American 'Militiae Cruciferae Evangelicae'
teletourgos
turbulence of the Rosicrucian wars of the 1930s.
It reprints of the 1902 and 1903 manifestoes of the Militia Crucifera
Evangelica's American branch, these being called the 'American
Manifestoes'. It also reproduces certain sections of a 1905 history of
the group.
It is published c.1935 by the Clymer 'Rosicrucian Foundation' and
contrasts this history with a 1933 announcement by HS Lewis that the
MCE had been incorporated within AMORC and that AMORC contained the
only 'authentic' MCE in the USA.
This statement of Lewis is self-evidently false, and one must
uncharitably conclude, a deliberate lie.
This must be the case whatever Mr Lewis's or Clymer's intentions in
fighting over the MCE heritage were.
I am not the most sure of whether the Clymer group is linked to this
early American MCE, but plainly the intention is that one should think
so.
But one must needs be unsure; sectarianism is rarely the best soil for
growing the fruits of truth !
The name is given of a European connection of the American MCE with the
Count 'Quinotti', who is sometimes given as the initiator of Clymer
himself.
So, my question is: is the modern OMCE organisation a perpetuation of
the AMORC MCE [which one is to understand is not an 'order' in its own
right] or does it have links to the body that produced the 1902-1903
American Manifestoes ?
If so, did that American body have links to Clymer ?
Jean
Cathari
Please don't consider this the "definitive" answer, because in my
opinion, that can only truly come from GSL. However, I note a few days
have gone by, and he may not have seen your question. So, this is just
maybe "some" of the answer, and I hope, accurate even limited as my own
direct knowledge may be. I write of my own direct experience, however,
with writings of HSL, and as only a member of the OMCE today, etc.
teletourgos wrote:
....
>
> It is published c.1935 by the Clymer 'Rosicrucian Foundation' and
> contrasts this history with a 1933 announcement by HS Lewis that the
> MCE had been incorporated within AMORC and that AMORC contained the
> only 'authentic' MCE in the USA.
>
> This statement of Lewis is self-evidently false, and one must
> uncharitably conclude, a deliberate lie.
Harsh judgment, and I have a different view about this, for what it's
worth.
There is one point to pay good attention to, while remembering that
today we are not looking through the glass of the culture of 1933 in
America. The point is this regarding both the use of the generic name
"Rosicrucian" and the reference, "MCE" or "Militia Crucifera
Evangelica".
It is clear from anything I have read personally of Dr. Lewis,
particularly in the private monographs to members, including the White
Books, that the word "Rosicrucian" specifically as this one word (i.e.,
not Rosae Crucis, etc., etc.) and refs. to MCE and the Militia
Crucifera Evangelica, were legally in the U.S.--trademarks. I believe
they were legally registered under U.S. laws such that ONLY the AMORC
could use them to "authentically", in other words, identify these
specific organizations working as the Dr. H.S. Lewis Rosae Crucis
lineage.
So, I would personally have to see the exact quotes of anything Clymer
presented, or of the 1933 pamphlet put out by AMORC on the MCE, to have
any other conclusions about "making false claims." Perhaps someone
else who has studied the private and public communications of Dr.
Lewis--within the context of the entire, programmed system of
instruction--might have a different understanding.
Another point, related indirectly, is that in anything that I read of
Dr. Lewis' words, he had a genuine, responsible concern about
protecting the name "Rosicrucian" as a reference which could be easily
confused by the public, with other organizations using the name, but
which could be misunderstood under the headings of "evil, dark arts,
Black Magic," and so on. The interest was clearly as I understood it,
to be about specifically the "nature of AMORC" as opposed to others
claiming a Rosicrucian lineage, whether for better or worse as to the
nature of the others.
In reading the words of Dr. Lewis vs. the words of someone, Clymer or
others, it is very clear where the heart is in them, no matter what was
written--the heart of the expression says more than any facts presented
without benefit of the heart of the tradition carried.
>
....>
> But one must needs be unsure; sectarianism is rarely the best soil
for
> growing the fruits of truth !
Agreed! However, I don't think that Dr. Lewis' intention was about
sectarianism, but about being clear "who and what is a Rosicrucian"?
And, "Rosicrucian" then particularly, was an identy trademark symbol,
as much as it referred to the Rosicrucian movement of centuries, where
every intiate knows that the mode of spreading the teachings, was from
initiatic teachers to students, who became initiatic teachers of that
which they knew clearly which was the tradition as passed onto them by
teacher--so naturally, organizations of many different names, WERE and
indeed ARE "Rosicrucian" by any name, if true to the tradition. But in
1933 with the first "public organization" as AMORC was, it was part of
the package of presentation by Lewis.
I believe similar things are true of the "MCE"--and, who knows, perhaps
on MCE Clymer was much lacking as to actual initiatic lineage of the
specific tradition of the Militia Crucifera Evangelica, which is
carried today through the Russian lineage of Imperator Gary L. Stewart
in today's organization: *Order of the Militia Crucifera Evangelica
(OMCE)*--not because only of a name or tradmark, but because of the
lineage specific to that part of the western esoteric tradition. (YES!
He can say this much clearer and better than I or anyone else!!)
>
> The name is given of a European connection of the American MCE with
the
> Count 'Quinotti', who is sometimes given as the initiator of Clymer
> himself.
>
> So, my question is: is the modern OMCE organisation a perpetuation
of
> the AMORC MCE [which one is to understand is not an 'order' in its
own
> right] or does it have links to the body that produced the 1902-1903
> American Manifestoes ?
No, the OMCE is NOT a perpetuation of the AMORC related MCE, as I
attempted to explain. It is a re-establishment today, of the tradition
known in the 16th Century. And, of course, it is true that as it was
organized by Dr. Lewis and under Ralph M. Lewis, too, the MCE of AMORC
was clearly stated as being "an honorary" organization by invitation of
the Imperator only. That is stated in a public book by HSL, the RC Q&A
with History.
>
> If so, did that American body have links to Clymer ?
As I understand it, no, no links of MCE to Clymer personally with GSL,
just as GSL's lineage is not of HSL regarding the MCE tradition--both
Clymer and HSL may well indeed have had their own initiatic lineage to
the tradition, however, apart from GSL's through Russian initiators, as
he has put it himself.
>
> Jean
Cathari
Sid
teletourgos
>
> It is clear from anything I have read personally of Dr. Lewis,
> particularly in the private monographs to members, including the
White
> Books, that the word "Rosicrucian" specifically as this one word
(i.e.,
> not Rosae Crucis, etc., etc.) and refs. to MCE and the Militia
> Crucifera Evangelica, were legally in the U.S.--trademarks. I
believe
> they were legally registered under U.S. laws such that ONLY the AMORC
> could use them to "authentically", in other words, identify these
> specific organizations working as the Dr. H.S. Lewis Rosae Crucis
> lineage.
That, as far as I am aware, did not occur at all. In fact, rather the
opposite occurred.
Clymer actually won a court case where it was held that the word
'Rosicrucian' was generic and not reserved to the use of any one
organisation. This allowed him to register a corporation in
Pennsylvania with that name.
AMORC even say as much on their website, saying that the 'the word
"rosicrucian" is so old it cannot be trademarked, so other groups
cannot be prevented from using it.'
So it seems unlikely to me that we are speaking of a situation of
trademarks.
The claim is excised from 'Rosicrucian Digest' a public magazine. It
is a note surrounded by a border, so one may assume - initially at
least - that all matters relating to that announcement occur within
that bordered section of text.
I do not have 1933 copies of 'Rosicrucian Digest' to hand but will
endeavour to visit a library and check if I can.
I think a common sense interpretation of the article, in a public
magazine must infer that indeed the words 'Militia Crucifera
Evangelica' are being used in a general sense and not as a specific
copyright or trademarked term. There is no such caveat or note saying
that they are being referred to in this way.
If that was the intention, to use them as trademarked terms, then that
intention does not come across, and again we are faced with the problem
of a misleading statement.
>
> So, I would personally have to see the exact quotes of anything
Clymer
> presented, or of the 1933 pamphlet put out by AMORC on the MCE, to
have
> any other conclusions about "making false claims." Perhaps someone
> else who has studied the private and public communications of Dr.
> Lewis--within the context of the entire, programmed system of
> instruction--might have a different understanding.
For mine, this is an odd view, that one must have gone through Lewis's
entire sytem of instruction to examine his doings, at least those
doings which are evidenced in a publicly available magazine, from a
'historical' standpoint.
I think one may be a supporter or adherent and still come up with an
impartial view, but equally, the proper view of scholarship does not
discount outside views as being 'lesser' in any sense.
Indeed, if one were to prepare a paper for a research body, it may
rather diminish the credibility of a paper if one were to be an
adherent of the subject's system. For example, were I to write a
biography of Hitler after many years in the Nazi Party, I think
impartial observers would correctly be cautious !
>
> Another point, related indirectly, is that in anything that I read of
> Dr. Lewis' words, he had a genuine, responsible concern about
> protecting the name "Rosicrucian" as a reference which could be
easily
> confused by the public, with other organizations using the name, but
> which could be misunderstood under the headings of "evil, dark arts,
> Black Magic,"
He may have felt he had that responsiblity. But the sources are silent
on any impartial authority regarding Lewis as having had such a
capacity, outside the minds of he and his membership.
We've recently had such a misunderstanding about black magic on here,
which I must feel shows that it is most easy to misunderstand those
terms. So they are terms I am cautious of. And in some sense I feel
it best to avoid them totally.
Either in relation to Clymer's silly attacks on AMORC, and AMORC's
equally silly failed attacks on other systems over the years.
The 'heart of the expression' I have always understood to include - at
the very least - a commonsense interpretation of words as stated in
their context, without squinting and trying to import meanings that
aren't there. One may of course add material or seek another way of
understanding if a commonsense understanding cannot be reached. But
here that does not seem to be the situation.
In this context, the heart of this communication seems to be a
misrepresentation, when contrasted with the obvious existence of
another Militia Crucifera Evangelica which was a functioning order a
long time before Lewis's announcement.
If other properly sourced information were to come up which would allow
a different understanding, I would indeed be willing to consider it.
And I am not a wholesale apologist for the rant of Clymer, but on this
issue I think he may have had legitimate grievance.
I think also, from another source, that in relation to the Count Clymer
named, that this person was indeed the bearer of 'a' legitimate MCE
lineage, there being a few branches from which such a thing might be
derived.
As to the exact nature of that, I will leave it to those who know more.
Jean
Cathari
teletourgos wrote:
>
> If other properly sourced information were to come up which would
allow
> a different understanding, I would indeed be willing to consider it.
Judging from what I have seen of your tack here, I seriously doubt
"other properly sourced information" will be provided. Why? You are
not asking a "true" question here....
>
> And I am not a wholesale apologist for the rant of Clymer, but on
this
> issue I think he may have had legitimate grievance.
You are an apologist for "someone". I don't think Clymer had a
legitimate grievance on this point, although both he and Lewis made
some mistakes.
>
> I think also, from another source, that in relation to the Count
Clymer
> named, that this person was indeed the bearer of 'a' legitimate MCE
> lineage, there being a few branches from which such a thing might be
> derived.
Even if both Lewis and Clymer "knew" the Count, and maybe even studied
along the same lines, etc., it is irrelevant to this issue of their
personal squabbling. Again, I can only point you to direct writings of
Lewis, where you can draw your own conclusions. As for "scholarly"
histories, especially on the topic of esoteric, spiritual orders, Jean,
you would know as well as I that all through the centuries the
"scholars" have been equally guilty of misleading the masses, and today
we have suffered as a humanity for the lies and deceptions of the
histories written all through the time it has been recorded. So, it
makes no points with me to taut the "scholarly" approach when it comes
to esoteric matters--and what makes the tenor of a person which is seen
very clearly in the writing here and anywhere....
> As to the exact nature of that, I will leave it to those who know
more.
>
> Jean
Excellent if you had said only this and not the other trash comments
that only cause people not to want anything to do with anything you
have to say--now I understand what has been happening here while I've
been out of touch with alt.amorc. Please think about what I am saying
to you here, as I, too, am disappointed in you. But, it's something I
have to learn more about, and be able, as others, to simply go into the
silence.
Chao!
Cathari
gls
On 15 Mar 2005 06:12:51 -0800, "teletourgos" <telet...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
>I have just received an interesting pamphlet, no doubt thrown up by the
>turbulence of the Rosicrucian wars of the 1930s.
>
>It reprints of the 1902 and 1903 manifestoes of the Militia Crucifera
>Evangelica's American branch, these being called the 'American
>Manifestoes'. It also reproduces certain sections of a 1905 history of
>the group.
Even more interesting, in my opinion, is that the 1935 Clymer
reproduction leaves a lot out from the initial 1905 publication. I'll
get to this in a bit.
>It is published c.1935 by the Clymer 'Rosicrucian Foundation' and
>contrasts this history with a 1933 announcement by HS Lewis that the
>MCE had been incorporated within AMORC and that AMORC contained the
>only 'authentic' MCE in the USA.
>
>This statement of Lewis is self-evidently false, and one must
>uncharitably conclude, a deliberate lie.
Not necessarily. Quite frankly, I don't think either Clymer or Lewis
had even heard about this earlier Militia until Clymer discovered and
referenced the book in 1935.
The book referred to is a 1905 publication entitled "The Order Militia
Crucifera Evangelica" by Count St. Vincent. The work represents an
obscure Order that existed from 1902 to 1906. On the title page of
that book is a symbol often related to Rosicrucianism and which
appears on a number of 17th century manuscripts -- most notably those
of Andrea's.
Clymer argues that on the basis of his publication "The Initiates, A
Rosicrucian Magazine" Vol. 1 April, 1908, where that symbol referred
to above appears as one of seven symbols on that publication is
sufficient argument to prove that the earlier MCE was absorbed into
his organization. I see no real indication that such is true. Rather,
I see it as a convenience of argument used to sway an ongoing heated
debate. At varying times, both Lewis and Clymer can be said to spin
things in their favor if they could and I think this is one of
Clymer's spins.
This is a rather complicated issue that can quite easily drive
researchers mad at worst and bald at best, so I'm going to jump in and
try to give my opinion in a nutshell ...
I think the following scenario can quite easily apply to the formation
of any esoteric Order -- especially some of those formed in the 18th
and 19th centuries, but I'll limit my thoughts to the MCE.
Effectively, we have Arthur E. Waite who, in my opinion contributed to
esotercisim and esoteric history in precisely the same way that
Betrand Russell contributed to the history of philosophy and
relativity. They are both well educated, have excellent reputations,
are often referenced as a source, but are effectively worthless in
those fields when it comes to reliable and accurate information.
What I think happened is that after AE Waite published the "Real
History of the Rosicrucians", Count St. Vincent's 1902 group
latched onto that work and decided to create an Order based upon what
they thought to be accurate information contained therein. Clymer,
then, later latched onto St. Vincent's Order justifying his authority
based upon a symbol they both used but neither created.
The problem here is that Waite wrote (pg 213): "The only sect or
association with which the Rosicrucians may be pertinently compared,
and which we hear of before the year 1610, is the Militia Crucifera
Evangelica which assembled at Lunenburg in 1598 under the auspices of
the mystic and theosophist, Simon Studion. It's proceedings are
reported in an unprinted work from his pen entitled "Namoetria, ..."
Clymer writes in "The Rosicrucian Fraternity in America" vol. 1, page
93: "The first of these, the Lunenburg Manifesto of 1530, is of
particular interest ... the Second Manifesto of Lunenburg, issued 68
years later [1598], actually established the Militia as an Order ..."
Here, Clymer is actually referencing the 1905 book of Count St.
Vincent. What Clymer doesn't say in his pamphlet is what that 1905
book actually says.
"The Order Militia Crucifera Evangelica" by Count St. Vincent, page
15: "In the year 1527 a secret society was founded in Germany known as
the Militia Crucifera Evangelica. This Society or Fraternity owes its
existence to one Simon Studion ... Its first appearance was due to the
fact that Studion and three of his companions wanted religious liberty
...The society continued to be purley Mystical or Alchemical until the
year 1598, when the first Convention was held at Lunenburg, Germany,
after which period, it became both a Mystical and wholly secret Order
..."
At first, I thought the 1527 date was a possible typing error.
However, that date is referenced in the book on three separate
occasions.
The first problem here is that Simon Studion was born in 1543 and
couldn't possibly have created the MCE in 1527. This. Clymer avoids
saying in his pamphlet. However, the major problem is caused, not by
Count St. Vincent's error, but rather by AE Waite's shoddy research
and that is dating the formation of the MCE in 1598. In Waite's second
book on the subject, he properly dates the convention as being held in
1586. However, two Orders have already created their authenticity
based upon the earlier error.
HS Lewis, on the other hand, used Waite's second book on the subject,
the "Brotherhood of the Rosy Cross" and cited the information there as
his source and based AMORC's MCE as originating from a meeting held on
the proper date in 1586.
However, another very major Waite error that exists in both of his
books caused all three Orders to assume that the Militia Crucifera
Evangelica was founded as a result of that Lunenburg meeting
(regardless of the date it was held). The reason why that assumption
is made by waite, Clymer, St. Vincent, and Lewis is because none of
them, most particularly Waite, even bothered to look at the very
document originating from that meeting -- namely, the Naometria. Waite
mistates the name of the Convention as being: "Cruce Signatorum
Conventus" which implies that the order has already been established
or, rather, has been established during the Convention. Had Waite
actually looked at the Naometria, he would have noticed that the name
of the convention was: "Cruce Signandorum Conventus" (note the
difference between Signatorum/Signandorum) which means that the
formation of the Order will take place at a later time and therefore
did not take place at that meeting.
The bottom line is that the MCE was not formed on that date; did not
exist prior to that date; and there is no indication either in the
Naometria or elsewhere that it ever had been established. Rather, what
we have on the one hand are a lot of people speculating that it
existed while on the other, some people trying to legitimize their
ordial creations by refrencing those, unbeknowst to them, errors.
>This must be the case whatever Mr Lewis's or Clymer's intentions in
>fighting over the MCE heritage were.
>
>I am not the most sure of whether the Clymer group is linked to this
>early American MCE, but plainly the intention is that one should think
>so.
The only indication I can find is the duplication of a common 17th c.
Rosicrucian Symbol that appeared on the 1905 publication of Count St.
Vincent and the 1908 publication on the cover of Clymer's "The
Initiates". There may be a more reliable link, I don't know, but the
reliability of St. Vincent's claims would make me want to look
elsewhere.
However, as to the use of the name Militia Crucifera Evangelica, which
is really the issue of their concern, it appears that both AMORC and
Clymer started using the name around the same time -- circa 1927, 28
In vol 1 of the "Rosicrucian Fraternity in America" Clymer writes: "On
January 30th, 1934, the MCE registered its name in the State of
Pennsylvania for the first time in any State or Country thus
preempting the name from infringement." There appears to be a battle
of oneupmanship in the backdating department.
>
>But one must needs be unsure; sectarianism is rarely the best soil for
>growing the fruits of truth !
>
>The name is given of a European connection of the American MCE with the
>Count 'Quinotti', who is sometimes given as the initiator of Clymer
>himself.
Are you meaning Count St. Vincent?
>So, my question is: is the modern OMCE organisation a perpetuation of
>the AMORC MCE [which one is to understand is not an 'order' in its own
>right] or does it have links to the body that produced the 1902-1903
>American Manifestoes ?
Ok, this I can answer with absolute certainty without having to do a
lot of research. The OMCE is not connected to or a perpetuation of
either the AMORC MCE or the St. Vincent MCE. It was created by myself
in July, 1990. It does not claim to have any initiatic lineage to the
1586 Studion Convention, but rather, is formed in the spirit of that
Cruce Signandorum Conventus (notice I said "Signandorum"). It's
lineage is appropriately taken, in part, through my connection to two
lodges I was associated with in the early 70's. But basically, the
OMCE, it's rituals and teachings are primarily my creation. I do my
best to make that clear to anyone and everyone.
>If so, did that American body have links to Clymer ?
As I've said, I think the 1902 Order was independantly formed using
Waite as a source. I don't think there was a link, but I could be
mistaken ... however, just as a side bit I ran across today for the
first time as I was looking into this tmatter about the MCE, I noticed
on the Clymer Rosicrucian Organizations website that a member of their
World Council and Council of Three back in the 1800's was a person
named William Lloyd Garrison -- of whom I happen to be a direct
descendant on my mother's side. I wonder if that makes me ... no,
nevermind. I ain't about to go anywhere near that can of worms ...
>
>Jean
gls
gls
On 17 Mar 2005 07:02:05 -0800, "Cathari" <cat...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
<snip>
>It is clear from anything I have read personally of Dr. Lewis,
>particularly in the private monographs to members, including the White
>Books, that the word "Rosicrucian" specifically as this one word (i.e.,
>not Rosae Crucis, etc., etc.) and refs. to MCE and the Militia
>Crucifera Evangelica, were legally in the U.S.--trademarks. I believe
>they were legally registered under U.S. laws such that ONLY the AMORC
>could use them to "authentically", in other words, identify these
>specific organizations working as the Dr. H.S. Lewis Rosae Crucis
>lineage.
Pre-1990 AMORC had only two trademarks: "The Supreme Grand Lodge of
the Ancient and Mystical Order Rosae Crucis, Inc." and that one symbol
(seal) that could be found on the covers of some monographs and the
back of some editions of the Mastery of Life.
<snip>
>Another point, related indirectly, is that in anything that I read of
>Dr. Lewis' words, he had a genuine, responsible concern about
>protecting the name "Rosicrucian" as a reference which could be easily
>confused by the public, with other organizations using the name, but
>which could be misunderstood under the headings of "evil, dark arts,
>Black Magic," and so on. The interest was clearly as I understood it,
>to be about specifically the "nature of AMORC" as opposed to others
>claiming a Rosicrucian lineage, whether for better or worse as to the
>nature of the others.
I think we all need to open our eyes a bit here. I think Dr. Lewis was
a remarkable Rosicrucian and person. If I didn't, I wouldn't be doing
the CR+C. But when you get down to the bottom line, and this refers to
both Lewis and Clymer equally, that as a result of their infighting
that got out of hand, they both wanted to *protect* the name
"Rosicrucian" as being exclusive to their own Orders so as to let the
world know that only they were the true and legitimate Orders. That
attitude, in my opinion, is contrary to the Spirit of Rosicrucianism
as established by the 17th c. Manifestos and our very rules.
<snip>
>As I understand it, no, no links of MCE to Clymer personally with GSL,
>just as GSL's lineage is not of HSL regarding the MCE tradition--both
>Clymer and HSL may well indeed have had their own initiatic lineage to
>the tradition, however, apart from GSL's through Russian initiators, as
>he has put it himself.
Having been initiated into a Lodge in the early 70's by a person who
happened to be of Russian extraction does not necessarily mean that
the OMCE is of a Russian Lineage.
>Cathari
gls
gls
I'm butting in here between the exchange between yourself and Cathari:
On 18 Mar 2005 07:42:15 -0800, "teletourgos" <telet...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
>> It is clear from anything I have read personally of Dr. Lewis,
>> particularly in the private monographs to members, including the
>White
>> Books, that the word "Rosicrucian" specifically as this one word
>(i.e.,
>> not Rosae Crucis, etc., etc.) and refs. to MCE and the Militia
>> Crucifera Evangelica, were legally in the U.S.--trademarks. I
>believe
>> they were legally registered under U.S. laws such that ONLY the AMORC
>> could use them to "authentically", in other words, identify these
>> specific organizations working as the Dr. H.S. Lewis Rosae Crucis
>> lineage.
>
>
>That, as far as I am aware, did not occur at all. In fact, rather the
>opposite occurred.
>
>Clymer actually won a court case where it was held that the word
>'Rosicrucian' was generic and not reserved to the use of any one
>organisation. This allowed him to register a corporation in
>Pennsylvania with that name.
Can you cite the court case? My understanding is a little different.
As I understand it, on May 12, 1927, Clymer registered the name of
his corporation in the State of Pennsylvania as "Fraternity of the
Rosicrucians (Order of the Rose Cross)". He attached a book title
referencing the words "Fraternity of the Rosicrucians" that was filed
with the Library of Congress on the 4th of December, 1906 and a
certificate of copyright registration on February 28th and March 11th
1913 of the phrase "Knights of the Rose Cross". When trying to
wordmark or trademark something, you generally attach exhibits showing
the name you are trying to trademark has been in use by yourself.
In 1934, Clymer then tried to register the word marks: "Brotherhood
and Temple of the Rosy Cross", "Rosicrucian Brotherhood and Order",
and "The Fraternitatis Rosae Crucis" in the State of Pennsylvania. In
April, 1934, HSL filed an objection to the use of the phrases "Temple
of the Rosy Cross", "Rosicrucian Brotherhood", "Rosicrucian Order",
and "Brotherhood of the Rosy Cross". Notice that the names objected to
are different from Clymer's submission. HSL argued that the phrases he
was objecting to were long connected to Rosicrucian history; some of
which have been and were still in use by AMORC as early as 1916 and
1917 in the State of Pennsylvania.
On January 2, 1935, the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
overturned the objections of Lewis and gave Clymer's Order the use of
the phrases: "Rosicrucian Brotherhood and Order"; "The Brotherhood
and Temple of the Rosy Cross", and "The Fraternitas Rosae Crucis"
(which was the registered name since 1927). This was not done in
court, but rather through what would now be considered to be the
trademark and Patent Office. What it meant was that Clymer had
exclusive right to use those phrases *exactly* as he registered them
--- i.e. he could use "Rosicrucian Brotherhood and Order", but he had
no exclusive right to use "Rosicrucian Brotherhood" or "Rosicrucian
Order". He could use them if he wanted, but so could AMORC or anyone
else.
Effectively, what HSL did was to protect his use of such words as
Rosicrucian Temple, Rosicrucian Order, Rosicrucian Brotherhood, etc.
by arguing that they were generic useages and could not be copyrighted
by anyone. For them to be copyrighted by any one order, those generic
phrases had to be incorporated into a *specific* corporate use. In
otherwords, it was HSL that got certain words relating to
Rosicrucianism generically protected for general use. Not Clymer.
<snip>
>I think a common sense interpretation of the article, in a public
>magazine must infer that indeed the words 'Militia Crucifera
>Evangelica' are being used in a general sense and not as a specific
>copyright or trademarked term. There is no such caveat or note saying
>that they are being referred to in this way.
Perhaps of interest, in 1991 AMORC wordmarked the phrase "Militia
Crucifera Evangelica" In so doing, I cannot wordmark "Order of the
Militia Crucifera Evangelica" because of its similarity. However, I
can use it and have registered it as our corporate name because it is
different -- however, our Ordial name (true name or esoteric name, if
you will) is "Crvcem Sigillvm Militvm" and is trademarked on our two
seals. In the same vein, though, I wordmarked "O.M.C.E." which
disallows AMORC from wordmarking "M.C.E." -- but they can still use
it. It's funny and complicated -- the world of corporations and
trademarks. It's not as cut and dried as the Lewis/Clymer dispute
makes it seem.
<snip>
>I think one may be a supporter or adherent and still come up with an
>impartial view, but equally, the proper view of scholarship does not
>discount outside views as being 'lesser' in any sense.
Unfortunately, in practice, very few supporters are impartial and
scholarship does discount outside views (or more appropriately,
totally ignores them,) But I agree with you wholeheartedly. We on the
inside absolutely have to take an honest look at what it is that we
have done otherwise, we will never have any credibility. If we, as an
esoteric community, can establish our own integrity from within, then
it puts the ball in the academic court necessitating they clean up
their own houses or begin to look ridiculous.
>
>Indeed, if one were to prepare a paper for a research body, it may
>rather diminish the credibility of a paper if one were to be an
>adherent of the subject's system. For example, were I to write a
>biography of Hitler after many years in the Nazi Party, I think
>impartial observers would correctly be cautious !
But you would be the one I would go to if I wanted to find out about
Hitler because you would be representing the mindset of the Nazi
world. All I would have to have is the ability to discern between that
mindset and the perceived reality from the outside -- thereby allowing
me to formulate my own opinions.
<snip>
>In this context, the heart of this communication seems to be a
>misrepresentation, when contrasted with the obvious existence of
>another Militia Crucifera Evangelica which was a functioning order a
>long time before Lewis's announcement.
As I said in another post, I think it may have lasted ... maybe 6
years ... and nobody really knew anything about it until they tried to
prove their link to the past. I think Clymer's mistake was to jump too
quickly onto the bandwagon of that earlier Order perpetuating Waite's
shoddy research on the Order as being established in 1598 as a result
of a convention and St. Vincent's gem that the Order was first
organized by Studion in 1527 -- 16 years before his birth -- and
Clymer's, what I would term, rather convenient forgetting of that fact
when he re-published the earlier work in part. And Lewis ... well, he
relied on Waite, too and is still paying for it.
Just as a sidenote here ... we're talking about events that happened a
long time ago with people long gone. Even though I appear to be rather
critical of Clymer, I actually have a lot of respect for the present
generation of his Order. We have to measure this work we all do by
deeds, not words.
>If other properly sourced information were to come up which would allow
>a different understanding, I would indeed be willing to consider it.
well, I do have a different way at looking at things. Maybe you're
considering it. But, as always, what I write is just my opinion. The
actual truth could very easily be somewhere else.
>And I am not a wholesale apologist for the rant of Clymer, but on this
>issue I think he may have had legitimate grievance.
That turrned around and bit him on the dairy air (please excuse my
butchering of the French language with regards to this phrase -- just
an inside Belgian joke that goes back a long way)
>I think also, from another source, that in relation to the Count Clymer
>named, that this person was indeed the bearer of 'a' legitimate MCE
>lineage, there being a few branches from which such a thing might be
>derived.
I disagree for reasons stated.
>As to the exact nature of that, I will leave it to those who know more.
Unfortunately, in this field, it's not about knowing more, it's often
about taking too many liberties. We need to correct that ...
>
>Jean
gls
gls
On 18 Mar 2005 08:53:35 -0800, "Cathari" <cat...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>teletourgos wrote:
<snip>
>> As to the exact nature of that, I will leave it to those who know
>>more.
>>
>> Jean
>Excellent if you had said only this and not the other trash comments
>that only cause people not to want anything to do with anything you
>have to say--now I understand what has been happening here while I've
>been out of touch with alt.amorc. Please think about what I am saying
>to you here, as I, too, am disappointed in you. But, it's something I
>have to learn more about, and be able, as others, to simply go into the
>silence.
Sorry, I must be missing something. What trash comments did jean say?
>
>Chao!
>
>Cathari
gls
gls
<snip>
>As I understand it, no, no links of MCE to Clymer personally with GSL,
>just as GSL's lineage is not of HSL regarding the MCE tradition--both
>Clymer and HSL may well indeed have had their own initiatic lineage to
>the tradition, however, apart from GSL's through Russian initiators, as
>he has put it himself.
>Cathari
Incidentally ... who is "GSL"?
gls ...
Cathari
gls wrote:
> Hi Cathari;
> ....
> Sorry, I must be missing something. What trash comments did jean say?
> gls
Hi, Gary,
I think that Jean should know that I was not referring to her history
refs. but to "trashing" others, that is personal attacks to those who
have a different view from hers, however subtle it may be for
others--and I leave this at that.
But, I'm very glad you came online providing a wealth of properly
sourced information to add to her commentary. It is clear from your
very detailed response, that the delay was not because you did not see
Jean's commentary, but that you were preparing a complete, scholarly
and esoteric resourced response. I'm so glad!!
In the future, people especially including myself, should not
second-guess that either you didn't see a query or even that you are
potentially writing an entire thesis on anything asked/said here on
alt.amorc (although I do think truly it was not a true question in the
sense of "I really want to know" judging only from her own already
harsh judgment that Dr. Lewis must be lying, although you answered it
as a question, and I bow to your greater wisdom on that).
That my own response did not satisfy Jean is not my issue, as my view
being too much of a personal view for her to which I can only point to
my own experience--my issue is with her methods of personal attack and
personal insult as a weapon to shut down an opposing point of view.
However, that my response was too much based upon personal perception
for her (to which some of the things which you presented naturally do
indeed eliminate as erroneous in my thinking)--is why I suggested she
read more herself of what Dr. Lewis wrote himself and compare it with
what others have said about the same things. I do believe that that is
another facet to getting to the truth of "who did what to whom" as her
opening commentary was getting at in her statements "trashing Dr.
Lewis", which helps one to step aside from purely scholarly and
exoteric factors in the histories written.
So, Jean, too, was expressing her own perception, even though I do not
agree with it, especially with the harshness of it. Why can't we all
realize that even Imperators are human beings, who have a particular
level of evolution themselves that has some distance in varied
comparisons (only God knows...)--and no matter what ordial initiations
had, they are bound to have made errors and bad choices of actions
along the way. The greater "deeds" done for the greater purpose in
behalf of the evolution of humanity is what matters most, as I see it.
The squabbling is a distraction from sourcing the truth that presumably
anyone in the Orders are questing.
I wonder how many people realize that your scholarly experience
including your higher formal education, is specifically about
philosophy, and the esoteric history as you have sourced it personally.
It's a wealth of knowledge and understanding.
But the point of Jean's trashing comments is, in discussing these
things, personal attacks to not get a person what most likely is what
they really want to "know". She has a lot of knowledge about
histories, but the methods just don't make it with me. Obviously,
there is so much more for me to learn about dealing with this
phenomenon within the "esoteric, spiritual" stream, because certainly
my own personal reaction to such things does not make matters any
better either.
Oh--and as to my length and breadth of imperfection, too, such obvious,
blatant typos, because GSL certainly could not be a reference to, say,
a "Gary Lewis"--but it's so interesting, too, that over the past
decade, I have seen others "flub" and call you Lewis, and it is very
clearly a distinction that, "no, folks, he is not even a reincarnation
of Dr. H. Spencer Lewis"!!! I am aware of Dr. Lewis' distinct
failings, however, I do not broadcast them, but his humanity is
entirely separate, I believe, and we should respect the greater good
that he set out to do by his personal deeds in behalf of the
Rosicrucian movement.
Cathari
Cathari
gls wrote:
> Hi Cathari;
>
> On 17 Mar 2005 07:02:05 -0800, "Cathari" <cat...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >As I understand it, no, no links of MCE to Clymer personally with
GSL,
> >just as GSL's lineage is not of HSL regarding the MCE
tradition--both
> >Clymer and HSL may well indeed have had their own initiatic lineage
to
> >the tradition, however, apart from GSL's through Russian initiators,
as
> >he has put it himself.
>
> Having been initiated into a Lodge in the early 70's by a person who
> happened to be of Russian extraction does not necessarily mean that
> the OMCE is of a Russian Lineage.
> gls
Thanks. Yes--I did understand that distinction, but I didn't know if I
should make any references myself to the Lodges you have discussed. My
understanding has been that there was a great, great Rosicrucian
lineage in Russia that became part of the "Rosicrucian stream of the
western esoteric tradition", just as many other great spiritual
esoteric threads, too, joined with others of the same objectives and
purpose. It would not make those Lodges where you were a member in
your 20s, "AMORC Lodges" or even "OMCE Lodges", and it is my
understanding that your initiatic authority does come from the European
Lodges, just as you also have an initiatic authority from the Lewis
authority. Do I have this correct?
Cathari
gls
On 19 Mar 2005 06:13:43 -0800, "Cathari" <cat...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>gls wrote:
<snip>
>But, I'm very glad you came online providing a wealth of properly
>sourced information to add to her commentary. It is clear from your
>very detailed response, that the delay was not because you did not see
>Jean's commentary, but that you were preparing a complete, scholarly
>and esoteric resourced response. I'm so glad!!
I didn't see Jean's post until yesterday afternoon (Friday, March 18).
I had some work to do and then came back online yesterday night to
respond. As for the preparation of my response, I already knew what I
wanted to say and it took about 30 minutes to doublecheck my sources.
>In the future, people especially including myself, should not
>second-guess that either you didn't see a query or even that you are
>potentially writing an entire thesis on anything asked/said here on
>alt.amorc
Umm ... anyway, I would think it safe to assume that if I don't
respond to a post it is either because I didn't see it or that I chose
not to respond. And if it takes me time to respond, it doesn't
necessarily mean I preparing a response. I think such would apply to
anyone.
> (although I do think truly it was not a true question in the
>sense of "I really want to know" judging only from her own already
>harsh judgment that Dr. Lewis must be lying, although you answered it
>as a question, and I bow to your greater wisdom on that).
Sorry if my response came across as me answering a question. I saw
Jean's (I don't know his/her gender so I will avoid using one) comment
and took it at face value -- that being, an informed opinion drawing a
valid conclusion. I offered my opinion as a counter and drew an
equally valid conclusion (bearing in mind that a valid conclusion is
not dependant upon being true or false). *If* there was an intent to
trash Dr. Lewis, you, me, or anyone else on Jean's part, first, I
don't see it that way, and second, would it matter if that were the
case?
<snip>
>Cathari
gls
Cathari
gls wrote:
> Hi Cathari;
>
> On 19 Mar 2005 06:13:43 -0800, "Cathari" <cat...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >gls wrote:
>
> I didn't see Jean's post until yesterday afternoon (Friday, March
18).
> I had some work to do and then came back online yesterday night to
> respond. As for the preparation of my response, I already knew what I
> wanted to say and it took about 30 minutes to doublecheck my sources.
...not surprised, and glad to hear it.
....
> Umm ... anyway, I would think it safe to assume that if I don't
> respond to a post it is either because I didn't see it or that I
chose
> not to respond. And if it takes me time to respond, it doesn't
> necessarily mean I preparing a response. I think such would apply to
> anyone.
Yes. I knew that the commentary was not specifically addressed to you,
however, you would be the "proper sourcing"--still, I expressed my own
view in the interim, not to be confused by anyone else's, either,
naturally.
> > (although I do think truly it was not a true question in the
> >sense of "I really want to know" judging only from her own already
> >harsh judgment that Dr. Lewis must be lying, although you answered
it
> >as a question, and I bow to your greater wisdom on that).
>
> Sorry if my response came across as me answering a question. I saw
> Jean's (I don't know his/her gender so I will avoid using one)
comment
> and took it at face value -- that being, an informed opinion drawing
a
> valid conclusion. I offered my opinion as a counter and drew an
> equally valid conclusion (bearing in mind that a valid conclusion is
> not dependant upon being true or false).
Agreed.
> *If* there was an intent to
> trash Dr. Lewis, you, me, or anyone else on Jean's part, first, I
> don't see it that way, and second, would it matter if that were the
> case?
Let's see...ummm....in the final analysis: NO. [I know, I know: so
what's all the excitement??? Yeah, okay. Thanks.]
>
> <snip>
>
> >Cathari
>
> gls
teletourgos
I am using McIntosh in relation to the court case - but I could be
wrong . . . but the AMORC statement seemed to corroborate this.
However it also could point to them having received legal advice that
it can't be copyrighted- which what you've said below seems to indicate
was the case.
It might be that McIntosh is summarising a vast amount of legal to-ing
and fro-ing into a sentence.
Anyway, you seem to have laid it out and it seems we have to thank
Lewis, rather than Clymer for the freedom of speech in relation to the
term.
So, I retract that part of my post.
As I said, and I'm not going to get into what 'trash comments' are -
and I'm not an apologist for Clymer, or anyone really.
I don't know any Rosicrucian group that is totally free of humbug, and
in any interpretation of events, we're going to find times when we're
less than impressed with what other human beings have done.
I'd hope to see credit where its due to both men, as poisonous as the
atmosphere was between them . . . we have to thank each of them for
furthering the tradition in one sense, even if it was done with more
than a little ego and anger on both sides.
>
> Unfortunately, in practice, very few supporters are impartial and
> scholarship does discount outside views (or more appropriately,
> totally ignores them,) But I agree with you wholeheartedly. We on the
> inside absolutely have to take an honest look at what it is that we
> have done otherwise, we will never have any credibility. If we, as an
> esoteric community, can establish our own integrity from within, then
> it puts the ball in the academic court necessitating they clean up
> their own houses or begin to look ridiculous.
I think that is really important.
Occult 'history' has too often been poorly done, and at this point, I'd
rather see it well done. We have something to give the world, and I'd
rather do it well, and thus have something worthwhile to put up against
those lazy academics who too easily fall back on their bias, and say
our area is 'dodgy' or disreputable.
AMORC particularly does a lot of historical revisionism in relation to
themselves, and I think this is a great pity, sanitising what has been
a colourful and exciting organisation in the interests of a rather dull
homogeneity.
In relation to Cathari's comments on the internal or external viewpoint
:
Your point is taken, but I think the external points of view cant be
discounted.
If I understand you, Cathari, you've consistently indicated that
certain things must not be well understood without going through
Lewis's system.
I disagree with that view at least when it comes to historical doings.
I think we just have to accept that we hold different views there.
I strongly feel that AMORC is not unique and that you can find worthy
commentators on its history who've come through similar systems - such
as OHTM and even divergent magical systems like the G .: D .:
The thing with that 1905 book is that it was published by the
Rosicrucian Foundation of Pennsylvania - which was Clymer's publishing
company ? wasn't it ? So I am surmising that Clymer had a longer
awareness of the MCE and 'got there first'.
Regardless, I don't think the motives behind either the AMORC 1933
announcement or Clymer's 1935 pamphlet were the best, as I said in the
first post, my feeling is they were motivated by the war going on
between them rather than any genuine desire to further the interests of
[any] MCE.
>
> Just as a sidenote here ... we're talking about events that happened
a
> long time ago with people long gone. Even though I appear to be
rather
> critical of Clymer, I actually have a lot of respect for the present
> generation of his Order. We have to measure this work we all do by
> deeds, not words.
>
> >If other properly sourced information were to come up which would
allow
> >a different understanding, I would indeed be willing to consider it.
>
> well, I do have a different way at looking at things. Maybe you're
> considering it. But, as always, what I write is just my opinion. The
> actual truth could very easily be somewhere else.
I'm happy to acknowledge that you've changed my view on this matter . .
. thanks for all the information as usual.
I do worry though that some seem too keen to make Clymer the 'baddie'
in all this and I think that is unfortunate because it ignores the good
work his order did and perhaps still does - I understand that it's
having a rocky situation at the moment.
>From what I'm told this 'Quinotti' was a different person to St Vincent
and he was said to have passed the MCE to Clymer. That's at least what
someone in a now far-flung Clymer group in Sth America represented to
me. But you know, that could be a myth too.
>
> >I think also, from another source, that in relation to the Count
Clymer
> >named, that this person was indeed the bearer of 'a' legitimate MCE
> >lineage, there being a few branches from which such a thing might be
> >derived.
>
> I disagree for reasons stated.
>
Jean
Sid
"teletourgos" <telet...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<1111338932....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>...
> Occult 'history' has too often been poorly done,
To a point I agree with this but on the otherhand there have been a
number of very good works written by some German historians, both old
and modern.
> AMORC particularly does a lot of historical revisionism in relation to
> themselves, and I think this is a great pity, sanitising what has been
> a colourful and exciting organisation in the interests of a rather dull
> homogeneity.
This is probably just a self defence reaction caused by all the anti-
material that has been printed and posted throughout the years.
> I strongly feel that AMORC is not unique and that you can find worthy
> commentators on its history who've come through similar systems - such
> as OHTM and even divergent magical systems like the G .: D .:
Well any group or Order may view their system of instruction or study
as being 'unique'. That's okey. But we are not on some kind of
football scale or league of who is the best or the highest on the
list. It is unfortunate when people get the feeling that they should
appologise for being a member of AMORC or because they are not a
Master Mason (just hypothetical examples), so do not belong to the
higher league of Initiatic Orders, be they of the new FUDOSI or other.
At best people have either been descieved or the information has been
convienently witheld or kept secret. At its worst this is just pure
arrogance and does not support the cause, and is detremental to the
groups involved in this type of attitude. Worse still when individuals
and groups become involved in subversive activity both within other
groups/Orders and from the outside.
> Regardless, I don't think the motives behind either the AMORC 1933
> announcement or Clymer's 1935 pamphlet were the best, as I said in the
> first post, my feeling is they were motivated by the war going on
> between them rather than any genuine desire to further the interests of
> [any] MCE.
Again it could be yet another case of 'which' MCE.
> I do worry though that some seem too keen to make Clymer the 'baddie'
> in all this and I think that is unfortunate because it ignores the good
> work his order did and perhaps still does - I understand that it's
> having a rocky situation at the moment.
Just a few misguided people creating 'enemies' for their own ends. (my
opinion).
I'm sure that Clymer like many others genuinely did believe that
everything that came out of Europe was true.
> >From what I'm told this 'Quinotti' was a different person to St Vincent
> and he was said to have passed the MCE to Clymer. That's at least what
> someone in a now far-flung Clymer group in Sth America represented to
> me. But you know, that could be a myth too.
I take it you are referring to the people in Brasil who have good
links with Germany, be they FRC, Gold Rose Cross Rosicrucians, Fratres
Lucis, GD, OTO etc.,?
Regarding the history of the Fraternitas Rosć Crucis (FRC):
R. Swinburne Clymer:
"During the year 1905, R. Swinburne Clymer, M.D., was appointed Grand
Master of the August Fraternity of Rosicucians for the United States.
Later, when he was selected to have control over the Fraternity in
North, South America and the Isles of the sea, he received the title
of Supreme Grand Master. Later, when WWII decimated most of the
European Orders, Dr. Clymer became Supreme Grand Master not only for
North and South America, but for all of Europe as well."
Note: Imperator H. Spencer Lewis was initiated in Tolouse in 1909.
(from a short letter to his wife)
"It seems fitting to explain here the several titles found in Occult
Literature:
A Grand Master is the head of the August Fraternity for one country.
A Supreme Grand Master is the head of the August Fraternity for more
than one country.
The one personality who is the head of the World-Wide Fraternity has
the title of Count, but such an individual remains unknown to the
student body. He is known only to the Grand Masters and Supreme Grand
Masters."
---------------------------
The Universal Confederation
of Orders, Societies and
Fraternities of Initiation
Articles of Association 1939
"We trace the origin of our Great Work back through the ages to the
old Masters and Initiates of the Ancient Wisdom and the Great Arcane
Schools of the remote ages, and have the assurance that we possess the
original, true esoteric and arcane teachings of the *Sons of the
LIGHT, i.e., the Sons of God."
*See the Masonic novel by Roger Peyrefitte "The Sons of Light". A
very good read for both Masons and non-Masons.
Perhaps the 2 most important Masons of that period (1800's) were
probably the young General La Fayette and the Hungarian Kossuth?
"The sacred doctrine and teachings of the Ancient Esoteric Schools, as
preserved and handed down to us through Supreme Grand Master to
Supreme Grand Master, are the essential philosophy, the original
landmarks, tenets, ethics and teachings of the authentic HERMETIC
BROTHERHOOD, and the original FRATERNITAS ROSAE CRUCIS, parent of the
**Order of the Red Rose and Golden and Rosy Cross, are the
fundamentals of this International Confederation of Initiates and the
basis upon which it is founded and operated."
http://www.soul.org/index.html
Order of the Holy Grail of Clymer, and the work of A.E. Waite "The
Hidden Church of the Holy Grail"
**Order of the Red Rose and Golden and Rosy Cross:
--
Regards,
Sid
gls
On 20 Mar 2005 09:15:32 -0800, "teletourgos" <telet...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
<snip>
>> Unfortunately, in practice, very few supporters are impartial and
>> scholarship does discount outside views (or more appropriately,
>> totally ignores them,) But I agree with you wholeheartedly. We on the
>> inside absolutely have to take an honest look at what it is that we
>> have done otherwise, we will never have any credibility. If we, as an
>> esoteric community, can establish our own integrity from within, then
>> it puts the ball in the academic court necessitating they clean up
>> their own houses or begin to look ridiculous.
>
>I think that is really important.
very much so. but it will never happen until everyone in our field
starts dealing with things honestly and openly.
<snip>
>AMORC particularly does a lot of historical revisionism in relation to
>themselves, and I think this is a great pity, sanitising what has been
>a colourful and exciting organisation in the interests of a rather dull
>homogeneity.
Very true and the process is ongoing. But AMORC isn't alone in this.
<snip>
>I strongly feel that AMORC is not unique and that you can find worthy
>commentators on its history who've come through similar systems - such
>as OHTM and even divergent magical systems like the G .: D .:
What I think is unique, as you imply, is the mind and soul of each
individual that turns to the inner work, be it mystical, occult,
AMORC, Golden Dawn, OTO, Wicca, or any other Order or system, be it
formalized or not is really unimportant when compared to what drives
one to seek the inner life. What is not unique is the unfortunate
infighting.
>The thing with that 1905 book is that it was published by the
>Rosicrucian Foundation of Pennsylvania - which was Clymer's publishing
>company ? wasn't it ? So I am surmising that Clymer had a longer
>awareness of the MCE and 'got there first'.
I'm relying on my memory that goes back to 1977 when I first ran into
that book. As I recall (take that for what it's worth), it was a
hardcopy self-published work without any reference to a publisher. I
kept my complete library in my office when I was with AMORC and as a
result of the 1990 affair I was only able to get back about 60% of
that library. That book was not one of them. What I have now, though,
is a photocopy sent to me by a friend. In that photocopy there is no
reference to a publisher, but the back pages include advertisement for
a number of books written by Clymer and published by the Philosophical
Publishing Co. In Allentown, PA (which was Clymer's group). What date
it was published, I have no idea. It could by 1905 or it could be
1965. The only thing we do know is that Clymer at least reprinted it
at some point in time. And it is possible that he even wrote it, but I
have my suspicions about that. Personally though, it would be a lot
easier from a research perspective to find that he or someone in his
organization was the author ...
Again, what I really think is that both Clymer and Lewis borrowed some
of the documentation for their respective MCE's from Waite -- Clymer
from the 1887 "Real History of the Rosicrucians", and Lewis from the
1924 "Brotherhood of the Rosy Cross". And everyone got it wrong. The
things that Waite, Clymer, and Lewis claim are in the Naometria just
simply aren't there.
As to the order of who got to the MCE first? I would say it's Waite,
Clymer, Lewis. But, that's just my opinion. There was certainly no
turmoil about it until the late 20's.
>Regardless, I don't think the motives behind either the AMORC 1933
>announcement or Clymer's 1935 pamphlet were the best, as I said in the
>first post, my feeling is they were motivated by the war going on
>between them rather than any genuine desire to further the interests of
>[any] MCE.
I agree. A lot of energy was wasted during that time ... and
apparently, it's still going on in some circles.
<snip>
>>From what I'm told this 'Quinotti' was a different person to St Vincent
>and he was said to have passed the MCE to Clymer. That's at least what
>someone in a now far-flung Clymer group in Sth America represented to
>me. But you know, that could be a myth too.
I dug around a bit today and I actually have more questions than
answers, but briefly, this is what I found -- all of it from Clymer
related sources with a *possible* unrelated source via Marie Corelli :
Count A Guinotti (someone needs to look this up in Rystaps Amorial as
there are not all that many Counts and Dukes running around that
weren't documented) was said to have passed authority to Dr. Randolph
in 1858. The mantle was then taken up by Freeman B. Dowd in 1875;
Edward Brown in 1907; and Clymer in 1908. I also saw it claimed
Guinotti was approached by Count St. Vincent (another trip to the
Amorial is due here) in 1902 to receive authorization to establish the
Order Militia Crucifera Evangelica and it was given. He was also
referred to by Marie Corelli as being her spiritual instructor or
father. I also found reference that the torch was passed to Count St.
Vincent when Count Guinotti died. What I can't find is any birth and
death information for either people nor any outside documentation as
to who these people actually were.
<snip>
>Jean
gls
teletourgos
Gary
I am sadly in reliance on handwritten notes taken from a late night
phone call a few weeks ago, but yes, this is fundamentally what I heard
with the exception that Clymer was claimed to have also gotten the MCE
in 1902.
But you know, this is stuff Clymer published so he might have 'inserted
himself' in there. He is very much known for rewriting and editing
materials so they suited his purpose. One must shake one's head at his
treatment of Randolph's work, for instance.
Ah yes it is Guinotti and not Quinotti. But like you, one can yet have
no idea who he really was.
The best I can deduce is that there was a socialite Count Giunotti in
the US in the late 1800s.
Another interesting connection here, is that Clymer at one point
published a novel by a Marguerite Verdier, which he annotated. It was
called 'The Master Initiate and the Maid'.
Now 'Verdier' is an extremely interesting surname to arise in such
contexts as we are looking at !
Jean
Cathari
....
> So, I retract that part of my post.
>
> As I said, and I'm not going to get into what 'trash comments' are -
> and I'm not an apologist for Clymer, or anyone really.
>
> I'd hope to see credit where its due to both men, as poisonous as the
> atmosphere was between them . . . we have to thank each of them for
> furthering the tradition in one sense, even if it was done with more
> than a little ego and anger on both sides.
What you say may be true, however, again I would point people to
reading the direct writings of both HSL and Clymer and draw their own
conclusions. I have read both, and I have a different view about
Clymer's nature and personal objectives, even if he may also have been
interested in meeting the traditional purposes of the Rosicrucian
stream.
> > Unfortunately, in practice, very few supporters are impartial and
> > scholarship does discount outside views (or more appropriately,
> > totally ignores them,) But I agree with you wholeheartedly. We on
the
> > inside absolutely have to take an honest look at what it is that we
> > have done otherwise, we will never have any credibility. If we, as
an
> > esoteric community, can establish our own integrity from within,
then
> > it puts the ball in the academic court necessitating they clean up
> > their own houses or begin to look ridiculous.
>
> I think that is really important.
....
>
> In relation to Cathari's comments on the internal or external
viewpoint
> :
>
> Your point is taken, but I think the external points of view cant be
> discounted.
>
> If I understand you, Cathari, you've consistently indicated that
> certain things must not be well understood without going through
> Lewis's system.
No, Jean, and if at this time anyone re-reads my post, you will perhaps
see that my view is not what you have stated here. My statement about
going through the Lewis system of monographs was of an entirely
different purpose and nature, as you would see, too, I think, as a
"respoonse" for lack of that of GLS at the time.... Additionally, I'm
saying now that if you want to get a flavor of HSL himself, you would
be able to read old articles from the Rosicrucian Digest, the American
Rosae Crucis, the Mystic Triangle, perhaps even find some of the
private issues sent only to members during membership, of "The Forum".
And, of course, there are many public books written by Lewis, that,
even if one doesn't agree with the points of scholarship, will find the
nature of the heart of the person himself.
This is what I was expressing as one method outside established
scholarship, of determining the nature of a source of anything. It is
the very direct experience that I had in reading Clymer's own words in
one of his public books (not even hidden away in his system papers and
sources), that convinced me of Clymer's personal nature and intent,
which I find abhorantly outside my own understanding of traditional
initiation factors. It isn't even only a matter, in my view, of Clymer
having some failings; it is a matter of the nature of "evolutionary
initiation" that came through.
....
> I disagree with that view at least when it comes to historical
doings.
> I think we just have to accept that we hold different views there.
>
> I strongly feel that AMORC is not unique and that you can find worthy
> commentators on its history who've come through similar systems -
such
> as OHTM and even divergent magical systems like the G .: D .:
For over 30 years now, I have studied within the traditional stream of
the Rosicrucian movement, and have not "tried" one or another
organizations to "see how different" one may be from another. I can
tell you this, though, that unless one continues through the entire
Lewis system, one misses the real ending and new beginning if you get
my meaning. I am aware that other organizations have different systems
of study, and even different topics, however, I guess I'm one of the
fortunate ones who realized very early how deeply significant the Lewis
system was in how it was put together in a psychologically progressive
way, that causes the student to "look within", and realize from direct
experience the wealth of that ability--while, of course, continuing
one's own personal spiritual evolution in its own way, but at least,
then hand in hand with one's true source of the heart.
>
> > Just as a sidenote here ... we're talking about events that
happened
> a
> > long time ago with people long gone. Even though I appear to be
> rather
> > critical of Clymer, I actually have a lot of respect for the
present
> > generation of his Order. We have to measure this work we all do by
> > deeds, not words.
....
> I'm happy to acknowledge that you've changed my view on this matter .
.
> . thanks for all the information as usual.
>
> I do worry though that some seem too keen to make Clymer the 'baddie'
> in all this and I think that is unfortunate because it ignores the
good
> work his order did and perhaps still does - I understand that it's
> having a rocky situation at the moment.
I always consider the "a bird in the hand..." principle, and
unfortunately, because I was very, very early introduced to Clymer's
own direct words that stunned me to stay shunned with him, no point in
looking "three in the bush" where hidden away one can be easly taken
away to some other course unintended. "My View".
....
> >
> Jean
Cathari
Sid
This is a long shot but I have a feeling that we should perhaps be
taking a closer look at 2 people from Hungary called Count Gyorgy
Apponyi (Rakoczi = Manyoki) Count of Zekella (?) 1844-1933 and Count
Albert Apponyi 1846-1933(?) There are different spellings for these
names. George Rákoczi II. wrote a manifesto in defence of human
rights, and I believe was also minister of education in Hungry
1906-1910. Count A.A. met President Roosevelt in Hungary in 1911. Also
a possible link to the Mason Louis Kossuth, and I think that the young
General Lafayette was also involved. I also found mention of an
Asiatic Society of Bengal, Culcutta. HSL wrote that Lafayette was the
first Rosicrucian to visit America at that time. LaFayette was also a
Mason and at the age of 27 on his final trip to America, he was made
an honorary member of the Masonic Lodge of Washington on the 21st of
February 1825. Hope this helps.
Regarding the Lewis MCE: Check the similarity of the heraldry used by
Lewis with the town of Toulouse, The Cross of Henry IV of Navarra,
Huggonauts and the Cathare Cross. For what it may be worth, I did not
get the feeling that this was a construct, and I found RML's
explanation rather interesting.
more below
gls<gls@...> wrote in message news:<eems31pm8dhbdggd3...@4ax.com>...
> Hi Jean;
>
> On 20 Mar 2005 09:15:32 -0800, "teletourgos" <telet...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> I dug around a bit today and I actually have more questions than
> answers, but briefly, this is what I found -- all of it from Clymer
> related sources with a *possible* unrelated source via Marie Corelli :
> Count A Guinotti (someone needs to look this up in Rystaps Amorial as
> there are not all that many Counts and Dukes running around that
> weren't documented) was said to have passed authority to Dr. Randolph
> in 1858. The mantle was then taken up by Freeman B. Dowd in 1875;
> Edward Brown in 1907; and Clymer in 1908. I also saw it claimed
> Guinotti was approached by Count St. Vincent (another trip to the
> Amorial is due here) in 1902 to receive authorization to establish the
> Order Militia Crucifera Evangelica and it was given. He was also
> referred to by Marie Corelli as being her spiritual instructor or
> father. I also found reference that the torch was passed to Count St.
> Vincent when Count Guinotti died. What I can't find is any birth and
> death information for either people nor any outside documentation as
> to who these people actually were.
>
> gls
Clymer wrote an interesting short chapter about Simon Studion in his
book "Book of Rosicruciae" (page 151), and also mentions the MCE a
number of times in this book. He writes, "In 1586 he (Studion) left
Nurenberg to attend a mission to a Lutheren assembly to be held at
Lunebergon." This spelling is very close to the name of a small town
in France, but not the Luneburg in the North of Germany.
Clymer also writes that Studion died in 1597 which is also not
correct, otherwise how could he have completed his second and revised
version of the Naometria [Nova] in 1604? He also states that the
"Naometria served Johann Valentin Andreae and other Initiates as a
draft or "skeleton" for the Fama." If anything it would be the other
way round, and strangely, JVA in his comedy called TURBO which is a
biography of his own life, makes fun of Studion and his Naometria.
Interestingly, JVA in his comedy TURBO also allows the Fama to 'speak
3 times', and there are some interesting players in the comedy (people
whom he (JVA) met upon his travels. If JVA was a member of theis group
then why would he go to all the trouble to set up his own Order as
well, which failed?
The last record of Studion is believed to be 1606-1608 when he was
sent to the Monastry of Maulbronn as a punishment for his comments
against the Pope in the Naometria [Nova]. Incidently, the Pope did not
die in 1920 as Studion had calculated. Perhaps 1920 had another
meaning.(?)
Clymer also presents Studion was being an Alchemist, which I find very
hard to believe. Perhaps he is talking about spiritual Alchemy, I
don't know, but that said I have not found anything even remotely
alchemical in any of the works of Studion, what-so-ever. Please
correct me if I'm wrong in this. The 10.000 verse poem is dedicated to
the Duke of Wuertemberg and his family tree. A Chymical Wedding? I
don't know.
Interestingly, on the front page of the first copy of the Naometria
Studion writes: In gratitude to the S.S. (Sanctus Spiriti), and on the
first page of the Nova version he writes: In gratitude to the MCE.
This would suggest to me that the MCE already existed, but knowing
Studion anything is possible, and nothing should be regarded as
insignificant or unimportant.
It has been suggested that Studion re-wrote the Naometria just because
his prophetic etc., calculations had not worked out i.e., he wanted to
make his calculations fit better so wrote the Nova version. This may
be possible, but personally I believe the historical record that some
people seriously wanted to have the Naometria printed, thus motivating
Studion to set about re-writing the Naometria again.
Your writing on here is much appreciated. Thanks.
Regards,
Sid
teletourgos
Sid wrote:
> Hi Gary, Hi Jean,
>
> This is a long shot but I have a feeling that we should perhaps be
> taking a closer look at 2 people from Hungary called Count Gyorgy
> Apponyi (Rakoczi = Manyoki) Count of Zekella (?) 1844-1933 and Count
> Albert Apponyi 1846-1933(?) There are different spellings for these
> names. George Rákoczi II. wrote a manifesto in defence of human
> rights, and I believe was also minister of education in Hungry
> 1906-1910.
Hello Sid and thank you for your input which I always enjoy looking at.
Apponyi arises twice in this area. First, Kenneth Mackenzie named him
as his initiator in Europe - which must have occurred when Mackenzie
was a young man, 19 or 20.
It is this to which we sometimes refer as the origin of the famous GD
cyphers.
Waite treated this in what must be said is typical Waite fashion,
saying at one point that the record of Mackenzie on things Rosicrucian
'is one of recurring mendacity'. But then I believe later in life he
treated Mackenzie's claim more seriously, without bothering to retract
his earlier judgement.
It is sometimes said that Lewis cooperated with Sylvester Clark Gould
in his attempt to make Rosicucian contacts in Europe - the 1909 trip.
However Gould dies before this could occur. Gould was allegedly to
meet a Count Apponyi on that trip.
The latter-day 'apologist' for Waite, RA Gilbert, I do not think
regards this claim as serious, but the recorded existence of successive
Counts Apponyi make one wonder.
I was told once that the Apponyis made money in porcelain, a trade
which may at one time have involved alchemical skills ?
Gary says before that friend Waite is wrong regarding the MCE - and
that this led in different ways - to the mistakes of Clymer and Lewis-
which referenced different versions of Waite.
Waite's arrogance has not helped us here . . . in that to acknowledge
his first mistake in his second publication would have helped and
perhaps given due alert that he was not to be absolutely relied on.
*******
What I wonder is that rose-cross symbolism is mentioned as existing in
the Naometria, I believe by Lewis. Someone here may have the reference
but I believe I read it in an old copy of 'Rosicrucian Q&A'.
Is he parroting Waite, or did Lewis get to examine the document himself
? And is the symbolism linking rose and cross, or does it just involve
roses and crosses among many other elements, as in the writings of
Bureus ?
Jean
gls
On 21 Mar 2005 09:45:19 -0800, kangar...@T-Online.de (Sid) wrote:
<snip>
>Clymer also writes that Studion died in 1597 which is also not
>correct, otherwise how could he have completed his second and revised
>version of the Naometria [Nova] in 1604?
I agree, Studion lived beyond that date.
> He also states that the
>"Naometria served Johann Valentin Andreae and other Initiates as a
>draft or "skeleton" for the Fama."
That's probably stretching things a bit. Most likely, in my opinion,
Joachim de Fiore (12th c. monk) influenced the writers of both works
and it's just that influence which makes them seem connected.
> If anything it would be the other
>way round,
Why?
<snip>
>The last record of Studion is believed to be 1606-1608 when he was
>sent to the Monastry of Maulbronn as a punishment for his comments
>against the Pope in the Naometria [Nova]. Incidently, the Pope did not
>die in 1920 as Studion had calculated. Perhaps 1920 had another
>meaning.(?)
You mean 1620, correct? I think the 'other' meaning is simply that
Studion was wrong.
<snip>
>Interestingly, on the front page of the first copy of the Naometria
>Studion writes: In gratitude to the S.S. (Sanctus Spiriti),
What makes you think his use of S.S. in this context means Sanctus
Spiriti? ... Anyway, can you write the phrase youe refrencing out in
Latin? I'm not seeing what you're referring to.
> and on the
>first page of the Nova version he writes: In gratitude to the MCE.
I disagree. He uses "gratia" in connection to " In cruicifera
MILITIAE Evangelicae" which translates to: "For the *sake* of the
crossbearing Evangelic ARMY". 'For the sake of' and 'in gratitude to'
are two different things. Also, we can't be certain that he is
actually referring to an organization named Militia Crucifera
Evangelica -- although I conceed he might be. It's quite possible he
is making reference, in lieu of the new religious climate of the
Reformation, to the times of the Crusades and the crusaders and
likening to crossbearing soldiers of several centuries before it to a
new Crusade of the Reformation happening in his lifetime.
>This would suggest to me that the MCE already existed,
Not necessarily. If you translate it as you suggest, I can see how you
arrive at your conclusion. But if you translate it "for the sake of a
crossbearing Army", then no. Especially when it is a convention called
for those who are to *be* marked with the cross as opposed to those
who have *been* marked. In the 1604 version, "signandorum" is still
being used.
When reading it, what is sounds like to me is that in 1586 a meeting
was held that was represented by several Royal Houses of the
Protestant persuasion, if you will, and who decided that the meeting
(which wasn't technically called "Cruce Signandorum Conventus" by the
way, but rather, that phrase is descriptive of what was to be done at
the convention -- but for our purposes (OMCE) this is how we refer to
that convention by way of naming it as such) would be the foundation
of a confederation of Protestant States in which a treaty would be
upheld to protect each other from any attacks from the Catholics. At
some point in time, this confederation would put together an army of
those marked by the cross to defend what the reformationists construed
to be the truth.
Now, the question is, when was (or even 'if') the MCE organized? And
if so, how was it organized? I tend to think, as opposed to an army, a
movement was developed that evolved into what we now know as
Rosicrucianism. However, at the time of the Convention, I don't think
it was perceived that way ...
<snip>
>Regards,
>Sid
gsl
Sid
"teletourgos" <telet...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<1111431223....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
>
> It is sometimes said that Lewis cooperated with Sylvester Clark Gould
> in his attempt to make Rosicucian contacts in Europe - the 1909 trip.
> However Gould dies before this could occur. Gould was allegedly to
> meet a Count Apponyi on that trip.
H. Spencer Lewis was born in November 25, 1883.
Initiated in Toulouse in 1909 at the age of 26.
He died in August 2, 1939.
The young HSL was probably looking for anything Rosicrucian in Europe
at that time, and no doubt both Lewises had their disapiontments in
this regard.
> The latter-day 'apologist' for Waite, RA Gilbert, I do not think
> regards this claim as serious, but the recorded existence of successive
> Counts Apponyi make one wonder.
The family of Apponyi went back a long way so one would expect a
number of them, but this would not automaticly make them all RC or FM.
> I was told once that the Apponyis made money in porcelain, a trade
> which may at one time have involved alchemical skills ?
Well this is possible, as the famous Meisner(Spl.?) porcelain was
actually discovered because the poor guy who discovered it had
originally been cept captive to make gold through Alchymecial means.
His life depended upon it. Unfortunately his discovery of the Meisner
porcelain formula did not give him freedom or save his life as people
did not want the secret of the making of white gold to get out.
> Gary says before that friend Waite is wrong regarding the MCE - and
> that this led in different ways - to the mistakes of Clymer and Lewis-
> which referenced different versions of Waite.
>
> Waite's arrogance has not helped us here . . . in that to acknowledge
> his first mistake in his second publication would have helped and
> perhaps given due alert that he was not to be absolutely relied on.
Well to be fair to Waite, he did say that a lot of research still had
to be done, and HSL also wrote the same (See the American Rosae Crucis
of 1916 and the History of the Order by HSL.)
> *******
>
> What I wonder is that rose-cross symbolism is mentioned as existing in
> the Naometria, I believe by Lewis. Someone here may have the reference
> but I believe I read it in an old copy of 'Rosicrucian Q&A'.
Many people have made that claim.
The pre-Rosicrucian claim was probably first made by someone called
L.M. Frischlin who was a German priest in the 1900's. Not to be
confused with Nicodemus Frischlin (1547-1590) who was a fellow student
in the same University in Tuebingen with Studion. I was able to find
the diaries of Crusius but have not been able to find the diaries of
either N. Frischlin or those of the Priest L.M. Frischlin in which it
is claimed that there was a link between the old Rosicrucians and the
Naometria of Studion i.e., a claim believed to have been made by L.M.
Frischlin in his diaries. The famous poet and Humanist Nicodemus
Frischlin also had a brother called Jackob Frischlin.
> Is he parroting Waite, or did Lewis get to examine the document himself
> ? And is the symbolism linking rose and cross, or does it just involve
> roses and crosses among many other elements, as in the writings of
> Bureus ?
I think the word 'parroting' is rather ingenious and unkind in both
cases as used here. Both Waite and Lewis were looking for the truth,
even if the books by both HSL and RML were rather simple, and if the
books by Waite make your hair fall out. Both then and now, people
made/make the best of the material and information available, and it
is very frustrating when people allow the confusion to continue.
Regardless of our chosen path we are looking for the truth, which is
also a part of a process.
We are fed up with people who just want to continue the confusion.
Why has the book by JVA "Turris Babel and the CHAOS of the
Rosicrucians (1616) never been published? Perhaps because there are a
few home truths in there that the politically correct do not want to
hear.
Let us be honest, the CHAOS continues.
That needs to be changed. People need to work together instead of
against each other. This can ONLY be achieved within a landscape of
trust, and requires that those who are 'true of voice' take action.
There is a diagram on page 271 of the Naometria Nova but there is no
actual picture of a rose cross. There are a lot of large numbers and
brackets within a number of circles and there is a cross in the
centre. The name Rose of Jericho has been written in the margine which
is believed to be a Knights Templar symbol of resurection. What is
interesting is the numbes 7,8,5, in the diagram i.e., 7 concentric
circles containing 5 brackets within 8 brackets and a cross in the
middle. These numbers are within the vault of CR as mentioned in the
Fama.
It would also be stretching it a bit to say that this was a picture of
a Rose Cross.
Best I can do.
Regards,
Sid
Thomas Nofsinger
> Who is this gsl guy? :)
Like Sid, another man I generally place trust in.
Met him once, for about 4 hours, in Dallas somewhere
around 1991.
Thomas Nofsinger
Sid
gls<gls@...> wrote in message news:<8l9u315csqlbtv6sh...@4ax.com>...
> Hi Sid;
>
> On 21 Mar 2005 09:45:19 -0800, kangar...@T-Online.de (Sid) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >Clymer also writes that Studion died in 1597 which is also not
> >correct, otherwise how could he have completed his second and revised
> >version of the Naometria [Nova] in 1604?
>
> I agree, Studion lived beyond that date.
>
> > He also states that the
> >"Naometria served Johann Valentin Andreae and other Initiates as a
> >draft or "skeleton" for the Fama."
>
> That's probably stretching things a bit. Most likely, in my opinion,
> Joachim de Fiore (12th c. monk) influenced the writers of both works
> and it's just that influence which makes them seem connected.
>
> > If anything it would be the other
> >way round,
>
> Why?
Perhaps, people who had read the Naometria, and being inspired by it,
wrote the Fama and the Chymical Wedding.
> <snip>
>
> >The last record of Studion is believed to be 1606-1608 when he was
> >sent to the Monastry of Maulbronn as a punishment for his comments
> >against the Pope in the Naometria [Nova]. Incidently, the Pope did not
> >die in 1920 as Studion had calculated. Perhaps 1920 had another
> >meaning.(?)
>
> You mean 1620, correct? I think the 'other' meaning is simply that
> Studion was wrong.
Yes, sorry about that. Studion may have been wrong on a number of
things, but I am not qualified enough to write anything in stone. If
Studion 'mirrored' numbers then he would be writing 1620 = 2016, but
that would be going to far into the realms of speculation.
>
> <snip>
>
> >Interestingly, on the front page of the first copy of the Naometria
> >Studion writes: In gratitude to the S.S. (Sanctus Spiriti).
The House of the S.S. being claimed as a Rosicrucian symbol, but the
use of it by Clymer i.e., 'House of Studion' with the rose and the
black cross upon the heart, is the emblem of Martin Luther that he
(Luther) used i.e., much like a trade mark today to protect his works
from copiers.
>
> What makes you think his use of S.S. in this context means Sanctus
> Spiriti? ... Anyway, can you write the phrase youe refrencing out in
> Latin? I'm not seeing what you're referring to.
Well you've got me there. I'll let you know when I find it again. I do
not think that I have made a mistake here. Is it possible that there
are 2 cover pages to the Nova version? I'm sure I saw 'in gratium
S.S.' and not S.S. = Simon Studion.
> > and on the
> >first page of the Nova version he writes: In gratitude to the MCE.
>
> I disagree. He uses "gratia" in connection to " In cruicifera
> MILITIAE Evangelicae" which translates to: "For the *sake* of the
> crossbearing Evangelic ARMY". 'For the sake of' and 'in gratitude to'
> are two different things. Also, we can't be certain that he is
> actually referring to an organization named Militia Crucifera
> Evangelica -- although I conceed he might be. It's quite possible he
> is making reference, in lieu of the new religious climate of the
> Reformation, to the times of the Crusades and the crusaders and
> likening to crossbearing soldiers of several centuries before it to a
> new Crusade of the Reformation happening in his lifetime.
>
> >This would suggest to me that the MCE already existed,
>
> Not necessarily. If you translate it as you suggest, I can see how you
> arrive at your conclusion. But if you translate it "for the sake of a
> crossbearing Army", then no. Especially when it is a convention called
> for those who are to *be* marked with the cross as opposed to those
> who have *been* marked. In the 1604 version, "signandorum" is still
> being used.
Good point, thanks.
>
> When reading it, what is sounds like to me is that in 1586 a meeting
> was held that was represented by several Royal Houses of the
> Protestant persuasion, if you will, and who decided that the meeting
> (which wasn't technically called "Cruce Signandorum Conventus" by the
> way, but rather, that phrase is descriptive of what was to be done at
> the convention -- but for our purposes (OMCE) this is how we refer to
> that convention by way of naming it as such) would be the foundation
> of a confederation of Protestant States in which a treaty would be
> upheld to protect each other from any attacks from the Catholics. At
> some point in time, this confederation would put together an army of
> those marked by the cross to defend what the reformationists construed
> to be the truth.
>
> Now, the question is, when was (or even 'if') the MCE organized? And
> if so, how was it organized? I tend to think, as opposed to an army, a
> movement was developed that evolved into what we now know as
> Rosicrucianism. However, at the time of the Convention, I don't think
> it was perceived that way ...
I know my limitations, and am not an expert on either Studion or his
Naometria, and would not wish to appear as such.
I am just trying to get a little closer to the truth.
Would you say that the Naometria is our noble legacy?
For the most part, Studion used the numberical values of both the
Greek and the Hebrew letters, but I noticed that Studion gave the
value of the letter 'S' as 17 which puzzled me somewhat so I went to
his index and wrote down the alphabet as he had written it in the back
of his Nova version of the Naometria. You will notice that he has left
the space for the letter 'K' blank. I think the letter K was
introduced to the Latin alphabet later. (from the Greek)
Write the list of 22 letters and numbers as follows:
1-22 = (0)
2-21
3-20
4-19
5-18
6-17
7-16
8-15
9-14
10-13
11-12
> <snip>
>
> >Regards,
> >Sid
>
> gsl