| Next in importance would likely be John Dee’s visit to Bohemia. John Dee (13 July 1527 – 1608 or 1609) was an English mathematician, astronomer, astrologer, occult philosopher, and advisor to Queen Elizabeth I. John Dee and his associate were in Prague in 1583 and settled in Trebona until 1589. Continuing again from Yates book: “An influence had been spreading into Germany from Bohemia much earlier. According to the notes about Dee by Elias Ashmole in his Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum (1652), Dee’s journey through Germany in 1589, on his return from Bohemia to England, was somewhat sensational. He passed near those territories which, twenty-five years later, were to be the scene of the outbreak of the Rosicrucian movement.” (17) … “Ashmole states that on June 27, 1589, when at Bremen, Dee was visited by ‘that famous Hermetique Philosopher, Dr. Henricus Khunrath of Hamburgh.’ The influence of Dee is in fact apparent in Khunrath’s extraordinary work, ‘The Amphitheatre of Eternal Wisdom’ (Pl. 10b), published at Hanover in 1609. Dee’s ‘monas’ symbol, the complex sign which he expounded in his Monas hieroglyphica (Pl. 10a) (published in 1564 with a dedication to the Emperor Maximilian II) as expressive of his particular form of alchemical philosophy, can be seen in one of his illustrations in the ‘Amphitheatre,’ and both Dee’s Monas and his Aphorisms are mentioned in Kunrath’s text. Kunrath’s ‘Amphitheatre,’ forms a link between a philosophy introduced by Dee and the philosophy of the Rosicrucian manifestos. In Kunrath’s work we meet with the characteristic phraseology of the manifestos, the everlasting emphasis on macrocosm and microcosm, the stress on Magia, Cabala, and Alchymia as in some way combining to form a religious philosophy which promises a new dawn for mankind.” (18) And here we see the origin of that “Dawn of the New Day” Masonic idealism. Chapter 4 deals with the Rosicrucian manifestos and the reasons for forming the Rosicrucian order as an antithesis to the Jesuit Order: “Though the earliest known printed edition of the first Rosicrucian manifesto, the Fama, did not appear until 1614, the document had been circulating in manuscript before that date, for in 1612 a reply to it by a certain Adam Haselmayer was printed. Haselmayer stated that he had seen a manuscript of it in the Tyrol in 1610, and a manuscript of it is said to have been seen in Prague in 1613. Haselmayer’s ‘reply’ is reprinted in the volume containing the first printed edition of the Fama. Haselmayer includes himself with the ‘Christians of the Evangelical Churches,’ hails with enthusiasm the illuminated wisdom of the Fama, and makes some strongly anti-Jesuit remarks. He alludes to the widespread expectation of radical changes after the death of Emperor Rudolph II, who dies in 1612. This ‘reply’ of Haselmayer’s at the end of the volume containing the first printed edition of the Fama connects with a preface at the beginning of the volume in which it is stated that the Jesuits had seized Haselmayer because of his favorable reply to the appeal of the Fama and had caused him to be put into irons on a galley. This preface suggests that the Rosicrucian manifesto is setting forth an alternative to the Jesuit Order, a brotherhood more truly based on the teaching of Jesus.” (19) |
Yates suggests that the ceremonial aspect of the Order of the Garter was transferred into the Chemical Wedding by Christian Rosencreutz: “Dramatic influences and influences from Garter ceremonial absorbed in that early period have gone, I suggest, into the making of the Chemical Wedding of 1616. Christian Rosenkreutz is not only a knight of the Golden Fleece and of the Golden Stone; he is also a Red Cross knight. Allusions to the Garter are behind the composite allusions to chivalrous feasts and ceremonies of initiation in Andreae’s work; the Red Cross of the Order of the Garter, the Red Cross of St. George of England have been absorbed into the German world, to reappear as ‘Christian Rosenkreutz,’ with his red roses and his Red Cross ensign.” (20) Yates further suggests that the witch craze in Europe may have been an attempt to stamp out the Bohemian Palatine Rosicrucian movement taking hold of Germany and France at the time. The reasoning for this is that Rosicrucian literature disappeared in Germany after 1620 and the overthrow of the Elector Palatine as King of Bohemia with the Catholic conquests of Bohemia and the Palatinate. (21) I would say I must agree with Yates at least partially. Mushroom use, major plagues, and the superiority of the minds of most women of the age, drove the witch trials, including in all likelihood, the development of philosophical alchemy. It is very likely that the Catholic Church realized that the public would continue to have access to knowledge of mushrooms and entheogens if the Rosicrucians and the enlightenment had their way, and this was a primary drive to stamp out its works. Many people see the Rosicrucian enlightenment as a result of the witch trials, but in fact, the witch trials themselves were a continued response to the heritage leftover from the time of the crusades. This started with the Knights Templars, Cathars and Albigensian inquisitions. Elias Ashmole (23 May 1617 – 18 May 1692) was an English antiquary, politician, officer of arms, astrologer and student of alchemy. He was one of the founding members of the Royal Society, which some speculate to be an offshoot of the “Invisible College” of the Rosicrucians. Ashmole recorded in his diary that he was initiated into a Masonic lodge on Oct. 16, 1646. The beginning of Freemasonry is a hotly debated subject, with English Freemasonry claiming its origin with the establishment of the English Grand Lodge in 1717. The diary of Elias Ashmole and this date of 1646 establish a concrete connection between the Rosicrucian enlightenment and early Freemasonry. (17) Rosicrucian Enlightenment, p. 37-38 (18) ibid, p. 18 (19) ibid, p. 41-42 (20) ibid, p. 66 (21) Rosicrucian Enlightenment, p. 105-106 |