Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt01037)

[[There are few published references to the Temple; those in 
Theosophical
publications tend to be vague, and those outside the TS tend to be
inaccurate - for example, McIntosh, 1980:142, or Fr. Wittemans, "A 
New and
Authentic History of the Rosicrucians "Rider, London, 1938:180-181. 
The
author interviewed a number of people who had been members. It has 
been
suggested that authority for the Temple had been received from John 
Yarker
or Theodor Reuss, or from French Martinists; that such an authority 
may
have been sought is not unlikely, but no evidence has been seen that 
it
was obtained. ]]
 


Even when it comes to the hard historical aspects, as opposed to the 
softer 'traditional history' proffered by various groups,  I am not 
sure that it matters very much whether a 'Rosicrucian' group has a 
tangible demonstration of authority for foundation.  

Based on a number of years looking at the ways Rosicrucian groups 
demonstrate authenticity and filiation, and some experience in such 
groups, more often than not, they do not present straightforward 
evidence for such things.  
 
Part of the problem comes from assuming that Masonic rules and uses 
apply to Rosicrucianism.  

While the two are sister movements, Sister Rosie-Crosse is the 
disreputable member of the pair, and cannot easily be held to the 
same standards as Sister Craft. 
 
As regards Martinism, in its more traditional manifestations, 
Martinist groups can give authority for Rosicrucian groups - of a 
type.  Remembering 'Martinism' as a concept was only formulated in 
the late 1880s itself and it is not easily distinguishable from 
Rosicrucianism or esoteric Masonry. 
 
Anyone familiar with the whirlwind of initiatic confetti 
orchestrated by Desmond Bourke from the SRIA library in London in 
the late years of last century will appreciate that 'Rosicrucian' 
charters are often problematic, both in their provenance and often 
in the 'history' that accompanies them.  

Questionable chains of 'apostolic succession' are common in 
Rosicrucian groups public history; I have for example questioned on 
this very group the claim of Reuss allegedly initiating Vyvyan 
Deacon as a thirteen year old boy; another odd example would be the 
Freres-Aines de la Rose-Croix, where the fall guy was a fifteen year 
old allegedly initiated by Crowley in 1916, and who was said to be 
Grand Master for 53 years.
 
Allied to this, and a likely cause of the need to develop a 
public 'succession' quite different to the true one, is the problem 
that individual Rosicrucian initiators often swear those they 
initiate to secrecy as regards the actual facts of the transmission 
of teaching or authority.  This prohibition usually holds until the 
initiator has died, or for a period of years after that.  
 
More often than not, we are left with a chain of individual 
associations and similarity in teachings or ritual to show that X 
was initiated by Y.  

In relation to Besant's OTRC, I am not exactly sure of its link with 
the Rosicrucian Order Crotona Fellowship (ROCF) a group founded in 
1924 and apparently an early source of inspiration and teaching for 
the early New Age movement as conceived by Caddy and the Findhorn 
community.  Fr Melchior in his online history of Neo-R+C groups 
refers to it erronesously as the 'Corona Fellowship' and this error 
has been perpetuated; more interestingly, he notes a certain 'Frater 
Aurelius' as a link between OTRC and the ROCF.

I read Wittemann's book at Latrobe some years ago.  Frankly, it is a 
load of rubbish from start to finish. 

Wittemanns was I believe a Belgian senator and member of AMORC.  HS 
Lewis, founder of AMORC, wanted a European history of Rosicrucianism 
written, presumbably by an august European, that was 'friendly' to 
AMORC.  

Wittemanns lacked the necessary information on 'European 
Rosicrucians', so HS Lewis *helpfully* provided him with a potted 
history which conveniently mirrored the myths he himself had 
developed for AMORC.  

I cannot recall the actual description of the OTRC in this tome, but 
as a historical record of the OTRC it is partisan and likely to be a 
nonsense.

Ben