what he did. Only he was either confusing
certain details, which may be due to a faulty recollection, hasty
sloppiness or perhaps even that his French wasn't good enough for him
to pick up on some details accurately.
>If he simply said publicly he was
> initiated in an esoteric way by the Baron and then told of his mission
> by another R+C adept named Lasalle,
Publicly he wasn't very much more forthcoming than this, only
slightly. Bits and pieces here and there that doesnt always match up
in mathematical precision to much later zealous scrutinizers like
ourselves :)
>and then elaborated in more detail
> privately as he did in his confessio, we probably wouldn't be having
> this problem now ... but that's just how I would've done it. I don't
> profess to know why hsl chose to do it differently. He probably had
> his reasons.
Ah, the benefit of hindsight ;)
> yes ... people were probably wanting something more concrete that they
> could understand in a material way. T
Good point. It reflects the nature of man.
> the like. It seems ironic to me -- people seek the pure form of
> rosicrucianism but choose to do so in elaborate settings. A big
> contradiction in my book ...
At a certain level we fail to recognize this contradiction. I believe
its a matter of spiritual maturity.
> I don't know. He may have taken some heat back then by some people,
> but I don't think there was really anything wrong with being
> associated with the OTO (or any other esoteric order, lineage, etc) on
> a friendly basis. But, he didn't and look at the heat generated over
> the years ...
This was before the internet and OTO wasn't nearly as (in)famous as it
is now, neither was Crowely. The former got back in the spotlight
after McMurtreys revival and the latter was also forgotten for a long
time after his death and until the hippie era (Beatles contributed to
this with inserting him on the hall of fame of the Sg. Pepper cover).
HSL had no problem with associating himself with either Reuss or
Tranker at certain periods and took some hear for it (as he did with
everyone he associated with). The reason he distanced himself from the
same people seems to have mostly to do with the matter of genuinity,
as the FUDOSI groups was closer to AMORCs tradition as previously
pointed out (maybe even identical lineages).
Perhaps Crowley became an exception to this during the 30ies, as there
indeed was a warning letter circulating in the FUDOSI against
associating with him, notwithstanding Crowleys attempts to "hijack"
AMORC or tap into their funds, as other researchers has made evident.
Too bad the entire letter correspondence is not publicly available, as
it would make for historically interesting reading.
Sincerely,
Al :)
Sid
As the triangulation of the number 100 is 5050, I was wondering if there is a possible between the Chemical Wedding text and the number 55 as in one of the riddles?
Sid
Travis T
> >> with hsl and his friend; hsl did disembark the ship in Southhampton
> >> and was in England for several days before continuing on to France.
> >
> >Which is where he first met with another fellow related to all of
> >this, right?
> I've been thinking yes for quite some time now.
It is amazing to think that within such a narrow time period that the following people were all within a short distance from each other. Lewis; Yarker; Westcott; Waite; Mathers; Crowley; Marie Corelli; Ella Wheeler Wilcox (she was on a small trip to London at the time). There was also another fellow from the GD who was working on his own Egyptian rituals that was looking to establish his own Order.
May I ask who this person may have been that Lewis met in England? (happy to be PM'd).