Reformation, Revolution, Renovation: The Roots and Reception of the Rosicrucian Call for General Reform - De Vries L. 2021
Introduction
Whence it is right that deceit, darkness, and slavery withdraw, which, by the gradually advancing instability of the great globe, crept into the sciences, actions, and human governments, by which these have been for the better part obscured [...]. When finally all of this will be removed, as we trust, we shall see it instead substituted with a similar rule that will perpetually remain equal to itself.
Confessio Fraternitatis1
At the beginning of the seventeenth century, three mysterious texts stirred up much debate in the intellectual world: The Fama Fraternitatis (Fame of the Fraternity, 1614), the Confessio Fraternitatis (Confession of the Fraternity, 1615), and, different from but related to both, the Chymische Hochzeit: Christiani Rosencreutz (Chemical Wedding of Christian Rosencreutz, 1616).2 While the Chemical Wedding presents a fictional autobiographical narrative, the first two texts are manifestos, mission statements. Their authors remained anonymous, but claimed to be members of a secret fraternity founded by a Christian Rosencreutz in the early fifteenth century.3 Written during the third generation of the Reformation, in the midst of early modern scientific transformations, and on the eve of the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648), these two provocative
1 Confessio Fraternitatis, 54: “Unde Falsum, tenebras, et servitutem cedere aequum est; quae, sensim progrediente Globi magni volutatione, in Scientias, Actiones et Imperia humana irrepserunt; illis ex magna parte obscuratis [.]. Quae si cuncta (uti confidimus) sublata aliquando, Unam v. contra et sibi perpetuo similem Regulam substitutam viderimus [.].” All translations are mine unless stated otherwise.
2 All references will be 1) to the 1614 German edition of the Fama Fraternitatis in Kassel (hereafter: Fama); 2) to the 1615 Latin edition of the Confessio Fraternitatis that was printed in Kassel (hereafter: Confessio), which was printed with the Fama and a German edition of the Confessio Fraternitatis and before the edition by Philippo a Gabella was printed. Some references will be to the 1615 German edition of the Confessio Fraternitatis published in Gdansk (hereafter: Confessio (Gdansk)); 3) to the 1616 edition of Andreae, Chymische Hochzeit: Chris- tiani Rosenkreutz (hereafter: Chemical Wedding).
3 Fama, 103-104. Because it is likely that the manifestos were written by multiple authors, the plural will be used throughout.
manifestos called for a general reformation of religious, scientific, and political life and announced the coming of a new era.
No sooner had the manifestos been published than their call received responses from all quarters of Europe. In the years immediately after their publication, hundreds of letters, pamphlets, and books were written by enthusiasts who wished to come into contact with this elusive brotherhood, and all over Northern Europe authors claimed to be members of that enigmatic fraternity. They penned their support and admiration for these revolutionary texts and hailed the harbingers of a new time of prosperity. In response, academic authors, shocked and outraged by these subversive writings, wrote harsh letters and tracts fulminating against the Rosicrucian brethren, their paradoxical mission statements, and the followers that wrote in their wake.4 The Rosicrucian manifestos stirred up so much controversy that for over a decade they were the focus of a large international and intellectually pervasive dispute. By 1625, the Rosicrucian controversy had been discussed in over four hundred texts.5
The Rosicrucian response had begun in a somewhat clandestine manner already several years before the first manifesto, the Fama, was published in 1614. The German Paracelsian theosopher and first commentator on the manifestos, Adam Haslmayr (ca. 1562-ca. 1631), gained access to this mysterious material as early as 1610, and soon wrote an Answer to the Fama. Printed in 1612, two years before that manifesto itself would appear in print, he claimed in his audacious reply that he awaited with anticipation the emergence of the brethren from their hiding place.6 1610 was also the year that his friend, the German alchemist and editor Benedictus Figulus (real name Benedict Topfer, 1567-after 1619), acquired a copy of the Fama, presumably thanks to Haslmayr, and ensured its wider distribution.7 Such was the allure of this manifesto that before long the German ruling elite became involved. In 1611, Prince August von Anhalt-Plotzkau (1575-1653) expressed an interest in the Fama. In a letter dated that year, he asked both Haslmayr and the collector of Paracelsian and Weigelian manuscripts, Karl Widemann (1555-1637), to write a public response to the text.8 Haslmayr’s Answer was his fulfilment of this request, and was soon
4 The term “paradoxical” refers here to the rejection of established theories and the promotion of new knowledge. On this term, see: Maclean, “Introduction,” xv.
5 Numerous letters and apologies are introduced in: Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica. Several of the players mentioned in this Introduction will be discussed at length in later chapters as proponents (Chapters 4 and 5) or opponents (Chapter 5) of the Rosicrucian movement.
6 Haslmayr, Antwort An die lobwurdige Bruderschaft der Theosophen von Rosencreutz.
7 Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 38; idem, “Die Rosenkreuzer,” 41. On Figulus, see: Telle, “Bene- dictus Figulus.”
8 Karl Widemann, Sylva scientiarum, Niedersachsische Landesbibliothek Hannover, ms iv 341,
printed numerous times, first by an unknown and presumably secret press,9 but in subsequent years it was often republished together with editions of the Fama and the Confessio.10
Meanwhile to the west of Plotzkau, in Marburg, the Paracelsian physician Johann Hartmann (1558-1631) read the Fama in 1611, in a copy apparently given to him by Figulus. Soon the text reached an international readership as Hartmann gave it to the Danish physician and antiquarian Ole Worm (1588-1655). Whereas the former might have taken a favourable view on the text, the latter was quick to dismiss the Rosicrucian message.11 Not much later a second Dane, Erik Lange (1559-1643), brother-in-law of the famous astronomer Tycho Brahe (1546-1601), received a copy of this manuscript and rushed into writing a sympathetic letter in support, addressed to the “Lords and brothers of the fraternity and brotherhood of the admirable and everlasting Order of the Rose Cross” (1613).12
After the publication of the Rosicrucian manifestos in 1614 and 1615, word of these inventive texts spread much more widely across Northern Europe. A large number of responses ensued to the Rosicrucians’ call for reform and their appeal to readers “to examine their own arts precisely and keenly [...] and reveal to us their thoughts in written form in print.”13 Back in German lands, the anonymous author of the preface to a work entitled About the Highest, Very Best and Most Expensive Treasures (Echo, 1615), attributed to the
fol. 541, cited in: Gilly, “Iter Rosicrucianum,” 76. For Widemann, see especially: Gilly, Johann Valentin Andreae, 46-51, 94-98; idem, “Theophrastia Sancta.”
9 Cf. Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 32-33.
10 See, for example, the 1614 edition of the Fama published in Kassel, the 1615 German publications of the Confessio in Gdansk and Frankfurt, and the 1615 Dutch publication of the Fama and Confessio in Frankfurt.
11 Worm, Laurea philosophia summa, G4v, cited in: Gilly, “Die Rosenkreuzer,” 40-41, esp. 41n65 and 41n67. On Hartmann and his use of Paracelsian medicines, see: Moran, Chemical Pharmacy Enters the University; idem, “Court Authority and Chemical Medicine”; on Worm: Hovesen, Laegen Olewormi588-i654; Dekker, The Origins of Old Germanic Studies, 236-238.
12 Lange, Den Edlen und gestrengenden Herren und Brtieder der Fraternitet [...]: “Herren und Brueder der Fraternitet und Bruederschafft des hochloblichen und unvergenglichen Ordens des Rosen Creutz,” mentioned in: Gilly, “Die Rosenkreuzer,” 41. For Tycho Brahe and Erik Lange, see: Christianson, On Tycho’s Island.
13 Fama, 126-127: “ihre Kunste auffs genauest und scharffst examiniren [...] und dann ihre
bedenken [.] uns Schrifftlich im Truck eroffnen.” The name “Rosicrucians” in this book refers to the brethren mentioned in the Fama and the Confessio who are said to belong to the Rosicrucian brotherhood and to wish to effectuate change. It does not include enthusiasts responding to the manifestos, and itis used irrespective of whether or not there ever was a Rosicrucian brotherhood.
alchemist Julius Sperber (ca. 1540-1610?), argued that the manifestos were echoes of Adamic and ancient wisdom recently voiced in the works of Marsilio Ficino, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, and Agrippa von Nettesheim.14 In the same year, 1615, Rosicrucian texts appeared under the pseudonym Julianus de Campis, while in 1617 and 1618 the famous alchemist Michael Maier (15681622) defended the brotherhood against various attacks.15 In the meantime, the court astronomer and later physician Daniel Mogling (pseudonyms Theophilus Schweighart and Florentinus de Valentia, 1596-1635) discussed, extolled, and defended the manifestos in several of his writings.16
Simultaneously in England, the manifestos found an early apologist in the prominent physician and astrologer Robert Fludd (1574-1637), who defended them against fierce attacks by the German physician and putative author of the first chemistry textbook, Andreas Libavius (1555-1616).17 A few years later Fludd found himself defending Rosicrucianism again, this time against the attacks of the French mathematicians and friends of the famous philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650), Pierre Gassendi (1592-1655) and Marin Mersenne (1588-1648).18
Shortly after the written debate between Libavius and Fludd, the tutor and travelling Rosicrucian prophet Philipp Ziegler (ca. 1584-?) came into the picture back on German soil, as he claimed to be a member of the brotherhood. Inspired by the Rosicrucian texts, in March 1619 he announced his arrival in the Bavarian town of Furth, calling himself “[...] King of Jerusalem, Shiloh, Joseph
14 Sperber, Von der hochsten/ allerbesten unnd thewresten Schatze. Das es nichts anders sey/ denn die rechte und ware Magia oder Cabala. This text was first published in 1597. In 1615, the text was republished as a work titled Echo der von Gott hocherleucheten Fraternitet Lobl. Ordens r.c. by an anonymous editor. The original title and text follow the second, anonymous preface about the Rosicrucian manifestos. On Sperber, the first and second preface to the text, and its author, see below, pp. 154, 261. On Ficino, see: Kristeller, The Philosophy of Marsilio Ficino; Gentile and Gilly, Marsilio Ficino and the Return of Hermes Trismegistus; for an introduction to Pico, see: Dougherty, Pico della Mirandola. On Agrippa, see: Nauert, Agrippa and the Crisis of Renaissance Thought.
15 Julianus de Campis, Sendbrief oder Bericht (1615); Maier, Silentium post clamores (1617); idem, Themis aurea (1618). On Julianus de Campis and Maier, see below, Chapter 4.
16 Mogling [Theophilus Schweighart], Pandora sextae aetatis (1617); idem [Florentinus de Valentia], Rosa florescens (1617); idem [Theophilus Schweighardt], Speculum sophicum rhodostauroticum (1618). On Mogling, see below, sections 4.5 and 5.2.
17 Fludd, Apologia compendiaria (1616); idem, Tractatus apologeticus (1617). On Libavius and Fludd, see below, section 5.1.
18 Mersenne, Quaestiones celeberrimae in Genesim (1623). Fludd responded to Mersenne with his Sophiae cum moria certamen (1629), after which Gassendi wrote his Epistolica exercitatio (1630). On Gassendi and Fludd, see: Cafiero, “Robert Fludd e la polemica con Gassendi”; Clericuzio, Elements, Principles, 71 ff.
and David, crowned by the grace of God, foremost brother of the Rosicrucians and invincible Scepter of the King in Sion.”19 Further north, in the town of Giessen just a few years later, in 1623, the physician Heinrich Nolle (Nol- lius, 1583-1630?) published a work entitled Mirror of the PhilosophicalParergon, which was inspired by the Rosicrucian Chemical Wedding and informed by the brethren’s reform plans.20 Also in 1623, posters appeared on church walls across the Rhine, in Paris, proclaiming that the Rosicrucian brethren had now established a presence in the French capital. This was the year that Descartes had returned to Paris, and the philosopher was somewhat perturbed by false accusations of his being one of the Rosicrucian brethren and of having brought the Rosicrucian furore with him to that city.21
The manifestos generated also a great deal of excitement in the Dutch Republic, with followers in Amsterdam, The Hague, and Leiden. The movement was thought to be propagated by the enthusiast Peter Mormius (ca. 1580-after 1632), the painter Johannes Symonsz van der Beek, known as Johannes Torren- tius (1589-1644), and the printer Govert Basson (d. 1643), who published many Rosicrucian works and owned even more.22 Torrentius was arguably the best still-life painter of his age. His paintings puzzled all his colleagues and peers, none of whom could discover how they were made and which materials were used—qualities which combined to add to his allure as a mysterious Rosicrucian.
By 1626, the main Scandinavian advocate for the Rosicrucian cause was the Swedish antiquarian Johannes Bureus (1568-1652), who famously claimed that
19 “Origines Philippus von Gottes Gnaden gekronter Konig von Jerusalem, Siloh, Joseph und David, der Bruder des Rosenkreutzes Oberster und unuberwindlichster Zepter des Konigs in Sion,” cited in: Gilly, “Iter Rosicrucianum,” 82-83. Cf. Peuckert, Die Rozenkreuzer, 148; on Ziegler, see: Penman, Hope and Heresy, 42-46.
20 Nollius, Parergi philosophici speculum (1623). On Nolle, see below, section 5.3.
21 Descartes, it is now known, was not responsible for this. On the Rosicrucian posters in Paris, their authorship, and the ensuing commotion, see: Secret, “Notes sur quelques alchimistes de la Renaissance”; Kahn, “The Rosicrucian Hoax in France,” 235-344. For criticism of Descartes’ alleged connections with the Rosicrucians, see also: Gilly, “Campanella and the Rosicrucians,” 207n37.
22 Basson printed, among other works, Fludd’s Apologia (1616) and Tractatus (1617), and owned several works and letters related or addressed to the Rosicrucians, including Gabella’s Consideratio brevis, which was printed with the Confessio, but also works by Michael Maier and Rudolph Eglinus (Eglin). Additionally, he owned writings by Gerhard Dorn, Paracelsus, Johann Heinrich Alsted, Heinrich Khunrath, and the Theatrum Chymicum published by Zetzner. On this, see: Akerman, Rose Cross, 36, 43; Snoek, De Rozenkruisers, 108-124, 308-325; on Mormius: Snoek, De Rozenkruisers, 413-421; on Tor- rentius, see, for example: Bredius, Johannes Torrentius, and below, section 5.3.
this new movement was in fact a new manifestation of ancient, divine wis- dom.23 Bureus was in contact with the book collector and publisher Joachim Morsius (pseudonym Anastasius Philaretus Cosmopolita, 1593-1653), who must also have been acquainted with Torrentius, as a portrait of the latter in Morsius’ album amicorum testifies.24 Morsius had tried to contact the topsecret brotherhood in a public letter to which, against all odds, he received a reply—a unicum since none other elicited a response.25
The overwhelming flood of heterodox tracts and pamphlets written in support of the Rosicrucian movement was met by an equally prolific current of authors, like Libavius and Gassendi, who were shocked and outraged by these outlandish texts and condemned their authors and supporters alike.26 But the reaction to Rosicrucianism was not limited to words alone, and soon authorities took legal action against its supporters. Even as early as 1612, Rosicrucianism was perceived as dangerous: in that year, Haslmayr’s support of the Rosicrucians got him sentenced to the galleys. He had sent a letter to Maximilian iii (1558-1618), Regent of Tyrol (1602-1612) and later Archduke of Austria (16121618), to ask for money to travel to Montpellier in search of the mysterious brethren. In response, Maximilian did send him to travel, not to Montpellier, but to the galleys departing from Genoa instead, to work as a galley slave for four and a half years.27 On the day he was sent to the galleys, 31 October 1612, the authorities in Tyrol also issued a warrant for the arrest of his friend Figulus, who was subsequently imprisoned until November 1617.28
23 Bureus, FaMa e sCanzIa reDUX (1616), discussed in Akerman, Rose Cross. On Bureus, see: Hakansson, “Alchemy of the Ancient Goths: Johannes Bureus’ Search for the Lost Wisdom of Scandinavia.”
24 Morsius’ album amicorum is kept in the Stadtbibliothek Lubeck, ms 4a 25. fols.
25 Morsius, Epistola sapientissimae f.r.c. remissa. This letter was answered by an anonymous
person in: Theosophi eximii epistola ad Anastasium Philaretum Cosmopolitam de sapientis- sima fraternitate r.c. (1619). On Morsius, see: Schneider, Joachim Morsius und sein Kreis; Snoek, De Rozenkruisers, 386-396. Cf. below, p. 216.
26 On early attacks, see Chapter 5, and: Gilly, Johann Valentin Andreae, 83-86, and the numerous works mentioned in: idem, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, esp. 133-159. See further: Peuck- ert, Die Rosenkreuzer; Schick, Das altere Rosenkreuzertum, 193-236; Shackelford, A Philosophical Path for Paracelsian Medicine, 337-340; for protagonists such as Gabriel Naude, Jean Roberti, and Francois Garasse, see: Kahn, “The Rosicrucian Hoax in France.”
27 The title page of the 1614 edition of the Fama explains that Haslmayr was put on the galleys by the Jesuits, as the decree came from the Jesuit Archduke Maximilian iii of Tyrol, who played an important role in the Counter-Reformation. Part of Haslmayr’s letter and a brief description by Haslmayr of his time on the galleys can be found in: Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 33-34, but see especially: Gilly, Adam Haslmayr. See further below, Chapter 4.
28 Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 37-38.
A few years later, self-professed Rosicrucians were investigated and tried by Lutherans and Calvinists alike. In 1619 the German engineer and Rosicrucian follower Johannes Faulhaber (1580-1635) was placed under investigation by the Lutheran university in Tubingen. In the same year, Philipp Homagius and Georg Zimmermann (dates unknown) were condemned by Calvinist prosecutors by the order of Landgrave Moritz von Hesse-Kassel (1572-1632).29 No sooner had Homagius found refuge in Giessen than he was investigated again, together with Heinrich Nolle, this time by Lutheran investigators of the Landgrave of Hesse-Darmstadt, Ludwig v (1577-1626).30
Heterodox thinkers suspected of Rosicrucianism in the Dutch provinces were treated particularly harshly. Such was the fear of subversive views that when the Court of Holland examined the Rosicrucian matter, they made sure that Torrentius was also investigated, whereupon the artist was interrogated and brutally tortured.31 Shortly before the case against Torrentius, in 1625, Dutch translations of the Fama and Confessio, the Echo attributed to Julius Sperber, and other unnamed books were sent by the Court of Holland to Calvinist professors of Theology in Leiden for investigation of their “Rosicrucian teachings.”32 In their report, the professors concluded that the Rosicrucian “sect” was an
error in doctrine [...], possessed, superstitious and magical; in her philosophy she is a fabrication of an erratic mind and a monstrous spirit, vain, useless, and filled with deceit; lastly rebellious towards the state [.].33
29 On Homagius, Zimmerman, and their trials, see: Moran, “Paracelsus, Religion and Dissent: The Case of Philip Homagius and Georg Zimmermann.” See further below, section 5.3.
30 On Homagius and Nolle, see, for example: Klenk, “Ein sogenannter Inquisitionsprocefi in Giefien anno 1623.” On this case, see further below, section 5.3.
31 ga Haarlem, stadsarchief 2-24-7, in: Snoek, De Rozenkruisers, 108-124, esp. 117-118. On Tor- rentius’ trial, see below, section 5.3.
32 Snoek, De Rozenkruisers, 176-179. The report of these professors is translated from Latin
into Dutch and appended to Snoek’s De Rozenkruisers, 537-545. Akerman mistakenly refers to “Catholic professors”: Akerman, Rose Cross, 175.
33 ara Den Haag, Hof van Holland, nr. 4601, 1625-1626: “Judicium Facultatis Theologicae in Academia Leydensi de Secta Fraternitatis Roseae-Crucis”: “dwaling in de leer [.], bezeten, bijgelovig, en magisch; in haar filosofie is ze een verzinsel van een labiel verstand en een gedrocht des geestes, ijdel, zinloos en vol van bedrog, tenslotte oproerig ten opzichte van de staat,” translated from Latin into Dutch and reproduced in: Snoek, De Rozenkruisers, 544.
Religiously, politically, and philosophically, the manifestos and their followers provoked the authorities and were to be condemned. For one reason or another, the Rosicrucian case truly became a Europe-wide controversy.
The Rosicrucian manifestos might easily have been overlooked or ignored, but instead their impact on early seventeenth-century Europe was enormous. What was the controversial message of these short texts that triggered such a passionate response? Literature on the Rosicrucian manifestos and the subsequent movement has largely been concerned with questions of authorship, the networks from which these pamphlets arose, and the early furore. While context is obviously important, the first place to look to understand these manifestos and their explosive aftermath are the contents of the manifestos themselves.
This book studies the manifestos’ call for a general reformation in its historical context. This call emerged in a period, the early seventeenth century, that witnessed a large variety of calls for, and attempts at, change. Yet, the “keymarkers” of change in the scientific and philosophical realms are still Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes.34 In the religious world they are most prominently Martin Luther and John Calvin. But any understanding of early modern projects of change which relies on the figures just mentioned would be anachronistic. It would also rule out of consideration concepts of reform beyond the strict boundaries of science and religion, respectively. The Rosicrucian manifestos—as well as other texts and movements that call for change, but that are much less known than the heroes just mentioned—fit much less comfortably in, and often challenge, the strict boundary between science and religion. They require fresh investigation in order to further develop our understanding of early modern concepts of change and projects of reform.
The Rosicrucian Story
The Rosicrucian manifestos and the related Chemical Wedding give an account of the life of the well-travelled and highly-educated Christian Rosencreutz, who is described as the father of the Rosicrucian fraternity.35 Rosencreutz is said
34 Levitin, Ancient Wisdom, 1-12.
35 Relevant introductions to the manifestos include especially: Gilly, “Iter Rosicrucianum”; idem, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica; idem, “Die Rosenkreuzer als europaisches Phanomen,” 1956; Brecht, Johann Valentin Andreae, 65-85. Gilly’s work has been summarised in Kahn, “The Rosicrucian Hoax in France,” 235-344. See also: Kienast, Johann Valentin Andreae;
figure 1 Fama fraternitatis and Confessio fraternitatis (1615),
hab Wolfenbuttel
to have been born in 1378 and to have lived for 106 years, until his death in 1484.36 His message had been kept secret for 120 years until 1604 when,
Peuckert, Die Rosenkreuzer, 59-84; Edighoffer, Rose-Croix et societe ideale selon Johann Valentin Andreae, 2 vols.; Yates, The Rosicrucian Enlightenment, 41-68; Van derKooij, Fama Fraternitatis. Das Urmanifest der Rosenkreuzer.
36 Confessio, 52. We infer that he died in 1484 because he was said to have died at the age of
106.
coinciding with the purported discovery of his vault, the Rosicrucian secrets would be revealed.37
The Fama describes the life of the founder of the fraternity and the foundation of the Rosicrucian brotherhood. In his early years, Christian Rosencreutz travelled to the Arab world where he studied physics, mathematics, languages, magic, and Kabbalah.38 In the Arab cities Damcar and Fez he learned various secrets of nature and translated into Latin the mysterious “Liber M.”39 After his travels in the East, Rosencreutz had become convinced of the necessity for a general reformation and felt compelled to teach others in Europe what he had learned in distant places.40 He visited several countries, but was disappointed at being unable to find anyone at the time willing to abandon their own teachings and philosophies, which Rosencreutz considered to be false. When he finally returned to Germany, he gathered around him three men who were to become the first brothers of the Rose Cross. Rosencreutz taught them the secrets of nature and worked with them in private in order to instigate the desired reformation. After four more companions had joined their cause, the eight brothers parted and went their separate ways throughout Europe to improve their knowledge. Once every year, on Rosencreutz’s anniversary, they were to return to the house “Sanctus Spiritus,” the house of the Holy Spirit, a building constructed by Christian Rosencreutz that was to become the Rosicrucians’ sanctuary.41 They identified themselves as physicians, adapted to the
37 Fama, 111-113. Cf. also Genesis 6:3: “And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with
man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.”
38 Fama, 94-98. Kabbalah is a Jewish mystical, esoteric current, that was also propagated by
Christian authors during the Renaissance. For an introduction, see: Laenen, Jewish Mysticism: An Introduction; Forshaw, “Kabbalah.” In this book, in agreement with common usage, Christian Cabala will be referred to as “Cabala,” Jewish Kabbalah as “Kabbalah.”
39 On the “Liber M.,” see below, pp. 140-145. Two manuscript versions of the Fama read “Dam
ascus” instead of “Damcar,” which is inconsistent with the text, because it would imply that Rosencreutz travelled from Damascus to Damascus, instead ofto Damcar: Fama Fraterni- tatis, Wellcome Library: ms 310 fols. 245r-264v; ms 150 fols. 129r-139r. Two other manuscript versions of the Fama as well as the published Confessio read “Damcar,” see: Fama Frater- nitatis, Herzog August Bibliothek, Cod. Guelf. 39.7 Aug 2o fols. 365r-374r, esp. 365v-366r; Universitatsbibliothek Salzburg, ms M i 463, fols. 1r-13r, esp. 2V; Confessio, 50; Confessio (Gdansk), 65. In the 1614 and 1615 published editions of the Fama, the main text refers to “Damascus,” but in the 1614 edition this has been corrected to “Damcar” in the errata: Fama, 147. The name Damcar does not seem to refer to an existing city, but it might have been “Damar,” a city in Yemen, near Saana. Ona map from 1516 (Waldseemuller Carta Marina), which was accessible to the authors of the Confessio, the name ’Damar’ could be read as ’Damcar’, see: Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 80.
40 Fama, 93, 98-100, 103.
41 Ibid., 104, 106. The name suggests that the Rosicrucian cause was divinely inspired.
style of dress of the country in which they worked, while each using as their secret mark “r.c.” It was agreed that “none should practice any other profession than to cure the sick, without payment.”42 The brethren were supposed to keep the brotherhood secret for 120 years after Rosencreutz’s death, and to find a successor each so that the fraternity would continue to exist even after their own deaths.43
In 1615, one year after the publication of the Fama, another provocative text issued from the printing presses, the Confessio. Christian Rosencreutz’s hope for a general reformation was further developed in this closely related second manifesto, which had already been announced in the Fama. In this text, the authors discussed in more detail the philosophy of their fraternity. The brethren understood the workings of the world according to the hermetic analogy of microcosm and macrocosm, with humans as the microcosm of the universe. The macrocosm—the universe—was full of secrets that were to be revealed, and this revelation, the reader was told, would happen soon.44 The disclosure of secrets coincided with the dawn of the Rosicrucian philosophy, which was to replace traditional natural philosophy, to provide a new foundation for the sciences, and to form the basis of a broader reformation.
On the reverse side of the brethren’s hope for a different future was their negative judgement on contemporary society. In their view, religion and philosophy were deeply rotten, and the contemporary state of affairs needed to be overhauled.45 At the time when the manifestos were drafted, the old worlds of Roman orthodoxy and of Aristotelian natural philosophy were irreversibly losing their foothold in the Western world. The Lutheran and Calvinist reformations had permanently changed the religious landscape, while the voices of so-called “novatores,” challengers of Aristotelian natural philosophy and the medieval university curriculum in general, grew stronger. Religiously and scientifically, the world was undergoing substantial transformations. The authors of the manifestos observed and encouraged these changes, and spread the hopeful prediction of “a general reformation of divine and human things,” to which
42 Ibid., 106-107: “[k]einer solle sich keiner andern profession aufithun, dann krancken zu curiren und difi alles umbsonst [...].”
43 Ibid., 113, 119. Elsewhere, it is written that the brotherhood would remain hidden for 100 years: Ibid., 107: “Die Bruderschafft sol ein hundert Jahr verschwiegen bleiben.”
44 Only in the two original Latin editions of the Confessio is there a reference to man as micro
cosm: Confessio, 45. In a different context, the Fama named man the microcosm: Fama, 92. On the microcosm-macrocosm analogy, see below, pp. 145-153.
45 On this, cf. Chapters 1 and 2.
they would eagerly contribute.46 Soon, so went their message, the world would be thoroughly transformed for the better.
Religiously, the brethren defined themselves in opposition to the Turks and the Roman Church, condemning “the blasphemies against our Jesus of both East and West (that is, Mohammed and the pope),” and claiming that they acknowledge only Christ.47 The manifestos unmistakably originated from the Protestant world, but argued that still further religious changes were neces- sary.48
Scientifically, the academic institutions and their educational programmes were to be reformed and replaced. University scholars (“Gelehrte”) were accused of being guided by “pride and ambition” in their studies, which led them to misinterpret the world, spread lies, and sow destruction.49 The brethren’s critique included not only Aristotelian (natural) philosophy, but also academic medicine. Their commitment to medicine as their main task, and one that should be practiced without reward, was contrary to the traditional procedure of ordinary Galenic physicians. Most alchemical practice, too, was considered “an offence to the glory of God.”50 Alchemy was not meant for the making of gold, the brethren insisted, but should instead be used for the production of medicine and the acquisition of knowledge.51
The Rosicrucian notion of reform was inherently general: All arts were to be reformed, religion was to be sanctified, philosophy to be changed, and medicine and alchemy to be purified. This transformation was to be initiated by the Rosicrucian brotherhood, and the reader of the Fama was encouraged to reflect upon the arts himself and was hoped to be “sincere and heartfelt towards us,” so as to potentially contribute to their reformation.52 But this reformation implied changes within the divine realm as well, since God was involving himself in new ways in earthly matters.
46 Fama, 121-122, cf. below, Chapter 1.
47 Confessio, 44: “[...] Orientis simul et Occidentis (Mahometen et Papam intellige) contra
Jesum nostrum blasphemias detestamur”; Confessio (Gdansk), 55.
48 Fama, 93.
49 Ibid., 92: “Ob wol nun auch hiermit der unbesonnenen Welt wenig gedienet/ und des Lasterns/ Lachens und Gespots immermehr ist/ auch bey den Gelehrten der Stoltz und Ehrgeitz so hoch/ dafi sie nicht mogen zusammen tretten [...]”; Confessio, 53-54.
50 Fama, 126: “Wir bezeugen auch/ dafi unter den Chymischen Nahmen sein Bucher und Figuren aufikommen/ in Contumeliam gloriae Dei [.].” On alchemy and the manifestos, see especially below, Chapters 2 and 4.
51 Confessio, 44-46, 53-55; Fama, 125.
52 Fama, 127: “Wer es ernstlich und herzlich mit uns wird meinen [.].”
While the Fama and Confessio were overtly optimistic manifestos, designed to inspire hope, they were also highly enigmatic, and without any attempt to provide a clear explanation of the brethren’s philosophy or a detailed description of the changes announced. But their general reformation entailed more than an interpretation of the contemporary situation and a call for action. The language of the reform that was about to take place was infused with what might loosely be called millenarian expectations of a new age. The brethren believed themselves to be living in the last days prior to a new era, which was to precede the Last Judgement and the End Times. These days witnessed the first signs of a hopeful future which would soon be made manifest.53 The brethren believed that they “may soon rejoice in a happy time.”54 The imminent changes were not only an effectuation of Rosicrucian designs, but were also part of God’s plan. The central theme in the Rosicrucian manifestos, the general reformation, is intimately related to the expectation that the end of the present age was at hand and that a new, perfected time would soon be upon us.
While these philosophical and apocalyptic aspects are clearly visible in the Fama and Confessio, the third text, the Chemical Wedding, is very different.55 The Chemical Wedding is presented as an autobiographical story from the perspective of Christian Rosencreutz. There are neither references in this text to the manifestos, nor do the manifestos refer to the Chemical Wedding, and the central element is no longer a general reformation but a description of a journey culminating in an allegorical alchemical wedding of the King and Queen. The story is divided into seven sections, each covering one day, over which the story plays out.
At the beginning of the story, the protagonist, Christian Rosencreutz, receives from an angel an invitation to the wedding of the King and Queen. He accepts, albeit hesitantly, and he sets out on his arduous journey the following morning.56 After a long and difficult walk on the second day and having overcome several hurdles, Rosencreutz arrives at the castle, his destination, only just in time. There, (the souls of) the guests will be weighed the next
53 Ibid., 105. On the new age before the Last Judgement, see below, section 1.2.
54 Fama, 92: “[...] und wihr uns billich einer glucklichen zeit ruhmen mogen.”
55 On the Chemical Wedding, see, for example: Kienast, Johann Valentin Andreae, 37-98; Yates, The Rosicrucian Enlightenment, 60-68; Gilly, JohannValentin Andreae, 77-83; idem, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 81-84; Frey-Jaun, Die Berufung des Turhuters; Edighoffer, Les Rose-Croix, 23-46; idem, “Rosicrucianism”; idem, Les Rose-Croix etla crise, 139-162; idem, “L’enigme Paracelsienne dans les Noces Chymiques de Christian Rosenkreuz,” 238-260; Brecht, Johann Valentin Andreae, 65-72; Christoph Brecht, “Johann Valentin Andreae. Zum literarischen Profil eines deutschen Schriftstellers.”
56 Chemical Wedding, 3-14.
figure 2 Leonhard Thurneysser, Quinta essentia (1574), fol. xxxvii
morning on a golden balance to determine whether they are allowed to enter the castle. To his merit, Rosencreutz passes the weighing test with such ease (he could carry eight weights instead of the requisite seven) that he is permitted the opportunity to bring with him into the castle a person of his own choosing. The person he chooses is described as an emperor, “keyser.”57 Together,
57 The Chemical Wedding speaks of multiple “keysers,” see for example: Chemical Wedding, 38-39.
they are two of the very few worthy ones allowed to attend the wedding of the King and Queen and to receive the Golden Fleece.58
The days which follow are taken up with festivities, dinners, tours in the castle, and, most importantly, preparations for the wedding, during which the select few further demonstrate their worth. They engage in work of an alchemical nature. When six royal persons (“Konigliche Personen”) present at the castle are executed on the fourth day, as part of the wedding preparations, their heads are used for an alchemical preparation from which ultimately the King and Queen arise, brought to life through fire from heaven.59 On the fifth day, Rosencreutz secretly observes the sleeping Venus, who was also in the castle but whom he was forbidden to visit. Rosencreutz’s spying on Venus is revealed on the final day, and the book ends with his punishment for having seen her: he is condemned to guard the first portal to the castle until someone else commits the same offence and will have to take his place as guard. The text concludes with the statement that two folios—purportedly dealing with Rosencreutz’s return home—are missing, thereby rendering the story incomplete.
Overtly allegorical in character, the Chemical Wedding is even more abstruse than the Fama and Confessio. It does not discuss the brethren’s philosophical claims and apocalyptic predictions, and rather than a general reformation it describes an alchemical process that can perhaps be best interpreted as an individual transformation. Unlike the Fama and Confessio, it is not a manifesto in the sense of a mission statement, and hence it does not discuss the mission of the brotherhood to reform the world. For this reason, this book will make only passing references to the Chemical Wedding, while the focus will be on the two manifestos.
58 Ibid., 44-45. It is not clear to what exactly the Golden Fleece refers, but in all likelihood it is related to Jason’s quest with the Argonauts. It presumably also refers to the Order of the Golden Fleece, the highest chivalric order in Europe at the time, which had been founded by the Duke of Burgundy, Philip iii on the occasion of his marriage in 1429 to the Infanta Isabella of Portugal. Given the story’s narration of the celebration of a wedding, the fact that the Order of the Golden Fleece was established during Rosencreutz’s presumed life, and that Rosencreutz was a knight himself according to the Chemical Wedding, this interpretation seems plausible.
59 Ibid., 72 ff. Fora more elaborate description and a free interpretation of the processes and symbolism in the Chemical Wedding, see: Edighoffer, “Rosicrucianism,” 188-195. Edighoffer here notes an influence of the Corpus Hermeticum. The final event occurred on the eighth floor of the Tower of Olympus. In the Corpus Hermeticum this signifies the ascent to God, see: ibid., 194.
The Historiography
The Rosicrucian manifestos provoked much debate in the decades after their publication, and were soon used as founding texts for the many Rosicrucian societies that were established following the purported Rosicrucian fraternity of Christian Rosencreutz.60 Owing partly to their immense popularity, and partly to their enigmatic contents, the manifestos have been the object of numerous investigations throughout the intervening centuries. As early as 1720, Daniel Colberg included them in Das Platonisch-Hermetische Christenthum, while in 1729 Gottfried Arnold discussed the manifestos in his Unpartheyische Kirche- und Ketzer-Historie.61 Many other studies of early Rosicrucianism have followed.62 Some historiographies offered interpretative accounts of the Rosicrucian mission statements,63 while other historians embarked on a more serious quest into the early history of Rosicrucianism. The works of Richard Kienast and Will-Erich Peuckert have proven to be important sources,64 but in the past century the work of Frances Yates has been particularly influential not only within the historiography on the manifestos, but also in other areas of research.65 These sources have by now become largely outdated, while the
60 For an overview of these societies, see: Tilton, “Rosicrucianism,” 171-183.
61 Colberg, Das Platonisch-Hermetische Christenthum; Arnold, Unpartheyische Kirche- und Ketzer-Historie.
62 Consider, for example: Buhle, Uber den Ursprung und die vornehmsten Schicksale der Orden der Rosenkreuzer und Freymaurer; Begemann, “Johann Valentin Andreae und die rosenkreuzer”; Kvacala, J. V Andreaes Anteil an geheimen Gesellschaften; Wolfstieg, Biblio- graphie derFreimaurerischenLiteratur; Kruger, Die Rozenkreuzer.
63 Waite, The Real History of the Rosicrucians is written from the perspective of modern Rosicrucianism. It provides English translations of the manifestos based on outdated early modern English versions, few references, and various mistakes, such as references to claims ostensibly made by Paracelsus long after the physician’s death; Schick, Das altere Rosenkreuzertum was published as vol. 1 in the series “Quellen und Darstellungen zur Freimauerfrage,” issued by the Nazi publishing house Norland Verlag, while Schick was a member of the SS; and McIntosh, The Rosicrucians lacks references and relates Rosicrucianism to Gnostic thinking while interpreting their texts on the basis of symbolism.
64 Kienast, Johann Valentin Andreae; Peuckert, Die Rosenkreuzer.
65 Yates’ The Rosicrucian Enlightenment is often presented as a standard work on Rosicru- cianism. However, some of her claims have been corrected. For example, Yates mistakenly argued that the contents of the manifestos have British origins, particularly in relation to the alchemist John Dee (1527-1608/9); that the manifestos were written in support of Elector Palatine Frederick v (1696-1632); and that Francis Bacon (1561-1626) was inspired by them, especially when writing his utopian New Atlantis (1626). For criticism of Yates, see: Vickers, “Frances Yates and the Writing of History,” 287-316; Webster’s book review of Yates’ The Rosicrucian Enlightenment in: The English Historical Review 89 (1974): 434-435;
scholarship has benefitted enormously from the paramount work of the foremost authority on Rosicrucianism, Carlos Gilly, as well as from such scholars as Donald Dickson, Didier Kahn, and Martin Brecht.66
The past historiography is characterised by many different approaches to the Rosicrucian manifestos. The texts themselves and the furore they aroused have both received in-depth analysis and attention. Yet, much of this scholarship remains dominated by the question of authorship. Who wrote these elusive texts? Over the past four centuries, scholars have provided diverse answers to this question, making it a highly contested topic in the histori- ography.67
One way of answering this question is by investigating the context in which the Rosicrucian manifestos came about. Scholars have thoroughly described this context and traced the networks from which these texts may have originated. Brecht, for example, approached the question of authorship by studying the early connections of the possible authors with one another.68 Gilly has also meticulously examined the early context of Rosicrucianism, including the origin of the manifestos themselves, the printing presses from which they were published, and the circles in which the manuscript versions of the manifestos, particularly the Fama, circulated.69
A second way of dealing with this question, and the road most travelled, is to examine the contents of the manifestos and to compare these with the views of the presumed authors as expressed in other texts attributed to them. This method has been used both to point to certain possible authors and to eliminate suggestions proposed by others.70 Nearly a century ago, Peuckert discussed
Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 22, 75-76; Kahn, “The Rosicrucian Hoax in France,” 236237.
66 Especially relevant are: Gilly, Johann Valentin Andreae; idem, “Iter Rosicrucianum”; idem, Adam Haslmayr; idem, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica; idem, “Comenius und die Rosenkreuzer”; idem, “der ’Lowe von Mittemacht’ ”; idem, “Die Rosenkreuzer”; idem, “Campanella and the Rosicrucians”; idem, “Vom agyptischen Hermes zum Trismegistus Germanus”; idem, “Las novas de 1572 y 1604 en los manifiestos rosacruces y en la literatura teosofica y escatolo- gica alemana anterior a la Guerra de los Treinta Anos.” See also Gilly’s articles included in: Gilly and Van Heertum (eds.), Magia Alchimia Scienza dal ’400 al ’700. See also: Dickson, The Tessera of Antilia; Kahn, “the Rosicrucian Hoax in France”; Brecht, Johann Valentin Andreae.
67 For an elaborate discussion of the question of authorship, see below, Chapter 3.
68 See especially: Brecht, Johann Valentin Andreae.
69 Gilly, Johann Valentin Andreae, 60, 71-73; idem, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, esp. 70, 77-79;
idem, “Die Rosenkreuzer.” Cf. also below, Chapter 3.
70 Cf. Kienast, Johann Valentin Andreae; Peuckert, Die Rosenkreuzer, 88 ff.; idem, Das Rosen- kreutz, 165-173; Montgomery, Cross and Crucible, vol. 1,160-240; Van Dulmen, “Einleitung,”
the manifestos in the beautiful prose of his Die Rosenkreuzer and concluded that the manifestos must have originated from a “pansophical circle.”71 Having nominated a particular author, the hand of whom they believe to have been at work in the manifestos, scholars have furthermore often interpreted and explained the contents of the manifestos themselves.72
Another thread of scholarship focuses on the contents of the manifestos without the side-tracking involved in questions of authorship. Partly thanks to their cryptic nature and occult elements, historians have sought to explain the three Rosicrucian founding texts in relation to esotericism and Hermet- icism (Fama and Confessio) and to alchemy (Chemical Wedding). They have described the occult meaning of Rosencreutz’s wanderings, noting the Rosicrucians’ indebtedness to hermetic currents, alchemical traditions, and even Kab- balistic views.73 This has led to a disparate range of interpretations of the texts. For example, Yates links them to Dee’s Monas hieroglyphica; Roland Edighof- fer’s Rose-Croix etsociete ideale analyses the manifestos from the perspective of theology, theosophy, and (alchemical) symbolism; Christopher McIntosh’s The Rosicrucians situates the manifestos in the context of esoteric traditions; and Susanna Akerman’s Rose Cross Over the Baltic associates them with esoteric, hermetic, and runic thought.74 Edighoffer furthermore reads the manifestos through a Paracelsian lens.75 Volkhard Wels, finally, associates the manifestos with Lutheran views.76
8-9; idem, Die Utopie, 73-79; Yates, TheRosicrucianEnlightenment, 140-155; Brecht, “Chili- asmus in Wurttemberg”; idem, Johann Valentin Andreae, 65-92; McIntosh, The Rosicrucians, 42-52; Edighoffer, Les Rose-Croix, 47-58; idem, Les Rose-Croix etla crise, 24-28, 30, 51-124; Akerman, Rose Cross, 70-72; Dickson, The Tessera of Antilia, 62-65.
71 Peuckert, Die Rosenkreuzer, 76, 98 ff.
72 Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 10, 12, 51-56, 75-80; idem, “Die Rosenkreutzer”; Dickson, The Tesseraof Antilia, ch. 3; Akerman, Rose Cross, 69-70; Wehr, “Johann Valentin Andreae,” 21 ff.; Schmidt-Biggemann, “Von Damcar nach Christianopolis.” Cf. Chapter 3.
73 For this reason, the manifestos inspired various occult movements in the twentieth century, such as those of Max Heindel, Rudolf Steiner, and Zwier Leene and Jan van Rijcken- borg; see: Tilton, “Rosicrucianism.”
74 See, for example: Yates, The Rosicrucian Enlightenment; McIntosh, The Rosicrucians; Edig-
hoffer, Rose-Croix et societe ideale; Akerman, Rose Cross. See further: Faivre, “Les Manifestos et la Tradition”; idem, Theosophy, Imagination, Tradition. See further: Waite, The Real History of the Rosicrucians; Peuckert, Das Rosenkreutz.
75 Edighoffer, Les Rose-Croix; idem, “Rosicrucianism”; idem, Les Rose-Croix et la crise, 163-174;
idem, “L’enigme Paracelsienne dans les Noces chymiques”; idem, “Die Manifeste der Rosenkreuzer.” See also: Shackelford, “Rosicrucianism, Lutheran Orthodoxy, and the Rejection of Paracelsianism”; Akerman, Rose Cross, 12-13, 121; Gilly, “Theophrastia Sancta”; idem, “Vom agyptischen Hermes zum Trismegistus Germanus”; Debus, The Chemical Philosophy, 211-213. On Paracelsus’ influence, see chapter 2.
76 Wels, “Die Frommigkeit der Rosenkreuzer-Manifeste.”
In order to understand the subsequent Rosicrucian furore, its diversity, and the hermetic, theosophical, and prophetic elements inherited from the manifestos, some historians have sought to provide an overview of the early response to the manifestos. Hans Schick, for example, besides studying the authorship and interpreting the manifestos, has also analysed the work of proponents and opponents of the Rosicrucians, such as Joachim Morsius and Friedrich Grick.77 Gilly has provided an overview of numerous Rosicrucian responses in several studies.78 Other scholars focused on Rosicrucianism in one specific region: Yates analysed Rosicrucianism in the German-speaking lands, France, and England; Akerman studied the Scandinavian response; Kahn analysed the hoax in Paris; and Govert Snoek traced the Rosicrucian episode in the Dutch regions.79 Finally, some scholars have narrowed their focus to specific authors involved in the Rosicrucian debate. For example, Gilly devoted an entire book to the early Rosicrucian protagonist Adam Haslmayr; Richard van Dulmen studied another supporter of the Rosicrucians, Daniel Mogling; while Bruce Moran focused on one of their critics, Andreas Libavius.80
A Fresh Approach
The present study will take a very different approach from those that have dominated the scholarship, and will provide a fresh analysis of the Rosicrucian manifestos and their early aftermath. The question of authorship will deliberately be postponed, and the contents of the manifestos will not be analysed and interpreted through the lens of authorship. Nor will this book focus on the esoteric elements in the manifestos, or map the Rosicrucian furore. Instead, it will focus directly on the contents of the texts in order to answer the question of their explosive impact: Why were these manifestos so controversial in the decades after their publication? What did some readers find so attractive, and others so dangerous? The best way to answer these questions is to focus on what was most central to the Rosicrucian cause: the notion of a general reformation. This raises the key question to be pursued:
77 Schick, Das altere Rosenkreuzertum.
78 Examples include: Gilly, Johann Valentin Andreae; idem, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica.
79 Yates, The Rosicrucian Enlightenment; Akerman, Rose Cross; Kahn, “The Rosicrucian Hoax
in France”; Snoek, De Rozenkruisers.
80 Van Dulmen, “Daniel Mogling”; Moran, “Alchemy, Prophecy, and the Rosicrucians”; Gilly, Adam Haslmayr.
Where did the call for a general reformation come from, and how was it interpreted in the early stages of the response?81
The key concept contained in the manifestos—the general reformation— has remained virtually terra incognita. Its centrality has been acknowledged, and the manifestos have been associated with eschatology and apocalypticism, but an in-depth analysis of the texts in the context of the general reformation and of expectations of a new age has remained a desideratum. The call for a reformation, or a renovation, as the texts also phrase it, is not fully explored in the literature on the manifestos, but is more often mentioned either in the context of authorship or understood as part of the manifestos’ esoteric inspir- ation.82 Conversely, numerous studies have been devoted to Jewish and Christian apocalyptic and millenarian prophecies, the place and role of eschatology or hopeful expectations within the main confessions, and medieval and early modern thoughts on a (universal) reformation. Yet, most references within these texts to the Rosicrucian appeals for a general reformation are made only en passant.83 Current scholarship does not discuss the set of apocalyptic and prophetic ideas in the manifestos and their connection to previous traditions in any detail, and an in-depth study of the Rosicrucian concept of general
81 The extent to which the manifestos may have been fictitious fabrications will not feature as an important consideration, since this has no bearing on the origins of, or early responses to, the ideas contained in them.
82 For references to the Rosicrucian general reformation, especially in the context of authorship and esotericism, see for example: Kienast, Johann Valentin Andreae, 140; Peuck- ert, Das Rosenkreutz, 81-82; idem, Die Rosenkreuzer, 8-17, 70; Schick, Das altere Rosen- kreuzertum, 57ff.; Yates, The Rosicrucian Enlightenment, 45,101,130,134-135, and passim; Brecht, “JohannValentin Andreae,” 301, 312-317; idem, “Chiliasmus in Wurttemberg im17. Jahrhundert,” 25; idem, Johann Valentin Andreae, 75-76; Van Dulmen, Die Utopie, 78, 82; Gilly, Johann ValentinAndreae, 118-120; idem, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 75, 77; idem, Adam Haslmayr, 85-90; McIntosh, The Rosicrucians, 48-50; Dickson, The Tessera of Antilia, 71, 75, 79; Akerman, Rose Cross, 7; eadem, “The Rosicrucians and the Great Conjunctions,” 1; Schmidt-Biggemann, “Von Damcar nach Christianopolis,” 105-132; Wehr, “J.V. Andreae und die Rosenkreutzer Manifeste,” 20; Edighoffer, “Die Manifeste der Rosenkreuzer,” 162; Salvadori, “From Spiritual Regeneration to Collective Reformation,” 5, 11-12; Tilton, “The Rosicrucian Manifestos and Early Rosicrucianism,” 128.
83 The manifestos’ call for reform is mentioned in, for example: Haase, Das Problem des Chiliasmus, 104; Reeves, Joachim of Fiore and the Prophetic Future, 149; Kuntz, Guillaume Postel, 174; Mendelsohn and Nowotny, Nineteen Eighty-Four, 60-61; Barnes, Prophecy and Gnosis, 219-221; Mout, “Chiliastic Prophecy and Revolt,” 95, 98; Hamilton, The Apocryphal Apocalypse, 162-163; Trepp, Von der Gltickseligkeit allies zu Wissen, 71-73; Penman, “Climbing Jacob’s Ladder,” 211; idem, “Between Utopia and New Jerusalem,” 472; idem, Hope and Heresy, 95, 192; Hotson, “Outsiders, Dissenters,” 13. A clear and concise discussion of Rosicrucianism in relation to apocalypticism and reform can be found in: Hotson, Johann Heinrich Alsted, 95-109, esp. 103-109.
reformation, its meaning, its origin, its position within Judeo-Christian eschatology, and its relation to the Lutheran context or more generally to a confessional understanding of history has been missing. The same is true for scholarship on the early responses to the manifestos, in which the notion of reform and its related apocalyptic elements have yet to receive the attention they deserve.
The point of departure for this book is the conviction that we need to meticulously study the call for change, which played such a prominent role in the Rosicrucian manifestos. More specifically, we need to investigate where this call came from, what role it played in the early positive response, and why it aroused so much controversy in the period directly following the publication of the manifestos.
By shedding light on an important body of early seventeenth-century ideas of reformation and reform, we will try to arrive at an understanding of early modern concepts of change as it was promoted and carried out by actors who have not become the heroes of history. In doing so, this study will take into account attempts at reform beyond the strict boundaries of science and religion. It will attempt to escape the confines of disciplinary history through the study of texts that were not themselves restricted to, and cannot be understood through, one specific discipline. The aim is to take a multidisciplinary approach that goes well beyond current disciplinary boundaries and to embrace a range of specialist fields, including the history of alchemy and medicine, the history of science broadly conceived, religious studies, and the history of philosophy.
In the past historiography, scholars have sometimes referred to Luther’s Reformation as the first reformation and have regarded Calvinism as a second reformation;84 but such numeration oversimplifies the constant yearning for reform which started to emerge in the late Middle Ages and continued to develop at least until the second half of the seventeenth century.85 At the time the manifestos were drafted, there was a widespread but subterranean current of dissenting views and anti-establishment reformative zeal that diverged from
84 See, for example: Schilling, “Die ’zweite Reformation’ als Kategorie der Geschichtswis- senschaft.”
85 Williams, The RadicalReformation; Gilly, “Johann Arndt,” 60-62; Wallace, TheLongReform-
ation; Stayer, “Swiss-South German Anabaptism”; Goertz, “Karlstadt, Muntzer and the Reformation of the Commoners, 1521-1525,” esp. pp. 2-3; McLaughin, “Spiritualism,” 147-155; idem, “Radicals,” 98-100; Hotson, “Central Europe,” 164 ff.; idem, “Outsiders, Dissenters”; Dixon, “The Radicals”; idem, Contesting the Reformation. Gilly excluded some figures who proposed a restitution rather than a reformation, but restitution and reformation were not mutually exclusive, as we will see in the case of the Rosicrucians.
orthodoxy,86 of which the Rosicrucian episode was one example. Some of these currents resulted in religious groups which are commonly categorised by historians under the heading “Radical Reformation.” This broad rubric however covers a large number of heterogeneous groups, and even within the main Protestant confessions clusters of Lutherans and Calvinists endorsed a multiplicity of views in acute tension with the mainstream orthodoxies of their own con- fessions.87 The Reformation period therefore is increasingly seen not only from the perspective of the winners (Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin), but now includes those who have long been excluded from traditional accounts of “the Reformation.” This involves also figures for whom religious reform was inextricably linked with the reform of alchemy, medicine, or spiritualism, for example, as can be observed in the cases of the Paracelsians, Weigelians, and Schwenck- feldians, and which may also be noted in relation to the Rosicrucians’ general reformation.88 By acknowledging such a large range of reform plans, historians have shifted the meaning of the term “Reformation,” as it has come to include figures preceding or opposing magisterial reformers as well as notions of academic, natural-philosophical, or political reform.89
Notwithstanding this plurality of reformations, there were those who desired a general or all-embracing reformation, a striving that has come to be known as “universal reformation.” Universal reformation is by definition all-embracing and encompasses a wide range of activities, including plans to reform, amongst others, religion, politics, philosophy, medicine, and education. Several figures who have been placed in that tradition include Theophrastus Paracelsus (1493/4-1541) and his successors, the theosopher Valentin Weigel (1533-1588), and the Lutheran theologian Johann Arndt (1555-1621)^0 Additionally, figures as diverse as Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464), Jan Baptista Van Helmont (1579-1644), and Johann Heinrich Alsted (1588-1638) have recently
86 When notions, ideas, theories, or conclusions are referred to as orthodox or heterodox, this is done in the highly specific context of Lutheran orthodoxy of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
87 Cf. for example: Barnes, Prophecy and Gnosis, 116-117, 183-207; Hotson, Johann Heinrich Alsted; idem, “Arianism and Millenarianism”; Penman, “Between Utopia and New Jerusalem.”
88 On this, see: Hamilton, The Apocryphal Apocalypse, 144, 156 ff.; Lotz-Heumann, “Confes- sionalization”; Hotson, “Central Europe,” 168-170, 189; idem, “Outsiders, Dissenters,” 301303.
89 Cf. Oberman, The Two Reformations; Cameron, The European Reformation, 1; Dixon, Contesting the Reformation; Hotson, “Outsiders, Dissenters,” esp. 301-306. On magisterial reformers, see below, Chapter 1, n. 2.
90 Hotson, “Outsiders, Dissenters.”
been put into this context; while also Jan Amos Comenius (1592-1670) and Samuel Hartlib (ca. 1600-1662) and their circle of friends have been studied from the perspective of universal reformation. Historian Howard Hotson especially has contributed extensively to the study of universal reformation.91
Like their contemporaries, the authors of the manifestos and their followers appealed for what they called a general reformation, which was highly heterogeneous and not restricted to, or informed by, any one confession. According to Reformation historians, “confessionalization” was a widespread process between 1550 and 1650, linking religion and confession to society and politics through social discipline.92 The formation of confessions, the transformation of the state, and the use of social discipline are seen as interrelated processes, while early modern religion and confession structured, influenced, and transformed social and political life through indoctrination, education, and rituals.93 This, in turn, created social groups defined and divided according to their confession.94 This book aims to show how the Rosicrucian manifestos attempted to circumvent this contemporary process of “confessionaliza- tion,” and in fact opposed confessional doctrines in their proposal of universal change.
The Rosicrucian reformation and its immediate aftermath should be understood against the background of this enlarged perspective of reformation. In the following chapters, several aspects of the manifestos’ call for change—in the form of a reformation, a revolution, or a renovation95—will be retraced to medieval and early modern traditions up to the start of the Thirty Years’ War. Part One (Chapters One and Two) is devoted to the sources of the manifestos. In order to understand the Rosicrucian call for a general reformation, itis essential to study first the origins of this idea. Medieval and early modern interpretations
91 Hotson, “Philosophical Pedagogy”; idem, Johann Heinrich Alsted 1588-1638; idem, “The Instauration of the Image of God in Man”; idem, Commonplace Learning; idem, “Outsiders, Dissenters”; see further: Greengrass, Leslie and Raylor (eds.), Samuel Hartlib and Universal Reformation; Hedesan, An Alchemical Quest for Universal Knowledge; Burton, Hollmann, and Parker (eds.), Nicholas of Cusa and the Making of the Early Modern World. The new Brill series edited by Vladimfr Urbanek and Howard Hotson on “Universal Reform: Studies in Intellectual History, 1550-1700,” of which this book is a part, is designed to help consolidate the historiography on this topic.
92 On “confessionalization,” see especially: Schilling, “Die ’zweite Reformation’ als Kategorie der Geschichtswissenschaft”; idem, “Die Konfessionalisierung im Reich”; idem, “Between the Territorial State and Urban Liberty”; Hsia, Social Discipline in the Reformation, 2-6.
93 Hsia, Social Discipline in the Reformation, 5.
94 Ibid., 12 ff.
95 On these terms in the Rosicrucian manifestos, see below, Chapter 1.
of, and prophecies about, the course of history will be analysed and compared in order to clarify the theme of a general reformation in the Rosicrucian texts. In the first chapter, the manifestos will be compared with related medieval Catholic and early modern traditions and studied from the perspective of the (radical) Reformation.96 Chapter Two is devoted to Paracelsian themes. Although the Paracelsian inspiration of several of the manifestos’ tenets has been investigated previously, here the Paracelsian impetus will be investigated specifically from the perspective of the notion of a general reformation and related apocalyptic expectations. The aim is to provide a fresh understanding of the Paracelsian influence on the manifestos. Likewise, not only genuine works of Paracelsus need to be reviewed but also early Paracelsian and pseudoParacelsian texts, which were published shortly before the manifestos were drafted and which are generally neglected in studies on Rosicrucianism.
Only after the origins of the contents of the manifestos have been sufficiently dealt with, is it appropriate to discuss the origins of the texts themselves and to return to the question of authorship. In Part Two (Chapter Three), we will first briefly review the question of authorship of the manifestos and, secondly, analyse the findings of Part One, and the key element of a general reformation in particular, in relation to the views expressed by the authors in other manuscript and printed texts. To what extent can the importance of the general reformation be observed in their other writings and what does this suggest about the manifestos’ authorship and purpose?
Part Three (Chapters Four and Five) will in turn concentrate on the response to the manifestos. The aim of this part is not to trace the course of the Rosicrucian furore, but instead to analyse through several case studies specifically how the notion of a general reformation and related themes developed among the early readers of the manifestos. This approach will shed fresh light on the reasons for specific authors’ support or dismissal of the Rosicrucian cause. To what extent was this theme appealing to Rosicrucian followers and controversial to those condemning the manifestos? Chapter Four will specifically concentrate on the early Rosicrucian furore, in order to describe in detail the role of the Rosicrucian call for reform in the early welcoming response. Chapter Five will then study debates between authors vehemently attacking the Rosicrucian movement and authors defending it, in order to examine what was at stake in the views of both proponents and opponents of that movement. These
96 With respect to the Protestant tradition, both magisterial and radical reformers will be discussed. See further: McGrath, Reformation Thought; Dixon, “The Radicals.” For an overview of radical reformers, see: Williams, The Radical Reformation.
texts will also be compared with formal reactions to Rosicrucianism within universities and courts, in which scholars were sometimes investigated and prosecuted for their Rosicrucian sympathies.
In the Conclusion, the findings of the previous chapters will be reviewed, analysed, and compared, and some thoughts on further research will be provided.
Lyke de Vries - 978-90-04-24939-4
Downloaded from Brill.com05/24/2022 05:15:25PM via free access
part 1
The Origins
Lyke de Vries - 978-90-04-24939-4
Downloaded from Brill.com05/24/2022 05:15:25PM via free access
chapter 1
Back to the Sources
In order to understand the unorthodox and innovative character of the Rosicrucian manifestos, their call for a general reformation requires detailed analysis. Because the authors drew on previous traditions to formulate their reform plans, their call and its related elements can only be properly understood when studied from the historical background from which the manifestos emerged. By retracing the origins of the notion of general reformation and by situating it in the medieval and early modern religious and philosophical context, it will be possible to understand the manifestos’ impetus, antithetical nature, and also their ingenuity.1
It is the aim of this chapter to analyse the Rosicrucian call for a general reformation particularly in relation to religion, politics, and knowledge. In so doing, this chapter will study the extent to which the Rosicrucian manifestos received an impetus from medieval millenarian expectations and reform plans in relation to apocalyptic notions; in what ways their views differed from, were similar to, or were affected by Protestant (confessional or radical2) views; and in what way their call for reform, their interpretation of God’s plan for the development of history, and their philosophy related to various astronomical and Renaissance sources.3
1 Part of this chapter has previously appeared in: De Vries, “The Rosicrucian Reformation.” I am grateful to Brill for allowing me to reproduce part of the contents of that article here.
2 Representatives of the main confessions, magisterial reformers, were often closely connected to secular authorities, contrary to the radical reformers of the time, who abstained from such associations. For a discussion of magisterial reformers and their doctrines, see: McGrath, Reformation Thought; for the radicals, see: Dixon, Contesting the Reformation; idem, “The Radicals.” For an overview of radical reformers, see: Williams, The Radical Reformation. Orthodox Calvinism (or rather the Reformed religion), as opposed to Lutheranism, generally lacked a clear eschatology, which is why this confession will not be considered in relation to apocalyptic thought and eschatology, even if various Calvinist and Reformed groups held eschatological views (consider, for example: Webster, The Great Instauration; Hotson, Johann Heinrich Alsted). Moreover, because the manifestos originated from the German Protestant context, this study will focus primarily on that region.
3 Reform plans are intrinsically different from eschatology, apocalypticism, or millenarian- ism, and these are not necessarily related to one another, despite the fact that they often go hand in hand. The call for a reformation does not necessarily require or imply a (coherent) eschatology, and eschatological prophecies may well exist without ambitions to reform the world.
The manifestos used three different terms to express their intention of worldly reform: reformation (“reformatio” and “allgemeine Reformation”), revolution (“ex mundi revolutione futura”), and renovation (“mundo renov- ando”). Although closely related, each of these terms hints at a different aspect of the Rosicrucian mission. They provide an obvious structure for discussing the context of this vision of reform and for distinguishing its sources.
1.1 The Reformation of Divine and Human Things
Reformatio divini: The Overthrow of the Papal Antichrist
Of the three terms used in the manifestos to describe the Rosicrucians’ quest to improve the world, the most prominent and frequently employed was the term “reformatio” or “allgemeine Reformation.” According to the texts, “many outstanding minds contribute to the future reformation with their contemplations through many parts,”4 like the Rosicrucians’ own founding father, Christian Rosencreutz, who “strove for such a goal of a general reformation.”5
“Reformation” is also the most conservative term employed in the manifestos indicating their programme of change. The term “reformation” would have sounded reassuringly Protestant to the contemporary reader, and it has also led historians to assume that the manifestos are grounded in mainstream Protestantism in general and in Lutheranism in particular.6 By using the word “reformation,” the manifestos give the impression of an alignment with the Protestant idea of Reformation: after Martin Luther (1483-1546), this term naturally carried the connotation of an overhaul of the religious world according to Lutheran inclinations.7
But the idea of ’reform’ is, of course, much older than ’The Reformation’; and although some elements of the Rosicrucian manifestos are distinctively Protestant, these are far fewer and less profound than historians have generally supposed. In fact, the only really distinctive Protestant feature is mentioned
4 Confessio, 54-55: “Ac sicut agnoscimus, multa praeclara Ingenia suis Meditationibus futurae Reformationi per partes multum conferre.” In the German version is written: Confessio (Gdansk), 70-71: “Gleich wie wir nun gerne bekennen, dafi viel vortrefflicher Leute der zukun- ftigen Reformation mit Schrifften nicht geringen Vorschub thun [...].”
5 Fama, 93: “Zu solchem intent einer general Reformation hat sich auch hoch und lange zeit bemuhet, der weyland Andachtige Geistliche und Hocherleuchte Vatter Fr. C.R., ein Teutscher, unserer Fraternitet Haupt und Anfanger [...].”
6 See below, n. 262.
7 On the early seventeenth-century association of the term “reformation” with Luther’s Reformation, see: Dixon, Contesting the Reformation, 9.
en passant and has no significant bearing on the Rosicrucian conception of general reform; namely the notion that there are only two Christian sacraments, as opposed to the seven maintained by Catholics. While opting for the more general and less religiously loaded “renewal,” the authors of the manifestos sympathised with the two Protestant Churches, when they stated that they themselves “also enjoy two sacraments, as instituted with all formulae and ceremonies of the first renewed Churches.”8 By acknowledging the validity of Baptism and the Eucharist, the only two sacraments recognised in Lutheranism and Calvinism, the authors implicitly referred to the first new Lutheran and Calvinist Churches. It seems that they did not want to begin their reform by challenging directly and openly the authority of these Churches, but rather placed themselves within the sixteenth-century Protestant reforms of Church and theology. However, the use of the plural is significant here, and indicates that the manifestos deliberately do not discriminate between the Evangelicals and the Reformed.
Other elements of the Rosicrucian call for reform may share some similarities with mainstream Protestant views, but are in fact much more in the proximity of medieval and early modern radical ideas. One such seemingly orthodox notion was the Rosicrucians’ identification of the pope as the Antichrist. The authors of the manifestos claimed that the Antichrist, that abominal figure who was to come to earth to deceive the people, was already present. The introductory passage of the Confessio, addressed to the reader, is unequivocal:
And as we now openly call the pope the Antichrist, which was previously everywhere a capital crime: so we know that what we whisper here, we shall in the future shout out loud.9
It should not come as a surprise that the reform of religion should begin by identifying the Antichrist with the religious ruler seated on his throne in Rome. Dissenting from the Roman Church, but implicitly associating themselves with the Protestant Reformation, the brethren claimed that the worst enemy of Christ was dwelling amongst them, and he was that figure who claimed to be Christ’s representative on earth. Because the figure of the Antichrist usually
8 Fama, 123: “[Wir] geniessen auch zweyer Sacrementen, wie die angesetzt mit allen Phrasibus und Ceremoniis der ersten renovirten Kirchen.”
9 Confessio, 41-42: “At sicut nunc tuto Papam Antichristum vocamus, quod prius quocun- quem in loco capitale erat: ita futurum scimus, ut, quod hic mussitamus, sublato clamore intonemus.”
denoted the world’s imminent end, it was obvious that his presence in Rome indicated turbulent times.
The idea that there would one day come a mighty deceiver, an Antichrist, had its origin in several biblical passages, such as Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21.10 The presence of the Antichrist was expected to be accompanied by much distress and destruction on earth in the Final Days. According to Matthew 24:24, this destruction would be caused by deceivers working for Satan, arriving in the guise of “false Christs, and false prophets.” One such deceiver is the Antichrist. The traditional conception was that the final Antichrist will come in the end and rule for three and a half years, based on Revelation 11:3, as was the view of the influential Church Father Augustine of Hippo (354-430)^ The pronouncement about the Antichrist in the Confessio is obviously heavily informed by such biblical passages.
The Rosicrucian conviction that specifically the pope was the Antichrist follows numerous Protestant examples: among Protestants, pamphlets identifying the Antichrist with the Roman papacy were legion, with imagery depicting the pope in abominable ways.12 This identification of the Antichrist with the office of the pope implied that instead of a period of three and a half years, the Antichrist had evidently ruled for many centuries, since the beginning of the papacy.13 Luther had argued that not only the pope himself, but the very office
10 These texts explicitly refer to the Antichrist. During the Middle Ages, many other texts provided source material for prophecies about the Antichrist, e.g., 2 Thessaloniki 2:3-11 and Revelation 11-13, 17. See further: Emmerson, Antichrist in the Middle Ages, 35-46. See also: 1 John 2:18. This study refers to the King James Version throughout, unless stated otherwise.
11 Augustine, De civitate dei, 20, chapter 23. Revelation 11:3: “And I will give power unto my
two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed and sackcloth.” See also: Daniel 12:7. On Augustine, see: Gilson, The Christian Philosophy of Saint Augustine; Brown, Augustine of Hippo.
12 See, for example, the images given in Luther, wa 54, “Wider das Papsttum zu Rom,” 346373; and the Passional Christi und Antichristi by Luther’s collaborator Lucas Cranach the Younger. See also: Seebafi, “Antichrist iv,” tre 3, 28-43, esp. 28-29; McGinn, “Angel Pope and Papal Antichrist,” 155-173. On the Antichrist in history, see: Preuss, Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist; Emmerson, Antichrist in the Middle Ages; McGinn, Antichrist. For the Antichrist in the Middle Ages, see: Benrath, “Antichrist iii,” tre 3, 24-28; and in the early modern period: Seebafi, “Antichrist iv,” tre 3; Scribner, For the Sake of Simple Folk: Popular Propoganda for the German Reformation; McGinn, Antichrist, 204-211; Oberman, Luther.
13 Luther, ea 26, pp. 120,138; see also: Luther, wa 7, 389, to the pope: “[...] ich [schelte] dich den Endchrist, den Paulus vorbannet und vormaledeyet alz den, der seines herrn ordnung endert, seynem Evangelio widderstrebt und das selb umkeret.” Cf.: Kunz, Protestantische Eschatologie, 5-25; Barnes, Prophecy and Gnosis, 1-3, 38-54; Leppin, Antichrist undJung- ster Tag; Rotondo, “Anticristo e chiesa Romana.”
figure 3 Lucas Cranach, Passional Christi und Antichristi, depiction of the Anti
christ, hab Wolfenbuttel
of the pope represented the Antichrist, thereby shifting the identification of the apocalyptic figure from the person or group of persons to the institution. In a letter to Johann Lange he announced that “[w]e are certain of this, that the papacy is the seat of that true and real Antichrist [...],”M while he wrote in his Babylonian Captivity of the Church that “[t]he papacy is nothing but the
14 Luther, wa 2 (“Briefwechsel”), 167: “Nos hic persuasi sumus, papatum esse veri et germani illius Antichristi sedem [■],” letter to Johann Lange dated 18 August 1520. Compare also
kingdom of Babylon and of the true Antichrist.”15 His claim is based on Revelation 17, in which the Whore of Babylon is described as sitting astride a beast with seven heads, which are thought to depict the seven hills on which Rome, and hence the Roman papacy, is built.16 In the same vein, the Confessio did not refer to one specific pope as the Antichrist, but rather implied that it was the entire institution that was to be abolished.
The pope was formally labelled the Antichrist in the Lutheran Formula of Concord (1577) and the Book of Concord (1580), which outlined the official doctrinal views of that confession.17 But also in other Protestant movements the pope or papacy was seen to represent the Antichrist. The leader of the Reformed Church, John Calvin, who generally did not engage in apocalyptic theories, wrote that “Daniel and Paul foretold that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God. With us, it is the Roman pontiff we make the leader and standard-bearer of that wicked and abominable kingdom.”18 This view was virtually universal also amongst more radical types of Protestantism. Identifying the pope as the Antichrist, the worst enemy of the Christian world, turned him into the enemy of all Protestant reformers: each Protestant denomination, whether Lutheran, Zwinglian, Anabaptist or otherwise radical, agreed that the Antichrist could be found in the Roman Church.19
p. 759, where the pope is denounced as “destroyer of the heavenly kingdom and corruptor of innocence” (“vastator regni caelorum corruptorque simplicitatis [...]”). On Luther and the Antichrist, see: Preuss, Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist, 75,134,158-159.
15 Luther, wa 6, 537: “esseque papatum aliud revera nihil quam regnum Babylonis et veri Antichristi.” Babylon originates from Revelation 17, and signifies a female figure, the mother of abomination, and an evil place, not to be mistaken for the once great city Babylon; see also: Luther, wa 6, 498.
16 On this, see also: Schmidt, Die Illustrationen der Lutherbibel 1522-1700, 110-111, 125, 214; Antognazza and Hotson, Alsted and Leibniz; 130-136.
17 Lietzman (ed.), “Apologie der Konfession,” in Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelischen- lutherischen Kirche (1952), 300: “Ita et papatus erit pars regni antichristi, si sic defendit humanos cultus, quod iustificent. Detrahitur enim honos Christo, cum docent, quod non propter Christum gratis iustificemur per fidem, sed per tales cultus [...]”; see also pp. 234, 239-240, 246, 364, 424, 430, 484, 489, which also include references to the Antichrist in the context of articles of faith.
18 Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, iv.ii.12, cited and translated in: McGinn, Antichrist, 212. On Calvinist millenarianism, see: Hotson, “The Historiographical Origins of Calvinist Millenarianism”; idem, Paradise Postponed.
19 An overview of the theories related to the Antichrist among radical reformers remains a desideratum, but it is touched upon in: Williams, The Radical Reformers; Klaassen, Living at the End of Ages, 53-73. See also the famous medieval Prophecies about the Popes (Vati- cinia de summis pontificibus), and its numerous early modern printed editions. On this text, see: Reeves, The Influence of Prophecy, 453-462. Compare the editions by: Lichtenberger, Prognosticatio (1484); Osiander, Eyn wunderliche Weyssagung von dem Babstumb
The Rosicrucians’ parallels with Protestant prophecies are also clear from a second passage of the Confessio about the Antichrist:
The supreme Ruler [...] bestows excellence upon the humble and tortures the proud through darkness; He sends angels to discourse with the silent, and thrusts the garrulous into solitude; a worthy punishment for the Roman Impostor, who has already poured out a full and abundant mouthful of blasphemies against Christ. Not even in the full light with which Germany has disclosed his tunnels and subterranean mazes, does he abstain from lies, so that he fills his measure no less entirely and may appear no less dignified. Thus, there will be another time when this viper will end its hissing and the triple crown will be reduced to naught.20
The “Roman Impostor” is clearly the pope, who carries the triple crown and poses as Christ’s representative on earth. But he is actually the Antichrist, and his abuses have already been brought to light by Germany—a patriotic reference to the Protestant Reformation. The pope was here not first and foremost considered abominable for his wealth—contrary to Luther’s first criticism of the papacy, which concerned indulgences and the abuses thereof21—but for his lack of virtuousness, as he blasphemed against Christ. This was the main transgression for which he ought to be overthrown. The Rosicrucians indeed insisted that they “detest the blasphemies against our Jesus of both East and West
(1527), 403-484; Paracelsus, Auslegung der Papstbilder (ca. 1532), i, 12; 536-585. According to Regine Frey-Jaun, the possible authors of the manifestos were influenced by Osiander’s prophecies: Frey-Jaun, Die Berufung des Turhuters, 130. For Anabaptists, see, for example: Franck, “A Letter to John Campanus,” included in: Williams and Mergal, Spiritual Anabaptist Writers, 148, 151; for Rothmann, see: Klaassen, Living at the End of Ages, 54-55. Over time, people of various groups named each other “Antichrist,” and as a consequence the figure became unrelated to any eschatological framework. As Gottfried Seebafi observed: “When at the end [of the Reformation] every party identifies the other as the Antichrist, the concept loses any clear content and gradually comes to be used as a purely polemical generic term,” Seebafi, “Antichrist iv,” tre 3, 36; McGinn, Antichrist, 217.
20 Confessio, 59-60: “[.] supremo Rectori, qui excellentiam confert humilibus, superbos obscuritate cruciat. Taciturnis Angelos confabulantes mittit, Garrulos in solitudinem detrudit, quali poena dignus est Romanus Impostor, qui blasphemias suas jam pleno et abundanti ore in Christum effudit, neque jam in media luce, qua Germania ipsius antra et subterraneos meatus detexit, a mendacio abstinet, ne minus mensuram adimplevisse, et securi dignus videatur. Erit itaque aliquando, ubi sibilare desinat haec vipera, et Corona triplex in nihilum redigatur.” See also the German Confessio (Gdansk), 77-78.
21 Luther’s rejection of indulgences was grounded in his sola fide, cf. Mathison, The Shape of the Sola Scriptura, 89-94.
(that is, Mohammed and the pope).”22 The pope was deemed blasphemical and in this, he was no better than the infidels from the East, the Turks, who threatened to conquer the West—such antipathy toward the Muslim world that was also voiced by Luther.23 Although this anti-Muslim feeling at first seems to stand in a somewhat antithetical position vis-a-vis the tale of Rosen- creutz’s educational sojourn in the Arab world, the Fama pointed out that the studies of the Fezzians were perverted by their religion, Islam, and the manifestos do not evince any Islamic sympathies.24
It is thus easy to identify in contemporary religious literature inspiration for the Rosicrucian reference to the pope or papacy as the Antichrist, and the authors of the manifestos gave the impression of associating themselves with the Protestant tradition. They acknowledged that views that could previously be held only in private, might in the future be openly vowed (“what we whisper here, we shall in the future shout out loud”). Arguably thanks to Luther, the identification of the pope with the Antichrist was no longer “a capital crime.”25 By using the first-person plural already on the opening page of the Confessio, the authors of the manifestos made the rhetorical move of associating themselves with all Protestants opposed to the Roman Church, whether those Protestants were organised into a confession or not.
But neither the Protestants in general nor the Lutherans in particular really whispered this identification: their criticism of pope and papacy was shouted throughout the German lands and far abroad, both in words and in pictures, whereas the Rosicrucian manifestos referred back to the time of the first brethren. When Christian Rosencreutz started the fraternity, this identification was not yet a propagandistic commonplace, but was expressed in a more clandestine manner.
That the pope was the Antichrist was whispered in late medieval prophecies, well before the Lutheran Reformation. In those prophecies—originating from a variety of dissident reforming movements—individual popes, and sometimes the papacy as an institution, were identified with the Antichrist. In the twelfth century, Joachim of Fiore (ca. 1135-1202), a Franciscan abbot, founder of the monastic order of San Giovanni in Fiore, and father of the Joachimite movement, had referred to the “universal pontifex,” the pope, as the Antichrist,
22 Confessio, 44: “[...] Orientis simul et Occidentis (Mahometan et Papam intellige) contra
Jesum nostrum blasphemias detestamur.”
23 On Luther’s views on the Turks, see: Ocker, Luther, Conflict and Christendom, 257. On other Protestant positions about the threat posed by the Turks, see: ibid., 257-271.
24 Fama, 97.
25 Cf. above, n. 9.
“about whom Paul says that he will be elevated and opposed to everything that is said to be God.”26 This identification became more personal among some of his followers, whom the historiographical traditions collectively group under the heading “Spiritual Franciscans” as followers of Francis of Assisi (ca. 1182-1226).27 As in the case of the radical reformers, there was no doctrinal unity between these Franciscans, and the movement lasted moreover for several centuries.28 While Joachim only expected a false pope, some late- medieval Spiritual Franciscans labelled specific popes as the Antichrist. The Franciscan Ubertino of Casale (1259-ca. 1329) identified in his Tree of Life Pope Boniface viii (1230-1303, Pope between 1295-1303) and his successor Pope Benedict xi (1240-1304, Pope between 1303-1304) as Antichrists.29 The medieval alchemist and Spiritual Franciscan John of Rupescissa (also called Jean de Roquetaillade, 1310-ca. 1370) expected several popes to represent the Antichrist, including one false pope and the antipope Nicolas v (1258-1333, antipope between 1328-1330).30 Fourteenth-century radical Franciscans, the
26 Joachim, Expositio in Apocalypsim, 168ra: “[...] Ita bestia que ascendet de terra habitura
sit quendam magnum prelatum qui sit similis Symonis Magi et quasi universalis pon- tifex in toto orbe terrarum. Et ipse sit ille Antichristus de quo dicit Paulus quod ex tollitur et adversatur supra omne quod dicitur deus.” See further: ibid., 10vb-11ra. See also McGinn’s (somewhat different) translation, including references to biblical books in: McGinn, “Joachim of Fiore and the Twelfth-century Papacy,” 29. Simon Magus is the Magician of Acts 8:9-13, 18-24, who is occasionally thought to have been the forerunner of the Antichrist, see: Emmerson, Antichrist in the Middle Ages, 27. See also: Joachim, Expositio in Apocalypsim, 133ra: “Unde scimus quia novissima hora est. Sequi non longe post ipsum magnum Antichristum demonstrat, quem ego considerans universas facies scripturarum et introitus et exitus concordiarum, presentem puto esse in mundo”; and Joachim, Il Libro delle figure, plate xiv: “et ipse dyabolus exibit in fine mundi [.],” in: McGinn, Visions of the End, 137-138. On Joachim in general, see: McGinn, The Calabrian Abbot; Wessley, Joachim of Fiore and Monastic Reform; Potesta, Il Tempo dell’apocalisse. On Joachim’s treatment of the Antichrist as pope, see: McGinn, “Joachim of Fiore and the Twelfth-century Papacy,” 28-30.
27 Examples are Bonaventura, Fra Angelo, Olivi, Dolcino, Frater Arnold; see: Reeves, Joachim of Fiore and the Prophetic Future, 29-62.
28 Cf. Burr, The Spiritual Franciscans.
29 Ubertino of Casale, Arbor Vitae, partly reproduced and translated in: McGinn, Visions of the End, 212-215.
30 The antipope Nicolas v is thus not pope Nicolas v, who was pope from 1447-1455. The false pope and the antipope are not the same Antichrists, according to Rupescissa. In his Liber secretorum eventuum, written in prison, he lists six Antichrists of which the antipope is number three and the false pope number four, see: Rupescissa, Liber secretorum eventuum, edited by Lerner, 141. See also DeVun, who claims that Rupescissa expected an eastern, a western, and a final Antichrist: DeVun, Prophecy, Alchemy and the End of Time, 38. Although Olivi and Rupescissa expected a false pope as Antichrist, they never referred
“Fraticelli,” directed their disapproval against the Roman Pope John xxii (12441334, Pope between 1316-1334) and his successors.31 These authors expressed their revulsion at the pope, but they did so in manuscript editions that obviously never reached such a broad audience as the Lutheran pamphlets in the sixteenth century.
Although the Rosicrucian manifestos are often associated with the Protestant world—and notably the Lutheran world—we encounter an important difference between the Rosicrucian accounts and the Lutheran Reformation. For Luther, the Antichrist could not be defeated by human agency but only by divine intervention: Christ was to come, defeat the Antichrist, and sit in Judgement. In his view, human beings were incapable of any improvement in the Last Days; they could only prepare themselves for the New Jerusalem, and only God could come and save them: “No sword can be of any use in this affair, God must take care of him [the Antichrist] on his own, without any human efforts or contributions. Therefore: he who believes the most will provide the most protection in this matter.”32
to the Roman pope or the papacy as the seat of the Antichrist. Rupescissa also labelled multiple secular rulers as the Antichrist, such as Louis of Bavaria, Peter of Aragon, Louis of Sicily, and Frederik ii: Rupescissa, Vade mecum, 502 (the version used here is the version printed in: Edward Brown, Appendix ad fasciculum rerum expetendarum et fugiendarum, 11, 496-508). On Rupescissa, see: Bignami-Odier, Etudes sur Jean de Roquetaillade. On rulers as the Antichrist, see: McGinn, Antichrist, 4, 144. The same secular figures could be interpreted as Last World Emperor, see: Reeves, The Influence of Prophecy, 293-392. On the expectation of multiple Antichrists in history, see: Preuss, Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist, 44; Emmerson, Antichrist in the Middle Ages, 62-63, 68. Examples of authors who had such expectations are Joachim of Fiore, Olivi, Irenaeus, and Nicholas of Lyra, often based on 1 John 2:18 and Matthew 24:5.
31 Fraticelli, in their letter to citizens of Narni, around 1354: “These errors and heresies listed above [the condemnations of apostolic poverty], along with others invented, set forth, preached and defended by Pope John xxi i, and confirmed and approved by his successors, are without doubt that Abomination and Desolation standing in the holy Place (the Church) that Daniel prophesied and Christ predicted,” cited in: McGinn, Antichrist, 176. The passage refers to Matthew 24, specifically Matthew 24:15. After Jesus is asked about the end of time and he has explained several signs, he continues: “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains” (Matthew 24:15-16).
32 Luther, wab 2, 455.80-456.2: “Dieser Sachen sol noch kan kein Schwert raten oder helfen, Gott mufi hie allein schaffen, ohn alles menschlich Sorgen und Zutun. Darumb: wer am meisten glaubt [sic], der wird hie am meisten schutzen” (5 March 1522 to Prince-Elector Frederick iii of Saxony), cited in Oberman, The Reformation, 32. Cf. Luther, wa 2, 110, 617; wa 5, 345.
The Rosicrucian texts, by contrast, quite explicitly dissociated themselves from this pessimistic view regarding man’s role in this important episode: they not only stated that the brethren “execrate the pope,” but also dream of the time when the pope “is cast down from his throne by Germany, with great force and great thrust and is well trampled underfoot.”33 Victory would go to Germany, which was to triumph over the pope—again an explicitly patriotic claim, this time about the future. It suggested that the Antichrist would be defeated not by divine intervention but by human agency. By arguing that man could overthrow the Antichrist, the Rosicrucian brethren presented an optimistic message regarding human agency and implicitly but decisively deviated from orthodox Lutheranism. With such claims, the Rosicrucian manifestos placed themselves rather in the vicinity of medieval reformers who equally believed that the Antichrist could be defeated by humans. The medieval natural philosopher Roger Bacon (ca. 1214-ca. 1294), for example, believed that human beings could fight the Antichrist through the development of knowledge, while Rupescissa was convinced that they could defeat him with the help of alchemy.34
In other words, in anticipating the overthrow of the Antichrist by human agency, the manifestos broke sharply with Lutheran and Calvinist norms and alligned themselves with radicals and dissidents from both before and after the advent of Protestantism. Although the doctrine of the Papal Antichrist seems, at first sight, one of the most obvious Protestant hallmarks of the manifestos (in the sense that it is virulently anti-Catholic), the notion that the Antichrist will be overthrown is one of the clearest departures from mainstream Protestantism and the first clear indication that the manifestos are actually drawing on dissident ideas which go back before the Reformation, and were preserved, not in the mainstream tradition, but on the radical fringes.
Throughout the Rosicrucian manifestos, the suggestion is made that further religious reform was required. The Fama’s protagonist, Christian Ros- encreutz, died in 1484, the year of Luther’s birth. When after his travels in the Arab world Rosencreutz tried to convince the people in Europe of the need for reform, he went to Catholic Spain to discuss “the deficiencies of the
33 Confessio, 62: “Quid igitur animi estis, mortales, postquam Christum sincere nos profiteri, Papam execrari”; ibid., 51: “[...] ille [the pope] magna vi magnoque impetus a Germania de throno deturbatus ac satis pedibus conculcatus est.”
34 DeVun, Prophecy, Alchemy and the End of Time, 49-50, 57-58. Cf. also: Rupescissa, Liber
lucis, 19rff.; Roger Bacon, The “Opus Majus” of Roger Bacon. On Bacon, see: Reeves, The Influence ofProphecy, 45-48; Power, Roger Bacon and the defence of Christendom. On these views by Bacon and Rupescissa, see further below, section 1.3.
Church,” but the Spanish were not interested.35 During Rosencreutz’s life, the manifestos explained, the Church was still to be purified, but the Reformation presented a marked improvement with a brighter light shining over Europe in recent years.36 But, the authors lamented, “the old enemy shows his cunning and grumble plentifully, as he hinders through heretics’ discontent and vagabonds the beautiful course [of the clear and manifest light],” so that even after Luther’s Reformation Rosencreutz’s reform plans still remained necessary.37 The implication that Luther’s reformation was incomplete represented a criticism of Luther that his followers would have rejected. By calling for a reform of “the divine,” the Rosicrucians advocated a new interpretation of religion and the divine, one that had its foundation in Christ.38 The Rosicrucians’ identification of the pope as the Antichrist was tantamount neither to an expression of support for Lutheranism—as another reformation and the unseating of the Antichrist were needed and to be carried out by man, which contradicted Luther’s conclusions—nor solely to indicate their distance from Roman Catholicism. Instead it indicated their own plans for further religious reform in which humans should play a pivotal role.
Reformatio humani: The Fourth Monarchy and the Rise of the Lion Just like the Lutheran Reformation was implicitly, but not explicitly, challenged, neither did the Rosicrucian manifestos intend to revoke directly and explicitly the authority of the empire or the princes. The brethren claimed that “in politics we acknowledge the Roman Empire and the Fourth Monarchy as our head and that of all Christians,” a clear pledge of alliance to the Holy Roman Emperor.39 The reference to the empire as the head of the Christians was a return to the original idea of a leader of both the political as well as the
35 Fama, 98-99: “Nach zweyen Jahren verliefi Fr. r.c. Fessam, und fuhr mit vielen kostlichen
stucken in Hispaniam [...], besprachte sich derowegen mit den Gelehrten in Hispania, worinnen es unsern artibus fahlete, und wie ihnen zu helffen, woraufi die gewisse Indicia volgender seculorum zunehmen, und worinnen sie mussen mit den vergangenen concordiren, wie der Ecclesiae mangel und die ganz Philosophia moralis zuverbessern.”
36 Ibid., 105, 107.
37 Ibid., 93: “Lesset doch der alte Feind seine list und grollen mit hauffen sehen, da er durch Schwarmer unfried und Landleuffer solchen schonen Lauff [des hellen offenbahren Liecht] hindert [.].”
38 Confessio, 62. The transformations within the fraternity were also ordained by the divine; see ibid., 48-49: “O Mortales, aliud est consilium Dei et commoditas vestra, cui decretum Fraternitatis nostrae numerum hoc Fraternitatis tempore augere atque multiplicare.”
39 Ibid., 123: “In der policey erkennen wihr das Romische Reich und Quartam Monarchiam, fur unser und der Christen Haupt.”
religious realm. The notion of a Fourth Monarchy originates from the Book of Daniel (Daniel 7). In a vision described there, four beasts appear to Daniel, the fourth of which was terrifying (Daniel 7:7-10) and was said to represent the fourth Kingdom, which “shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces” (Daniel 7:23). The Fourth Kingdom was to remain until the end of the world. Traditionally, this fourth Monarchy was taken to be the Roman Empire, but since the ancient Roman Empire had fallen in 476, the Holy Roman Empire was commonly seen as having taken its place.40 This was also the eschatological self-conception of the Holy Roman Empire itself.41 The Rosicrucian manifestos, by acknowledging the authority of the Fourth Monarchy, seem to abstain from plans of radical political reform. Their authors claim: “Nor can we be suspected of any heresy or evil intent toward the state.”42 The manifestos were not written by political radicals, and they did not look to overthrow the Holy Roman Empire, or any other secular authority, for that matter. This seems also typically Protestant: magisterial reformers dismissed the authority of the Roman Church but did not seek to undermine the authority of the Holy Roman Emperor or other secular rulers.
Still, the Rosicrucian call for a reformatio divini et humani clearly also implied a reform of the human realm, and here they departed from Lutheran orthodoxy. The brethren observed instability in the human empire and worked for ways in which this instability might be overcome.43 This idea of two realms had already been expressed in the writings of Augustine, who envisioned two separate realms, or two cities, one earthly and one religious. Augustine believed that people were either members of the earthly city and disregarded God, or members of the City of God, the heavenly city, and acted out of love for God. The city to which one belonged depended upon one’s individual relationship with God.44 On earth, the two cities were intermingled, and they would only be separated at the Last Judgement.45 In Augustine’s view, however, the Roman Empire did represent the earthly city that had ignored God.46
Luther, after having nailed his 95 theses to the church doors in Wittenberg in 1517 and having defended his views at the Diet of Worms in 1521, embarked
40 Goez, Translatio imperii, esp. chs. 4-6; Rowland, The Open Heaven, ch. 7.
41 Goez, Translatio imperii, 75 f., chs. 5-6.
42 Confessio, 44: “Nec jam ullius haereseos, vel in Rempublicam mali tentaminis suspectos
nos esse posse.”
43 Ibid., 53-55. Cf. below, section 1.3, esp. pp. 76-77.
44 On Augustine’s doctrine of two cities, see: Augustine, De civitate dei; Clark, “Imperium and
the City of God,” 56 ff. Cf. further: Hotson, “Via Lucis in Tenebras,” 39.
45 Clark, “Imperium and the City of God,” 58.
46 Ibid., 67-69.
on a programme specifically of religious reform.47 He took from Augustine the doctrine of the two kingdoms, but he explicitly distanced himself from any political aspirations. The German princes, who where at that time the local political authorities, were not questioned by Luther, and he broadly accepted their authority. According to Luther, the original Roman Empire had been the “final” empire, destined to remain only until the arrival of the Antichrist; since the Antichrist was already present, the reform of the empire was superfluous. The Roman Church, in turn, had in Luther’s view evidently not represented the heavenly kingdom. He claimed that the present empire was a mere derivative of the original Roman Empire, it was founded by and existed alongside the papacy, and, in accordance with biblical prophecies, it will be ended together with the ending of the papal Antichrist.48 For Luther, the heavenly kingdom had not come to earth, it was not represented by the Church, nor should we pin our hopes on an earthly reformation.49
The Rosicrucian reform of the empire thus did not have its origins in Luther’s reformation, and can be traced back more accurately again to medieval radical sources, whom Luther had ignored and dismissed.50 In the Middle Ages, various reformers had aspired to a reformatio mundi, a reform of both religious and secular authorities.51 For example, the influential Prognostication
47 Cf. Dixon, Contesting the Reformation, 8ff.
48 Luther, wa 11/2, 6: “Das Romisch reich sol das letzte sein, und niemand sol es zubrechen, On allein Christus mit seinem Reich”; idem, wa, Dt. Bibel [part 3], 7; 414: “Denn der Bapst hat das gefallen Romisch Reich widder auffgericht, und von dem Griechen zu den Deud- schen bracht, Und ist doch mehr ein Bilde vom Romischen Reich, denn des Reichs corper selbs wie es gewesen ist”; idem, wa 6, 462: “Es ist ohne Zweifel, dafi das recht Romische Reych, davon die Schrifft der propheten numeri xxiiij und Daniel verkundet haben, lengist vorstoret und ein end hat [...]. Und das ist geschehen durch die Gettas. Sonderlich aber, das des Turken Reich ist angangen bey tausent jaren”; and ibid., 463: “Und ist auch ges- chehen: dem keyszer zu Constantinopel ists genummen, und uns Deutschen der nam und titel desselben zugeschrieben, sein damit des Bapst knecht wurden, und ist nu ein ander Romisch reich, das der bapst hat auff die Deutschen bawet, den ihenes, das erst ist langis, wie gesagt, undergangen.” See also Luther, cited in Seifert, DerRuckzug der biblisch- en Prophetie, 9: “Nach dem Fall des ’ersten Romischen Reichs’ hat der Papst ein ’anderes Romisches Reich’ gegrundet [...].” Cf.: Goez, Translatio imperii, ch. 14.
49 On this, see also: Barnes, Prophecy and Gnosis, 31 ff.
50 Oberman, The Reformation, 28-29; Dixon, Contesting the Reformation, 8; idem, “The Rad
icals,” 206-208. Examples include: Hans Hut (1490-1527) and several of his followers, Melchior Hoffmann (ca. 1495-ca. 1543), and Bernhard Rothmann (1495-ca. 1535).
51 See, for example: Reeves, The Influence ofProphecy, 45-58, 191-228, 314-324; idem, Joachim
of Fiore and the Prophetic Future, 38 ff.; McGinn, “Angel Pope and Papal Antichrist”; Burr, The Spiritual Franciscans; Oberman, Luther, 50-65; DeVun, Prophecy, Alchemy, and the End of Time. Examples include John Wycliffe, the Taborites, and Jan Hus and his followers:
by the German astrologer Johannes Lichtenberger (d. 1503), published numerous times in the sixteenth century, announced a time of great tribulations, but this would be succeeded by a future kingdom of peace on earth and religious improvement, in which “a new order will rise and a new restoration in the Church, and many false priests will be before the reformation.”52 Still more relevant is the medieval Reformation of Sigismund. This text was written anonymously in the German vernacular in 1439, shortly after the reign of Emperor Sigismund von Luxemburg (1368-1437), and was prophetic of similar outcomes.53 The text was very popular around the time the manifestos were drafted, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,54 and explicitly expressed the need for a reformation of both the spiritual and the political realms, as is already evident from its structure. The text begins with an introduction, which is followed by a section on a reformation of the Church (entitled “about the episcopal state”); thereafter is a section on worldly reformation (“order of a worldly state”), and it ends with a vision by the Emperor Sigismund on the future reform of the empire (“revelation of a new state”).55 The manifestos’ reformation of divine and the human things clearly echoes such notions of change.
The expectation of religious reform as well as political reform remained alive and well in spite of Luther’s contrary stance. In the period after Luther, many authors argued in favour of a reformation of Church and state, and expected
Palacky, Documenta Mag. Joannis Hus; Preuss, Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist, 49-74; Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium, 218-236; Emmerson, Antichrist in the Middle Ages, 71 ff.; Barnes, Prophecy and Gnosis, 26-30, 142; Klaassen, Living at the End of Ages, 55-56; Lahey, John Wycliffe; Rugert, John Wyclif Jan Hus, Martin Luther: Wegbereiter der Reformation.
52 Lichtenberger, Prognosticatio (1484), ii, chapter 13, p. xxiiiir-xxiiiiv: “in quo tempore tribu- latio magna erit et resurget novus ordo et nova restauratio in ecclesia et multi pseudo- pontifices erunt ante reformationem [...].” See also: ibid., chapter 35, and the German version in Propheceien und Weissagungen, 48rf. On Lichtenberger, see especially: Kurze, Johannes Lichtenberger; see also: Reeves, The Influence of Prophecy, 347-351.
53 For an introduction to the Reformation of Sigismund, see: Anonymous, Reformation Kaiser
Sigismunds, introduction by Heinrich Koller; Marosi, “Reformatio Sigismundi.” For the overview of editions, see Anonymous, Reformation Kaiser Sigismunds, introduction by Koller, 34-39.
54 Anonymous, Reformation Kaiser Sigismunds, introduction by Koller, 39-45. The text was
first printed in 1476 in Augsburg. From before 1476, no less than 16 manuscript versions are preserved. Between 1476 and 1522 the text was printed eight times. After a period of50 years, of which there are no records of further editions, the text was printed again in 1577, twice in 1607 and once in 1613, only a few years before the manifestos were published. Remarkably, all editions are very similar in contents to the original manuscript edition; see: ibid., 2.
55 Anonymous, Reformation Kaiser Sigismunds. For the spiritual reformation, see: ibid., pp. 116-236; the worldly reformation: pp. 238-328; the vision: pp. 330-352.
massive transformations in these areas.56 Famous among them was the German Catholic bishop Berthold Purstinger (1465-1543), who explained his interpretation of history in his Onus ecclesiae (1519), which included the reform of the religious and political realms.57 A well-known scholar applying the reform of the state to France was Guillaume Postel (ca. 1510-1581), a French Cabbalist and visionary, who implored the King of France, Francis i (1494-1547), to reform both the Church and the political empire.58
Hopes for a reformation of religion and the empire continued to resurface in the sermons and writings of so-called “radical reformers” of the sixteenth century, many of whom contested not only Roman orthodoxy and magisterial reformers, but also secular authorities.59 In German-speaking lands, early sixteenth-century peasants desired a reformation of the religious kingdom and of the political empire.60 They sometimes resorted to violence in pursuit of their ideals, as for example during the Peasants’ War of 1525, by which most of the German-speaking lands were troubled. The peasants demanded the right to fish, a reduction of taxes, and a loosening of feudal bonds; but they also made demands for religious freedom, so that their aims were of a political and religious nature.61 Luther did not side with these peasants, speaking out vehemently against their rebellion: he would rather they be oppressed than rebel
56 Reeves, The Influence of Prophecy, 368; Barnes, Prophecy and Gnosis, 143-144; Gilly, “Las novas.”
57 Purstinger, Onus ecclesiae; Reeves, The Influence of Prophecy, 362.
58 Reeves, The Influence of Prophecy, 381-382. On Postel, see: Bouwsma, Concordia Mundi; Kuntz, Guillaume Postel.
59 Radical reformers in the Protestant era were not organised into a unified confession, as a result of which they remained subordinate to the dominant confessions, Lutheranism and Calvinism. They challenged the reformations of magisterial reformers such as Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, and John Calvin. Examples of radical reformers include figures as diverse as Andreas Karlstadt, Thomas Muntzer, Caspar Schwenckfeld, Sebastian Franck, Hutterites, and Mennonites. For an informative introduction to these and other radical reformers, see: Williams, The Radical Reformation. For an accessible discussion of the radical reformation, see: Dixon, “The Radicals.” On a classification, see: ibid., 197-199, 205-206; Williams, The Radical Reformation, xxiv.
60 For both secular and religious aspirations and reform plans in the early modern period, see: Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium, 113-122, 243-260; Reeves, The Influence of Prophecy, 341-355; idem, Joachim of Fiore and the Prophetic Future, 110-115; Williams, The Radical Reformation, 44, 60-83, 118; Antognazza and Hotson, Alsted and Leibniz, 150; McGrath, Reformation Thought, 2-3, 8, 15-20, 219-221; Goertz, “Karlstadt, Muntzer and the Reformation of the Commoners, 1521-1525,” 30-34; McLaughin, “Radicals”; Dixon, “The Radicals,” 19 ff.; Hotson, “Outsiders, Dissenters.” Cf. further: Barnes, Prophecy and Gnosis; see also: Hotson, “Via Lucis in Tenebras,” 39-40.
61 Dixon, “The Radicals,” 19-21.
against their oppressor, as is clear from his publication dated the same year, Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants.62
The hardship of Anabaptist peasants had roused them to demand changes of their own worldly situation, demands that became radical when they were voiced by reformers such as Hans Hut (1490-1527), Melchior Hoffmann (ca. 1495-ca. 1543), Thomas Muntzer (1489-1525), and Bernhard Rothmann (1495-ca. 1535). They preached amongst the poor their visions of religious and social reform to be realised in Augsburg, Strasbourg, and Munster in the late 1520’s.63
One of the presumed authors of the manifestos, Tobias Hess, is thought to have been influenced by Simon Studion (1543-1605?), who in his Naometria likewise expressed expectations of religious as well as secular reform.64 The work was never published, but is presumed to have circulated widely in manuscript form.65 Studion expected “peace and tranquility in the world, an improvement for the better, and a renovation in candlebrand-Philadelphia.” These changes were to take place especially in the religious and political realms and coincided with the revelation of secrets to political rulers: “To this Henry iv, the King of Navarre and France, because he will be the first of the renovated kingdoms in the world, all the mysteries of the Holy Scripture and of natural things will reduce to one.”66
The Rosicrucian call for a reformation of divine and human things was contrary to Lutheran orthodoxy, but it was not unprecedented: it can be traced
62 Luther, Wider die Mordischen und Reubischen Rotten der Bawren (1525).
63 Oberman, The Reformation, 28-29. Cf. Williams and Mergal, Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers; Krebs and Rott, Quellen zur Geschichte der Taufer; List, Chiliastische Utopie; Klaassen, Living at the End of Ages; Dixon, “The Radicals.” On Anabaptism and Spiritualism, see: Roth and Stayer, A Companion to Anabaptism and Spiritualism; see also: Jones, Spiritual Reformers. For Strasbourg: Abray, The People’s Reformation; Roth and Stayer, A Companion to Anabaptism and Spiritualism, 100-102; for Munster: Muntzer, “Exposition of the second chapter of Daniel,” a sermon delivered in Allstedt, 13 July 1524, reproduced in Williams and Mergal, Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers, 62. Cf. further: List, Chiliastische Utopie, 129-139; Dixon, “The Radicals,” 206-208.
64 On Hess, see below, Chapter 3.
65 Barnes, Prophecy and Gnosis, 198.
66 Studion, Naometria,23:“Dominus [...] conterens [...] pax et tranquilitas in mundo, restitutio in melius, et renovatio in Candelabro-Philadelphia [...]”; ibid., 22: “Ad hunc Hernricum 4. regem Navarrae et Franciae, quod is primus renovationis regnorum in mundo futurus sit, omnia S. Scripturae, et rerum naturae mysteria ad unum respiciunt.” “Naometria” might originate from the Greek “naos” (temple) and the Greek “metria” (measure), possibly referring to a “templion Dei”; see ibid., 150. Philadelphia is listed among the seven churches mentioned in Revelation 1:11, 3:7 ff.
back to medieval conceptions of reform that had been kept alive by early modern radical reformers of various stripes.
Within the manifestos, the reform of secular affairs was an undertaking not for human agency in general, but for the agency of a specific ruler; and this detail further distances the manifestos from orthodox Lutheranism and aligns them with late medieval and radical reformation expectations. The ruler mentioned by the Rosicrucians was to establish a new empire, which was an essential part of the brethren’s general reformation. This ruler is depicted as a lion, who will destroy the pope and replace him as leader of the people. The pope will “experience the shredding of the claws, and the new [lion’s] roar will end his braying.”67 The lion will defeat and replace the papal Antichrist, and rule over the world. As noted above, it was the German-speaking lands that would defeat the Antichrist “with great force and great thrust,” making the expected lion a future German ruler.68 He will inaugurate a new era and claim Rosicrucian secrets whilst establishing his empire, as if he were to take as his guidance the Rosicrucians’ revelations: “Our treasures shall be left intact until the lion shall arise, demand and claim them for himself as his own right and use them for the establishment of his empire.”69 Whilst Luther had denied the possibility of another earthly empire, stated that the Antichrist had come, and that nothing could be done to defeat that figure except to wait for Christ to come and triumph over the Roman impostor,70 in the Rosicrucian manifestos a worldly ruler will make his appearance, defeat the Antichrist, and establish the new kingdom.
The Rosicrucians’ expectation of a new leader was certainly not unique. In medieval and early modern prophecies, such a leader was traditionally depicted in one of two ways: either as an Angelic Pope or as a Last World Emperor.71
67 Confessio, 51, after discussing the pope’s tyranny: “ille [...] unguium dilaniationes experi- etur, rugitusque novus [sic] finiet ruditum [...].” The lion in the manifestos should not be understood as the apostle Mark, as was the case in the Reformation Kaiser Sigismund; see below, n. 139.
68 Confessio, 51: “[...] ille [the pope] magna vi magnoque impetus a Germania de throno deturbatus ac satis pedibus conculcatus est.” Cf above, n. 33.
69 Confessio, 53: “Nobis vero thesauros nostros intactos reliquendos, usque dum surgat Leo, et eos sibi jure suo exigat, accipiat, et in sui Imperii stabilimentum conferat”; Confessio (Gdansk), 68-69: “unsere Schatze [werden] unberuhret gelassen bifi dafi der Lewe komme und diselben fur sich fordern, eynneymen, empfangen unnd zu seines Reichs Bestettigung anwerden wird.”
70 Luther, wa 1, 135-136; wa 3, 25, 433, 471; see also: Hotson, “The Historiographical Origins of Calvinist Millenarianism,” 160-162.
71 On the Angelic Pope and Last World Emperor in history, see: Reeves, The Influence of Prophecy, 293-508.
An Angelic Pope was opposed to the false pope. Joachim seems to have expected such an ecclesiastical figure to save the world in the end, but the idea of an Angelic Pope was primarily developed by one of his followers, Roger Bacon.72 Also some Lutherans, such as Andreas Osiander (1498-1552) and Johann Wolff (1537-1600), believed in an Angelic Pope, and, predictably, they thought to have found him in Luther.73
Others depicted the new leader as a Last World Emperor, a political figure. The first appearance of the Last World Emperor came possibly from a prophecy by pseudo-Methodius, entitled Revelations, a text falsely attributed to Methodius of Patara, who lived in the fourth century, while this text was actually written in the second half of the seventh century. It was copied numerous times, and was printed at least ten times between 1470 and 1677, mostly in Germanspeaking countries.74 Prophecies of an Angelic Pope and a Last World Emperor appeared in the context of the reformatio mundi: they designated the tropes according to which Church and state could be reformed.
The image of the leader presented in the manifestos is obviously closer to the tradition ofa Last World Emperor than to that of the Angelic Pope, because he would establish an empire as a political ruler.75 He was expected soon, because “Europe is pregnant and will bring forth a strong child.”76 When Rosencreutz had travelled to Fez, the Fama tells us, that city had been ruled by wise men. Similarly, Europe was to be ruled by a wise figure and his arrival would be announced by the sound of a trumpet.77
During the Middle Ages and the early modern period, it was often thought that the Last World Emperor would come either as a second Charlemagne (by the French) or as a third Frederick (by the Germans).78 The idea of a Second Charlemagne followed the ideal of the first Charlemagne, Charles the Great
72 Joachim, Liber Concordie, 56rb. For Bacon: Compendium studii philosophiae, 402; for this figure in general, see: Reeves, The Influence of Prophecy, 45-48; McGinn, “Angel Pope and Papal Antichrist,” 155-173.
73 On Osiander and Wolf, see Reeves, Joachim of Fiore and the Prophetic Future, 138. Reeves
explains that not many Lutherans were concerned with the concept of “Angelic Pope”: Reeves, The Influence of Prophecy, 503. This may be because they did not envision a future period on earth.
74 McGinn, Visions of the End, 72, 302.
75 Confessio, 51.
76 Fama, 109: “[...] dann Europa gehet schwanger und wird ein starckes Kind gebaren.”
77 Ibid., 96-97.
78 On medieval and early modern prophecies of both rulers, see: Reeves, The Influence of Prophecy, 293-508. On Joachim’s influences on these prophecies, see: idem, “Joachimist Influences.”
(742-814), King of the Franks from 768 and Holy Roman Emperor from 800. The new Charles was expected to arise in France. Rupescissa, for example, envisaged the arrival of “the king of France,” and announced that “the entire world will be repaired [...] and the [French] emperor will free the Christian people.’^ Lichtenberger, too, expected another Charlemagne.80
Frederick i (Barbarossa, 1122-1190) had been Holy Roman Emperor in the twelfth century, and after his death the legend spread that he was the ’sleeping emperor’ who was later to restore Germany’s greatness. Similar prophecies and legends accrued to his grandson Frederick ii (1194-1250), King of Sicily, fuelling hopes for the eventual coming to the throne of a Third Frederick.81 Luther, for example, referred to the Third Frederick, but for him Frederick was not the harbinger ofanew time. While the memory of this legend was still alive in the minds of early modern religious authors, Luther could make use of the prophecy albeit deliberately misinterpreting it to refer to an existing political authority, namely to Frederick iii (1463-1525), Elector of Saxony (1486-1525).82
79 Rupescissa, Vade mecum, 502: “totus orbis reparabitur [.] imperator liberabit populum
christianum”; cf. ibid.: “[.] Regem Francorum, qui veniet in principio suae creationis ad videndam angelicam claritatem ejusdem, assumet, contra morem Allamanica, electionis, in Imperatorem Romanum, cui Deus generaliter subjiciet totum orben occidentem et ori- entem et meridiem; qui tantae sanctitatis existet, quod ei Imperator aut Rex similis in sanctitate non fuit ab origine mundi praeter Regem Regum et Dominum Dominantium, Dominum Christum Jesum [.]. Hic Imperator sanctissimus erit executor omnium man- datorum reparatoris praedicti: per illos duos totus orbis reparabitur [.].”
80 Lichtenberger, Prognosticatio, ii, chapter 16, pp. xxviir-xxviiv: “Et dicitur in librum Regum
Francorum, quod de Carlingis, id est de stirpe regis Caroli Franci suscitabitur Imperator in novissimis, nomine. P. qui erit princeps et monarcha totius Europae, reformabit ecclesias et clerum. Post illum nullus amplius imperabit.” According to Reeves, “P” refers to Phillip, son of Mary of Burgundy and Maximilian i, and as such unites the German and French prophecies of a final ruler. On this and his early works, see: Reeves, The Influence of Prophecy, 349-351.
81 Reeves, The Influence of Prophecy, 317.
82 Luther, Vom Miszbrauch der Messe, wa 8, 561-562: “Ich hab offt ynn den landen, als ich eyn
kindt war, eyn prophetzey gehort, Keytzer Fryderich wurde das heylige grab erlofien. Und wie den der prophecien art und natur ist, das sie ehr erfult, denn verstanden werden, so sehen sie alzeyt andertzwo hyn, den die wort fur der welt lautten: alfio deucht mich auch, das difie prophecy ynn difiem unfierm Fursten, hertzoge Frederichen zu sachssen, erful- let sey. Denn was konnen wyr fur eyn ander heylig grab verstehen den die heylige schrifft, darynne die warheyt Christi durch die Papisten getod ist [.].” Given such prophecies about Frederick-rulers, Yates’ interpretation that the manifestos were written in support of Frederick v, grandson of William of Orange, as the new ruler is not surprising, even though far-fetched and without any textual basis: Yates, The Rosicrucian Enlightenment, 54-57, 100-101.
This Elector of Saxony is well known for having supported and protected the religious reformer and for having brought him to safety at the Wartburg when Luther was in danger after the Edict of Worms.83 Both men had previously corresponded about religious and apocalyptic matters.84 This means that Luther knew the prophecy of the Last World Emperor, but appropriated it to show his support for the Elector of Saxony, to whom he owed his life. Thus also the Rosicrucian imagery of a new leader is a complete departure from Luther’s conservative views of the existing secular order.
The expectation of a new leader expressed in the Rosicrucian manifestos is much more in the proximity of the Reformation of Sigismund, which was also used by Protestants. It claims that the imminent new leader “is a priest, through whom God will work a lot, he will be called Friderich von Lantnewen.” It is unclear whether a person by this name ever existed, but Friderich was expected to establish a new empire and to be a future political ruler who would “effectuate God’s order, men and city would obey him,” he will end injustice and “bring peace to the countries.”85 The idea of a Last World Emperor, which became popular thanks to such prophecies, must have been known to the authors of the manifestos. Just as was predicted for the Last World Emperor, the Rosicrucian new leader was to inaugurate a new realm of peace and prosperity.
While late medieval apocalyptic prophecies abounded with Last World Emperors, Angelic Popes, Second Charlemagnes, and Third Fredericks, the manifestos specifically pinned their hopes on a new ruler in the figure of a lion. A lion had been forecast in the Prophecy of the Erithrean Sibyl, which originated from the thirteenth century. According to that text, the lion will briefly rule, but will be killed by a beast, after which the Antichrist will come.86 In the
83 On Luther’s travels, including this episode, see: Roper, Martin Luther.
84 See, for example, Luther, wab 2, 455.80-456.2, cited in Oberman, The Reformation, 32.
85 Anonymous, Reformation Kaiser Sigismunds, 342: “Er soll heyssen Friderich, er soll auch
alle reich zu fride bringen zu lande und zu auen”; ibid., 332: “Sigmundt, stant auff, bekenne got, berait einen wegk der gotlichen ordenung halb. Alles geschriben recht hat gebrechen an gerechtigkeyt. Du magst es aber nit volbringen, du bist woll ein wegbreyter defi, der nach dir komen soll. Er ist ein priester, durch den wirt got vil wurcken; er wirt genant Friderich von Lantnewen. Er wirt des reichs zeichen auffsetzen [...]”; ibid., 334: “[...] er bringet ordenung gots zu krafft, im werden herren und stet gehorsam; im wirt unrecht zu kestigen [.].”
86 Erithrean Sibyl: “[.] a most mighty lion of heavenly colour, spotted with gold, with five heads and fifty feet will roar from the West. He will make an attack on the beast and crush his power. He will devour the tail of the beast, but will not harm his head or feet at all. After this the lion will die and the beast will be strengthened; he will live and reign until
manifestos, the lion will instead come after the Antichrist: whilst the Antichrist is already present, the lion is yet to come and is expected to defeat the pope. Also different from this Erithrean Sibyl is the fact that the lion in the manifestos will not himself be killed: his is the empire in which a new truth will arise.
A lion similar to that in the manifestos is prominently present in the unorthodox and pseudepigraphic work 2 Esdras.87 Whilst both Jerome’s Vulgate and most Lutheran Bible editions regarded 2 Esdras as apocryphal, and most Lutherans included it only in the appendix, it was appealing to dissenters from the confessional Churches of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.88 In chapters 11 and 12 of that book, a dream is presented of a three-headed eagle that has “contrary feathers,” which attempt to rule one by one (2Esdras 11:1228). According to 2 Esdras 11 and 12, the eagle represents the fourth kingdom of the Book of Daniel, which was to endure until the end of time (Daniel 7:723). The eagle is challenged and defeated by a “roaring lion” (2 Esdras 11:37-38), after which the “eagle’s feathers” disappear. The manifestos, like 2 Esdras, also mention eagle’s feathers: “[...] although a few eagle’s feathers remain to delay our cause, we encourage one, primary, assiduous, and perpetual reading of the Holy Bible.”89 The Rosicrucian eagle, in accordance with the eagle of 2 Esdras, represented the enemy whose rule was to be annulled and succeeded by that of the triumphant lion.
the Abomination comes. After the Abomination the Truth will be revealed and the Lamb will be known; the lions and kingdoms will bow their necks to him,” cited and translated in: McGinn, Visions of the End, 122-125, here 124. Abomination also occurs in Matthew 24:15, for example, and refers to the Antichrist. The Lamb, of course, is Christ. The Catholic bishop Berthold Purstinger was also influenced by the Erithrean Sybil but reinterpreted it, so that in his version it explains that first there will be a revival of evil; see: Holdenried, “De Oraculis Gentilium.”
87 For an excellent overview of the application of this book to history, see: Hamilton, The Apocryphal Apocalypse, 115-193. 2 Esdras was used by some medieval Franciscans, but not specifically in relation to the eagle and the lion; see: ibid, 26-29; for official uses, see pp. 66-93; for Catholic uses, pp. 94-114. Pico was the first since the Church Fathers to discuss 2 Esdras at length; see pp. 32-36. For biblical references to the lion, see: Amos 3:8; Revelation 5:5; see also: Isaiah 41:25; Jeremiah 50:9; Ezekiel 38:15.
88 Only five Lutheran Bibles included 2 Esdras, and of their editors one merely translated it, three expressed their opposition to the text, and only one admired it. Just like Lutheran Bibles, also the Reformed Bibles put the apocryphal text in the appendix while often dismissing it as false or inferior; see: Hamilton, The Apocryphal Apocalypse, 72-80.
89 Confessio, 57: “[.] ut dum aquilinae aliquot pennae nostris rebus moram tantillam fer-
unt, ad sacrorum Bibliorum unam, primam, assiduam et perpetuam Lectionem adhorte- mur.”
The similarities between 2 Esdras and the manifestos are evident: a lion defeats a previous ruler and will rule the world until the end of time, whilst the power represented by the eagle’s feathers will be overcome—but there is one prominent difference. The lion in 2 Esdras is “the anointed, whom the Highest hath kept unto their end” (2Esdras 12:31-32). He will make the people “joyful until the coming of the day of judgement” (2 Esdras 12:34). The apocryphal lion is typically interpreted as the Second Coming of Christ, who will stand in Judgement, whereas the Rosicrucian lion ushers in a new time as a ruler for a new earthly period.
Many sixteenth-century Protestants believed the eagle to represent the Holy Roman Emperor, whose coat of arms featured a double-headed eagle. They identified the devious eagle specifically with the Catholic House of Habsburgs, from which line multiple emperors originated.90 The lion, instead, was believed to represent an alternative, reformed, and prosperous emperor. For the Rosicrucians, by contrast, we can presume that the eagle did not refer to the House of Habsburgs, from which line the contemporary Holy Roman Emperor originated. Firstly, the Rosicrucian brethren had described the Roman Empire, which was now represented as the Holy Roman Empire, as “our head and that of all Christians.”91 The Habsburg emperor (whose coat of arms incidentally features a lion) was thereby depicted as a leader to be followed rather than as an emperor to be defeated. Secondly, at the time the manifestos were drafted, the Habsburg scion Rudolph ii (1552-1612) was Holy Roman Emperor. Ruling from 1576 until 1612, Rudolph was devoted to occult arts, and at his court he welcomed physicians, Kabbalists, astronomers, alchemists, and philosophers. As we will see below and in the following chapter, innovations within (alchemical) medicine, astronomy, and philosophy were central to the Rosicrucian general reformation. As a patron of these fields, Rudolph was presumably not seen to “delay” the Rosicrucians’ “cause.”92 The Rosicrucians most likely identified the eagle with the papal Antichrist: the pope was commonly believed to have obscured the reading of the Bible, just as the manifestos make reference to
90 For example, an otherwise unknown figure named Johann Runge thought that the threeheaded eagle represented the Roman Empire, the papacy, and Byzantium, see: Hamilton, The Apocryphal Apocalypse, 9, 60, 118-119, 146. Osiander also identifies the eagle with the “Roman Empire,” see: Osiander, Eyn wunderliche Weyssagung, 431, 443.
91 Fama, 123: “In der policey erkennen wihr das Romische Reich und Quartam Monarchiam,
fur unser und der Christen Haupt.”
92 On Rudolph ii in this capacity, see: Evans, Rudolph ii and his World; Marshall, The Magic Circle of Rudolph ii; Purs and Karpenko, Alchemy and Rudolf ii. See also below, section 4.1.
the eagle’s feathers being said to hinder the brethren in a perpetual reading of Scripture.93
The Rosicrucian lion shares even more similarities with a prophecy drafted around 1600 under the name of Paracelsus, entitled Prophecy of the Midnight Lion.94 For a long time, Paracelsus was thought to have been its author, partly because the text consisted of passages taken from genuine Paracelsian works, but the prophecy was actually written after his death. Many manuscript versions have survived, and the text was finally published in 1622.95 Just like 2 Esdras, the prophecy describes an eagle and a lion fighting one another.
Written from a first-person perspective, the protagonist in the pseudo-Paracelsian lion prophecy states that he has hidden three treasures on several sites in Europe.96 These treasures will be discovered when a Midnight Lion (or Lion from the North) appears who will succeed the eagle, rule over Europe and parts of Asia and Africa (places to which coincidentally Christian Rosencreutz had also travelled), bringing peace and prosperity.97 As in the manifestos, the lion in this prophecy signifies a new worldly ruler who will establish a kingdom, rather than Christ who will come for the Last Judgement. The resemblances are striking: the lions of both texts—the pseudo-Paracelsian prophecy and the Confessio—were to defeat a previous ruler, establish an empire, claim hidden secrets, and bring prosperity, whilst the last signs of the eagle vanish from the world. The Rosicrucian lion is thus both a political and spiritual ruler. He will lead the way in early modern Germany, using the Rosicrucian treasures for the establishment of his empire—again indicating the renewed stress on the role of human agency.
93 This thesis is contrary to Gilly, who argued that the eagle feathers of the Rosicrucians refer to the Spanish monarchy and that the lion was Christ: Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 7576. Tobias Hess also identified the eagle with the pope; see below, section 3.2.
94 “Prophecey vom Lowen aus Mittemacht.” On this prophecy, see: Sudhoff, Bibliographia Paracelsica, 531; Edighoffer, “Le Lion du Septentrion”; Gilly, “Der ’Lowe von Mittemacht’, der ’Adler’ und Der ’Endchrist’”; Pfister and Schmidt-Tieme, “Der Lowe aus Mitternacht.”
95 Most manuscript editions carry the date 1549, while some are dated 1546, and one is dated 1541, the year of Paracelsus’ death; but in their titles appears the name of Adam Haslmayr, who was not born until 1562. According to Edighoffer, “Le Lion du Septentrion,” 168, the editions dated 1546 actually originate from after 1631. For an overview of all manuscript and printed editions, see: Pfister and Schmidt-Tieme, “Der Lowe aus Mitter- nacht,” 51-53; see further: Sudhoff, Bibliographia Paracelsica, 530; Akerman, Rose Cross, 121.
96 The place where the first treasure was hidden is also mentioned in: Pseudo-Paracelsus, De tinctura physicorum, i, 14; 392.
97 An edition of the text is included in: Pfister and Schmidt-Tieme, “Der Lowe aus Mitter- nacht,” 62-68.
The Rosicrucian imagery of the new ruler came neither from canonical texts nor from confessional orthodoxy, but rather from the apocryphal 2 Esdras and the pseudo-Paracelsian lion prophecy. But the imagery of a lion as a new leader became well known only after the publication of the Rosicrucian manifestos, during the Thirty Years’ War, presumably thanks to the Rosicrucian popularisation of this figure.98
The reformatio divini et humani, foreseen by the manifestos, agreed with all Protestants on the reform of the sacraments and the identification of the Antichrist with the papacy. But it departed significantly from orthodox Lutheran views and more closely resembled late medieval and radical Protestant expectations, by anticipating the overthrow of the Papal Antichrist by an imminent new ruler who was to establish a future kingdom—which expectations were absent from canonical scripture and found instead in a range of apocryphal, heterodox, and pseudonymous popular prophecies.
1.2 The Revolution of the Ages
The Dawn of a New Age
These events find their place and meaning within the Rosicrucian conception of history as a whole: the fall of the Antichrist and the instigation of the lion’s empire mark not the Second Coming, Last Judgement, or the end of the wold; but they inaugurate a new age. The nature of this new age increases the distance of the manifestos from Lutheran orthodoxy and narrows its proximity with certain pre-Reformation dissenting traditions.
It is precisely because the last days of the present era are believed to be at hand that the desired reform was destined to take place. The authors of the manifestos refer to an imminent new age, when they claim that there have been ages that were characterised by seeing, and other ages characterised by hearing or smelling, and now, “as the age is ripe and ending its real movement [...],” the age of speech will commence." While not mentioning any hierarchy between the several ages, the age of speech certainly differs from the other ages, because the senses characteristic of the other ages require humans to absorb information coming from the external world,
98 On the role of the lion after the manifestos, see below, p. 226.
99 Confessio, 55-56: “Velut in humano capite duo sunt Organa, quae audiant, duo quae
videant; quae olfaciant duo; vocis unum, quam frustra ab auribus exigas, frustra ab oculis sonorum judicium impetres: Ita secula fuerunt, quae viderent; fuere quae audirent; et
whether by sight, smell, or sound, whilst “to speak” requires of them an active engagement with the external world. As the present age was coming to an end and would be succeeded by the dawn of another era, this new characteristic was put into practice by the authors of the manifestos, their speech giving expression to the upcoming transformations that had been anticipated in Germany by Christian Rosencreutz.100
The idea that history was divided into ages was of course not new. According to the first creation narrative in Genesis, God created the world in six days, and on each day a different part of the world was created, “[a]nd on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made” (Genesis 2:2). This creation narrative has often been used to interpret the course of history. Traditionally, from its biblical origins to medieval and early modern prophecies, history was interpreted as following a linear trajectory, from Creation until the Last Judgement. The twentieth chapter of the Book of Revelation described how, in between these events, there was to be a millennium on earth, a period during which Satan is bound in the abyss. The idea of a period of peace on earth, often interpreted to endure for one thousand years, can also be traced back to Jewish eschatology (Ezekiel 37-48; 2 Esdras 7).ioi In Christianity,
olfaciendi quondam tempus fuit; superest, ut maturato atque abbreviato vero motu, linguae suus honor habeatur, ut quae olim vidit, audivit, olfecit, nunc eloquatur tandem [•••]’’
100 Fama, 102: “Damit wir aber unsers geliebten Vatters Fr. C.R. nicht vergessen, ist selbiger nach vielen muheseligen Reysen und ubel angelegten trewen reformationen, wiederum in Teutschland gezogen, welches er (umb schirestkunfftiger anderung und wunderbar- lichen gefehrlichen Kampffs) herzlich lieb hatte [...].”
101 Apocalyptic texts in the Bible are primarily the Book of Daniel (Old Testament), the Gospels, the Book of Revelation, and ii Thessalonians 2 (New Testament). An important apocryphal text concerned with the Last Days is 2 Esdras. Other chiliastic elements in the New Testament can be found in John 5:28, 11:24; 1 Kor 15. In the Old Testament, see also: Isaiah 24-27; Ezekiel 38-39; Joel 2:28-3:2; Zechariah 9-13. On apocalyptic and millenarianism, see: Bocher, “Chiliasmus ii,” tre 7, 723-724; Lanczkowski, “Apokalyptik/Apokalypsen i,” tre 3, 189-191. For ’apocalyptic’ in the Jewish tradition, see: Muller, “Apokalyptik/Apoka- lypsen iii,” tre 3, 202-251; Bocher, “Chiliasmus ii,” tre 7, 724-727. For an introduction to ’apocalyptic’ in the early modern period, see: Seebafi, “Apokalyptik/Apokalypsen vii,” tre 3, 280-289. On ’apocalyptic’ and gnosis, see: Barnes, Prophecy and Gnosis. On 2 Esdras and its influence, see: Hamilton, The Apocryphal Apocalypse. See further: Haase, Das Problem des Chiliasmus; McGinn (ed.), Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism; Semeia 14 (1979); Rowland, The Open Heaven; Mendelsohn and Nowotny, Nineteen Eighty-Four; Semeia 36 (1986); Laursen and Popkin (eds.), Millenarianism and Messianism in Early Modern European Culture, vol. iv; McGinn, “Apocalypticism and Church Reform, 1100-1500”; Lerner,
the last tribulations and the arrival of the Antichrist always loomed on the horizon, announcing the last days of the world.
According to this specific, teleological, and linear understanding of history, after one thousand years Satan will be freed for “a little season” (Revelation 20:3), during which one may expect the final tribulations and massive destruction taking place on earth. The period of destruction will end with Christ’s Second Coming and His Judgement over the people, after which the righteous will enter the New Jerusalem, the heavenly city of peace.102 This process of history was thought to be part of a bigger, divine plan, ordained by God, and the Last Days were to coincide with spectacular revelations from God. This linear interpretation of history was thus inherently epochal, that is, characterised by disruptive moments that each signified the beginning of a new period.
Theologians throughout the ages have striven to interpret this teleological process. Their attempts have included explanations of when the millennium was to take place, and how far advanced along the linear trajectory of this teleological process they and their contemporaries happened to find themselves in their own times. According to Augustine, for example, the millennium was in the present, it was the period in which he thought himself to live, which implied that all that could be expected of the future on earth was Satan’s rule for three and a half years (the “little season”). Hereafter “the judgement shall sit [...], and the kingdom [of the most High] will be an eternal kingdom, and all rulers will serve and obey Him.”103 For Augustine, the sixth age represented the millennium, after which will follow the final tribulations and Christ’s Judgement. The seventh age would take place after the Judgement and would be “a Sabbath without an evening.”104 As the Church represented to him the
“Millenarianism”; Trepp, Von der Gluckseligkeit alles zu wissen; Kovacs and Rowland, Revelation. Cohn, erroneously, interpreted chiliasm solely in a context of political revolt: Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium.
102 On the New Jerusalem, compare also Ezekiel 40-48, Zechariah 2, Isaiah 54; see further especially Revelation 20.
103 Augustine, De civitate dei, 20, chapter 23: “qui superabit malis omnes qui ante eum fuer- unt”; “et dabitur in manu eius usque ad tempus et tempora et dimidium tempus. Et iudi- cium sedebit [.]. Et [Altissimi] regnum sempiternum; et omnes principatus ipsi servient et obaudient.” In the same chapter, Augustine explains that time (tempus), times (tem- pora) and half a time (dimidium tempus) equal three and a half years. On these times, see: Daniel 12:7. The kingdom discussed is Jerusalem which is “eternally in the heavens”; see: ibid., 20, chapter 21.
104 Augustine, De civitate dei, 22, chapter 30: “Fiunt itaque omnes quinque. Sexta nunc agitur [.] haec tamen septima [aetas] erit sabbatum nostrum [.]”; ibid., 20, chapter 7: the present age “est sexto annorum miliario tamquam sexto die, cuius nunc spatia posteriora
heavenly kingdom and the realm of Christ, the final tribulations could be expected after the thriving of the Church.105 Augustine’s view that the millennium will be followed by the rule of Satan, and that the present age was the millennium, became the standard view of the Roman Church, whereby the Church understood itself as the means to salvation. Evidently, this view was accompanied by the belief that there was no hope left for improvement on earth, only for the time after the Last Judgement.
Joachim of Fiore deviated from this interpretation of history in his Exposition on the Apocalypse. In his view, the sixth age was the time prior to the millennium of the seventh age. Whilst Augustine placed the seventh age after the end of the world, Joachim believed it to be the future millennium instead. To him, the seventh age was a period on earth rather than the eternal Sabbath that lay beyond time.106 Based on Revelation 20:1-3 and whilst discussing the millennium when Satan is bound, he wrote: “These thousand years refer to the Sabbath,” which is “the seventh age.”107 At the end of the Sabbath age, that is, at the end of “the seventh age of the world,” there “will be the arrival of God for the Judgement.”108 The seventh age as the future millennium will be a period of “justice on earth and abundance of peace.”109 This notion of a future millennium can be characterised as millenarianism. Contrary to eschatological
volvuntur, secuturo deinde sabbato quod non habet vesperam, requie scilicet sanctorum quae non habet finem.”
105 Ibid., 20, chapters 6-9; 22, chapter 30. Augustine argued that as long as Satan is bound, the Church could not be led astray.
106 Joachim, Die genealogia, edited by Potesta, 92-94; Joachim, Expositio, 209^.
107 Joachim, Expositio, 210va: “Qua nimirum opinione e medio sublata eorum dico: qui putant istos mille annos referendos ad sabbatum [...]”; “sabbatum septime etatis.” For Joachim, the millennium is not literally a thousand years, this duration is only referred to because one thousand is a perfect number; see: ibid., 211rb. Joachim not only divided history in seven ages, but also in three statuses (often understood as ages), of which the third status corresponds to the seventh age. The first status is the age of the Father and corresponds to the Old Testament, the second status is the age of the Son and corresponds to the New Testament, while the third, future, status is the age of the Holy Spirit; see: Joachim, Exposi- tio in Apocalypsim, 5r-5v, esp. 5va. The fact that Joachim called the third status the age of the Holy Spirit is interesting because the Fama names the building in which Rosencreutz and his brothers worked on the future reformation, the “Spiritus Sanctus,” Holy Spirit. On whether or not Joachim’s third status was a millennium, see especially: Lerner, “Refreshments of the Saints.”
108 Joachim, Expositio, 209vb-210ra: “septimam mundi etatem [.] in fine illius temporis vent- urus sit dominus ad iudicium.”
109 Joachim, il libro delle figure, reprinted in L. Tondelli, M. Reeves, and B. Hirsch-Reich, Il Libro delle Figure, plate xiv: “justitia in terra et habundantia pacis.” A translated excerpt from the text can be found in: McGinn, Visions of the End, 137-138.
prophecies situating the millennium in the present or in the past, “millen- arianism” or “chiliasm” (both words referring to the number “thousand” in Latin and Greek, respectively) specifically refer to the belief in a future millennium.
Several medieval scholars, such as Arnald of Villanova (ca. 1240-1311) and Roger Bacon, who both influenced Rupescissa, expected such a future millen- nium.110 Arnald of Villanova believed that the millennium will come “after the time of the Antichrist.” He claimed that after the Antichrist a holy pope might be expected who will come “to the time of universal tranquillity and peace of the Church [.].”m According to Rupescissa, during the millennium those who fought against the Antichrist will “live resurrected corporeally and reign corporeally with Christ for one thousand years, which will be from the time of the death of the Antichrist until the advent of Gog near the end of the world.”ll2 Equally relevant here is the aforementioned Onus ecclesiae by Purstinger, which was devoted to the seven ages of the Church and influenced by the Joachimite understanding of history, and in which the author placed himself at the beginning of the sixth age.ll3
Making use of such common interpretations, the Rosicrucian texts followed the division of history into multiple ages, with claims that one age is coming to an end and that a new age was on the horizon, as evidenced by the presence of the Antichrist and the coming of a new ruler. The fact that, according to the Rosicrucians, a future age will take place on earth, means that their conception was close to Joachimite views. In the Fama, the authors referred to
110 Joachim, Olivi, Arnald of Villanova, and Rupescissa expected a real millennium, although not all interpreted the millennium as a strictly one-thousand year period. Based on biblical passages, they generally expected itto be shorter. Arnald believed it covered 45 years, after Daniel 12:11-12 (1335 - 1290 = 45) and taking the days to represent years, while Olivi thought that the millennium would take 700 years; see: Arnald of Villanova, De adventu Antichristi, partly cited in: Pelster, “Die Quaestio Heinrichs von Harclay,” 58. See further: Lerner, “Refreshments of the Saints,” 130. For Olivi, see: Olivi, Postilla inApocalypsim, partly reproduced in Beitrage zur Sektengeschichte des Mittelalters; Lerner, “Millenarianism,” 349-351. See also Ezekiel 4:6: “[...] I have appointed thee each day for a year.”
111 Arnald of Villanova, De tempore adventus antichristi, cxxxiii: a beatific pope is expected “post tempus Antichristi,” “ad tempus universalis tranquillitatis et pacis ecclesie, [.].” For Bacon, see: Barnes, Prophecy and Gnosis, 27. On Arnald, see: Perarnau i Espelt, “L’Allocutio christini d’Arnau de Vilanova.”
112 Rupescissa, Liber secretorum eventuum, 179: “Isti ergo vixerunt corporaliter resuscitati et regnaverunt corporaliter cum Christo mille annis qui futuri sunt a die mortis Antichristi usque ad adventum Gog et prope finem mundi.” Those who were deceased before the fight with the Antichrist will resurrect only after the millennium; cf. ibid., 202.
113 Reeves, The Influence of Prophecy, 467-468.
“Judgement Day,” when stating that their Axioms, their philosophy, will remain in vigour until Judgement Day, and “that the world shall see nothing [better] even in its most advanced and final age.”114 The authors hinted at the traditional teleological understanding of history by referring to the Last Judgement, but clearly affirmed the notion that there is on the horizon a future, prosperous age on earth which will precede that disruptive moment. Referring to the lives of some recent “worthy heroes,” the Fama explained that “the world in those days was already pregnant with great commotion and was labouring to give birth.”115 The pains of labour were being experienced, the texts suggest, heralding the arrival of a new time, to which the world was giving birth.
The authors of the manifestos deplored that many were unaware of the “wonders of the sixth age,” “they fear from the revolution of the world the future as much as the present.”116 Examples of the wonders of the sixth age were rediscoveries of things hidden in the world, and the discovery of “never experienced works and creations of nature.”117 These wonders, which had presented themselves over the past decades, at the end of the sixth age, so the texts suggest, were ignored by many. But a new age was dawning, and it was only with respect to the expectation that a new period was imminent that the general reformation could take place and make sense. In this sense, the Rosicrucian manifestos were not eschatological texts strictu sensu, since eschatology is specifically concerned with the events of the Last Days, whereas they announced a future age.
This differs not only from the Augustinian interpretation of history, but equally deviates, again, from the orthodox Lutheran position of the sixteenth
114 Fama, 105: “[...] dafi unsere axiomata unbeweglichen werden bleiben bifi an den Jung- sten Tag und nichts wird die Welt auch in ihrem hochsten und letzten Alter zusehen [sic] bekommen.” For their axioms, compare also: Fama, 99, 106, 110, and below, sections 4.2, 4.4, and 4.5.
115 Fama, 100-101: “Gewifilichen wihr mussen bekennen, dafi die Welt schon damahls mit so grosser Commotion schwanger gangen und in der Geburt gearbeitet, auch sie so unver- drossene ruhmliche Helden herfur gebracht, die mit aller Gewalt durch die Finsternufi und Barbarien hindurch gebrochen [.].”
116 Confessio, 46: “plerosque [.] sextae aetatis miranda innotuerunt [.] aut ex mundi revolu- tione futura simul et praesentia metiuntur.”
117 Fama, 92: “Nachdem der allein wyse und gnadige Gott in den letzten Tagen sein Gnad und Gute so reichlich uber das Menschliche Geschlecht aufigossen [.], daher dann nicht allein das halbe theil der unbekandten und verborgenen Welt erfunden, viel wunderliche und zuvor nie geschehne Werk und Geschopff der Natur uns zufuhren und dann hocher- leuchte Ingenia auffstehen lassen, die zum theil die veronreinigte unvolnkommene Kunst wieder zu recht brachten [.].” It is unclear to which works and creations of nature the texts refer.
century.118 Luther had argued that the millennium was neither in the present (Augustine) nor in the future ( Joachim), but had occurred in the past, in the time of the apostles. There was no millennium to look forward to: “Thus the only thing that can comfort you in this last stage is the Day of Judgement and your faith that the Lord rules in Eternity—ultimately all the godless will van- ish.”119 For Luther, time on earth was soon coming to an end, and all that was left on earth was Christ’s Second Coming and the hope for the New Jerusalem: “[...] here we see that after this time, as the pope reveals, there is nothing to hope for neither to expect, except for the end of the world and the resurrection of the dead.”120 For Luther and orthodox Lutherans, the faithful would rejoice in the New Jerusalem, but the immediate future was one in which the tribulations of the Last Days would occur. Signs of the final tribulations were the plague, war, death, and punishment, which Luther and orthodox Lutherans observed all around them.121 Luther’s reformation was intended to reclaim the Gospel and to prepare the world for Christ’s Second Coming and for the afterlife.122 The renewal of the Gospel in preparation of the heavenly Jerusalem meant that there was no longer any need for the reform of earthly affairs. As Heiko Ober- man puts it: “Luther believes that God openly intervenes by means of his Word to protect the poor in spirit, the chosen remainder of Israel, against the deceptions of the Antichrist.”123 Luther’s rejection of the view that human agency could enact reform was intimately linked with his eschatology, with his conception that the end was nigh and that only Christ could come and save man.
The idea of a future terrestrial period was officially rejected by the Lutherans (Augsburg Confession, 1530), the Anglicans, (42 Articles of Religion, 1553), as well as by the Reformed confession (Second Helvetic Confession, 1566).124
118 This verdict is contrary to: Wels, Manifestationen des Geistes, 247 ff., who argues that the manifestos are Lutheran texts and that they convey a Lutheran eschatology.
119 Luther, awa 2. 615,1-3, cited in: Oberman, Luther, Man between God and the Devil, 72.
120 Luther, wa dt. 11/2, 112 (Luther’s preface to Daniel’s prophecy): “[.] hie sehen wir, das nach dieser zeit, so der Bapst offenbahrt, nichts zu hoffen noch zu erwarten ist, denn der Welt ende und aufferstehung der Todten.”
121 Since the end did not come, from the end of the sixteenth century onwards some Lutherans began to have limited hopes; see: Wallmann, “Zwischen Reformation und Pietismus”; Barnes, Prophecy and Gnosis, 116-117, 183-207; Penman, Hope and Heresy.
122 Luther, wa 3, ii, 290.28, in: Oberman, The Reformation, 30-33. On the few elected ones, cf.
Revelation 14:3-5.
123 Oberman, The Reformation, 30.
124 Lietzman, (ed.), The Book of Concord, “Augsburgische Confession,” in: Die Bekenntnis- schriften der reformierten Kirche (1952), article xvii, 72; Dingel, (ed.), “Anglikanische Ar- tikel,” (Forty-Two Articles), Bekenntnisschriften der evangelischen-lutherischen Kirche (2010), article xli, 521.30-35; and idem, ’Confessio Helvetica posterior’, article xi, 185.3-
Clearly, the official pessimistic outlook of the magisterial reformers in the Protestant era, in which the manifestos were drafted, was very different from the optimistic message expressed in the manifestos themselves.
Equally different from Lutheranism and similar to the Joachimite vision, is the fact that the Antichrist in the Confessio preceded the expected future age on earth, an idea resonating with what has been called the “post-Antichrist tradition,” which held that the millennium was to occur only after the defeat of the Antichrist.125 This idea was popularised by Joachim, who argued that the earthly seventh age “will be the time after the fall of the Antichrist,” and, as we have just seen, this was confirmed by Rupescissa.126 This notion is opposed to the pre-Antichrist tradition, according to which the millennium takes place before the arrival of the Antichrist, in accordance with Augustine and Luther.127 Contrary to the conception of the magisterial Churches, but siding with other dissenters, the manifestos claim that the Antichrist is not the destroyer in the last days of life on earth, but instead precedes the future age. This clearly puts these texts in closer proximity to the Joachimite interpretation of history.
Notwithstanding this proximity, the future age in the manifestos can hardly be understood as a true millennium, contrary to what some Joachimites believed. In general, chiliasts believed in a future age with specific characteristics derived from canonical scripture. For example, they believed that it would endure for a thousand years, and would occasion the binding of Satan, the final tribulations, the following short reign of Satan, and Christ’s Judgement. In the manifestos, there is a clear expectation of a future, final period of prosperity on earth, but without most of these millenarian tropes, and therefore not in the
7. See further: Schmid, The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, 660; Antognazza and Hotson, Alsted and Leibniz, 149; Hotson, Paradise Postponed, 3. Late sixteenth-century Italians may well have been the first Reformed millenarians, see: Wall- mann, “Zwischen Reformation und Pietismus,” 188; Hotson, Paradise Postponed, 4-5. On some late sixteenth and early seventeenth-century Lutherans who expected a future millennium, see: Penman, “Climbing Jacob’s Ladder”; idem, “Between Utopia and New Jerusalem”; idem, Hope and Heresy. On millenarianism and trinitarianism in the late sixteenth century, see: Hotson, “Arianism and Millenarianism,” 9-36.
125 Although this tradition has come to be known as the “Joachimite tradition,” the idea of a peaceful time after the Antichrist originates not with Joachim but with the Church Father Jerome, even though, like Augustine, he was firmly against (future) millenarianism. For this ambiguity and early followers of Jerome, see: Lerner, “Refreshments of the Saints,” 101-110.
126 Joachim, Expositio, 210ra: “Igitur erit tempus post casum antichristi”; Rupescissa, Liber secretorum eventuum, 179.
127 See: Augustine, De civitate dei, 20, chapter 23.
sense of the millennium corresponding to John’s Book of Revelation.128 Satan is not bound, there are no final tribulations, and unlike the thousand-year period of peace the new age of the Rosicrucians is not derived from Scripture.
No more than the Joachimite version of history, neither should we place the Rosicrucians into the vicinity of some radical reformers such as Anabaptists, who expected a future age on earth as a final apotheosis. Several Anabaptists proclaimed poverty and hoped for “social cleansing” through spiritual inspiration in the immediate future. It was not a millennium,129 but it was divinely inspired. Muntzer, for example, preached that there will be “a transformation of the world” and that God “will prepare it in the Last Days in order that His name may be rightly praised.”130 Melchior Hoffmann, when preaching about Strasbourg, expected a restitution of the Jerusalem of the Psalms and argued that “Strasbourg will in this time be Jerusalem in Spirit, just as Rome had been the spiritual Babylon.”131 For the Anabaptists, the coming new period was merely a prelude to the New Jerusalem,132 while in the manifestos it was a full new period not to be understood as a prologue to the time after the Last Judgement.
The manifestos make no reference to Scripture in their exposition, unlike medieval authors and Anabaptists alike who relied heavily on biblical passages, notably the Book of Revelation, in support of their interpretations. For example, Joachim’s Exposition and Hoffmann’s Interpretation of the Secret Revelation follow the structure of the Book of Revelation; Arnald of Villanova’s About the Time of the Arrival of the Antichrist as well as Thomas Muntzer’s Exposition of the Second Chapter of Daniel make continual reference to biblical passages; and the understanding of history of these authors and that of Rupes- cissa is primarily an interpretation of Scripture.133 The fact that the manifestos
128 This is what prompted Wels to mistakenly argue that the manifestos’ conception of the development of history was Lutheran: Wels, “Die Frommigkeit der Rosenkreuzer- Manifeste,” 195.
129 Hoffmann, in fact, believed that the millennium was in the past: List, Chiliastische Utopie, 190.
130 Muntzer, “Exposition of the Second Chapter of Daniel,” edited and translated in Williams and Mergal, Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers, 62. For Muntzer, of course, the ideal was poverty, and the instigation of this reformation should be done with great violence; see, for example: List, Chiliastische Utopie, 129-139.
131 Hoffmann, Erkldrung des waren undhohen bunds des Allerhochsten (1533): “Strafiburg wurt
zu difier zeit Jerusalem jm geyst seyn, gleich alfi Rom das geistlich Babylonia gewesenn ist,” edited in: Krebs and Rott, Quellen zur Geschichte der Tdufer, vol. 8, pp. 185-186. Hoffmann repeated this statement during his interrogation by Strasbourg officials on 23 November 1534; see ibid., pp. 393-395.
132 Klaassen, Living at the End of Ages, 86-87.
133 Joachim, Expositio; Arnald, De tempore adventus Antichristi; Hoffmann, Auslegung der
lack any explicit or implicit references to Scripture when it comes to their conception of history, means that they deviated much further from biblical prophecy than these authors. This is of course a very unusual feature for Protestant texts, which would normally insist on prognosticating the future wholly or at least in part with reference to canonical prophecy.
The optimism inherent in the Rosicrucian manifestos differs also from the predominantly pessimistic tone of such apocalyptic authors as Paul Grabner and Adam Nachenmoser (dates unknown).134 Although both authors, like some other late sixteenth-century Lutherans, expected a brief period of peace before the end, central to their apocalyptic prophecies was the belief in imminent hardship and destruction during the Last Days.135 Grabner, for example, had written a prophecy about the future of Europe and claimed that celestial events announced coming destruction and wars before a final period of peace.136 There were no such dire forebodings in the manifestos. In fact, where expectations of final hardship are concerned, the manifestos differ from biblical texts, Lutherans, Joachimite prophecies, and radical reformers alike. They were explicitly optimistic about the advent of a future age; and the subsequent brief period of final tribulations under the rule of Satan, insisted upon in other interpretations, is excluded from the Rosicrucian account. This is an important difference: most reformers and even millenarians would claim that the Last Days will be characterised by final destruction, whereas the Rosicrucian axioms will not be destroyed but will thrive until Judgement Day.137
The manifestos seem instead again to show parallels with the Reformation of Sigismund. According to this text, Sigismund is ordered by God to prepare a path to a divine order of the world.138 A new period of peace on earth was to be inaugurated with the help of the evangelists John and Mark, harbingers of the new time: “We have two evangelists to our aid: John and Mark, who are our helpers in the two animal figures [eagle and lion, respectively], with whom we hinder all our enemies and all catastrophes, and in the future we will find beatific years, and God will bring us a gentle father, and he will be with us and
heimlichen Offenbarung; Muntzer, Exposition of the second chapter of Daniel, edited in Williams and Mergal, Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers.
134 This is contrary to: Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 20.
135 On Grabner, see especially: Gilly, “Las novas,” 309-321. Grabner’s prophecies became known only from 1619 onwards. For both Grabner and Nachenmoser, see: Barnes, Prophecy and Gnosis, 121-123, 251-252, also for numerous other works focused on calculating the end of the world.
136 Akerman, Rose Cross, 104-106; Gilly, “Las novas,” 313-317.
137 Fama, 105; see above, p. 58.
138 Anonymous, Reformation Kaiser Sigismunds, 332-334.
we will be with him.”139 In this future age, the gentle father “will also bring an entire realm of peace to the countries and to us.”140 In the Reformation of Sigismund, there is neither mention of the duration of the period of peace nor is the new period called a “millennium.” Other similarities with the Rosicrucian prophecy are evident. In both the manifestos and the Reformation of Sigismund, millenarian tropes such as the binding of Satan are absent, and the theological context seems to evaporate. Although some elements in the Reformation of Sigismund and the manifestos are clearly taken from Scripture and later prophecies, the texts do not follow a biblical structure, are devoid of direct references to passages in the Bible, and are not directly inspired by the Book of Revelation, with no announcement of a final tribulation before Christ comes in Judgement.
The Revolution of the World
Against this background, the structure of history as sketched in the manifestos is unique. History in most eschatological prophecies is interpreted as developing linearly. There is a beginning, Creation, and an end, the Last Judgement. According to the second creation narrative in the Bible, which begins in Genesis 2, Adam and Eve, the first two human beings, lived happily in Paradise, having dominion over all animals. They were allowed to eat of every tree, except for the tree of knowledge of good and evil. But tragedy struck when Adam and Eve, seduced by the serpent, ate of that particular tree and thereby gained knowledge of good and evil. Disobeying His orders, they aroused God’s vehement anger, and He banished them from the Garden of Eden and declared human life to be one of sorrow. In Christian teaching, this episode of the Fall of Adam and Eve was viewed as the source of original sin: The sin of having disobeyed God is “passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Romans 5:12), from one generation to the next. With the Fall begins the linear course of history divided into six or seven ages to culminate in the millennium, followed by the little season under the rule of Satan and the Last Judgement.
The Rosicrucian manifestos deviated from this standard linear interpretation of history. The manifestos, while also structuring history according to multiple ages, advocated a cyclical conception of history based in increased
139 Ibid., 342: “wir haben zwenn ewangelisten zu hilff, Johannem / und Marcum, dye unnser helffer sein in der zweyer thier figur, damit wir storen alle unser feinde und alles unheyl und finden in den kunfftigen zeytten selig jare und wirt unns got ein milter vater und wirt mit unns sein und wir mit ym.” In the following sentence it becomes clear that this father is Frederick, as “Er soll heyssen Friderich.” For the lion and eagle depicting Mark and John, standard symbols for these evangelists, see also ibid., 338, 340.
140 Ibid., 342: “soll auch alle reich zu fride bringen zu lande und zu auen.” On the one who brings the realm of peace, see above, p. 49.
natural knowledge. They claim that “while the world is tottering and almost at the end of a period and rushes to its beginnings, God returns the order of nature [,..].”141 142 143 144 145 The end of the present period not only inaugurates a new one, but is more importantly a return to the original stage of the world. This is a viewpoint profoundly different from biblical interpretations and most medieval and early modern prophecies. Here, harking back to our triad—reformation, revolution, and renovation—the meaning of the second objective of the manifestos becomes clear: the expectation ofa “revolution of the world.”142 “Revolution” always implies a rotation or cyclical nature. Thus the brethren announced that the world was revolving and rushing back to its beginning.
A similar return to the beginning was beautifully articulated by the Italian poet, philosopher, and theologian Tommaso Campanella (1568-1639). In one of his poems, he wrote:
If the happy Golden Age was once in the world
it may be there more than once
that all that is buried will live again
the circle returning to where it has its root.143
The final period, which the manifestos describe as a “happy time,” is in a sense the return to a Golden Age, which implies a circular interpretation of history rather than a linear one. As in the Renaissance myth of the Golden Age, a blissful time, which had once been in the world, will return in full grandeur.144 In Campanella’s poem, the circle is literally returning to where it has its beginning; in the manifestos the original order of nature will be restored.
Rather than being inspired by biblical apocalyptic texts, this cyclical conception of history may have had its origin in astronomy, and more specifically in the cycles of night and day, the seasons, the cycle of the Platonic Great Year of about 36,000 years, and celestial conjunctions.145 The manifestos announced the new
141 Confessio, 43: “Jehova est, qui mundo labascente, et propemodum periodo absoluta, ad principium properante Naturae ordinem invertit.”
142 Ibid., 46.
143 Campanella, Tutte le opere, cited in: Ernst, “From the Watery Trigon,” 267: “Se fu nel mondo l’aurea eta felice / ben essere potra piu ch’una volta / che si ravviva ogni cosa sepolta / tornando il giro ov’ebbe la radice.” On Campanella, see especially: Bonansea, Tommaso Campanella; Ernst, Religione, Ragione e Natura; idem, The Book and the Body of Nature.
144 See, for example: Levin, The Myth of the Golden Age in the Renaissance. Cf. below, section
2.1.
145 For the cyclical conception of history, renovation, and its relation to astronomy, cf: Ladner, The Idea of Reform, 30.
age by means of astronomical references. They state that “[a]fter the world will have slept off its intoxication from the poisonous and soporific chalice, in the morning it will proceed to meet the rising sun with an opened heart, and bareheaded and barefoot, happy and jubilant.”146 Day follows night, and the dawn is commencing. The new era is on the horizon and before “the sun rises,” it will already cast a “bright or dark light in the heaven.” The first rays of sunlight can already be observed, even before the happy time has begun.147 The imminent new world, while already visible on the horizon, starts with the Rosicrucian manifestos signalling the dawn of the new day.
The main source of influence for the manifestos’ conception of history seems to relate to various significant events taking place in the skies. Referencing the above-mentioned “worthy heroes,” the manifestos write that they already “broke through the darkness and barbarism” and revealed nature’s secrets, because they “were the tip in the Fiery Trigon, whose flames will now shine even more brightly and will certainly kindle in the world the final Fire.”148 This is a reference to the new cycle of conjunctions in the Fiery Trigon of Aries, Leo, and Sagittarius. In December 1603, a conjunction between “the highest stars”—Saturn and Jupiter—took place in Sagittarius, and inaugurated the beginning of a new cycle of conjunctions in the three zodiacal signs together named the Fiery Trigon. Conjunctions between Jupiter and Saturn, commonly known as the Great Conjunctions, are the rarest of all conjunctions and take place approximately once every 20 years. The previous such conjunction had taken place in 1583, when the alignment of the two superior stars occurred at the transition from the Watery Trigon (the signs Cancer, Scorpio, and Pisces) to the Fiery Trigon.149
146 Confessio, 56: “postquam venenati et soporiferi calicis crapulam edormiverit Mundus;
atque manet exorienti Soli apertis pectoribus, detectis capitibus, amotis calceis, laetus jubilansque; obviam processerit.”
147 Fama, 122: “ehe die Sonne auffgehet, sie [bringt] zuvor ein hell oder dunckel Licht in den Himmel [...].” See also: Confessio, 47-48.
148 Fama, 100-101: “[...] ruhmliche Helden [...] die mit aller Gewalt durch die Finsternufi und Barbarien hindurchgebrochen und uns schwachern nur nachzudrucken gelassen und freylich der Spitze im Trigono igneo gewesen, dessen Flammen numehr je heller leuchtet und gewifilichen der Welt den letzten Brand antzunden wird [.].” On the conjunctions and the Rosicrucians, see also: Leppin, Antichrist undJungster Tag, 141; Akerman, “The Rosicrucians and the Great Conjunctions,” 3. The darkness and barbarism possibly refer to the contemporary state of affairs in philosophy and the sciences; on this, see below, sections 1.3 and 2.4.
149 Importantly, there had also been a conjunction between Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars in 1484,
which was said to be the year of death of Christian Rosencreutz.
According to the Arabic astrologer Albumasar (787-886), these Great Conjunctions occurred every twenty years in a cycle of twelve. After 12 x 20 = 240 years in one trigon, the conjunctions will take place in the subsequent tri- gon (each of the four trigons consisting of three of the twelve zodiacal signs and named after the dominant element). Conjunctions in the Fiery Trigon, for example, followed conjunctions in the Watery Trigon. After 4x240 = 960 years, the cycle of conjunctions will be completed and begin anew again. According to Albumasar, specifically the conjunctions ofJupiter and Saturn were followed by changes on earth.150 His works went through several Latin translations, and his Introductorium Minus became the foremost textbook on astronomy at European universities during the late Middle Ages.151
The Alfonsine tables of the thirteenth century established that the specific transition from the Watery Trigon to the Fiery Trigon, and thus the fulfillment of one full cycle of conjunctions and the start of a new one, occurs about once every 800 years, not every 960 years as per Albumasar’s estimation.152 Early modern astronomers claimed that such a noteworthy, transitory conjunction had occured only a few times since Creation, and that the previous two had taken place around the time of two important events: Christ’s birth and the rule of Charlemagne, who was crowned on Christmas day in 800ad. After the transitory conjunction in 1583, a new cycle of conjunctions between Saturn and Jupiter took place in the Fiery Trigon, with the first conjunction occurring approximately twenty years later, at the end of 1603.153 The Rosicrucians claimed that with the start of the conjunctions in the Fiery Trigon, the universe had thus literally entered a new period and a new cycle. For the important changes on earth the conjunctions were said to indicate, the Rosicrucians understood these most recent celestial events to announce the commencement of the final period of the world, as the aforementioned “heroes” were the first signs of the new era.
150 Vescovini, “The Theological Debate,” 103-104. On Albumasar and his influence in the West, see: Hartner, “Tycho Brahe et Albumasar,” 137-150; Van Nouhuys, The Age of Twofaced Janus, 63-65; Vescovini, “The Theological Debate.” Cf. also: Thorndike, “Albumasar in Sadan.”
151 Vescovini, “The Theological Debate,” 104-105.
152 On the Alfonsine tables, see: Chabas and Goldstein, The Alfonsine Tables of Toledo; Rosen, Copernicus and his Successors, 29-40. The time between the conjunctions and the beginning and ending of cycles is fixed, taking approximately 20 and 800 years, respectively.
153 See: Aston, “The Fiery Trigon Conjunction,” 160-162, 166; Ernst, “From the Watery Trigon,” 266-267. This conjunction of 1603 was followed by a conjunction in Autumn 1604 of Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars.
This event was met with widespread enthusiasm and the sense that it was significant of something beyond observable alterations in the night sky. The famous astronomer Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), at the time mathematician to Holy Roman Emperor Rudolph ii, had described it in his On the New Star (1606).154 His colleague David Fabricius (1564-1617), with whom Kepler corresponded over recent celestial changes, referred to this new cycle and compared it to the celestial events of the time of Christ. Just as the during Christ’s birth the Great Conjunction in the Fiery Trigon had signified a new time, he concluded, this recent conjunction indicated the beginning of a new era.155 A few years before the Fama was drafted, Campanella had also described the conjunctions that appeared in the “fiery triplicity.” He, too, thought that, since a similar conjunction had taken place during Christ’s birth, the present one must certainly indicate a new era.156 He believed that the new celestial phenomena announced the coming ofa new period on earth, and like the Rosicrucians he referred to portents visible on the “machinery of the heavens”:
Hence a diverse appearance of the stars hangs above the earth, and now that the entire machinery of the heavens has obtained a new position, it gives birth to new ages, and it emits new influences onto the singular parts of the earth. That is why we must conclude that, when a constellation of stars withdraws into the place of another constellation, very great changes on earth happen.157
The authors of the manifestos had probably not read Campanella’s work.158 Although Campanella’s writings were brought from Italy to Germany by one of their friends, Tobias Adami (1581-1643), and although later another friend, Wilhelm von Wense (1586-1641), had visited Campanella in prison while in Naples,
154 Kepler, De stella nova in pede Serpentarii (1606), 282-291. On Kepler, see, for example: Voelkel, Johannes Kepler and the New Astronomy.
155 Granada, “Johannes Kepler and David Fabricius,” 73. Fabricius, however, connected it to the restoration of the “Roman Eagle.” See: ibid., 74.
156 Campanella, Tutte le opera. i. Scritti Letterari, 125. On the Prophetic Articles see Ernst’s introduction (“nota introduttiva”) in: Campanella, Articuli prophetales, edited by Ernst, pp. xi-xlvi.
157 Campanella, Articuli Prophetales [1599], 266: “unde diversa facies stellarum terris imminet et tota caeli machina novam adepta positionem nova parturit saecula novasque singulis terrarum partibus influentias demittit [...]. Ideo censendum est, quando figura stellarum in alterius figurae situm secedit, permaximas in orbe mutationes contingere.” In the manifestos, signs precede and announce events, but it is not obvious that they influence events.
158 On authorship, see below, Chapter 3.
both events happened after the Fama had been published in 1614,159 which suggests that Campanella did not directly influence the authors of the manifestos. Two early works by Campanella were bound together with a manuscript version of the Fama of circa 1613, but this was several years after the composition of the text, and the Fama was merely one of over 70 other texts with which Campanella’s works were bound together.160 And while both this text, the Prophetic Articles (1599), and the utopian City of the Sun (1602) were written before the manifestos, they possibly did not circulate widely before 1610 (the City of the Sun did not appear as a printed publication until 1623).161 In any case, there is no documented contact between Campanella and the authors of the manifestos, but there may have been undocumented influence before the manifestos were drafted—although the chances that the authors were influenced by Campanella before drafting the Fama are small.
The dramatic changes taking place in the constellation of Sagittarius foreshadowed two other celestial events that received much attention at the time and that were interpreted optimistically by the Rosicrucians. In chapter six of the Confessio, the brethren made clear that it was the business of the Rosicrucians to understand celestial omens sent by God:
To whom it has been granted to behold, read, and thereafter to comprehend these great letters of God, which He inscribed on the machine of the world and which He repeats alternately according to the vicissitudes of the empires; he indeed (even if ignorant at this moment) is already one of us, and as we know that he will not overlook our invitation, so we will in turn abjure all fraud.162
Interpreting these letters, and inferring a divine provenance, the brethren wrote that God “has from His own will already sent forward messengers, the stars appearing in Serpentarius and Cygnus,” which are “surely great
159 Andreae, Christianopolis, introduction by Edward H. Thompson, 29; Gilly, “Campanella and the Rosicrucians,” 198-199.
160 Gilly, “Campanella and the Rosicrucians,” 210. The works are the Scuela del primo senno and the Epilogo magno.
161 Cf. Ernst, “Introduction,” to Campanella, Articuli Prophetales, xxi.
162 Confessio, 52: “Sane cuicunque Magnas illas Dei litteras, quas Mundi machinae inscrip
sit, & per Imperiorum vicissitudines alternatim repetit, intueri, legere, atque exinde se erudire concessum; ille quidem (etsi hoc tempore inscius) jam noster est; Atque uti scimus, non neglecturum nostram invitationem: ita vicissim fraudem omnem ejuramus
signs of the great plan.”163 These signs inscribed in the heavens were portents of the new era and, whilst the manifestos characterised the present time as one of adversity, neither the celestial portents themselves nor what they indicated about the future were deemed to be frightening. These events were read as indicative of God’s great plan and as auspices for the success of the Rosicrucians’ general reformation.
The idea that celestial signs reveal God’s plan originated from both Jewish and early Christian apocalyptic texts, as well as from recent astronomical prophecies.164 In the Christian context, revelatory signs were expected shortly before the End Times, as announced in the Book of Revelation.165 The central notion “apocalypticism” originates from the Greek word “apokalypsis” (ano- KaXv^iq), “disclosure” or “revelation,” and concerns the revelation of divine mysteries. Apocalypticism as such is not primarily eschatological: revelation of divine secrets is not first and foremost reserved for the Final Days. But from “apocalypticism” is derived the more specific term “apocalyptic,” the adjective used as a noun, which does refer to the revelation of events taking place specifically during the Last Days.166 In the Middle Ages and the early modern period, expectations of the Last Days were often accompanied by a sense of crisis; and following biblical suggestions the signs indicating the Last Days were expected to be frightening, such as famines, wars, and earthquakes. In Matthew 24:6-8, for example, Christ is reported to have prophesied about future disasters.167 In Luke 21:25-26, Christ describes how such terrible signs will also appear in the heavens:
And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
163 Ibid., 55: “De sua quidem voluntate jam praemisit nuncios Deus, Stellas in Serpentario atque Cygno exortas, quae magna profecto magni Consilii signacula illud docere possunt [•••]•”
164 For a discussion of apocalyptic in ancient Jewish and Christian texts, see: Rowland, The Open Heaven.
165 Both Daniel and Revelation are examples of ’revelation’ of divine secrets. See also: Lanczkowski, “Apokalyptik/Apokalypsen i,” tre 3, 189-191. On this, see: Rowland, The Open Heaven, 9-11; Barnes, Prophecy and Gnosis.
166 Cf. Rowland, The Open Heaven, 26, 70-71.
167 Compare also Matthew 24:29-31.
Such passages influenced many prophecies,168 including those of the aforementioned medieval authors. Possibly inspired by the passage from Matthew, in his Companion in Tribulation Rupescissa wrote that, before the end, “terrible destruction will abound beyond all human estimation: tempests from the sky, and elsewhere floods of water never seen before, unheard of in many parts of the world (except for the Great Flood), serious famines beyond measure, plagues and deaths, abscesses of the throat and sufferings of other infec- tions.”169 In the Protestant interpretation, Luther and his orthodox followers expected the signs of the end to include a second Great Flood and dramatic portents in the skies. Luther wrote: “we will perceive an unusual sign, which will announce the coming of Christ. There will be a sign of the sun, because the sun will be transformed into darkness and blood.”170
An interesting Protestant interpretation of astrology came from Luther’s early collaborator Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560), who taught that the study of astrology could enlighten us on certain questions of God’s governance,171 and that its practice was supported by biblical passages.172 Melanchthon and his “Melanchthon Circle” practiced astrology and interpreted recent celestial events—such as conjunctions, new stars, and comets—as signs, and generally as warnings about coming earthly affairs. For Melanchthon, unlike Luther, astrology and natural philosophy were intimately linked with religion and religious teaching, as astrology should teach the world about God’s power and
168 On the interpretation of portents in history, see: Mout, “Chiliastic Prophecy and Revolt”; Leppin, Antichrist undJungster Tag, 87-96; Barnes, Prophecy and Gnosis; idem, “Images of Hope and Despair”; idem, Astrology and Reformation.
169 Rupescissa, Vade mecum in tribulatione (1356), 499: “[...] abundabunt terribiles clades ultra omnem aestimationem humanam; tempestates de coelis; et alias nunquam visa diluvia aquatica, inaudita in multis partibus orbis (praeter diluvium generale) fames gravissimae supra modum; pestilentiae et mortalitates; gutturum squinantiae et aliae apostematicae passiones.” Compare also: ibid., 497: “I rejoice in the future reparation, but am saddened about the imminent, very hard pressure on the whole Christian population, the likes of which has never been since the beginning of the world, neither will it be in the future until the end of the age”: “gaudeo de reparatione futura sed contristor de imminenti pres- sura universi populi christiani durissima qualis nunquam fuit ab origine mundi nec postea futura est usque ad finem seculi.”
170 Luther, wa i, iv, 622: “Videamus signa ex ordine, quae Christus ventura praedicit. Solis signum erit, quod immutabitur sol in tenebras et in sanguinem.” See also: Lichtenberger, Prognosticatio, ii, chapter 13. Cf. Joel 2:31: “The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord come.”
171 On Melanchthon, Philipists, and astrology, see: Kusukawa, The Transformation of Natural Philosophy, here p. 134.
172 Caroti, “Melanchthon’s Astrology,” 116; Barnes, Astrology and Reformation, 142. The biblical
passages Melanchthon referred to were Genesis 1:14 and Jeremiah 10:2.
goodness, and astrological divination could strengthen one’s faith.173 Divination, including astrology, could teach humans about God and the divine providence without which, he believed, the world would otherwise be reduced to mere matter.174 For Melanchthon, such events presaged the imminent end. In the Protestant era, most people awaited the final tribulations with a sense of dread.175
The manifestos evidently shared nothing of this pessimism. Not inspired by pessimistic canonical Scripture or Protestant prophecies, their optimistic tone once more bears a resemblance to prophecies originating from the context of astronomy. Many astronomers of the time regarded new stars and rare conjunctions as signs of a new era.176 The messengers in “Serpentarius and Cygnus,” mentioned in the Confessio, were a star newly visible in the constellation of Cygnus (from 1600 onwards, named “P Cygni”) and a supernova in Serpentarius (1604), which was at the time believed to be a new star rather than the explosion of an old one. The significance of the new stars was of course greatly increased by their temporal proximity to the Great Conjunction of a few months previously. 1604 was also a highly important year in the manifestos. In that year, Rosencreutz’s vault was said to have been rediscovered and opened, namely 120 years after Rosencreutz’s death in 1484.177 This rediscovery coincided with the revelation of secrets and the coming of a new and better age.
Some astronomers of the time believed that the new star of 1604 was a sign from God, and compared this star also to celestial events that had taken place when Christ was born, namely to the Star of Bethlehem.178 The 1604
173 On Melanchthon’s astrological aspirations in relation to theology, see: Caroti, “Melanch- thon’s Astrology,” esp. 119; Barnes, Astrology and Reformation, 139-152. On the Melanch- thon Circle, see: Thorndike, History, vol. 5, 378-405. On the use of the notion “Melanch- thon Circle,” see: Barnes, Astrology and Reformation, 339n26.
174 Caroti, “Melanchthon’s Astrology,” 116.
175 Barnes, Prophecy and Gnosis, 29.
176 On this, see: Schechner, Comets, Popular Culture, and the Birth of Modern Cosmology; Van Nouhuys, The Age of Two-faced Janus. The observation and interpretation of celestial changes was very common at the time. Astrology had become influential since the twelfth century following the translation of Arabic astrological texts, but since the fifteenth century they were made more easily accessible thanks to the printing press. With the availability of printed works, astrology as a means to understand the divine plan entered the popular realm, especially in Germany, with vernacular editions about astrological signs predicting the future tribulations. On astronomers’ expectations of such an age, see: Ernst, “From the Watery Trigon.”
177 On the rediscovery of Rosencreutz’s vault, see below, p. 82f. and p. 136 f.
178 On such celestial events contradicting Aristotelian astronomy, see: Weichenhan, ’Ergo peritcoelum ...’Die Supernova desJahres 1572 unddie Uberwindung der aristotelischenKos- mologie.
star was observed by many at the time and caused much excitement, including among famous astronomers such as Helisaeus Roeslin (1545-1616), Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), and Kepler.179 Kepler described the supernova of 1604 in his On the New Star. He discussed at length the star and its possible astrological meaning on the eve ofa new period, although he believed the new star to indicate nothing: it was “blind chance” that it had appeared in that place at that moment.180 His colleague Fabricius, instead, believed that “this new star signifies peace, and it will also signify peace as well as a change of the [Holy Roman] Empire for the better.”181 He was one of the astronomers who compared this star to that which had appeared over Bethlehem at Christ’s birth. Although these texts might have been published too late to influence the authors of the manifestos, they are indicative of the optimistic sense resulting from such striking celestial phenomena.
The 1604 supernova also immediately reminded astronomers of the 1572 star, which had been observed, among others, by the astronomer Tycho Brahe (1546-1601). Referring to predictions about the new star of 1572, Brahe wrote:
Nor are these phenomena alien to the most ancient prophecies of very wise and divinely illuminated persons, who predicted that before the universal conflagration of all things a certain temporary peaceful and harmonious age on earth will take place, during which the confusions in political managements and of the tumultuous variety of religions will be transformed and be adapted to a state that will be more in agreement with divine intention.182
179 Roeslin claimed, unlike the manifestos, that the star was a terrible omen that signified outward war and disasters, but inward peace and spiritual light. David Herlicius’ Astro- nomische undHistorische Erklerung des Newen Sterns oder... Cometen ... 1604 (1605), about the new star of 1604, was especially influential at the time, but he also understood the star to signal destruction: Barnes, Prophecy and Gnosis, 171-172.
180 Kepler, De stella nova in pede Serpentarii (1606), 272-291; Granada, “The Discussion between Kepler and Roeslin on the Nova of 1604,” 35.
181 Fabricius, letter dated June 1607, cited in: Granada, “Johannes Kepler and David Fabricius:
Their Discussion on the Nova of 1604,” 69, 73.
182 Brahe, Progymnasmata, 312: “neque etiam haec a vetustissimis sapientissimorum et divini-
tus illuminatorum hominum vaticiniis sunt aliena, qui ante universalem rerum omnium conflagrationem, pacificum quoddam et concors seculum aliquamdiu in terris futurum, in quo politicarum administrationum et varietatis religionum tumultuariae confusiones transmutabuntur, et ad divinae voluntati conformiorem analogiam adaptabuntur, vati- cinati sunt,” cited in: Ernst, “From the Watery Trigon,” 272. Brahe refers here to ancient prophecies, including theTiburtine Oracle; see also: Brahe, De nova stella (1573). On Brahe, see particularly: Christianson, On Tycho’s Island.
Brahe, whose brother in law, Erik Lange, was later to be inspired by the Rosicrucian manifestos, was generally opposed to ’superstitious ideas’, but like many others he believed that the new celestial phenomena must announce a new era. His view is particularly close to the Rosicrucian one, as he claimed that a seventh cycle or “restitution” was about to commence and that this new cycle will be a beneficial one.183 Like the manifestos, he clearly used astronomical data to announce a return to the beginning, ushering in a new phase of renewal. The Louvain physician and astronomer Cornelius Gemma (1535-1578) further compared also this star to the one that had announced Christ’s birth, after which, he wrote, inequality and evil will be exterminated.184
That exceptional celestial occurrences announced upcoming earthly changes was an idea embraced by the Rosicrucians and many astronomers alike, and these earthly changes were eagerly anticipated. The optimistic tones struck in the manifestos corresponded to the message of these astronomers, but contrasted starkly with the mainstream Lutheran pessimism about the immediate future and the Joachimite fear of the final tribulations. The same goes for the cyclical conception of history, which can only be explained in reference to recent celestial events, but which departs dramatically from canonical and confessional literature.
1.3 The Renovation of Philosophy
A Philosophical Renovation
In keeping with the first term analysed in this chapter, “reformation,” the brethren of Rosencreutz’s fraternity yearned for a “general reformation of divine and human things,” which was imminent, but had not yet taken place. In keeping with the second term, “revolutio,” the evidence that a new day was approaching, heralding a return to the beginning, was the dawning of light.185
183 Brahe, Progymnasmata, 312: “Veluti illae restitutiones trigonicae quae impari numero exhibitae sunt, velut prima, tertia et quinta, salutares Mundo fuerunt: sic et hanc septimam numero impari praecipue gauidentem, magni cuiusdam boni et felicioris status esse praenunciam”; “et si septima haec est trigonorum in integrum ab Orbe condito restitutio, quemadmodum communiter recepta aetatis Mundi numeratio admittit [...],” cited in: Ernst, “From the Watery Trigon,” 272.
184 Gemma, De naturae divinis characterismis, 133, see: Ernst, “From the Watery Trigon,” 271. On Gemma, see: Hirai (ed.), Cornelius Gemma: Cosmology, Medicine and Natural Philosophy in Renaissance Louvain.
185 Fama, 121-122: “Wiewol wir nun wol wissen, dafi es umb ein ziemliches, noch nicht an dem, da wieder unserm verlangen, oder auch anderer hoffnung, mit allgemeiner refor-
Light is of course often a metaphor of knowledge, and this introduces another dimension of the Rosicrucian general reformation: the idea of a renewal of philosophy. The “general reformation divini et humani” refers, most obviously, to a reformation of spiritual as well as secular affairs, that is, to religion and the empire. At the same time, the reference to a reformation of divine and human affairs points also to a renovation of divine and human knowledge; of theology, as well as of philosophy and the other arts. In one prominent passage, progress in the knowledge of divine and human things is expressly linked:
After the uniquely wise and merciful God has poured out His grace and goodness so generously in the last days over the human race, so that knowledge of both His Son and nature increasingly spreads, and we may justly rejoice in a happy time, so that not only the [other] half of the unknown and hidden world has been found, but also many wondrous and hitherto never experienced works and creations of nature are brought to us, and caused certain highly illuminated minds to stand up, who partially renewed the polluted and imperfect arts [“.].186
Progress in the knowledge of divine things (achieved by religious transformations) is associated with progress in the knowledge of the natural world (achieved by the voyages of discovery), as well as with progress in the renewal of the arts (achieved not only by Renaissance art and scholarship but also by technological advances, from which the era increasingly benefitted). While new creatures and the Americas (the unknown half of the world) were discovered, this formerly hidden world contained also the divine realm, because knowledge not only of nature but also of the Son became increasingly available.
The expectation of an age of philosophical enlightenment after the overthrow of the Antichrist and before the Second Coming was once again utterly alien to Luther’s worldview and to the apocalyptic expectations of confessional
mation divini et humani, solle genug geschehen, ist es doch nicht unbillich, dafi ehe die Sonne auffgehet, sie zuvor ein hell oder dunkel Liecht in den Himmel bringt [...].”
186 Ibid., 91-92: “Nachdem der allein wyse und gnadige Gott in den letzten Tagen sein Gnad und Gute so reichlich uber das Menschliche Geschlecht aufigossen, dafi sich die Erkant- nufi/ beydes seines Sohns und der Natur/ je mehr und mehr erweitert/ und wihr uns billich einer glucklichen zeit ruhmen mogen/ daher dann nicht allein das halbe theil der unbekandten und verborgenen Welt erfunden, viel wunderliche und zuvor nie geschehne Werk und Geschopff der Natur uns zufuhren und dann hocherleuchte Ingenia auffstehen lassen, die zum theil die verunreinigte unvolnkommene Kunst wieder zu recht brachten
Lutheranism of the period: according to Luther and mainstream Lutherans, it was a heterodox position to announce a time of intellectual enlightenment on earth. Again the Rosicrucians drew on approximate heterodox antecedents from before the Reformation period, but in this case the differences are as significant as the similarities.
Some medieval authors concerned with the reformatio mundi may have regarded changes and developments in knowledge and philosophy as necessary means for the correction of all that is corrupt. They expected a reparation of the world, but this reparation was mostly a corollary of Church reform.187 For them, developments in scientia were to a large extent relevant only for the defeat of the Antichrist or in order to enter the New Jerusalem, and were not predominantly the result of a renovation of philosophy for the sake of knowledge itself. Roger Bacon, for example, criticised Aristotle and wanted improvements in the sciences, such as mathematics, natural philosophy, and astronomy, but also in alchemy.188 He emphasised the importance of scientia experimentalis, but mostly for the purpose of the teaching of secular thought for theology, for the Last Days, and for the defeat of the Antichrist.189 For him, a reformation in knowledge and the Church had as its primary purpose the fortification of a Christian society. His plans for reform were ecumenical, and after the Antichrist, already in place, there would come “one most blessed pope who removes all that is corrupt from the university, the Church, and the rest, and the world will be renewed and all people will enter, and the remainder of Israel will be converted to the faith.”190
Arnald of Villanova expected a time “when over the entire world truth will be recognised and Christ will be honoured.”191 He advised that people study the
187 For Joachim: McGinn, “Apocalypticism and Church Reform,” 79. For Joachim, in any case, there is not really perfection until the end of the world. The new period, the future millennium, was simply a renewal of the New Testament, not a perfection or an entirely joyful time, see: Barnes, Prophecy and Gnosis, 22-23.
188 Hackett, “Roger Bacon on the Classification of the Sciences,” 57-59. On Bacon’s alchemy, its innovative character, and its purpose for medicine, see: Newman, “An Overview of Roger Bacon’s Alchemy,” esp. 323-335.
189 Hackett, “Roger Bacon on the Classification of the Sciences,” 49-53, 63; Newman, “An overview of Roger Bacon’s Alchemy,” 335. On Bacon’s scientia experimentalis, see: Hackett, “Roger Bacon on scientia experimentalis”; DeVun, Prophecy, Alchemy and the End of Time, 87-89, 145.
190 Roger Bacon, Compendium Studii Philosophiae, 402: “unus beatissimus papa qui omnes corruptiones tollet de studio et ecclesia, et caeteris, et renovetur mundus, et intret pleni- tudo gentium, et reliquiae Israel ad fidem convertantur.” On this idea in Bacon, see also: DeVun, Prophecy, Alchemy and the End of Time, 4, 91, 152.
191 Arnald of Villanova, De tempore adventus antichristi, edited in: Finke, Aus den Tagen,
natural world, because “after all, man knows God in the present life primarily through [His] creatures.”192 Himself a physician, Arnald wanted hospitals to be built, the poor to be housed, and men to be trained in theological schools.193 He influenced Rupescissa, who was unique in believing that there was room for human agency in (preparation for) the Final Days.194 Rupescissa argued that the study of nature and the practice of alchemy would play an essential role on the historical world stage, as it would contribute to the world’s transformation and the fight against the Antichrist.195 Alchemy, in particular the creation of the philosophers’ stone, could help to avoid apocalyptic disasters. After a description of the creation of the philosophers’ stone, Rupescissa stated that he “has revealed this only for the Saints as remedies for the tribulations in the imminent times of the Antichrist.”196 Although the Rosicrucians’ apocalyptic notions and aspirations for the reformation of religion, politics, and knowledge clearly had their precedent in such medieval reformers, the brethren surpassed their precursors by prioritising the reform of philosophy for the sake of knowledge itself and by renovating the world independently of any anticipation of the Final Events.
For the Rosicrucians, the renewal of philosophy was an integral part, not only of the reformatio divini et humani, but also of the revolutio mundi. The metaphor of gradually dawning light for the renewal of philosophy and theology is contrasted with the “darkness” of the preceding period, understood as confusion, lies, and heresy:
Whence it is right that deceit, darkness, and slavery withdraw, which, by the gradually advancing instability of the great globe, crept into the sciences, actions, and human governments, by which these have been for the better part obscured. Hence was born that innumerable diversity of
cxxxiii: “[...] tempus [...] in quo per universum orbem cognoscetur veritas et adorabitur Christus [...].”
192 Arnald of Villanova, edited in: Perarnau i Espelt, “L’Allocutio christini d’Arnau de Vilanova: edicio i estudi del text,” 78-80: “Cogniscit autem homo Deum in presenti vita, primo per creaturas.”
193 DeVun, Prophecy, Alchemy and the End of Time, 91.
194 Rupescissa, Vade mecum, 502.
195 DeVun, Prophecy, Alchemy and the End of Time, 4, 59-60, 152.
196 Rupescissa, Liber Lucis, 25v: “Hoc enim solum pro Sanctis revelavi in proxima Antichristi
tempora tribulationibus remedia,” cited in: DeVun, Prophecy, Alchemy and the End of Time, 59, 187-188. Here, Rupescissa makes use of alchemy in an apocalyptic or prophetic context. About prophecy and alchemy, see the insightful introduction to the subject, although specifically focused on the twelfth to fourteenth centuries, in: Crisciani, “Opus and Sermo.” On apocalyptic alchemy, see below, p. 118 ff.
opinions, lies, and heresies that either make it difficult even for very wise men to choose, while it tore asunder the fame of the philosophers, and the truth of experience. When finally all of this will be removed, as we trust, we shall see it instead substituted with a similar rule that will perpetually remain equal to itself.197
Remarkable here is an inversion or revolution in intellectual values implicit in this and other passages from the manifestos. Here, the “lies” that had crept into the scientific and political areas are denounced with the religiously loaded term “heresy.” “Heresy” traditionally identifies beliefs that are contrary to established doctrine, and particularly refers to deliberate persistence in such error.198 The brethren reversed the logic of this by identifying their own doctrine as the future standard, against which truth and falsity, orthodoxy and heresy, are to be measured. Seeing the traditional sciences and governments, which historically speaking represented the status quo, as beset with errors, the Rosicrucians deemed them heretical and aberrations from the Rosicrucian truth. The brethren derided the moral character of the traditional heretics, who deceive, enslave, and lie, and they wanted these heresies to be replaced by their own philosophy. With such aspirations to reform all teaching and what was built on it, the Rosicrucians far surpassed the aspirations of the Lutheran reformation, and also those of the medieval reformatio mundi of faith and state.
Within the institutional context of established learning, the manifestos also proposed an even more specific form of academic “revolution,” by threatening to overturn the hierarchy of the disciplines deeply entrenched in the medieval and early modern universities. Within the established curricular structure, the faculty of philosophy was subservient to the three higher faculties of medicine, law, and theology. The primary purpose of studying philosophy, in these institutions, was as a preparation for the three higher faculties; and, as a consequence, the needs of the higher faculties heavily influenced the content of the philosophical or arts curriculum. Although any one of the three higher faculties could only be studied after one had graduated in the liberal arts, theology
197 Confessio, 54: “Unde Falsum, tenebras, et servitutem cedere aequum est; quae, sensim pro- grediente Globi magni volutatione, in Scientias, Actiones et Imperia humana irrepserunt; illis ex magna parte obscuratis. Hinc illa sententiarum, Falsitatum, Haereseon innumera- bilis diversitas enata; quae vel sapientissimis hominibus delectum difficilem fecit, dum hinc philosophorum Fama, illinc experientiae veritas distraheret; quae si cuncta (uti con- fidimus) sublata aliquando, Unam v. Contra et sibi perpetuo similem Regulam substi- tutam viderimus.”
198 Maclean, “Introduction,” xv.
claimed the highest rank, since it dealt with the highest things (God) and the highest good (the eternal life of the soul, as opposed to the temporal life of the individual body and the body politic). To be sure, at Northern-European medieval universities, (natural) philosophy and philosophical arguments were used in discussions on theological matters, but philosophy always remained subordinate to theology.199
In the Rosicrucian manifestos, this hierarchy is overturned by the incorporation of the higher faculties into the previously subordinate study of philosophy. “Philosophy,” they argued, “is the head of all faculties, sciences, and arts.”200 “Philosophy includes much of theology and medicine, but little of law.”201 Philosophy is thus transformed from a subordinate faculty into a broad category, which incorporates but also exceeds theology and medicine. Since philosophy was to be transformed, so too were theology and medicine. The reform of theology has already been discussed; the reform of medicine will be discussed in the next chapter, as it was the only profession to be practiced by the Rosicrucians.202
The demand for a reformation of philosophy emerged first as a rejection of the established philosophy of the universities. Christian Rosencreutz had discussed with Spanish scholars not only the problems within ecclesia, but also “what is failing in our arts and how they can be helped,” and how “the entire moral philosophy may be improved.”203 His objective, and that of his fraternity, was described as a replacement of established learning and a renovation of philosophy.
The authors of the manifestos dismissed all traditional philosophers, whom they viewed as not even remotely interested in the sought-after renovation and new philosophy. Amongst (university) scholars, “pride and ambition” abounded, “as they stick to their old songs,” and it was thought that “the old enemy shows his cunning and rumble plentifully.” The Rosicrucians were taking aim
199 On this, see: Kusukawa, The Transformations of Natural Philosophy, 7-26.
200 Confessio, 45: “Est autem Philosophia nobis nulla, quam quae facultatum, scientiarum, Artium caput.”
201 Ibid., 45: “[philosophia] theologiae ac medicinae plurimum, jurisprudentiae minimum habeat.”
202 Fama, 106: “[k]einer solle sich keiner andern profession aufithun, dann krancken zu curi- ren und difi alles umbsonst [...].” For the reform of medicine, see below, section 2.3.
203 Fama, 98-99: “Nach zweyen Jahren verliefi Fr. r.c. Fessam, und fuhr mit vielen kostlichen stucken in Hispaniam [...], besprachte sich derowegen mit den Gelehrten in Hispania, worinnen es unsern artibus fahlete, und wie ihnen zu helffen, woraufi die gewisse Indicia volgender seculorum zunehmen, und worinnen sie mussen mit den vergangenen concor- diren, wie der Ecclesiae mangel und die ganz Philosophia moralis zuverbessern.”
particularly at two classical authorities: Aristotle, who dominated the philosophical curriculum, and Galen, the principal authority for medicine. If Aristotle and Galen were alive today, according to the suggestion offered in the Fama, “no doubt they would happily correct their own errors, but here one is too weak for such great works.” Aristotle and Galen were mistaken, but those following in their footsteps had the possibility to see the newly discovered truths in “theology, physics, and mathematics”—and yet they refused to do so.204 Scholars demonstrated no willingness to contribute to the development of all the arts.205
A Restoration of Knowledge
This brings us to the third and final term used to describe the means at the disposal of the Rosicrucians, “renovatio.” “Renovation” suggests that the world will be, or should be, renewed. Such a “renovation” could occur primarily through changes within philosophy, so that the renewal of the world was intimately related to the development of philosophy:
Just as, where a new plague arises, nature usually reveals a remedy in that same place; so also during these great crises of philosophy, unique means arise in the least for the sanity [of philosophy], sufficiently suitable to our fatherland, through which philosophy can recover and appear in a new or renewed form through the renovation of the world.206
The nature of the means for recovery remains unknown, but the implication is that whilst unspecified tensions in philosophy broke out in the German-
204 Ibid. 92-93: “[•••] ist auch bey den Gelehrten der Stolz und Ehrgeitz so hoch, dafi sie nicht mogen zusammen tretten, und aufi allem, so Gott in unserm seculo reichlich mitgethei- let, in librum Naturae, oder regulam aller Kunsten, sondern mochten, sondern je ein theil dem andern zu wieder thut, bleibe man bey der alten Leyren, und mufi Bapst, Aristoteles, Galenus, ja was nur einem Codice gleich siehet, wieder das helle offenbahre Licht gel- ten, die ohn zweiffel selbsten, so sie lebten, mit grossen Frewden sich corrigirten: hie aber ist man so grossen Wercken zu schwach, und ob wol in Theologia, Physica, unnd Mathe- matica, die Warheit entgegen gesetzt, lesset doch der alte Feind seine list und grollen mit hauffen sehen, da er durch Schwarmer unfried und Landleuffer, solchen schonen Lauff hindert und verhafit machet.”
205 Ibid., 92-93. On further criticism of followers of Aristotle and Galen, Galenism, and the Aristotelian practice at universities, see below, section 2.3; see also: Confessio, 50-51.
206 Confessio, 45: “Caeterum ut plerumque in eo ipso loco, ubi nova lues exsurgit, Natura remedium aperit, ita inter tantos Philosophiae paroxysmos, patriae nostrae satis idonea, imo ad sanitatem unica media succrescunt, per quae revalescat et nova, vel renovata, mundo renovando appareat.”
speaking lands, home to the brethren, the remedy to the matter was to be found in the same place. This is of course again a patriotic claim: the Rosicrucians had obtained from Christian Rosencreutz the right kind of philosophy with which they could now promote the advent of the new age and prepare the renovation of the world. They were well aware of the crumbling of the traditional Aristotelian-Galenic worldview, and expressed the dire need for change through texts that were inherently apocalyptic but also expressive of a sense of progress.
The abolition of all established teaching would occasion no regret amongst the Rosicrucians, who would, on the contrary, happily replace it all with their own—Christian Rosencreutz’s—philosophical theories: “if the destruction of all literary works were decreed by the Almighty God, our Father Christian’s contemplations will establish a new foundation of the sciences, on which posterity can erect a new citadel of truth.”207 This citadel of truth was the same as the Rosicrucian axioms, which would endure until Judgement Day, and as the single rule that would replace the arts.
This formulation of the citadel of truth distances the brotherhood from another of the well institutionalised intellectual trends of the preceding period: Renaissance humanism. Humanists focused unprecedented attention on the language and literature of Antiquity, which they considered to be the foundation for a restitution of the arts, sciences, and philosophy. The idea that all literary works should be allowed to perish, runs against the humanist charge against the scholars of what they called the ’middle ages’ between antiquity and its rebirth, who had actually allowed much of the literature of the previous period to disappear. Unlike the humanists, the Rosicrucians could face the prospect of a further loss of literary works with equanimity: if necessary, the whole of knowledge could be reconstructed from their principles. The path toward the new age did not begin by copying the old one; their renovation of philosophy was not a simple extension of the Renaissance.
The Rosicrucians’ aim to reform natural philosophy coincided with changes in the seventeenth century, such as the further discovery of plants, fruits, and animals from the New World; and developments in astronomy, natural philosophy, and medicine through innovation and invention. They were aware of these new developments and their potential to undermine traditional modes of thought, and they believed that this finally cleared the way for real progress to be made. Thus the Rosicrucian protagonist, Christian Rosencreutz, is described
207 Ibid., 49: “[...] Patris nostri Christiani [...] meditationes [...], si a Deo omnipotente univer-
sae rei literariae interitus immitteretur, nova scientiarum fundamenta jacere, novamque veritatis arcem extruere posteritas possit”; Confessio (Gdansk), 59.
as having gone to Spain to show the (traditional) scholars “new plants, fruits, and animals, that could not be explained from the old philosophy,” but which those scholars ignored because
it was all a joke to them, and because it was still new, they were worried that their great names would be diminished if they now began to learn and would admit their errors of many years. They were accustomed to their errors, and these had brought them enough profit [that they said]: ’Another, who is served by unrest, should rather reform’.208
Rosencreutz was met with similarly dismissive responses in the other countries he visited.209 New discoveries from the New World, the Americas, such as plants and animals that the old Aristotelian philosophy could not explain, made a new (Rosicrucian) philosophy necessary, but traditional scholars were too vain to admit it. As the innovations in philosophy were linked to developments in natural philosophy or scientia, knowledge was no longer supposed to come from book study, as was customary at northern-European universities, but rather from nature and empirical investigations. For the Rosicrucians, hitherto invisible creations were to be discovered, and all that had “hindered the human mind and its operations” will be “disposed of.”210 Against the conservative pusillanimity, the Rosicrucians pushed for reform. Not only was it possible to defeat the Antichrist and establish a new empire; the sciences and philosophy were to be radically improved.
The brethren further suggested that such developments in knowledge should be used for the training and teaching of future political leaders, thereby linking the reform of scientia to political reform. The authors of the Fama
208 Fama, 99: “Er zeigte ihnen newe Gewachs, newe Fruchte, Thiere, die sich nicht nach der alten Philosophia richteten [...], aber es war ihnen alle lacherlich. Und weil es noch new/ besorgten sie/ ihr grosser Nahme wurde geschmalert/ so sie erst lehrnen/ und ihre viel jahrige irrung bekennen solten/ des ihren weren sie gewohnet/ und hette ihnen auch genug eingetragen: Ein anderer/ deme mit Unruhe gedienet/ mochte eben wohl reformiren.”
209 Ibid., 99.
210 Ibid., 91-92; Confessio, 62-63: “[Dei] laboris ea praemia habituri estis, ut quaecunque Natura in omnes terrae partes dispersit bona, ea juncta et unita vobis [.] collatura sit. Iam cuncta ea, quae humanam cognitionem obnubilant, actionem retardant, [.] expellere possitis”; Confessio (Gdansk), 81: “Furwar wennihr das thun werdet, wird euch dieser Nutz daraufi erwachsen, dafi alle Guter, so die Natur an alle orter der Welt wunderbarlich zer- strewet hat euch zugleich miteinander werden verliehen und mitgetheilet werden, wie ihr den auch alles was den Menschlichen Verstandt verdunckelt und dessen Wirckung verhindert leichtlich werdet ablegen.”
claimed that, like Fez, a society existed in Europe that was rich in gold and gems which served the common good. In it, future rulers were raised so that “they know everything which God wanted people to know.”211 This society seems to represent the Platonic ideal of a training place for philosopher-rulers. Gold and gems, the finest amongst the metals and stones, represented the community’s wealth and wisdom, from which future leaders may learn and profit for their political endeavours. Thus the discovery of hitherto hidden secrets would be beneficial for the empire, too.
In the Rosicrucians’ notion of progress and the role therein for human beings, themes were expounded on at length that were totally absent from Luther’s writings. To them, reform entailed much more than a reinterpeta- tion of the Gospel, and with their notion of epistemic progress the manifestos further violated the notion of Luther and mainstream Lutherans that improvements before the end were impossible.
Still, the Rosicrucian manifestos cannot simply be understood as outpourings of the contemporary shift from books to nature. For the Rosicrucians, the thriving of the arts was not just the result of contemporary progress in these fields. As the world was returning to its original splendour and the order of nature was being restored, in agreement with this cyclical notion primeval wisdom—again granted by God—was returning to the world. One of the central events described in the Fama is the discovery of Rosencreutz’s vault. The third generation of Rosicrucians discovered this vault after the first brethren of the Rose Cross had passed away. As they had done every year, their successors returned to Rosencreutz’s house, which was called Holy Spirit, below which his vault was hidden. The brethren claimed that “what we experience and publicly declare about Father C’s grave, was also ordered, allowed and imposed by God.”212 On the vault, which the brethren discovered by accident and opened “with great joy and desire,” was written: “After 120 years I shall open.”213 To this, the authors added: “Just as our door is miraculously opened
211 Fama, 100: “[...] dafi man also auch in Europae ein Societet hette, die alles genug von Goldt und Edelgestein habe/ und es den Konigen zu gebuhrenden propositis mittheilen/ bey welchen die Regenten erzogen wurden/ die alles das jenige/ so Gott dem Menschen zu wissen zugelassen/ wusten.”
212 Ibid., 111: “Es sol aber der grofigunstige Leser nachmahln erinnert sein, dafi was wir an itzo von seiner des Fr. C. Begrabnufi nicht allein erfahren, sondern auch hiermit offentlich kundt thun, also von Gott versehen, erlaubt und injungiret worden [.].” On what they found is this vault, see below, section 2.4.
213 Fama, 112-113: after a description of a brother searching for a place to hide a plaque with the names of the brethren, he found Rosencreutz’s vault: “[.] An seiner Taffel nun steckte ein grosser Nagel etwas starker, also dafi, da er mit gewalt aufizogen wurde, er
after so many years, also a door will open for Europe [...], which can already be espied, and for which many wait eagerly.”214 The discovery of this vault ushered in changes for all of Europe as well as the revelation of what was hidden and access to previously hidden knowledge.
Access to knowledge of the past was a central aspect of the philosophical reformation, and was the result of the return of the primordial order, in proximity to the widespread notion of the returned Golden Age. The brethren announced that “God has declared truth, light and dignity to return to the world, which would not long afterwards be destroyed—such things as he had ordered to move from Paradise together with Adam—and to temper man’s misery.”215 Rupescissa, in his Book of Secret Events, had similarly argued that during the millennium there will be such an outpouring of knowledge that it would seem “as if Paradise had descended to earth.”216 The Rosicrucians, however, associated the return of the original order of nature in the new age not only with the return of the lost original purity of Paradise, but more specifically with the return of original wisdom, which had previously been known only to a few pious men in the remote past:
Our philosophy is nothing new but is the same as that which Adam received after his Fall and which was also exercised by Moses and Solomon. Thus she should not engage in exercises of questioning or refutations of other opinions, but as truth is one, brief, and always consistent with itself and above all fully in accordance with Jesus in all its parts and members, just as He is the image of the Father, so it [truth] is His likeness.
einen ziemblichen Stein von dem dunnen Gemawr oder Incrustation, uber die verborgen Thur, mit sich nahme, und die Thur ohnverhofft entdeckte, dahero wihr mit Frewden und verlangen, das ubrige Gemawr hinweg geworffen, und die Thure geseubert, daran stund gleich oben mit grossen Buchstaben geschrieben: ’Post cxx annos patebo’, sampt der alten Jahrzahl darunter.” On page 119, it is written that “our most beloved father, sweetest brother, most faithful teacher, our most honourable friend, for 120 years he was hidden here on his own”; “Pater dilectissimus, Fr. Suavissimus, paeceptor fidelissimus, amicus integerrimus, a suis ad 120 annos hic absconditus est.”
214 Ibid., 113-114: “[...] gleich wie unsere Thure nach so viel Jahren wunderbarlicher weyse eroffnet, also sol Europae eine Thure auffgehen [...] die sich schon sehen lesset, und von nicht wenigen mit begierd erwartet wird.”
215 Confessio, 53-54: “Illud itaque unum nobis confirmandum est, Mortales, Deum mundo haud longe post interituro, reddendam veritatem, Lucem et dignitatem decrevisse: qualia cum Adamo Paradiso emigrare, & hominis miseriam condire jussit.”
216 Rupescissa, Libersecretorum eventuum, 202: “[.], ut paradisus videatur quasi descendisse in terram, quia supra omnem estimationem humanam Ecclesia universa transformabitur in omnem perfectionem vite Christi.”
Thus it should not be said: ’This is true according to philosophy but false according to theology’, but rather wherein Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, and others recognised the truth, for which Enoch, Abraham, Moses and Solomon provided the crucial argument, and which above all is consistent with that wonderful book, the Bible—all of that comes together [...].217
Speaking of their philosophy as specifically Rosicrucian (“our philosophy”), the authors referred to a unified set of people having a unified set of ideas, which was to be distinguished from other philosophies and especially from university practices and established learning. This Rosicrucian philosophy should not engage in the scholastic practices of disputations, in which philosophers argued for or against a certain question or proposition. The texts referred to the principle that “truth is one,” and by identifying philosophy and theology the manifestos further dismissed the traditional hierarchy of theology over philosophy. To them, the one and only truth should be understood in a Christian manner, and the Christian truth both mirrored God the Father and corresponded with philosophy, more precisely the philosophy of the ancients.
With this identification of philosophy and theology, the Rosicrucians dismissed the double-truth theory, according to which philosophy and theology have different truths. Medieval Averroists held the position of two different truths, in order to be able to make philosophical claims on the basis of Aristotle which did not align with religious dogmas. This theory was condemned several times. It was one of the theories prohibited in the Paris Condemnations of 1270 and 1277, when the Bishop Etienne Tempier (d. 1279) listed numerous propositions that were prohibited, including the double-truth theory. But until the seventeenth century, the double-truth theory remained influential, especially in Italy.218
217 Fama, 123-124: “Unser Philosophia ist nichts newes sondern wie sie Adam nach seinem Fall erhalten und Moses und Salomon geubet. Also solle sie nicht viel Dubiteren, oder andere meinungen wiederlegen, sondern weil die Warheit eynig kurz und ihr selbst immerdar gleich, besonders aber mit Jesu ex omni parte, und allen membris uberrein kompt, wie er des Vatters Ebenbild, also sie sein Conterfeth ist. So sol es nicht heissen: Hoc per Philosophiam Verum est, sed per Theologiam falsum, sondern worinnen es Plato, Aristoteles Phytagoras und andere getroffen, wo Enoch, Abraham, Moses, Salomo den au&chlag geben, besonders wo das grosse Wunderbuch die Biblia concordiret, das kom- met zusammen [...].”
218 Blair, “Mosaic Philosophy,” 33-34. On Tempier and the several Paris Condemnations, see: Grant, “The Effect of the Condemnation of 1277”; idem, Planets, Stars and Orbs, 50-56, 150-165; Putallaz, “Censorship,” 99-113.
A few years before the manifestos were drafted, the so-called Hofmann-Streit took place at one of the first Protestant universities, the University of Helmstedt, about 200 kilometres south-east of where the manifestos were printed. There, Daniel Hofmann (1538-1611) attacked the Christology of Jakob Andreae (1528-1590), the grandfather of one of the possible authors of the manifestos, Johann Valentin Andreae. Hofmann argued that Aristotelian philosophy, or philosophy in general, devalued Christ’s Word, and that each of the two fields should be left within its own domain.219 In 1598, he presented 101 theses on the position of philosophy and theology. One of his claims was that philosophy and theology do not have the same truth, that philosophy cannot help usto acquire theological truths, and that those who claim otherwise are to be suspected of Pelagianism.220 In response to his dispute at the university, Hofmann was commanded to withdraw his statements, because it implied a severe revision of the standard curriculum.221
The Hofmann controversy may remind us of Luther’s Heidelberg Theses of 1518, of which the first philosophical thesis claimed that “who wants to philosophise in Aristotle without danger, needs first of all to be made a fool in Christ.”222 Luther had distinguished between philosophy and theology, claiming that “[t]he same thing is not true in both philosophy and theology,” and that “philosophy and theology have different subjects.”223 Luther never upheld the double-truth theory. Even though he acknowledged that there may be various truths, the truths of philosophy and religion not merely differed but had entirely different objects of study, so that philosophy did not provide an alternative truth to the theological truth.224 In his early years as a reformer, Luther emphatically dismissed Aristotle’s philosophy, arguing that it was useless and without any genuine knowledge. Aristotle’s philosophical works, the Physics,
219 Antognazza, “Hofmann-Streit: il dibattito sul rapporto tra filosofia e teologia all’Uni- versita di Helmstedt,” 390-420; Haga, Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics?, 191-202,211. On Andreae, see Chapter 3.
220 Antognazza, “Hofmann-Streit,” 394. Cf. ibid., 397-400. Pelagianism, named after the monk Pelagius (354-ca. 440), entailed the theory that original sin did not affect the purity of human nature. On this, see below, p. 95.
221 Antognazza, “Hofmann-Streit,” 309-420. The irony was, however, that Hofmann had to use philosophical arguments in order to conclude that philosophy was dangerous; see ibid. On the double-truth theory, see also: Friedrich, Die Grenzen der Vernunft.
222 Luther, Disputatio Heidelbergae habita, wa 1, 355, thesis 29: “Qui sine periculo volet in Aris- totele philosophari, necesse est ut ante bene sultificetur in Christo.”
223 Luther, wa 39/2; 31-32: “idem non est verum in philosophia et theologia”; ibid., 26: “Philo- sophia et theologia habent diversum subiectum. Ergo non pugnant inter se. Sunt diversa, non contraria.”
224 Dieter, “Luther as Late Medieval Theologian,” 46 ff.
Metaphysics, De anima, and Ethica, were to be eliminated from the university curriculum.225 “Aristotle,” he claimed, “is to theology as darkness is to light.”226 Philosophy and theology should therefore each be left to their own devices, as the only meaningful truth was found in Scripture.227
But the Rosicrucians identified theological and philosophical truths, and moreover suggested that the philosophy of Aristotle (though not of the scholastics who followed in his wake) agreed, at least in part, with Scripture. In this sense, they again differed from Luther, but also from the university curriculum. Their ultimate source for studying and understanding the world was in fact the Bible:
The nearest and most similar to us are those who make the Bible their rule of life, the summa of their studies, and the compendium of the entire world [...]. Who owns the Bible is blessed, who reads it is more blessed, who learns it by heart is most blessed: who understands and serves [it], is most similar to God.228
The Bible for the Rosicrucians was the central source for their morality, their “rule of life,” and their studies, and as it encompassed the entire world it served as a key to understanding it. One could even become similar to God by achieving complete knowledge through the understanding of Scripture.
With such claims, the brethren were however not preaching in accordance with Luther’s sola scriptura, the doctrine whereby the only source of revelation was the Word of God.229 According to Lutheran orthodoxy, one could
225 Kusukawa, The Transformation of Natural Philosophy, 35-44. Cf. ibid., 33, xvi. For Luther, improvements in education and indoctrination were preparations for the end; see: Barnes, Prophecy and Gnosis, 60-71, 115-116.
226 Luther, Disputation against Scholastic Theology, cited in Luther’s Works, xxxi, 9-16, here p. 12. See further: Kusukawa, The Transformation of Natural Philosophy, 32-34. This was also the opinion of Melanchthon; see: ibid., 65-66.
227 Kusukawa, The Transformation of Natural Philosophy, 201. Melanchthon, certainly at first, held similar views; see: Melanchthon, cr, xii, 695, cited in: Kusukawa, The Transformation of Natural Philosophy, 66. Melanchthon, however, later admitted the use and teaching of philosophy in universities, and as put by Kusukawa, “Melanchthon’s natural philosophy never rationally proved the central tenets of Lutheran theology”; see: ibid., 202; see also pp. 50-51, 60, 65-66, 69.
228 Confessio, 57-58: “Ita proximi ii, et maxime similes nobis, qui una Biblia suae vitae Regu- lam, suorum studiorum summam, mundique universi compendium faciunt [.]. Quod qui habet [SS Bibliorum opus] felix est, qui legit, felicior: qui ediscit, felicissimus: qui intelligit et servat, Deo similimus.”
229 Scripture could still be complemented by traditio. Magisterial reformers did not want to
neither be completely illuminated by the Bible nor become similar to God in the present life—but this was precisely what the Rosicrucians suggested.230 The manifestos further associated the wisdom of the old Patriarchs and Hebrew masters, which was written down in Scripture, with the philosophy of pagan masters such as Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle, which implied that their philosophies corresponded (“concordiret”), at least in part, with some secrets that were later to be expressed through Scripture.
The linking of theology with philosophy, of the Bible with primordial wisdom, and recommending the use of the Bible as the summa and touchstone of their studies rather breath the air of the tradition of Mosaic philosophy. Disappointed by contemporary Peripatetic philosophy, many Renaissance authors turned to a literal reading of Scripture, especially of the first chapters of Genesis, for a foundation of their natural philosophy. Like the Rosicrucians, they understood their own (natural) philosophy to be inherently Christian, and, conversely, Christianised ancient pagan natural philosophy and associated it with primordial wisdom and the Bible.231 Mosaic philosophers founded their physics in a Christian reading of Scripture, and understood it to be opposed to Aristotelian philosophy but in agreement with an original pious philosophy— hence the term “Mosaic physics.” Despite the lack of any attempt to provide a literal reading of the Bible or to found their studies explicitly on Genesis, the alternative that the Rosicrucians proposed is akin to Mosaic physics: they aspired to provide a universal, Christian doctrine, making the Bible the foundation of their studies, drawing on the contents of the first chapters of Genesis, albeit implicitly, and opposing their philosophy to scholastic thought. Their philosophy was the same as that of Moses and Solomon, and reminiscent of those of pre-Christian philosophers such as Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle, but the Rosicrucians co-opted such ancient thought into a Christian framework.
From this emphasis on the ability to obtain original truths, it follows that the manifestos can also be associated with another tradition of the time.
invent an entirely new tradition, but Scripture was to be reinterpreted and traditio was to be grounded in Scripure; see: Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, 84-85. It should be noted that sola scriptura was not opposed to tradition, and that Luther did not invent this authority of Scripture, he rather continued but popularised a medieval concept; cf., also for further literature, ibid., 72-84, 96 ff.
230 Cf. below, p. 323 f.
231 On Mosaic philosophy, see especially: Blair, “Mosaic Physics,” here pp. 32-33; Gilly, “Vom agyptischen Hermes,” 106-113. Petrus Severinus called “Physica Mosaica” in general terms “all those diverse knowledges of nature”; see: Gilly, “Khunrath und das Entstehen der fruh- neuzeitlichen Theosophie.”
The manifestos proclaimed that philosophy could actually help human beings acquire original and divine truths. It is the philosophy known to Adam after the Fall that was considered to be similar to the Rosicrucian philosophy. For philosophy to mirror God the Father, Adam must have been able to bring divine wisdom with him from Paradise after the Fall, or to be otherwise divinely inspired even outside of Paradise. In the tradition of the philosophia perennis, the biblical figures mentioned, Enoch, Abraham, Moses, and Solomon, were often seen as heralds of divine wisdom.232 In this tradition, secrets to be revealed were thought to have been known to a few wise persons in the far past, were afterwards lost, and were now disclosed again, often in proximity to the last days of the world. In the manifestos, the announcement of the new period went hand in hand with such a revelation of secrets. Ancient knowledge that was at least partly known to Aristotle, Plato, and Moses, but was lost when scholastic philosophers began to merely follow Aristotle and Galen and to study philosophy through scholastic practices, had again become accessible to a few men in the recent past and now found its expression and wider dissemination in the Rosicrucian manifestos.
One type of perennial philosophy is Hermeticism. The idea of a perennial philosophy became popular in the Renaissance after Marsilio Ficino’s translation of several of Plato’s works and the Corpus Hermeticum (published in 1471), which was attributed to the legendary ancient Egyptian Hermes Trismegis- tus.233 Several Renaissance philosophers claimed to be followers of Hermes,
232 Fama, 123-124. The main difference between the philosophia perennis (or prisca philo- sophia) and the prisca theologia is that the prisca theologia refers to previously lost knowledge once known to the ancients, while philosophia perennis refers to knowledge passed down from the ancients to the present. Here the term “philosophia perennis” will be used as a more generic term for those movements returning to perennial wisdom. For a discussion of the prisca philosophia and prisca theologia, see: Hanegraaff, “Tradition,” in Dictionary of Gnosis (ed. Hanegraaff), 1125-1135. For a historical overview of the philosophia perennis, see: Schmidt-Biggemann, Philosophia perennis, esp. ch. 9. See also: Hanegraaff, Esotericism and the Academy. For a discussion of medieval esoteric themes and Renaissance occult philosophy in the manifestos, see: Faivre, “Les Manifestes et la tradition,” 90-114; idem, Theosophy, Imagination, Tradition, 171-190.
233 For hermetic philosophy, see, for example: Copenhaver, Hermetica; idem, Magic in Western Culture; Ebeling, “Alchemical Hermeticism.” An influential but outdated source is: Yates, Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition. On Ficino, see also: Copenhaver, “Scholastic Philosophy and Renaissance Magic in the De Vita of Marsilio Ficino.” Many Renaissance philosophers interested in Hermeticism were also versed in (Christian) Cabala, with which, according to the Fama, also Rosencreutz was acquainted; see: Fama, 96-97. For several Cabalists and the philosophia perennis, see: Schmidt-Biggemann, Philosophia Perennis.
who was thought to have possessed true wisdom. The advocates of Hermet- icism believed themselves to belong to a tradition of divine and superior wisdom, or true philosophy, which had originated with the first human beings, ancient philosophers, and “magi.”234 As a consequence, “primeval philosophy” was frequently associated with an ancient type of magic, passed down from Adam to his descendants, then to the magi and further to ancient philosophers like Plato and Pythagoras, who are mentioned in the Rosicrucian manifestos.
In the manifestos, the specific role of Hermes is minor, even though the Rosicrucians share the general philosophical framework of Hermeticism. The name of Hermes does not appear in either the Fama or the Confessio, and in the Chemical Wedding his name is mentioned only once, on a tablet on a fountain, which tablet was borne, once more, by a lion. The text of the tablet, which is about the water in the fountain, is read out loud by Rosencreutz: “Princely Hermes: After so many injuries caused to the human race, by God’s council and by the existence of art, a beneficial medicine is made; here I flow. Drink from me who can; wash, who wishes; make me turbid, who dares. Drink, brothers, and live.”235 This passage nicely encapsulates the Rosicrucians’ concern for medicine and the arts, and their disapproval of the misuses in these fields—which could now be remedied with the help of Hermes.
The term philosophia perennis was first introduced by the Vatican librarian Agostino Steuco (ca. 1497-1548) in his On the First Philosophy (1540), which was influenced by Ficino and Pico.236 This work was printed four times in the sixteenth century. In it, Steuco claimed about the original philosophy that “this knowledge was gathered and absolute in the first men.”237 In later times, when people scattered all over the world, this knowledge was lost among most
234 In line with the Italian Neoplatonists, these magi were ancient illuminated figures from Persia and Egypt, among whom Zoroaster, rather than the Bethlehem magi. On these magi, see: Walker, The Ancient Theology, 3-10; De Jong, Traditions of the Magi; Webster, Paracelsus, 65.
235 Chemical Wedding, 74: “Hermes Princeps, Post tot illata generi humano damna, dei con- silio: artisque adminiculo, medicina salubris factus. Heic fluo. Bibat ex me qui potest: lavet, qui vult: turbet qui audet: Bibite fratres et vivite.” It is unclear what the meaning of Hermes’ name is here. For Hermeticism in the Chemical Wedding, see also: Edighoffer, Les Rose-Croix, 139-162; Gilly, “Vom agyptischen Hermes.”
236 On Steuco’s perennial philosophy, see: Schmitt, “Perennial Philosophy: from Agostino Steuco to Leibniz.”
237 Steuco, De perenni philosophia libri ix, 1: “Hanc quidem scientiam in primis hominibus cumulatam, absolutamque fuisse.”
people, and remained known only to a few.238 That ancient wisdom was then passed to the Greeks, “as Plato also testifies.”239 Later knowledge was less perfect:
The philosophy of those ancients was presumably much more perfect and clear than the philosophy that was later born from contemplation. But in recent times, a brighter light appeared concealing or blunting previous times (like the rising sun usually obscures the stars), as if it were its rays and the dawn preceding the rising sun.240
This very idea of a misguided university philosophy blurring ancient wisdom returned in the manifestos.241 Note also the similarity in wording of the aforementioned dawn of the rising sun in the Confessio, which reads that “[a]fter the world will have slept off its intoxication from the poisonous and soporific chalice, in the morning it will proceed to meet the rising sun with an opened heart, and bareheaded and barefoot, happy and jubilant.”242
To express the restored ancient wisdom upon the return of the original order of nature, the Rosicrucians required a language similar to the original language. In an attempt to express nature’s essence, the Rosicrucians formulated a new language based on the characters and alphabet to be found in the Bible and in God’s creation. They derived “our magical letters entirely from these letters, and made ourselves a new language from them that simultaneously expresses the nature of things.” About other languages it is stated that “they are not in the least redolent of Adam’s or Enoch’s language, but are contaminated by
238 Ibid., 2: “Siquidem cum post sparsum, ac diffusum in omnes terras genus humanum, priores illi et pauci fuissent, et longius a se recessissent, tum vitae necessariis excogi- tandis essent intenti, necesse fuit rerum praeteritarum memoriam neglectam, apud pau- cos omnino remansisse [...]. Et veritas quidem apud paucos restitit.”
239 Ibid., 3: “Ex vetustissima Theologia, quae a primis hominibus perveniens, qui Armeni, Chaldaeique fuerunt, perpetuis successionibus descendit ad caeteros barbaros, ab his ad Graecos, ut Plato quoque testatur.”
240 Ibid., 3: “Veri quidem est simile, maiorum illorum et perfectiorem longe et clariorem fuisse, ista quae postea ex contemplatione nata est Philosophia. Sed novissimis saeculis, omnis et illa et haec, clariore exorta luce (veluti oriente sole, solent stellae obscurari) obsconsa, vel hebetata est, ut quasi radii fuerint eius, et venturum solem praecedens aurora.”
241 Fama, 92-93.
242 Confessio, 56: “Postquam venenati et soporiferi calicis crapulam edormiverit Mundus; atque manet exorienti Soli apertis pectoribus, detectis capitibus, amotis calceis, laetus jubilansque; obviam processerit.”
the Confusion of Babel,” claiming that only theirs is similar to the original tongue.243 The world was witnessing the return not only of the order of nature, magic, and true philosophy; but also of the language once belonging to the time of Adam.
The origin of the creation of a new language, and the judgement that contemporary languages are confused, lies, of course, in Genesis.244 Creation itself had occurred through an act of speech (Genesis 1:3-4). When Adam was created, he was invested with full knowledge of the natural world, which enabled him to name the creatures of God in Paradise (Genesis 2:19-20). Even after he and Eve had been cast out of Paradise for eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the universal, Adamic language remained intact. Before the Confusion of Babel, all humans spoke the same language, which enabled them to work together and allowed them to do everything they wanted (Genesis 11:6). But God eventually confused their language, dividing it into many languages so they would not understand one another, which is known as the Confusion of Babel (Genesis 11:7-9). The Rosicrucian restoration of the original language was intended to cancel the consequences of the Confusion of Babel.
Many medieval and Renaissance thinkers had equally been inspired by the idea of an original Adamic language and had dedicated their thought and work to the creation and command of a universal tongue. The alchemist John Dee (1527-1608/9) and his colleague Edward Kelley (1555-1597), for example, claimed that they had been taught the Adamic or Angelic language which enabled them to converse with angels.245 Figures as diverse as Boethius of Dacia, Dante Alighieri, Raymond Lull, Johannes Trithemius, Guillaume Postel, Giordano Bruno, and Jacob Boehme have written works about the concept of an artificial universal language, ranging from a codified system to communicate secret and universal messages (e.g., Trithemius’ steganography) to a language specifically intended to voice what lay hidden behind the external reality (e.g., Lull’s art).246 Later, Francis Bacon would inspire many English logicians
243 Ibid., 56-57: “[...] a quibus literis nos omnino nostras Magicas mutuo sumsimus et lin- guam nobis exinde novam collegimus, qua simul rerum natura exprimatur; unde mirum non sit, si in reliquis linguis et hac latina minus delicati simus: quas scimus neutiquam Adami illam aut Enochi redolere; sed Babylonis confusione contaminatas esse.” On the Adamic language in the manifestos, cf. Edighoffer, Les Rose-Croix, 19; idem, Les Rose-Croix et la crise, 77-78.
244 Cf. John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” On this, see also: Eco, The Search for the Perfect Language, 6-8.
245 Harkness, John Dee’s Conversations with Angels, 160 ff.
246 On the universal language, see: Strasser, Lingua Universalis; Eco, The Search for the Perfect Language, esp. pp. 178-182; Lewis, Language, Mind and Nature. On astrology as a
and linguists with his proposal of an artificial language of new characters that would represent “things and notions” without the imperfections of alphabetical characters.247
Like others before them, the brethren maintained that contemporary languages were insufficient and inadequate for the expression of divine truths. The Confessio stated that they created a new language, suggesting that theirs is not simply the return of the language once spoken by Adam and Enoch. This new language, they suggested, was similar to the Adamic tongue, but was made anew possibly because the old language was lost, which meant that a new language was needed to express the essence of things for which other languages were unsuitable.
Importantly, the aim of the Rosicrucians was a perfect language rather than a universal one.248 The language described in the Confessio was not one that every person could speak. According to the brethren, many were incapable of grasping the divine secrets, whilst the Rosicrucian language was able to express not only those divine secrets but also the nature of things. Only this perfect language was suitable to address divine matters, which could not be done “in other languages and in this Latin.”249 The Rosicrucians thereby neglected again the humanist practices of the time and their return to the prose style and vocabulary of ancient Greek and Latin authors. For them, the Latin used at universities, the lingua franca of the intellectual community and of the humanists, did not suffice for expressing true wisdom. Their perfect language, by contrast, because it emulated the Adamic tongue, possessed the magic of naming things according to their essence. Through it, they had possession of ancient philosophy and magic and were able to express the characters to be found both in the Bible as well as in God’s creation, that is, in the Word and the World.250
language, see: Barnes, Astrology and Reformation. See further: Hotson, Johann Heinrich Alsted, 66-73; Maat, Philosophical Languages in the Seventeenth Century: Dalgarno, Wilkins, Leibniz. On Trithemius’ steganography for secret and universal messages: Strasser, “Closed and Open Languages,” 152-156.
247 Francis Bacon, The Works of Francis Bacon (eds. Spedding, Ellis, Heath), vol. 1, De dig- nitate et augmentis scientiarum, 651-653; vol. 3, Advancement of Learning, 399-400; see: Rossi, Logic and the Art of Memory, 145-150, 306. See also: Lewis, Language, Mind and Nature.
248 This difference was also observed by: Eco, The Search for the Perfect Language, 73. See further: Rossi, Logic and the Art of Memory, 145-159.
249 Confessio, 57, see above, n. 243.
250 On these characters in relation to the two books, see also: Kileen and Forshaw, The Word and the World; Forshaw, “Vitriolic Reactions.”
This idea resonates with what has been termed the clavis universalis, a notion espoused widely by various well-known authors such as Giordano Bruno, Francis Bacon, Johann Heinrich Alsted, Jan Amos Comenius, and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. The term clavis universalis, the “universal key,” refers to the idea that man was able to probe beyond the appearances of the natural world to observe the divine secrets hidden within.251 The celestial events, announcing earthly changes and the new age, coincided with the disclosure of previously hidden secrets. Such signs sent by God indicated that “the Book of Nature is opened wide before the eyes of all, even though few can either read or understand it,” implying that new characters could now, at last, be read by some.252 Recall that the Confessio stated that such signs and characters were inscribed by God on the machine of the world, for humans to read and admire them.253 God had inserted such characters throughout creation and in the Bible, which were revelations of divine wisdom and were sent by God for humans to understand His plan. His messengers could be used to acquire wisdom of nature and the divine, but also to probe into the future:
In the same manner that God inserted here and there characters of this kind and His very alphabet in the Holy Books, so He impressed them openly in the admirable works of creation on the heavens, earth, and the animals, so that just as the mathematician can predict eclipses, so we can foresee the dark periods of the Church and their durations.254
Just as an astronomer can predict future celestial events, so the Rosicrucians claimed that they could read God’s signs and predict the future and its duration, notably in a religious context. Nowhere in the manifestos is there a suggestion as to how such signs could be read and how future events could be predicted— the reference to such messengers simply served to inform the reader of their presence, of the coming new era, and of the brethren’s ability to fully express their pious philosophy and discoveries properly, owing to their new language.
251 Rossi, Logic and the Art of Memory, xv.
252 Confessio, 55: “De sua quidem voluntate jam praemisit nuncios Deus, Stellas in Serpentario atque Cygno exortas, quae magna profecto magni Consilii signacula illud docere possunt, quam junctis iis, quae humanum ingenium adinvenit, suae occultae scripturae inservire faciat, ut Liber Naturae in omnium quidem oculis expansus adapertusque sit; pauci tamen vel legere omnino, vel intelligere possint.”
253 Ibid., 52-53.
254 Ibid., 56: “Eiusmodi characteres atque adeo Alphabetum suum sicut Deus sparsim SS. Bibliis inseruit, ita in admirando Creationis opere Caelis, Terrae, Animalibus manifeste impressit, ut, quo Mathematicus modo Ecclipses praevidet; eodem nos Ecclesiae obscura- tiones, earundumque durationes praecognoscamus.”
Evidently, the notion of a divine primeval philosophy expressible in an Adamic tongue deviated from the traditional idea of a philosophical ascent from mythology through Presocratic “stammerings” to Aristotelian systemati- city. It suggested that there had been no progress in knowledge, beginning with the ancients, through the Presocratics up and until the time of the Renaissance. Steuco rejected the idea of progress in truth: the truth of the ancients was the same as that which was once again coming to light. Likewise, the Rosicrucian authors suggested (echoing the philosophia perennis) that wisdom presently increased because original, divine wisdom was returning to the world, implying that the Middle Ages had indeed just been the ’middle ages’. The new age was a restoration, or an instauration, of ancient times. The idea of the return of Adamic wisdom and language neatly coincides with the Rosicrucian cyclical conception of time, which was absent in the confessional literature.
But the manifestos also stated that philosophy and the sciences advanced towards truth, and the return of ancient conditions went hand in hand with new discoveries in the natural world and with progress in natural philosophy. The Rosicrucians’ restoration of primeval philosophy was thus neither easily reconciled with the biblical and confessional linear interpretation of history, nor with the idea of the Fall of man and the ensuing loss of original wisdom and truth, nor, moreover, with the notion that there was no progress in knowledge.
The traditional conception of a sinful loss of innocence and divine knowledge after the Fall is also irreconcilable with the notion, expressed in the manifestos, of a return of things once removed from Paradise combined with post-lapsarian intellectual perfection expressed in an Adamic tongue long after ancient times and the Confusion of Babel. Most religious literature indeed abhorred such claims. According to Augustine, for example, the mind of man after the Fall could no longer conceive divine truths, as man had lost his original purity. Man had sinned, and was therefore unable to restore his purity after the Fall. More specifically, owing to his Fall, the nature of man was “wounded, hurt, damaged, destroyed”; his act had resulted in an irrevocable loss of morality and epistemological understanding.255 In the same vein, the Catholic authorities of the early seventeenth century explicitly condemned the notion of access to divine secrets.256
As already mentioned, Luther also claimed that human beings were incapable of restoring their original purity or of grasping theological truths—they
255 Augustine, De natura et gratia 62.53, cited in Harrison, The Fall of Man, 31-32.
256 Barnes, Prophecy and Gnosis, 8.
could neither acquire divine knowledge nor live in a perfect state on earth.257 In his view, limited divine inspiration was always mediated by either Scripture or the sacraments, and man himself was incapable of progress. This view was officially expressed in the Lutheran Formula of Concord (1577), in the writing of which, notably, the grandfather of one of the likely authors of the manifestos, Johann Valentin Andreae, was involved. In this orthodox Lutheran text, original sin is discussed, and its authors emphasised that “because of the Fall of Adam, the human nature and essence are entirely corrupt.”258 Due to the Fall of Man and the penalty of original sin the image of God in man is lost, and human nature and his intellectual capacities are corrupted.259 The authors further rejected “the Pelagian error,” according to which “the nature of humans also after the Fall is incorrupt, and especially with respect to spiritual matters has remained entirely good and pure in nature, that is, in its natural powers.”260 This doctrine might have prompted Daniel Hofmann, the Helmstedt theologian mentioned earlier, to claim that man’s mind was so corrupted after the Fall that he was not able to perceive or conceive truths by himself, and that nothing of the wisdom known to Adam before the Fall was brought with him. To claim otherwise was, in Hofmann’s words, “stultitia coram Deo,” “stupidity before God,” and one would be guilty of Pelagianism, namely of believing that man’s sinful behaviour which resulted in the Fall had not affected man’s purity. According to Hofmann, human nature was totally cor- rupt.261
The tradition of the philosophia perennis as well as the Rosicrucian manifestos, in turn, worked under the assumption that human beings had not irreversibly lost their original purity, because even after the Fall they could acquire original wisdom. According to the manifestos, humans may be capable of that
257 Cf. also: Luther, Lectures on Genesis 1-5, in Luther’s Works 1, p. 166.
258 Lietzman (ed.), Formula of Concord, in: Die Bekenntnisschriften der Evangelisch-Luther- ischen Kirche (1952), 772: “Wir glauben, lehren und bekennen aber hinwiederumb dafi die Erbsunde nicht sei eine schlechte, sondern so tiefe Vorderbung menschlicher Natur, dafi nichts Gesundes oder Unvorderbet an Leib, Seel des Menschen, seinen innerlichen und aufierlichen Kraften geblieben, sondern wie die Kirche singet: ’Durch Adams Fall ist ganz vorderbet menschlich Natur und Wesen’.”
259 Ibid., 848-849.
260 Ibid., 773-774: “Desgleichen verwerfen wir auch den pelagianischen Irrtumb, da vor- gegeben wird, dafi die Natur des Menschen auch nach dem Fall unverderbt und sonderlich in geistlichen Sachen ganz gut und rein in ihren naturalibus, das ist, in ihren naturlichen Kraften, geblieben sei.” See further: idem, “Augsburgische Confession,” in: Die Bekenntnis- schriften der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirche (1952), art. ii, 53.
261 Hofmann, Pro duplici veritate Lutheri a philosophis impugnata, cited in: Antognazza, “Hofmann-Streit,” 406-408.
which Augustine, Luther, and Hofmann deemed impossible: they could understand Scripture and thereby could even become similar to God, and they were capable of acquiring nature’s secrets which Adam had brought with him after the Fall.
The idea of a rediscovery of divine secrets, known to ancient heralds, on the eve of a new age cannot be understood simply in the light of the Joachimite tradition, which neither expected a return of ancient wisdom in the final age nor claimed that the world was returning full circle. Only the tradition of the philo- sophia perennis sheds light on this aspect of the matter. It is to this tradition that the Rosicrucian authors had recourse in their claims about a renovated world.
1.4 Concluding Remarks
The Rosicrucian manifestos were not explicit about how exactly the world should be renovated and what such a renovated world should look like. But their call for a general reform merged with apocalyptic and millenarian expectations. Although the Rosicrucian announcement was formulated by means of famous prophetic elements—the Antichrist, the new ruler, celestial events, and a new age—their use of these elements as well as their message was novel and unusual. The brethren used and combined these popular themes, without referring to the original traditions from which they came, to create an optimistic message of total change, imminent improvement, and the revelation of secrets and of Adamic wisdom for those capable of understanding it. In this, they drew on pre-reformation prophecies and early modern radical texts, and predominantly neglected and dismissed canonical Scripture as well as orthodox Lutheranism.
In past historiography, the manifestos have mistakenly been placed in a Lutheran context, as scholars emphasised the Lutheran background from which they emerged and argued that they were written to reinforce the Lutheran, evangelical Reformation.262 Most recently, Volkhard Wels has argued that the manifestos are immersed in Lutheran piety, and that their association with heterodox views in the early furore is solely the result of a misconception
262 See, for example: Kienast, Johann Valentin Andreae, 105; Van Dulmen, Die Utopie, 78, 8283; Edighoffer, Les Rose-Croix et la crise, 23, 174-175; Brecht, Johann Valentin Andreae, 77-79; Wels, Manifestationen des Geistes, esp. 242-247; idem, “Die Frommigkeit der Rosen- kreuzer-Manifeste,” 173-207; Penman, Hope and Heresy, 18-19, 21.
due especially to their publication with heterodox texts.263 In his paper, Wels mistakenly argues that the rejection of the double-truth theory only confirms a Lutheran piety, that the manifestos expected the imminent end of the world, and he ignores their indebtedness to notions that disagree with orthodox Lutheranism.264
But to understand the Rosicrucian manifestos as Lutheran outpourings is untenable; the Rosicrucian call for a general reformation and its main components departed dramatically from mainstream Lutheranism. Pace Luther, their texts were hopeful and optimistic; they expected a future on earth rather than its imminent destruction; they sided with the post-Antichrist tradition which announced a future period on earth after the defeat of the Antichrist. While Luther had also maintained that the Antichrist was already present, he and orthodox Lutherans believed him to be the Endchrist, the Antichrist of the end. In the brethren’s view, the Antichrist could be defeated, as human agency was capable of triumphing in such hazardous times; for Luther, a new ruler would neither defeat the Antichrist nor establish a new kingdom. In the manifestos, human beings could grasp divine wisdom, without mediation through Scripture—which violated the position of Luther and orthodox Lutherans. And whilst apocalyptic portents were interpreted by Luther and many of his followers as destructive, they were not so in the Rosicrucian manifestos. These texts completely moved away from the Augustinian, Pauline, and Lutheran paradigms, from canonical literature, and evidently from Luther’s idea of a reformation of faith alone solely through a reinterpretation of the Gospel.
Luther’s view accorded with most medieval and Protestant apocalyptic and millenarian texts inspired by biblical prophecies that the world would change in conformity with a pre-established harmony by non-human, supernatural agents, such as the angel who was to intervene and bind Satan for one thousand years. By contrast, the Rosicrucian call for reform describes the potential role
263 Wels, “Die Frommigkeit der Rosenkreuzer-Manifeste,” 173-176,200-207. The opening sentence of his paper reads, p. 173: “Meine These lautet, dass die Rosenkreuzer-Manifeste, die 1614 und 1615 in Kassel gedruckt werden, keine heterodoxe, spiritualistische, herme- tische oder in sonstiger Form vom konfessionellen Luthertum abweichende Frommigkeit vertreten, sondern im Gegenteil eine eher konservative Variante dieser Frommigkeit. Die Fama fraternitatis und die Confessio fraternitatis waren damit Ausdruck eines genuin lutherischen Glaubens, einer praxis pietatis als alltaglich gelebter Frommigkeit [•••]•”
264 Wels further downplays the manifestos’ Paracelsian impetus and argues that the use of Paracelsian notions, such as the Liber M., also confirms a Lutheran piety, see: Wels, “Die Frommigkeit der Rosenkreuzer-Manifeste,” 174-176, 181-182, 188, 193-200. On Paracelsian notions in the manifestos, see below, Chapter 2.
for human agency: human beings are the executors of change. Some prophecies and expectations from before the Reformation, as well as from early modern radical reformers, which attribute an active role to human beings, can help us to understand the Rosicrucian call for reform and its antithetical character. Quite unlike Augustine and Luther, the Rosicrucian manifestos expected a new and much changed man-made future on earth, one which was eagerly awaited by the brethren.
As the Rosicrucian brethren called for the reform of both religion and politics, under the guidance of a spiritual and political ruler (the lion), they aligned themselves with several medieval and early modern authors that aimed for a reformatio mundi, a reformation of both faith and the state. Yet, innovatively, the brethren proposed to reform also a third pillar, philosophy. Their reformation was not to result in a single religion in one political realm, but rather involved the improvement of knowledge of man, the world, and the universe. Their desired reform was general in the sense that it was to affect all aspects of society, but it would culminate in a reform of philosophy broadly understood. The Rosicrucians believed in the “repair of philosophy” and the “perfect development of all arts,” to coincide with the new scientific discoveries and the hopeful astronomical phenomena of the time. Their reform would also include the divine: the Rosicrucian reformation coincided with God’s plan and included a reform of religion as well as of divine things, grounded in Christ, even though the manifestos never fully reveal how this should take shape.
The new age and new philosophy of the Rosicrucians was immersed in Renaissance and scientific expectations. Medieval and early modern visions of change were mixed with Renaissance notions such as the return of wisdom, the revival of pre-Aristotelian and pre-Platonic thought, and the renovation of the Adamic language, and contradicted orthodox views of man’s sinful nature. The manifestos further dismissed the Humanist tradition and opposed the doubletruth theory, drawing on those traditions and sciences that reinforced their antithetical nature, such as Mosaic physics, the clavis universalis, natural philosophy, astronomy, and notably the philosophia perennis.
But also in the tradition of the philosophia perennis, with which the manifestos shared the expectation of the return of ancient wisdom in the final age, we find no call for a general reformation or the intention to reform the divine and the human in the sense of the Rosicrucians. The main idea in this tradition was the return of primeval wisdom, often put in a theological framework, and often against the corruption of the Church. In this sense, the expected renovation was a renovatio ecclesiae, a renovation of the Church, and was supposed to result in a concordia mundi, concord of the world. This is the case for scholars as
diverse as Guillaume Postel, Girolamo Savonarola, Tommaso Campanella, and Nicolas of Cusa.265 As has been observed by Marjorie Reeves, many of their hopes were furthermore accompanied by fears and woes,266 which sentiments we do not find in the manifestos.
In this tradition of a concordia mundi, the aim of a reformation for religious reasons is best expressed by Guillaume Postel.267 Postel has sometimes mistakenly been linked to the Rosicrucians,268 but he was a missionary, and his reformation consisted in the conversion of the entire world to Christianity, with the help of the printing press and the further discovery of the New World:269 “Through the benefit of the Spanish navigation, almost all men have received Christ, and they recognise the Creator of Heaven and earth.”270 Such
265 Campanella, in his later work, did seem to expect a universal renovation of the world; see for example: Campanella, Monarchia Messiae (1633), 15: “fames cessaret [...]. Item pestis cessaret [...]. Item afflueret sapientia hominum ex abundantia pacis, ac perviderent in conctis ante tempus per Astrologiam, Medicinam, Physicam, Polyticam [...]. Item si totus mundus regeretur ab uno, multiplicaretur scientia, ob tutas navigationes, et itinera, et mercaturas, et communicationes rerum, que scientur, in singulir nationibus, cum his, quae sciuntur in aliis, et melius observantur, presertim astronomia, astrologia, phys- ica, et polytica, quae multis observationibus indigent, multisque observatoribus.”
266 Reeves, The Influence of Prophecy, 430-431.
267 See, for example: Postel, De orbis terrae concordia (1544), 133; idem, La tierce partie des orientales histoires, translated in Bouwsma, Concordia Mundi, 130; idem, Letter of 1560, translated in Bouwsma, Concordia Mundi, 215-216. Postel aimed for a restoration of Paradise.
268 Kuntz suggests that Postel might have influenced the Rosicrucian manifestos, because: 1) Yates suggested that Dee influenced the manifestos; 2) there is a link between Dee and Postel; and 3) Postel had styled himself as “Rorispergius Postel,” inspired by “ros” (dew) and “rosa” (rose), from which the word “Rosicrucian” is sometimes said to have been derived (Gassendi thought that “Rosicrucian” was derived from “ros”). Another argument by Kuntz for a link between Postel and the Rosicrucians is the fact that Gabriel Naude linked Postel to the Rosicrucian “scare.” Kuntz further suggests that there are similarities between Postel’s use of hieroglyphs and symbols and what she calls “Rosicrucian mathematics” and “numerous Rosicrucian documents”; see: Kuntz, Guillaume Postel, 173-177. Her arguments are, obviously, farfetched, if only because Yates’ suggestion was flawed (on this, see especially: Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 22), and authors such as Naude and Gassendi, criticising the Rosicrucian manifestos years after their publication, can hardly be used as arguments for causal links between earlier authors and the manifestos. In the Rosicrucian pamphlets, there was no “Rosicrucian mathematics,” even if Andreae was a mathematician. Later texts inspired by the Rosicrucian manifestos might, of course, have derived inspiration also from other sources, such as works by Postel, but this says nothing about the influence on the manifestos themselves.
269 Bouwsma, Concordia Mundi, 231-250; see also: Kuntz, Guillaume Postel, 17-19, 49-51, 137138, 151-172.
270 Postel, De orbis terrae concordia, 353-354: “Verum Hispanicae navigationis beneficio fere
ecumenical visions were not uncommon in eschatological texts, but the Rosicrucian reformation announced neither a New Jerusalem nor an ecumenical world.
Perhaps even more unique is the manifestos’ precise understanding of history. Although they share similarities with Joachimism, their teleological interpretation of history was cyclical rather than millenarian strictu sensu. It entailed the restoration of prelapsarian conditions (which is also why the term “revolution,” employed in the manifestos, is so important), and it contradicted the notion of final tribulations, which were normally believed to follow the millennium. The manifestos conveyed a sense of continual progress. What happens in these texts is that the ancient Greek vision of a returned Golden Age is Christianised, influenced by heterodox views and the need for progress, and combined with millenarian characteristics.271 The problem is that a proper terminology is lacking for such prophecies. In historiography, it has often been named “chiliasm” or “millenarianism,” but, as we have seen, the meaning of those terms is too narrow to include the Rosicrucians’ and similar conceptions, which not only neglected but also contradicted some millenarian tropes. Admittedly, there were many different types of millenarianisms, but these included nonetheless specific characteristics, although formulated in different ways, which were absent in the Rosicrucian conception of history.272 For that reason, the expression of similar expectations by the reformer and encyclopaedist Johann Heinrich Alsted (1588-1628) have been termed “quasi- millenarianism” by Howard Hotson.273 In our case, this term would be too evocative to apply it to the manifestos, as these texts deviated further from strict millenarianism than Alsted’s views of historical development. It would in fact be appropriate to characterise the Rosicrucian interpretation of history as a vision of a returned and Christianised Golden Age (even if they never
omnes receperunt Christum, coelique et terrae conditorem agnoscunt.” Compare also: “Divine justice shall have its hour; the last of the seven epochs symbolized by the seven days of creation has arrived; the judgments of God are about to be accomplished; the empire and the papacy, sunk into impiety, shall crumble away together [...]. But upon their ruins shall appear a new nation of God, a nation of prophets illuminated from on high, living in poverty and solitude. Then the divine mysteries shall be revealed [...]. The Holy Spirit shall shed abroad upon the people the dew of His prophecies, of His wisdom and holiness [...]”: Postel, cited in Sabatier, Vie de S. Frangois d’Assise, 67-68.
271 For the Greek origins of cyclical renewal, as well as for a brief overview of cyclical, linear, and progressive conceptions of time (although distinguished from one another), see Ladner, The Idea of Reform, ch. 1.
272 For millenarianisms, see: Laursen and Popkin (eds.), Continental Millenarians: Protestants, Catholics, Heretics.
273 Hotson, Paradise Postponed, 27n88; idem, Johann Heinrich Alsted, 182-185.
used this term), which was infused by optimistic notes of epistemic progress and millenarian features. Although this combination is evidently not an actor’s term, if this description can be labelled as a “term” at all, appropriate terminology is required to avoid referring to the Rosicrucian conception of history by means of incorrect terms. As we will see in Part Three of this book, it is possibly precisely because the manifestos drew on different interpretations of the development of history, without providing a conspicuous alternative terminology, that the early responders varied in their understanding of the manifestos.274
The Rosicrucians, in sum, combined the meanings of “reformation,” “revolution,” and “renovation.” They used the influence of the Reformation while reviving pre-Reformation and early modern reform plans by so-called radical reformers, medieval millenarian expectations, as well as Greek visions of renewal. They effectively mingled these with Hermetic elements while appealing to the innovations of so-called “novatores.” In the present survey, however, one tradition has purposely been left out and, as a consequence, so has a discussion of the Rosicrucian alternative to established philosophy: Paracelsianism, a tradition often associated with Rosicrucianism, but never for its religious tendencies. In order to thoroughly analyse the origins of these manifestos and their call for reform, and to grasp the meaning of the Rosicrucian philosophy, this tradition, too, will be discussed at length.
274 Cf. below, Chapters 4 and 5.
chapter 2
The Paracelsian Impetus
Paracelsianism was named after presumably the most enigmatic physician of the sixteenth century, Paracelsus (real name, Philippus Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim, 1493/4-1541)? Paracelsus was one of the best- known physicians of the century preceding the publication of the manifestos, a key figure in the transformation of medicine, and an outlandish figure announcing imminent changes in the world. He is also the sole recent historical figure mentioned in the manifestos.2 In order to appreciate the full meaning of the general reformation and Paracelsus’ influence on the manifestos, itis necessary to introduce this physician as well as the movement he engendered in some detail.
Paracelsus was the son of physician Wilhelm von Hohenheim, who introduced Paracelsus to medicine from an early age onwards. His mother is presumed to have worked in the famous Benedictine monastery of Einsiedeln, and died when Paracelsus was still a young boy.3 In 1516, Paracelsus recalled, he received the degree of doctor in Ferrara, Italy.4 In his early years as a physician, he became increasingly famous as a practitioner of the new healing arts and for the use of alchemically prepared cures, but his antithetical attitude toward
1 Although the name “Paracelsus” came about only after his Basel period (ca. 1527), Theophrastus Paracelsus will be referred to by that name throughout this study. A few well-known studies on Paracelsus’ life include: Goldammer, Paracelsus. Natur und Offenbarung; Pagel, Paracelsus. An Introduction; Webster, Paracelsus. Medicine, Magic; Weeks, Paracelsus. Speculative Theory and the Crisis of the Early Reformation; idem, Paracelsus. Essential Theoretical Writings.
2 Cf. below, section 2.4.
3 See also Paracelsus, Liber de re templi ecclesiastica, npe 1, 364, where Paracelsus lists Ein- siedeln among other places of pilgrimage. For a brief summary of Paracelsus’ career, see: Webster, Paracelsus, 9-33.
4 Paracelsus testifies to this in a Basel document dated 21 May 1527, and in several works he referred to himself as a “doctor” of medicine. The document is transcribed in: Blaser, Paracelsus in Basel, 68-69; see also: Benzenhofer, “Paracelsus,” 7-8; Kamenzin, “Paracelsus und die Universitaten,” 148-152. No documents indicating Paracelsus’ enrolment at Ferrara have survived. On his studies with his father, see: Paracelsus, Die grosse Wundarznei, i, 10;
354. Because the Sudhoff and Goldammer editions also include religious writings (part 2), these editions will be referred to for Paracelsus’ and pseudo-Paracelsus’ works, sometimes complemented by the Huser edition and the Neue Paracelsus-Edition edited by Ganten- bein.
established medicine had a dramatic impact on his life. The turning point came while he was working as professor in Basel. Paracelsus was invited to Basel to become the official city physician and professor of medicine at its university, and in 1527 he settled in that town.5 As professor, he never adjusted himself to the institutional customs and conservatism of that university. He lectured in German rather than in the obligatory Latin and used a different, new terminology. He openly and rigorously rejected the traditional medical authorities who were still taught at the university. The culmination of Paracelsus’ opposition to the authorities was when, on St. John’s Eve, 23 June 1527, he threw a copy of the standard medical textbook of the time, most likely Avicenna’s Canon of Medicine, into a bonfire. In his recollection of the event, Paracelsus wrote: “I have thrown the summa of books in the fire of Saint John, so that all misery would rise up in the air together with the smoke.”6 It comes as no surprise that his antagonistic attitude and this event in particular met with much hostility in Basel. Soon, his views were ridiculed in verses wherein he was styled Cacophrastus (shit-speaker), as opposed to Theophrastus (god-speaker).7 According to his own testimony, he was mocked, laughed at, and was even pelted with urine.8 After this event, Theophrastus changed his name to Paracelsus, was forced to leave Basel by decree of the city council, and his medical career took a turn for the worse.9 He travelled from town to town but was unsuccessful in finding a more permanent place of residence or a publisher to print his prolific body of works.10 Learned communities preferred not to associate themselves with such an outlandish figure.
5 On Paracelsus in Basel, see: Blaser, Paracelsus in Basel. On the invitation, see: Daniel, “Paracelsus’ Astronomia Magna,” 29-30.
6 Paracelsus, Paragranum, i, 8; 58: “ich hab die summa der bucher in sanct Johannes feuer
geworfen, auf das alles ungluck mit dem rauch in luft gang [...].” For an account of the bonfire in Basel, see: Ibid., i, 8; 43, 58. Paracelsus did not specify the book he burned, but the reformer Sebastian Franck recalled this event and explained that Paracelsus had burned Avicenna’s book. He described Paracelsus as a rare and strange man, who stood alone against all physicians: Franck, Chronica, Zeitbuch und Geschichtsbibel (1531), fol. 253r.
7 Paracelsus was mocked in verses entitled The Ghost of Galen against Theophrastus, or rather Cacophrastus (Manes Galeni adversus Theophrastum sed potius Cacophrastum). On these verses, see: Blaser, Paracelsus in Basel, 82-102; Webster, Paracelsus, 13, 39-43.
8 Paracelsus, Paragranum, i, 8; 43.
9 “Paracelsus” may refer to ’beside’ or ’past’ (para) Celsus, the Roman physician Cornelius Celsus, but Webster points out that this was never claimed by Paracelsus himself, see: Webster, Paracelsus, 40-41.
10 Kamenzin, “Paracelsus und die Universitaten,” 157-158.
ALTERJVS NON SIT.QVI SWT ESSE POTEST
figure 4 Paracelsus, woodcut by A. Hirschvo- gel, Wellcome Collection
During his life, Paracelsus had become notorious as a chemical physician, but twenty years after his death his works became increasingly popular. Important physicians contributed immensely to Paracelsus’ renown at the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth centuries. They published editions of Paracelsus’ works or wrote works themselves that contributed to his popularity, and soon his works issued from various printing presses.11 Owing to this proliferation of publications, his ideas spread over Europe. Enthusiasts began writings tracts in his name to attract a readership, and translations of his works and new books inspired by his ideas were published not only in Germany and Switzerland, the regions where Paracelsus had spent most of his life, but also in England, France, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden.12 With such an outpouring of Paracelsian writings, it was inevitable that the enigmatic figure and his early reception would have come to the attention of the authors of the manifestos.
11 See: Sudhoff, Einleitendes, i, 1; vii-xlviii; idem, Vorwort, i, 2; v-xxxi. See, for example: Thurneysser, Onomasticon (1574-1583); Dorn, Dictionarium Theophrasti Paracelsi conti- nens obscuriorum vocabularum, quibus in suis scriptis passim utitur definitiones (1584); Paracelsus (ed. Huser), Der Bucher und Schrifften/des Edlen/Hochgelehrten undBewehrten Philosophi unnd Medici, Philippi Theophrasti Bombast von Hohenheim/ Paracelsi genannt, 10 vols. Cf. Kuhlmann and Telle, Corpus Paracelsisticum, vols. 1-3. Kahn, “Alchimie et Paracelsisme,” 94-98; Daniel, “Paracelsus’ Astronomia Magna,” 93-99.
12 Cf. Debus, The English Paracelsians; idem, The French Paracelsians; Kuhlmann and Telle, Corpus Paracelsisticum, vols. 1-3.
Paracelsus’ influence on the manifestos is not a new topic. In the available historiography on the manifestos, Paracelsus’ role and Paracelsian themes have been widely acknowledged, with a special focus on the Paracelsian elements within the manifestos, such as the microcosm-macrocosm analogy, Paracelsus’ theory of signatures, and the specific invocation of the “Book of Nature.”13 Yet, a thorough analysis has remained a desideratum, while also Paracelsus’ religious and apocalyptic considerations have not yet been considered in relation to the Rosicrucian texts.14 Equally neglected in this context are the strong pseudoParacelsian and early-Paracelsian currents of thinking. There is still a need to trace the manifestos and specifically their call for a general reformation and related themes back to pseudo-Paracelsian and sixteenth-century Paracelsian texts.15 To what extent did Paracelsus and his early followers excite and inspire this central aim in the manifestos? The eschatological and millenarian expectations, apocalyptic beliefs, and alchemical, medical, and finally philosophical considerations surfacing in this profusion of Paracelsian literature in the years preceding the composition of the manifestos require careful examination in order to establish a Paracelsian impetus for the Rosicrucian notion of a general reformation.
13 Examples include: Kienast, Johann Valentin Andreae und die Vier echten Rosenkreutzer- Schriften, 120; Trevor-Roper, Renaissance Essays, 182; Edighoffer, Rose-Croix et societe ideale, vol. 1, 270-278; idem, Les Rose-Croix et la crise, 163-178; idem, “L’enigme Paracelsienne”; idem, “Die Manifeste der Rosenkreuzer”; Gilly: Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 7; idem, “Vom agyptischen Hermes,” 71-73; Akerman, Rose Cross over the Baltic, 12-13; Faivre, Theosophy, Imagination, Tradition, 174-176. On these Paracelsian themes, see below, section 2.4. A comparative study on Paracelsianism(s) still remains pending, and is not the object of this book. Here, the term “Paracelsian” will be used for those who self-identified as followers of Paracelsus.
14 In his “Chiliasmus und soziale Utopie im Paracelsismus,” Wollgast briefly discusses chili- asm in Paracelsus’ works and subsequently in what he named “Rosicrucianism,” but he neglects to discuss the Rosicrucian manifestos, let alone the influence of Paracelsus’ chili- astic views on these manifestos. Edighoffer, in turn, discusses Paracelsus’ influence on the manifestos in several of his works, but he neither discusses the influence of the following Paracelsian movement on the manifestos nor even mentions Paracelsus’ apocalypticism. He does acknowledge a Joachimite influence on the Confessio, but dissociates this from Paracelsianism; see: Edighoffer, Rose-Croix et societe ideale, vol. 1, 278-285.
15 Here, in particular the early Paracelsians who were also involved in publishing Paracelsian books, and who were as such responsible for the early dissemination of Paracelsus’ ideas, will be taken into account.
2.1 Visions of a Golden Time
The reform described by the Rosicrucians was expected to take place on the eve of an imminent new age, according to an interpretation of history that was not only teleological, but also cyclical. The Rosicrucian authors expressly drew on Paracelsus throughout their manifestos in support of their predictions. Apocalyptic expectations were not only a central aspect of the Rosicrucian manifestos, but were also a conspicuous feature in the Paracelsian literature, which thereby proved to be a wealthy source of potential influence.16 While he was primarily known as a physician, Paracelsus had written extensively on religious matters, which is an aspect of his work that scholars have only recently begun to study in any great depth.17 In fact, his most extensive works concern biblical and theological topics, such as his Commentary on the Psalms and his interpretation of Matthew.18 Paracelsus started writing in the early phase of the Lutheran Reformation, around 1525, when Luther’s views had just begun to spread widely.19 Paracelsus’ earliest religious writings, such as his On Justice and On Seven Points of Christian Idolatry, concerned much-debated issues of the time.20 As was the case with his philosophy and medicine, in his religious
16 For Paracelsus on religious matters, see: Goldammer, “Neues zur Lebensgeschichte und Personlichkeit des Theophrastus Paracelsus”; “Paracelsische Eschatologie”; idem, “Das Religiose Denken des Paracelsus”; Guinsburg, “Paracelsian Magic and Theology. A Case Study of the Matthew Commentaries,” 125-138; Biegger, ’De invocatione Beatae Mariae Virginis’; Kammerer, “Das Leib-Seele-Geist-Problem”; Gause, Paracelsus; Rudolph, “Paracelsus Laientheologie”; idem, “Hohenheim’s Anthropology in the Light of his Writings on the Eucharist”; Haas, “Paracelsus der Theologe”; Weeks, Paracelsus, 36-43; Daniel, “Paracelsus’ Astronomia Magna”; Gantenbein, Paracelsus. For Paracelsus’ followers on religious matters, see in particular: Murase, “Paracelsismus und Chiliasmus.”
17 Goldammer and Matthiessen published in the mid-twentieth century several religious works by Paracelsus, and Goldammer has analysed and discussed several of them: see: Paracelsus, Samtliche Werke, vols. 1-7, and supplement. Nevertheless, many of Paracelsus’ religious works have never been published, and whilst in the last few decades these texts have received proper attention from some scholars, there is still much left to be untangled. Gantenbein has begun publishing religious texts by Paracelsus in the Neue Paracelsus Edition, most of which have never been published before. The first volume of the planned 12 has been published: Gantenbein, Neue Paracelsus-Edition 1, hereafter: npe.
18 Paracelsus, “Auslegung des dritten Teils des Psalters Davids,” ii, 4; idem, “Die Auslegung des Psalters Davids,” ii, 7. Cf. Guinsburg, “Paracelsian Magic and Theology. A Case Study of the Matthew Commentaries.”
19 Hillerbrand, The Protestant Reformation, xxv. On Paracelsus and Luther, see: Paracelsus, Paragranum, i, 8; 43-44, 63; Rudolph, “Einige Gesichtspunkte zum Thema ’Paracelsus und Luther’.”
20 Paracelsus, De iustitia, ii, 2; 151-156; idem, De septem punctis, ii, 3; 1-58.
works he deliberately dissociated himself from all authorities, whatever their denomination, believing that the leaders of the established religious groups were all made of “the same cloth.”21 He worked as a lay theologian, preaching among the “common folk,” sympathising with the peasants’ movement, and speaking, as he himself stated, “several times in taverns, drinking places, and inns, against senseless church attendance, lavish ceremonies, praying and fasting that are to no avail, alms giving [...].”22 Although Paracelsus argued against all confessions, he associated with some radical reformers, sent letters to Luther and his companions about his own Matthew commentary, and is documented to have chosen to die a Catholic—all of which contributed to the enigma of the man’s religious identity.23
Despite the direct references to Paracelsus in the manifestos, his apocalyptic views could not have been further removed from the Rosicrucian expectations. In some of his religious writings, Paracelsus made prophetic statements about the future.24 Like the Rosicrucians later, he believed the present time on earth to be one of degradation, but that contemporary misery would soon be replaced by a beatific future. As he explained in his On the Genealogy of Christ: “So everything is nothing but a vale of tears, from where we must leave towards another world, where nothing will be but joy and delight in eternity.”25
21 Idem, De secretis secretorum theologiae, ii, 3; 203, 206: “[.] die dem bapst beistehen, die halten ihn fur ein lebendigen heiligen; die dem Ariano beisteen, dergleichen fur ein gerechten, die dem Zwingli beistehen, dergleichen fur ein gerechten menschen; die dem Luther beistehn, dergleichen fur ein rechten propheten [.]. So richten sie sich selbst uber einander und schanden antichristen, widerchristen, ketzer; und seindt vier Par Hosen eins Tuchs.” See also: ibid., 227.
22 Idem, De septem punctis, ii, 3; 3-4: “Euer taglich widerpellen und scharpfreden wider mich
von wegen der warheit, so ich etwan und etlich mal in tabernen, krugen und wirtshau- sern geredt hab wider das unnutz kirchengehn, uppige feier, vergebens petten und fasten, almusen geben [.], und alle andere dergleichen priesterliche gebott und aufenthaltung, auch mir dasselbig in ein trunkenheit gezogen, darumb, dafi in tabernen geschehen ist, und die tabernen fur untuchtige orter zu der warheit zu sein anzeigen, und uf das mich ein winkelprediger genant.” On Paracelsus’ sympathy with the peasants’ movement, see: Webster, “Paracelsus: Medicine as Popular Protest.” On Paracelsus speaking in taverns, see also: Weeks, Paracelsus, 95.
23 For the letter to Luther, Melanchthon, and Bugenhagen, see: Rudolph, “Einige Gesichts- punkte zum Thema ’Paracelsus und Luther’,” 36-39. On Paracelsus and the radical reformers, see: Webster, Paracelsus, 184-209. On Paracelsus’ testament, see: Dopsch, “Testament, Tod und Grabmal des Paracelsus.” Daniel indeed refers to Paracelsus as a “reform Catholic and radical”; see: Daniel, “Paracelsus’ Astronomia Magna,” 90n12, 99.
24 See, for example: Paracelsus, De genealogia Christi, ii, 3; idem, Auslegung des Psalters, ii, 4; idem, Auslegung des Psalters Davids, ii, 7; idem, Auslegung der Papstbilder, i, 12.
25 Paracelsus, De genealogia Christi, ii, 3; 132-133: “[.] so ist es alles nichts dann ein
The world’s dire conditions were reflected in the spread of diseases and in the miserable lives of the peasants with whom he was acquainted. According to Paracelsus, humans would soon be liberated from their misery: “Our joy arrives, our golden world, as God Himself will weed out the vineyard and repair the fence, so that there will be no more gaps for a Judas.”26 The new world will be one of perfection and bliss to be instigated by God, and misery and deception were to be endured only until God’s intervention.
In ancient Greek sources, the Golden Age was an age of splendour to be followed by a gradual decline. In Hesiod’s Works and Days, an age of peace and splendour had once been in the world, characterised as Gold, which was followed by ages of Silver, Bronze, Heroic, and finally Iron. During the Renaissance, the myth emerged that after the decline of history, the Golden Age was to return again in all of its glory. This myth was promulgated by authors such as Marsilio Ficino (1433-1499).27 This view was akin to the one expressed in the Rosicrucian manifestos: the new age was to see misery and imperfection disappear and be replaced by a new citadel of truth, as prelapsarian conditions were restored to the world.28
Unlike the Rosicrucians, Paracelsus, who seems to have read Ficino,29 did not expect any improvement or perfection before the end of the present world, but awaited a new time only after Christ’s Last Judgement.30 He shared the widely held belief that the grisly conditions of the present times were to be endured only until Christ will stand in judgement and the righteous will be allowed to enter the New Jerusalem. In his Interpretation of the Images of the Pope (ca. 1532), Paracelsus’ edition of the famous medieval Prophecies about the Popes (Vaticinia de summis pontificibus), he aligned himself to the Lutheran expectation of an imminent end from which the manifestos deviated:
jammertal, aus dem wir muessen in ein andere welt, da nichts wird sein als freud und lust in ewigkeit.”
26 Idem, Auslegung des Psalters, ii, 4; 107: “Do kombt unser freud, unser gulden welt, so uns got im weingarten selbst ausreuten wird und den zaun ganz machen, dafi kein Judas lucken mehr do werden sein.”
27 Ficino, letter to Paul of Middelburg, Opera omnia, 944. On the Golden Age in the Renais
sance, and a chapter on its prehistory, see: Levin, The Myth of the Golden Age in the Renaissance.
28 Confessio, 53-54.
29 Paracelsus, Begleitbrief an Clauser (1527), i, 4; 71.
30 Amadeo Murase has mistakenly attributed an optimistic view of future earthly splendour to Paracelsus, arguing that Paracelsus expected another age before Christ’s Second Coming: Murase, “Paracelsismus und Chiliasmus,” 11-19.
Another day will come, after the Last Judgement, in which there will live and be happy those that dwell on earth [...], and the devil in the snake will be in Hell, and not on earth, but bound in the abyss of the deeps of hellfire. And the people on earth will be without heresy, there will be no false apostles, no false prophets, no false Christians.31
The golden world is equated, not with a future earthly period before the end of history, but with the time of the New Jerusalem of the Book of Revelation 21-22. But Paracelsus also drew on Revelation 20, which speaks of the binding of Satan (the snake) in the abyss during the millennium. Uniquely, Paracelsus combines these two prophecies as he situates the binding of Satan in the time after the Last Judgement, which means that Satan is bound in hell, not during the millennium, but at the time of the New Jerusalem. There, according to Paracelsus’ Interpretation of the Psalms of David, the world will be devoid of all evil and cold, snow will feel “like wool from sheep,” soft and warm, while “the poor and miserable should be joyful in Jerusalem, they will play the harp and sing.”32
The delight of the New Jerusalem would entail the inversion of the social order, an inversion of everyday life on earth: the poor will thrive but the rich will be miserable.33 Within the manifestos, there is no such commendation of poverty for the sake of a new world in the New Jerusalem. Their authors instead characterised their society as one rich in gold and gems for the benefit of the present world. But Paracelsus’ views were akin to those of the peasant reformers in Salzburg. During the Peasants’ War of 1525, he worked as a physician in Salzburg and had associates amongst the reformers.34 In his religious writings of the time, he expressed his concern for the welfare of the peasants.
31 Paracelsus, Auslegung der Papstbilder, i, 12; 555: “[...] es wird dornach nach disem jung-
sten tag ein ander tag komen, dorin werden leben und frolich sein, die auf Erden wonen [.] und der teufel in der schlangen wird in der hellen sein und nicht auf erden, sonder gebunden in abgrunt der tiefe des hellischen feurs, und die menschen auf erden wer- den kein ketzerei weiter haben, kein falsch aposteln, kein falsch propheten, kein falsch Christen.”
32 Idem, Auslegung des Psalters Davids, ii, 7; 99-100: “secht, wie guetig in disem Jerusalem der herr sein wird, dafi der schne, der bei uns kalt ist und uns erfroren will und erfroren [sic] und treibt uns ab dem felt, von der gassen in die stuben,—denselbigen schne will er machen, dafi er uns wird sein wie die wollen von schaffen. dieselbigen wollen seindt lind, seindt warm [.] also wird auch der schne und der winter hingohn und verloren werden [.]. dafi also uber und uber alles gemein sein wird und alles summer”; ibid., 93: “[.] die armen und ellenden worden in Jerusalem mussen frolich sein und werden mit dem harpfen schlagen und singen, [.]”; see also: Goldammer, “Paracelsische Eschatologie,” 141-142.
33 Paracelsus, Auslegung des Psalters Davids, ii, 7; 93.
34 Paracelsus, in any case, was acquainted with Melchior Spach, the field captain of the
Paracelsus’ expectations were not chiliastic, in the sense that he did not expect a new terrestrial period before the Last Judgement, as if it were an earthly millennium. Like Luther and orthodox Lutherans, his expectations related to the time after Christ’s return. But he made matters more elusive by implying that the New Jerusalem will not be a heavenly kingdom at all but rather a terrestrial place, that is, an earthly paradise. After Christ, “the new, golden world will begin, that is [after] this, the final fire from Heaven. There we will live blissfully on earth.”35 This world will be the “holy world.”36 Luther had claimed that only the past Paradise had been terrestrial,37 but Paracelsus suggested that the restored paradise will take place also on earth, meaning that the world will not be destroyed after Christ’s Judgement:
[...] God the Lord [will] build a NewJerusalem and will bring all Christians, who today are divided and scattered over the world, together in one Jerusalem, under [the rule of] one Lord, that is under Himself [.]. And once God has pushed the Mammon from the earth, all children of God will live far away from each other, and those He will bring together into one stable, under the rule of one shepherd. This will be the New Jerusalem, which is in this earthly paradise.38
rebels of the war in 1525, because the latter was the first listed among Paracelsus’ friends in his testament, see: Biegger, ’De Invocatione’, 32; Dopsch, “Paracelsus, Salzburg und der Bauernkrieg,” 300-306. Paracelsus returned to Salzburg once or twice later in his life; see: Dopsch, “Paracelsus, Salzburg und der Bauernkrieg,” 299-308. See also the other articles included in Dopsch and Kramml (eds.), Paracelsus und Salzburg. Like in other German regions, in the preceding years the city’s burghers and the peasants had to pay an increasing amount of taxes which, together with religious struggles, resulted in rebellious uprisings throughout the German-speaking lands; see: McClintock and Strong, “Peasants’ War,” 859. On Paracelsus and the Peasants’ War, see: Dopsch, “Paracelsus, Salzburg und der Bauernkrieg,” 299-308, esp. 304-306; idem, “Paracelsus, die Reformation und der Bauernkrieg,” 201-216.
35 Paracelsus, Auslegung des Psalters, ii, 4; 93: “[W]ir danken dir ewiglich und bekennen, dafi
du, herr, uns erlost hast, erledigt und erhalten. do wird die neu, guldin welt angehn, das ist dise.das letzt feur vom himel. do werden wir wonen saliglich auf erden.” Based on a comparison of manuscript versions, Goldammer explains in an editorial note that one of the manuscripts, instead of “das ist dise,” reads: “das ist nach dise [.],” (“that is after this”) which seems correct; see ibid., 93.
36 Ibid., 93: “Als dann so wir seindt in der heiligen welt [.].”
37 On Luther’s past earthly paradise, see: Leoni: “Studium simplicitatis: The Letter of Grace in Luther’s Commentary on Genesis 1-3,” 197-198.
38 Paracelsus, Auslegung des Psalters Davids, ii, 7; 90-91: “[.] so wird alsdann got der herr ein neu Jerusalem bauen und wird die christen, so hin und her zerteilt seindt und zer- streuet, zusammen samblen und sie ein Jerusalem bringen, das ist under ein herrn, das
The incongruous reference to the children of God living far away from each other in a future period was likely intended to refer to the present, rather than the future, where those children who are now separated will be brought together. The New Jerusalem of the Book of Revelation, having already been connected to the millennium, is now also identified with the terrestrial Paradise of the first chapters of Genesis. Such a conception of the last events and the prospect of a new world resembled neither Protestant nor Catholic views, but shares one characteristic with Rosicrucian expectations. The Rosicrucian manifestos describe the imminent earthly improvements as resembling a restored paradise and in this sense as representing a return to the beginning.39 Paracelsus, too, suggested such a return of original conditions when he identified the New Jerusalem with the earthly paradise, albeit in his view this return would take place by divine intervention and after Christ’s Judgement.
Because Paracelsus believed that history was drawing to a close, also his interpretation of the role of the Antichrist differs from the Rosicrucian description of this apocalyptic figure. In some cases, such as in his On the Secrets of the Secrets of Theology, Paracelsus referred to the Antichrist generally, claiming that all “sects” were Antichrists, because they “call each other the antichrist, which is true,” and that each of these sects was recognisable by the fruits of the Antichrist: death and destruction.40 In other passages, he specifically placed the Antichrist in the End Times and identified him with Rome. Paracelsus had already argued that in the end of time God will ban the Mammon from the earth. The word “Mammon” originated from the Bible and usually means “money” or “wealth.” During the Middle Ages, the term signified a wealthy demon,41 but Paracelsus applied this symbolism specifically to the pope. He frequently argued that the Endchrist was to be found in Rome, and he called the pope the “Roman Antichrist.”42 According to Paracelsus’ Sermons on the
ist under sich selbs. [...] so er [Got] den mammon ab der welt hat geton, alsdann werden die kinder gottes weit voneinander wonen, und die wird er zusammen samblen und sie bringen in ein stall, das ist under ein hirten. das wird sein das neu Jerusalem, das ist in disem irdischen Paradeis.” The shepherd is, obviously, Christ: Paracelsus, Auslegung der Papstbilder, i, 12; 583: “[...] also wird ein hirt sein, das ist Christus [...].”
39 On this, see above, section 1.2.
40 Paracelsus, De secretis secretorum theologiae, ii, 3; 175-176: “[...] wie Rom undandere mehr [...] heifien einander antichristen, ist wahr [...]. Der bapst und die seinen schreien nach dem blut: tot, henk, prinn, ertrink, etc. die andern haben in kurzen jaren vil tausent mann umb ir leben auch bracht, schreien auch: tot, ertrink, etc. das seindt ire frucht, die sie geben, aus denen wir sie erkennen sollen”; idem, Liber de felici liberalitate, npe 1, 190.
41 Cf. Valenze, Social Life of Money, 95.
42 Gantenbein, “Leben, Tod und Jenseits bei Paracelsus,” 188, 190. Paracelsus often used the
term Endchrist; see, for example: npe 1, 141, 190, 228, 391, 517, 525. Melanchthon also used
Antichrist, the papal Endchrist will be defeated not by man but by divine intervention, as he will “be expelled from the sheepfold by Christ and should leave it together with his legions.”43 Christ will defeat the Roman impostor and inaugurate the New Jerusalem on earth. Unlike the manifestos, Paracelsus sided with the pre-Antichrist tradition, according to which the Antichrist comes in the end and is conquered by Christ, after which no new age before the Last Judgement was to be expected—a highly traditional interpretation.
It was fundamental to the Rosicrucian general reformation and their millen- arian imagery that the pope could be replaced as ruler over the people, notably by human agency, upon the arrival of the new age. Evidently, in this regard the Rosicrucian authors were not influenced by Paracelsus’ eschatology as articulated in his religious texts. For Paracelsus, if the world could not be improved before the Last Judgement, certainly not by human agency, any hope for reform would be in vain simply because there was no earthly time to which one could look forward. When it comes to his conception of history and man’s role within it, Paracelsus could not be further from the views later to be expressed in the manifestos: in these religious works, he simply ruled out the possibility of a general reformation.
The authors of the manifestos were presumably unaware of the fact that Paracelsus had expressed these views so divergent from their own, the reason being that his religious works, in which he announced the imminent end and the subsequent earthly paradise, were not easily available at the time when the manifestos were drafted. These works could be found in the collection of Hans Kilian—who kept one of the largest collections of Paracelsian manuscripts in Neuburg—but were never published by Gerard Dorn (1530-1584), Adam von Bodenstein (1528-1577), Michael Toxites (Michael Schutz, 1514-1581), or Johannes Huser (1545-ca. 1600).44 These physicians steered clear of Paracelsus’
this term: Oberman, The Reformation, 49. See also: Paracelsus, Sermones de antichristo, 463r-463v, cited in Gantenbein, “Leben, Tod und Jenseits,” 189-190; Rudolph, “Theophrast von Hohenheim (Paracelsus). Arzt und Apostel der neuen Kreatur,” 36.
43 Paracelsus, Sermones de antichristo, ub Leiden Cod.Vos.Chym. Fols. 25, 461r-470v, here 466V: “[...] dass er durch Christum aus dem schafstall ausgetrieben wird und aus dem- selben weichen muss mit allen seinen legionibus,” cited in: Gantenbein, “Leben, Tod und Jenseits bei Paracelsus,” 192. Cf. ibid., 190-191. See also: Paracelsus, Sermones de antichristo, 464v.
44 On Dorn, see: Kahn, “Les Debuts de Gerard Dorn”; on Bodenstein, see: Gantenbein, “Der fruhe Paracelsismus in der Schweiz”; Kuhlmann and Telle, Corpus Paracelsisticum, vol. 1, 104-110; on Toxites, see: Schmidt, Michael Schutz genannt Toxites; Sudhoff, “Ein Beitrag zur Bibliographie der Paracelsisten”; Kuhlmann and Telle, Corpus Paracelsisticum, vol. 1, 41-66; on Huser, see: Telle, “Johann Huser in seinen Briefen.”
theological writings, not least because the religious views expressed therein had been deemed dangerous and heretical, owing to Paracelsus’ criticism of the three rivalling confessions.45 This is not to say that they were not read. The Paracelsian physician Alexander von Suchten (ca. 1520-1575), for one, was aware of and praised Paracelsus’ religious works, while the French alchemist and Paracelsian Bernard Penot (1519-1617) expressed his admiration for Paracelsus’ religious conceptions.46 But generally, Paracelsus’ religious writings, which could circulate only in manuscript form, were far less known in the early seventeenth century than his published medical or philosophical books.
Paracelsus’ eschatology as conveyed in these religious works is radically at odds with the Rosicrucian notion of reform, but also with his views expressed in his natural-philosophical works, which offer a more optimistic view of future events.47 In his Book on Images, for example, he briefly discussed the numerous sects that had come about since Luther’s appearance on the world stage, and explained that “there will come more sects, and each wants to be right, and be better and holier with its teaching than another. And in religion and in the Church there will be no unity and peace, until the golden and final time. But afterwards the Day of the Lord will not be far.”48 Clearly, Paracelsus suggested here that a brief, golden, peaceful time may be expected before the end. The terminology is significant, however: the golden world will take place only after the Last Judgement, buta golden time may be expected before Christ’s Second Coming.
Paracelsus, moreover, was a medical reformer, and his activities in the fields of medicine and natural philosophy evidently implied that reform, at least in these areas, was possible. In some of his medical and natural-philosophical texts he explicitly announced that his work will prevail over traditional
45 Gilly, “Theophrastia Sancta,” 154-158.
46 Von Suchten, cp, vol. 1, nr. 31, 553; Penot, Apologiae in duas partes divisa, cited in: Gilly, “Theophrastia Sancta,” 158; on Von Suchten, see: Kuhlmann and Telle, Corpus Paracelsist- icum, vol. i, 545-549. On Paracelsians and religion, against Weber’s disenchantmentthesis, see: Webster, “Paracelsus, Paracelsianism, and the Secularization of the Worldview,” 9-27.
47 This does not mean that these two types of works, natural-philosophical and religious, were entirely different. On common ground, see especially the works of Dane Daniel, e.g., “Paracelsus’ Astronomia Magna.” Paracelsus’ natural-philosophical and medical works are numerous, an analysis of which is beyond the scope of this study. For relevant literature, see especially: Pagel, Paracelsus; Kahn, “Alchimie et Paracelsisme”; Webster, Paracelsus.
48 Paracelsus, Liber de imaginibus, i, 13; 373: “dan es werden noch mer secten komen, und wird ein ietlicher recht wollen haben, und mit seiner ler besser und heiliger sein, dan der ander. Und wird in der religion und in der kirchen kein vereinigung und frid werden, bis zu der guldinen und lezten zeit. Aber hernach wird der tag des herrn nicht weit sein.”
authorities, that they will remain authoritative until the end of the world, and that all other philosophers should enter his “kingdom.”49 This is best expressed in his Paragranum, where he declared that his medical and scientific contributions will set the rule until the Last Judgement: “Until the last day of the world my writings must remain and genuinely, and yours [the followers of Galen and Avicenna] will be known to be filled with bile, poison and serpents, and abhorred by the people like toads [...].”50 A few pages later, he added: “[...] the false philosophers will be boiled and tossed into the dung heap, and I and my philosophy will remain.”51 We will turn to Paracelsus’ medical criticism in the following section, but what is striking here is that in Paracelsus’ view the dirt left behind by previous physicians and philosophers could be replaced by his own new philosophy. Paracelsus did not specify when exactly this was to happen, but it would in any case occur before the Last Judgement, which further suggests that there will be a future period of earthly improvement established by human beings, that is, in any case, by Paracelsus himself. This view is profoundly different from the eschatological position outlined in his religious writings, but resonates with the Rosicrucian manifestos.
The natural-philosophical works must also have influenced both pseudoParacelsian authors and early Paracelsians. In early seventeenth-century German regions, several authors published their writings in Paracelsus’ name. Some of these texts have long been regarded as spurious, while others have only recently been distinguished from Paracelsus’ authentic writings. The spurious texts are attributed to pseudo-Paracelsus, although it is most likely that there were multiple authors who abused Paracelsus’ name.52 The optimistic outlook, in which there was to be another earthly time before the end, was in fact dominant in pseudo-Paracelsian writings.53 For example, speaking in the name of Paracelsus and aligning himself with Paracelsus’ claims, the author of On the Tincture of the Natural Philosophers claimed that he would continue to lecture his opponents.54
49 Cf. below, section 2.3.
50 Paracelsus, Paragranum, i, 8; 200-201: “bis in den lezten tag der welt meine gschriften
mussen bleiben und warhaftig, und die euer werden voller gallen, gift und schlangen gezucht erkennet werden und von den leuten gehasset wie der kroten [...].”
51 Ibid., 139: “also werden die falschen philosophi gescheumpt werden und in die mistlachen geworfen, und ich und mein philosophei werden bleiben.”
52 Cf. Sudhoff, Bibliographia Paracelsica. On several types of (pseudo-)Paracelsianism, see:
Pumfrey, “The Spagyric Art.”
53 Cf. the sections below.
54 Pseudo-Paracelsus, De tinctura physicorum, i, 14; 393: “[I]ch werde euch alchimisten und doctors durch mein erlitne arbeit die neu geburt ofnen. Ich werde euch lernen die tinctur,
The Rosicrucian authors may have been influenced also by the views of several Paracelsians, who had fully accepted Paracelsus’ optimistic conception of another earthly age. Presumably inspired by both genuine and pseudepigraphic natural-philosophical writings, they expected a new period on earth to be imminent in which Paracelsus’ views would triumph. The Kabbalist, alchemist, and physician to the German Prince Ludwig von Anhalt (1579-1650), Julius Sperber (1540-1616), for example, wrote his On the Three Ages on the eve of the new century (1597). In it, he followed Joachim of Fiore by dividing history into three ages. According to this text, the first age corresponded to the Old Testament and the age of the Father, the second to the New Testament and the age of the Son, “but now the third and last age is approaching,” the age of the Holy Spirit.55 This third age was understood to be a “golden time.”56 Sperber referred to the coming period in similar terminology as Paracelsus had used in his Book on Images. He had in mind a period of improvement that was reminiscent of the third age described by Joachim, as it would take place before Christ’s Second Coming, like a future millennium. Although the Rosicrucian brethren did not divide history into three ages, their new period resembled Sperber’s hopeful expectations.
Like Paracelsus and Sperber, Bodenstein also referred to the new period as a “golden time,” and claimed that it was now beginning to take shape on earth. Bodenstein associated the imminence of the new time with contemporary improvements in knowledge: “Long we abided in a time of tittle-tattle, who will deny that now the time of knowledge approaches?”57 Clearly, life on earth had been glum, but better times were on the horizon, in which the arts would thrive. Like the manifestos, he argued that God had already sent messengers to earth so that “from many portents we can learn that changes are imminent [^].”* 55 56 57 58 Soon the world would free itself from the darkness that had cast a shadow over the arts, studies, and places of learning.
die arcana, oder das quantum esse, in welchem alle heimlikeiten, grunt und werk ligt.”
55 Sperber, Von den dreyen seculis (1597), 9: “Nunmehr aber ist [...] die dritte und letzte zeit [...] ganz nahe vor der thur.” On Joachim of Fiore and the three ages, see: Chapter 1, n. 108.
56 Sperber, Von den dreyen seculis, A8r (Vorrede): “[...] Aus welchem nun erscheinet/ dak dieses hohe Geheimnus/ der zeit nach/ nicht ehender als bis auf die ietzige gegenwertige der andern Welt und zeit/ unnd also gegen dem anbrechenden dritten und letzten Seculo/ darinnen solche unsere Seeligkeit und recht Guldene zeit wircklich angehen wird/ [.].” Compare also: ibid., A4r and B7v, where Sperber also wrote of a future golden time.
57 Bodenstein, cp, vol. 1, nr. 7,150: “Fuimus diu in tempore garriendi, iam tempus sciendi
instare quis negabit?”
58 Ibid., nr. 11, 268: “Also hatt Gott der Allmechtig inn gegenwertiger guldinen zeyt/ da das Wort Gottes hell an tag/ dergleychen alle gute Kunsten so herrlich herfur gebracht werden [.]”; ibid., nr. 7, 154: “Signis multis discere possumus instare mutationes [.].”
These Paracelsians adopted and emphasised the more optimistic, but generally less explicitly apocalyptic views of earthly improvement of Paracelsus. In their apocalyptic visions, the Rosicrucian manifestos were possibly not inspired by Paracelsus’ religious works, but aligned with his medical and natural- philosophical views, and more so with the views of some of his successors.
2.2 The Revelation of Secrets
That the manifestos have more in common with some early Paracelsians than with Paracelsus’ own religious texts can also be concluded from their apocalyptic views. According to the Rosicrucian manifestos, the changes of the new age could already be espied through the portents God had placed in nature and heaven for humans to decipher His secrets. In historiography, revelation is referred to by the terms “apocalyptic” and “apocalypticism.” “Apocalyptic” is the belief that all things will be revealed during the Last Days of the world. This was the way Paracelsus interpreted revelation, who had declared in his book on elemental beings, the Book on Nymphs, Sylphs, Pigmies and Salamanders and other Spirits (date unknown), about the final time that “[n]ow is the time, that things will be revealed”; explaining in his Prologue on the Blessed Life (1533?) that “[t]his will come to light, which God wants to be brought to light. And now is the time, and summer is drawing close.”59 These revelationary phrases refer to the time shortly before the Last Judgement, because Paracelsus had used the word “summer” to indicate the New Jerusalem. Although he described this period by means of a natural analogy rather than by reference to the Book of Daniel, the moment of revelation, shortly before Christ’s second Coming, is traditional.
The more general notion of “apocalypticism” refers to divine revelations generally, and not specifically during the Last Days. In this way it was used not only in the Rosicrucian manifestos, but also by early Paracelsians. The Paracelsian physician Michael Toxites claimed, in the preface to his edition of Paracelsus’ Philosophia Sagax, or Great Astronomy (1571), that
On the revelation of God’s secrets in this time, see also: cp, vol. 1, nr. 6,121-122; cp, vol. 1, nr. 7,163-165. Bodenstein was not solely optimistic about ancient divine wisdom, and just like the manifestos he recognised the important scientific contributions that had occured since ancient times.
59 Paracelsus, Liber de nymphis, i, 14; 149: “lezt is die zeit, das offenbar sol werden [...]”; idem,
Prologus in vitam Beatam, ii, Suppl.; 3: “also kombt das an tag, das gott an tag haben will. Dan ietz ist die zeit, und der sommer nahent herzu.” For an English translation of the Liber de nymphis, see: Paracelsus, Four Treatises, 223-254.
man is created for that purpose, that in flesh and blood he is an appropriate instrument of the natural light, through which God reveals all secrets of the heavens, the elements, and all of nature in all sorts of arts and wisdom, so that the invisible will become visible, which will not occur without human beings.60
Inspired by the light of nature, human beings can study and comprehend the natural world and all treasures hidden within it, so that all heavenly and natural secrets will be revealed not by Christ but by human agency in accordance with God’s plan. For Toxites, the renovation of the arts would not just free the world of age-old authorities, but was specifically set in motion by God to finally bring to light the secrets of His creation.
Bodenstein was another Paracelsian author who believed that secret wisdom will be revealed with the coming of the new age. He maintained that nothing will remain hidden, invoking a proverbial analogy that would surely have appealed to the Rosicrucians: “[t]he time brings forth roses.”61 As a Paracelsian physician, he believed that the new time would coincide specifically with the revelation of a “heavenly medicine.” This medicine was a gift from God against sinful activities and for the conversion of non-Christians, specifically Jews, Tartars, and Turks.62 Bodenstein argued, in line with the philosophia perennis, that “the restoration of medicine occurs in our times.”63 The perfect medicine, he
60 Toxites, preface to Astronomia Magna, Avv: “So ist nun zu wissen/ dafi der Mensch darumb
erschaffen/ dafi er in Fleisch und Blut were ein geschickts Instrument des naturlichen Liechts/ dardurch Gott alle heimligkeiten offenbar machte des gestirns/ des Element/ und der ganzen Natur in allerley Kunsten/ und Weifiheiten/ damit das unsichtbar sichtbar wurde/ welches ohn den Menschen nicht beschehen were.”
61 Bodenstein, cp, vol. 1, nr. 7, 154. “Nihil enim teste spiritu sancto adeo reconditum est, vt non reueletur, et nihil adeo occultum, quod non sciatur. Ideo nos trito prouerbio dicimus, Tempus proferre rosas.”
62 Ibid., 152. “Verum medicina est res sancta et Dei munus, Quod medius fidius extra Eccle- siam apud Turcas, validos osores Christi, Iudaeos perfidos, Tartaros, aliosque veri numinis irrisores non magis quaerendum, quam in Ecclesia est, propter quam aeterna medicina descendit ex coelo, eamque curauit.” Cf. ibid.. “Cogitemus omnes morbos omnemque mortem esse peccati poenam, quam nemo potest mitigare, longe minus totam auertere, nisi fuerit instructus excellenti aliqua re a Deo tradita: Quemadmodum enim Christus verus Dei filius nos redemit ab aeternis morbis, sic oportet medicum, corporis morbos arcere et curare, quousque tempus dissolutionis veniat, quod certe non fieri potest absque coelesti medicina, quam Deus firmam, certam et efficacem donat suis contra peccati oper- ationes, quo agnoscamus per eam longe diuiniorem medicinam, eique respondeat nostra.”
63 Ibid., 154: “Quapropter eximie vir, non est mirum, si medicinae fiat restauratio hisce nos- tris temporibus, quibus Deus sempiterna lux mira reuelat. Quia ipsi displicent hominis terreni figmenta, sua autem bona, quae sunt certa ac sancta, amat et manifestari cupit.”
claimed, was bestowed by God on the first human beings; it was perfectly practiced before Hippocrates; traces of it had been found by Hermes Trismegistus, and it had been disclosed through the alchemical Emerald Tablet. It had afterwards been lost—but humans were now once again granted access to such perfect medicine.64 Bodenstein gave a medicinal reading of this text: the Tablet states that all things come from one, and Bodenstein’s inference was that this perfect medicine came from one, that is, from God. This medicine and the perfect wisdom associated with it were granted by God through divine illumination before the end, as a restoration or instauration of what had once been lost. Similar beliefs are reflected in the Rosicrucian notion of a general reformation and the brethren’s belief that the new time would see original perfection and wisdom restored.
Apocalyptic Alchemy
In the manifestos, divine revelations at the dawn of the new age are associated with alchemy, an art practiced by Christian Rosencreutz that might be deployed to its full potential in a bid to transform the world.65 Usually, alchemy was seen as a means to purify and perfect nature, whether in order to find the philosophers’ stone or in the form of chrysopoeia, the art of transmuting metals into gold. The latter as a legitimate reason for the practice of alchemy was especially rejected by the authors of the Rosicrucian manifestos:
Concerning the godless and accursed making of gold in our times especially, it has gotten so out of hand, that it has induced first of all many wayward gallows-bound sycophants to practice great mischief under its name, and to abuse the curiosity and credulity of many [...], as if the alteration of metals were the highest apex and summa in philosophy [.].64 65 66
64 Ibid., 151: “Eodem sane modo medicina verum Dei munus saepius mutationes sensit: Quia mundi iehova primis hominibus, qui naturaliter vixerunt, maximam naturae cog- nitionem cum longa vita est largitus, Caeterum peccato nimium paulatim crescente, usque adeo ignorantia successit scientiae, tenebrae luci, vt Dominus non solum homines morbis affligeret [.]. Hermes quidem dicitur postea duas lapideas tabulas reperisse, in quibus veteris medicinae et totius naturalis scientiae vestigia restabant, sed ars vera, nec illic erat inscripta, nec homines eam a Noe alijsqui recte didicerunt”; ibid.: “[...] Ex hisce liquet medicinam ante Hyppocratem fuisse, et syncerius tractatam, quam vulgus medicorum ipsius aetate declararit.”
65 Fama, 102.
66 Ibid., 124-125: “Was aber sonderlich zu unser zeit, das gottlofi und verfluchte Goldmachen belangt, so sehr uberhand genommen, dafi zuforderst vielen verlauffenen henckermassi- gen Leckern, grosse Buberey hierunter zutreiben, und vieler furwiz und Credulitet sich
The Rosicrucians understood alchemy to be a part of philosophy, but trans- mutational alchemy, that is, alchemy used for the amelioration of base metals (e.g., lead, tin, copper, iron) into noble metals (silver and gold) was not among their foremost studies. The manifestos claimed that many books and pictures had been published “in the name of Chymia” which were “an offence to the glory of God.”67 Alchemy was a divine art whose value was not to be diminished through the use of images or by using it to make gold. Most books published on the subject were false and filled with recipes of fake tinctures.68 In this context, the Confessio alluded to the Amphitheatrum of the alchemist and theosopher Heinrich Khunrath (1560-1605), a work on alchemy which the Rosicrucians seem to have reviled for its images and figures.69
With these views, the Rosicrucians implicitly rejected some of the practices of Paracelsus and his followers.70 Paracelsus, as an alchemical physician, had of course used alchemy primarily for medical purposes, but he had not always distanced himself from transmutational alchemy and chrysopoeia. In his Book on Renovation and Restoration, he discussed the restoration and renovation of metals, minerals, and the human body.71 His On Minerals describes the use of alchemy for the transmutation of metals and supports that practice.72 Alchemists and physicians, in his view, had the possibility to transform and purify elements and metals (transmutational alchemy) as well as human bodies (medical alchemy), involving sometimes the same minerals, such as antimony.73 Nevertheless, discussions of transmutational alchemy are rare within his writings,
mifizubrauchen anleytung geben [...] als ob die mutatio metallorum der hochste apex und fastigium in der Philosophia were [...].”
67 Ibid., 126: “Wir bezeugen auch, dafi unter den Chymischen Nahmen sein Bucher und Figu-
ren aufikommen, in Contumeliam gloriae Dei.”
68 Confessio, 60-61; Confessio (Gdansk), 79.
69 Confessio, 60-61: “In fine vero confessionis nostrae illud serio inculcamus, abjiciendos
esse, si non omnes, plerosque tamen pseudochymicorum nequam l bellos [sic]; quibus vel SS. Triade ad futilia abuti lusus: vel monstrosis figuris atque aenigmatibus homines decipere jocus: vel credulorum curiositas lucrum est: qualis aetas nostra plurimos produxit: unum ex ijs praecipuum Amphitheatralem histrionem, hominem ad impon- endum satis ingeniosum”; cf.: Confessio (Gdansk), 79. On Khunrath, see: Forshaw, “’Paradoxes, Absurdities, and Madness’.”
70 On Paracelsus and transmutation, see the articles included in the special issue of Ambix, vol. 67 (2020), Paracelsus, Forgeries and Transmutation, edited by Didier Kahn and Hiro Hirai.
71 Paracelsus, Liber de renovatione et restauratione, i, 3; 203-221.
72 Paracelsus, De mineralibus, i, 3; 32. See also: idem, De transmutationibus metallorum, i, 3;
69-88.
73 Two examples in this regard are: Paracelsus, Volumen Paramirum, i, 1; 165-239; and idem, Opus Paramirum, i, 9; 39-230.
and more often than not he distanced himself from it, arguing instead for the benefits of alchemy for the restoration of the human body and the pursuit of longevity.
To muddy the waters even more concerning Paracelsus’ attitude towards chrysopoeia, some spurious works published under his name dealt approvingly with the transmutation of metals. The Alchemical Treasure, On the Nature of Things, and the Book of Vexations, for example, all dealt with and promoted transmutation.74 The author of the equally spurious On the Tincture of the Natural Philosophers described two types of what he called “spagyric mystery,” namely the renovation of the body and the transmutation of metals.75 All of these works were taken as genuine by Huser, and some of them had been published by Bodenstein, Toxites, and Dorn.76 These Paracelsians, too, practiced alchemy and wrote about the transmutation of metals.77 Dorn, Von Suchten, and Leonard Thurneysser (1531-ca. 1595), who were involved in the dissemination of Paracelsus’ works, worked not only on Paracelsian medicine but also on transmutational alchemy.78 According to Sperber, finally, the philosophers’ stone could be used both for the advantage of medicine as well as for the transmutation of metals.79 All Paracelsians, however, preferred chymiatria
74 Pseudo-Paracelsus, De natura rerum, i, 11; 309-403; idem, Thesaurus (Thesaurorumy Alchemistarum, i, 14; 401-404; idem, Coelum philosophorum sive liber vexationum, i, 14; 405-420. Cf. Telle, “’Vom Stein der Weisen’.”
75 Paracelsus, De tinctura physicorum, i, 14; 391-399, esp. p. 397.
76 On this, see: Sudhoff, Bibliographia Paracelsica: for Manuale de lapide philosophico medi- cinali, 235, 268, 394; for Liber vexationum, 257, 393; for Thesaurus Alchimistarum, 257, 268, 343, 393; for De natura rerum, 345, 392. Other works include: De vita longa: ibid., 392; De tinctura physicorum: ibid., 189-190, 235, 268, 392, and Sudhoff, Sdmtliche Werke, i, 14; xii- xvi.
77 On Paracelsianism and alchemy, see: Morys, “Leonhard Thurneissers De transmutatione veneris in solem”; Telle, “’vom Stein der Weisen’”; Paulus, “Alchemie und Paracelsismus um 1600”; Kahn, “Les debuts de Gerard Dorn”; idem, Alchemie et Paracelsisme; idem, Lefixe et levolatil; Kuhlmann and Telle, Corpus Paracelsisticum, ii, 823-829; Newman and Principe, Alchemy Tried in the Fire, 50-56; Principe, The Secrets of Alchemy. See further: Moran, The Alchemical World of the German Court; Shackelford, A Philosophical Path for Paracelsian Medicine.
78 See, for example: Dorn, Clavis totius philosophiae chymisticae (1567); idem, Congeries paracelsicae chemiae de transmutationibus metallorum, 557-646; Von Suchten, De secretis antimonii; idem, Tractatus secundus de antimonio vulgari (1604); Thurneysser, De transmu- tatione veneris in solem. On the latter text, see: Morys, “Leonhard Thurneissers De trans- mutatione veneris in solem.” On Von Suchten: Newman and Principe, Alchemy Tried in the Fire, 50-56.
79 Sperber, Von den dreyen seculis, 206-209: “Auch wie man den verum lapidem Philo- sophorum so woll zur transmutation der Metallen/ als auch zur Arzteney warhafftig und bestandig machen moge.”
(alchemical medicine) over chrysopoeia. By the time the manifestos were drafted, Paracelsus could therefore also have been seen as an alchemist involved with transmutation, with the transmutational art being promoted not only by the master himself, but also by some of his followers and imitators. But the Paracelsian texts explicitly concerned with chrysopoeia had not left their mark on the Rosicrucian manifestos.
The Rosicrucian authors made transmutational alchemy subordinate not to medical alchemy, but to what may be called “apocalyptic alchemy,” that is, to a type of alchemy used for the disclosure and revelation of secrets.80 Trans- mutational alchemy was not entirely dismissed, but was viewed rather as a parergon, a secondary activity. According to the Fama, many alchemists falsely maintained that the making of gold should please God, but:
We hereby declare publicly that this is false, and that for the true philosophers it is a trifle and only a secondary activity. Together with our beloved Father C.R.C. we say: ’pfuh, gold is just gold.’ So he to whom all of nature has been opened, does not rejoice in that he can make gold, or as Christ says, that the devils obey him, but that he sees heaven to be open, and the angels of God ascending and descending, and his name written in the Book of Life.81
While the transmutation of metals was not to be abandoned altogether, neither was it promoted, and emphasis was put, instead, on the study of nature and heaven, and the revelation of natural and divine secrets on the eve of a new age through alchemy. For the Rosicrucians, alchemy should not be practiced for the mundane benefits it might provide; its purifying capacities were used for apocalyptic purposes. As such, alchemy had theosophical characteristics, as it was,
80 On apocalyptic alchemy in a very different, notably female, alchemist, see: Nummedal, Anna Zieglerin, 135-136. This terminology is also employed by DeVun and applied to the works of Rupescissa and Arnald of Villanova: DeVun, Prophecy, Alchemy and the End of Time, 57 ff.; and the notion is studied and termed “prophetic alchemy” or “concrete prophecy” in: Crisciani, “Opus and Sermo,” 4. See also: Murase, “Paracelsismus und Chili- asmus.”
81 Fama, 125-126: “So bezugen wir Hermit offentlich dafi solches falsch und es mit den wahren Philosophis ein geringes und nur ein parergon ist [...]. Und sagen mit unserm lieben Vatter C.R.C. Pfuh aurum, nisi quantum aurum, dann welchem die gantze Natur offen, der frewt sich nicht das er gold machen kan, oder wie Christus sagt, ihme die Teufel gehorsam seyen, sondern dafi er siehet den Himmel offen, und die Engel Gottes auff und absteigen, und sein Nahmen angeschrieben im Buch des Lebens.”
ideally, a means to revealing natural and divine miracles and secrets—which is why apocalyptic alchemy played a singular role in the Rosicrucian general reformation.82
Attributing to alchemy these apocalyptic properties was not at odds with the literature of the time. The transformation of nature was sometimes related to salvation through Christ and to an understanding of soteriology, wherein the philosophers’ stone was sometimes identified with Christ.83 Alchemy was seen as a means to reveal what was hidden and to prophesy upon what was still unknown. In the same vein, the authors of the manifestos stated that through their alchemical practices they could push their observations beyond the borders of the material world and see the movements of God’s angels in imitation of Jacob’s Ladder from Genesis,84 and they could read and understand the names written on the Book of Life, that is, the names of those who will be saved during the Last Judgement.85 Through their art, the Rosicrucians had singular access to secret and sacred matters. Thus the Confessio reads that this art is “the highest medicine of the world,” it is “a gift from God,” and it “opens [medicine] and innumerable other marvels”—even if it would be preferable to achieve these things through philosophy.86 By means of apocalyptic alchemy, alchemists could obtain insights into the secrets hidden in nature and in the heavens.
82 Confessio, 58-59.
83 Crisciani, “Opus and Sermo,” 21-22; Nummedal, Anna Zieglerin, 134. On the philosophers’ stone, see: Principe, The Aspiring Adept, 76-80; idem, The secrets of Alchemy; Newman and Principe, Alchemy Tried in the Fire; Nummedal, Alchemy and Authority, 96-118. For Paracelsus and several Paracelsians on the philosophers’ stone, see: Paracelsus, Archi- doxa, cited in: Khulmann and Telle, cp, vol. 1,131; Bodenstein, cp, vol. 1, nr. 6,114; pseudoParacelsus, Apocalypsis Hermetis, edited by Zetzner (1603), part 2, 668-671; pseudo-Para- celsus, De tinctura physicorum, i, 14; 391-399; Sperber, Von den dreyen seculis, 206-209. The philosophers’ stone, in these writings, does not seem to have been understood as Christ, which was however not an uncommon identification at the time; see, for example: Jung, Psychologie und Alchemie, “Die Lapis-Christus-Parallele,” 395-491.
84 Genesis 28:12: “And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it.”
85 Cf. Book of Revelation 20. The Formula of Concord, however, reads: “Verbum autem Dei deducit nos ad Christum, is est liber ille vitae”: Lietzman (ed.), “Konkordienformel,” in Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelischen-lutherischen Kirche (1952), 817. This is repeated on ibid., 1068.
86 Confessio, 58-59: “Quae porro cum Impostorum detestatione contra metallorum Trans- formationem, et supremam Mundi medicinam a nobis dicta sunt, ea sic volumus intelligi, Nullo modo extenuari a nobis tam insigne Dei donum: sed cum non perpetuo Naturae cognitionem secum afferat, haec vero & illam & infinita alia Naturae miracula edoceat, aequum est, potiorem a nobis philosophiae cognitionis rationem haberi [...].”
Christian Rosencreutz, Elias, and Paracelsus
With respect to the disclosure of secrets, a striking similarity can be observed between the protagonist of the Rosicrucian manifestos, Christian Rosencreutz, Paracelsus, and the hero of early modern Paracelsian alchemists and physicians, Elias Artista.87 Christian Rosencreutz was described as someone who had begun his brotherhood in order to pass on the secrets he had learned elsewhere. When his vault was rediscovered, notably at a time when all hidden things were said to come to light, the treasures buried together with Christian Rosencreutz were also opened.88
For several early Paracelsians, the use of apocalyptic alchemy upon the arrival of the new age became associated with a newly invented apocalyptic figure, Elias Artista. This figure was to disclose all divine mysteries on the eve of the millennium or else of a new period defined otherwise.89 This “Elijah the Artist” was heralded especially by physicians, chemists, and alchemists, and their expectations were often associated with a sense of scientific or cognitive progress.
The legendary Elias Artista was a derivative of the prophet Elijah who, in the Jewish and Christian traditions, was thought to return again and reveal all secrets. Elijah had returned to the kingdom of God without having died (2 Kings 2:1-18). Since he had not died, he was believed not to be resurrected after the Last Judgement. As a consequence, Elijah became an eschatological figure who was expected to return before the end of time to reveal all wisdom which he had learned while residing with God.90 This notion of Elijah as the harbinger of wisdom had its origin in the Jewish rabbinic tradition, where rabbis discussed the true meaning of Scripture and waited for Elijah to reveal the true answers. Paracelsus had also referred to the coming of Elijah, albeit sporadically, but he never added the title “Artista.” It therefore seems that he referred to the traditional eschatological figure, although he did associate Elijah particularly
87 On Elias Artista, see: Pagel, “The Paracelsian Elias Artista and the Alchemical Tradition”; Breger, “Elias Artista”; Gilly, “Johann Arndt und die ’dritte Reformation’ ”; idem, “Der ’Lowe von Mitternacht’.”
88 Fama, 116-117. On the vault, see below, section 2.4.
89 For several Paracelsians and their references to Elias Artista, see: Murase, “Paracelsismus und Chiliasmus.”
90 Breger, “Elias Artista,” 50-53. Pagel identifies this messianic figure with a medieval Francis
can monk named Helias, and claims that the Elias Artista figure had medieval roots. This thesis seems farfetched, and Pagel provides no evidence of any medieval author referring to “Elias Artista,” see: Pagel, “The Paracelsian Elias Artista,” 9-10. On criticism of Pagel’s suggestion, see also: Gilly, “Johann Arndt,” 63-64.
with alchemy.91 Julius Sperber, who likewise never referred to an Elias Artista, also announced the imminent arrival of Elijah. According to him, the traditional eschatological figure was to return at the beginning of the third earthly age. While Moses had announced the first age, and Christ the second, Sperber explained, “the prophet Elijah, who will return then, will initiate the third and last age.”92
Other Paracelsians believed that it was Elias Artista who would reveal all secrets and, following Paracelsus’ interpretation of the prophet Elijah, would do so primarily through alchemy. Pseudo-Paracelsus, in On the Tincture of the Natural Philosophers, mentioned the apocalyptic Elias Artista as the one “who will disclose the concealed.”93 After its first publication in 1570 this text circulated widely.94 It was in the possession of Toxites and Von Suchten, both of whom took it to be a genuine work. Von Suchten predicted that “the contents of [the books of the Magi about alchemy] will remain hidden, until Elias Artista comes, and explains it to us.”95 Dorn also knew On the Tincture, which he translated into Latin in 1570.96 In 1581, he published a Collection of Paracelsian Chemical Texts on the Transmutation of Metals, which was printed again in 1602 in the first of the six volumes of the Theatrum Chemicum (Chemical Theatre)
91 Paracelsus, Von den naturlichen Dingen, i, 2; 163: “nun aber eisen in kupfer zu machen,
ist nicht so vil, als eisen in golt zu machen. darumb das weniger letzt got offenbar werden, das merer ist noch verborgen, bis auf die zeit der kunst Helias, so er komen wird.”
92 Sperber, Von den dreyen seculis, 19: “Die dritte und letzte zeit aber wird anfahen der Prophet Elias/ welcher alsdan wiederkommen wird.”
93 Pseudo-Paracelsus, De tinctura physicorum, i, 14; 396: “[...] dan diser arcanorum, welche die transformations geben, sind noch mer, wiewol wenigen bekant. und ob sie schon einem von got eroffnet werden, so bricht doch der rum der kunst nit also von stund an herfur. Sonder der almechtig gibt im auch den verstant gleich mit, die selbigen andern zu verhalten bis auf die zukunft Heliae artistae, da das verborgen wird offenbar wer- den.”
94 Sudhoff, Samtliche Werke, i, 14; xii-xvi. Von Suchten, however, thought that the present
times were the last ones: Von Suchten, cp, vol. 1, nr. 33, 573-574.
95 Von Suchten, Mysteria gemina antimonii, 92: “Also haben die Magi viel Bucher davon [transmutation] geschrieben/ und ein jeder nach seines Herzen Luft dasselbig tractirt/ wir haben der Bucher viel/ sind gemein worden. Aber ihr Innhalt bleibet verbogen/ so lang bifi Helias Artista kommt/ und uns dieselbigen auslegt.” For the Magi in Paracelsus, compare: Paracelsus, Aus der Philosophia super Esaiam, i, 12; 507; idem, Astronomia Magna, i, 12; 27, 83-85, 125, 278, 370; Webster, Paracelsus, 67n42-43. Paracelsus seems to turn from the Persian and Egyptian magi to the Magi of the Orient, who witnessed Christ’s birth in Bethlehem.
96 Dorn, Archidoxorum Aureoli Ph. Theophrasti Paracelsi de secretis naturae mysteriis libri decem, 253-170.
published by Lazarus Zetzner (1551-1616), who was later also to publish the Chemical Wedding.97 In the Collection, Dorn discussed a tincture of the philosophers, and copied and translated the entire passage on Elias Artista from On the Tincture.98 According to him, until Elias’ arrival all (alchemical) secrets will remain hidden.99
The Paracelsian Toxites, in a 1574 letter to Count Palatine Philip Ludwig of Neuburg (1547-1614), claimed that Elias Artista will reveal all mysteries upon the dawning of the new time: “[...] the time has come, that God will reveal everything. Then God the Lord will let us be handed the books, and He wants us to commit to them, and to search [in them], until He sends us Elias Artista, who will explain everything [.].”100
In a letter of 1571 to Archduke Ferdinand ii (1529-1595), Bodenstein invested a new meaning into the figure of Elias Artista by identifying him with Paracelsus, who had revealed all secrets, especially with respect to “studies in medical, metallical, yes, all philosophical things.” Some had tried to obscure his work, but his books were “mighty” and teach “how all external and internal pains and diseases can be stilled and cured.”101 For Bodenstein, it was Paracelsus who had at last brought to light all that was hidden and that would serve as the basis for the new golden time.
97 Idem, Congeries Paracelsicae Chemiae (1581), reprinted in: Theatrum Chemicum (1602), 557-646.
98 Dorn, Congeries Paracelsicae Chemiae, 610: “Arcana plura transmutationes exhibentia reperiuntur, et si paucis cognita, quae licet alicui manifestentur a Domino Deo, non propterea statim erumpit rumor cum arte, sed omnipotens cum ipsis dat pariter intellectum haec & alia celandi usque in aduentum Heliae Artistae, quo tempore nihil tam occultum quod non reuelabitur.”
99 Ibid., 626. Other passages are also used by Dorn, compare ibid., 608-609, and PseudoParacelsus, De tinctura physicorum, i, 4; 395-397.
100 Toxites, cp, vol. 2, nr. 52, 281: “[.] das die zeit vorhanden/ da es alles offenbar werden sol. Dann lafit vns Got der Herr die Bucher zuhanden kummen/ so will er auch das wir vns darinn vben/ vnnd suchen/ bifi er vns den Eliam artistam gar zuschicket/ der alles wirt erklaren [...].”
101 Bodenstein, cp, vol. 1, nr. 23, 460: “Dvrchleuchtigster/ hochgeborner Furst gnedigster Herr/ dieweil Aureoli Paracelsi/ Helie artiste lucubrationes in re medica/ metallica/ ja aller philosophia/ wie ers in seinem irdischen leben geweissaget/ fein ein andern nach offenbaret werden/ wol aber etwann von wenigern in solchen sachen/ verstandigern/ die dann vonn wegen des hartlefilichen schreibens Theophrasti nicht allein den buchstaben/ sonders den rechten innhalt verduncklen vnnd obscurieren thun/ vnnd aber ann mich gereicht/ diese gegenwirtigen libri metamorphoseon/ so also grofimechtig im werck war- lich seind/ das ich inn der welt meine tag keine bucher gelesen (ausserthalb Gottlicher) so diesen vergliechen konnen werden/ Weil jhr begriff lehrnet/ alle eusserliche vvnd inner- liche schmertzen vnd kranckheit zu stillen/zu medieren [.].”
This apocalyptic task of Paracelsus was also mentioned in the manifestos. When in the Fama the brethren referred to the Fiery Trigon, the new cycle of conjunctions taking place in the three fire signs (Aries, Leo, and Sagittarius), they also made reference to some heroes exemplary of the new time it announced, among whom was Paracelsus.102 Paracelsus was thus explicitly mentioned as one of the men who had revealed and announced imminent changes, and was thereby seen to have played a role similar to that of the Elias Artista of the Paracelsians as well as to that of Christian Rosencreutz.
2.3 Alchemy and Medicine
The famous physician Paracelsus and the legendary figure Christian Rosen- creutz share further profound resemblances, as uncovered by further examination of the alchemical and medical influence of Paracelsus on the manifestos. Like the interpretations of Elias Artista, both Paracelsus and Christian Rosencreutz originated from German-speaking regions, and both men were acquainted with medicine. Paracelsus is primarily known as a physician, but the protagonist of the Rosicrucian manifestos was also acquainted with the healing arts, which he had practiced while in Damascus among the Turks and which he used to prevent diseases in other people.103 Together with the first brethren of the fraternity, he agreed that the only profession they would practice was medicine. “Most of the brethren,” according to the Fama, “were known and praised among very old people due to their medicine.”104 These brethren seem to have been able to prolong life, using their medicine for rejuvenation.
Both Paracelsus and Christian Rosencreutz had also travelled widely. Throughout his career, Paracelsus had travelled through Europe as a surgeon and physician. He claimed to have worked as a military surgeon in six different
102 Fama, 100-101. See further below, section 2.4.
103 Fama, 94: “[Fr. C.R.] zohe auff Damascum zu/ willens/ von dannen Jerusalem zubesuchen/ als er aber wegen Leibes beschwerlichkeit alldar verharren/ und wegen des Artzneyens (dessen er nicht ohnbericht war) der Turcken Gunst erhielte [...]”; ibid., 118-119.
104 Ibid., 120: “Sein also schon damahln Pr. O. und Pr. D. verschieden gewesen, wo ist nun ihr Begrabnufi zufinden? Uns zweiffelt aber gar nicht, es werde der alt Bruder senior, als etwas besonders zur Erden gelegt, oder veilleicht auch verborgen worden sein: Wihr verhoffen auch, es sol difi unser Exempel andere erwecken, fleissiger ihre Nahmen, die wir darum- ben eroffnet, nachzufragen, und dero Begrabnufi nach zusuchen, dann der mehrertheil wegen der Medicin noch unter uhralten Leuten bekandt und geruhmet werden [.].” Cf. ibid., 96, 106.
countries, and to have medical experience from at least twelve.105 Especially after he was forced out of Basel, Paracelsus wandered from place to place, practicing his medicine and preaching his sermons. Rosencreutz, in turn, travelled widely through the Arab world, and studied subjects that were not taught in European regions. He afterwards promoted them in European lands, and— perhaps in parallel with Paracelsus’ medical reformation—they formed the basis of his project of general reformation which he later initiated in Ger- many.106
But the likeness between the two men extends beyond such bibliographical similarities. The knowledge Rosencreutz acquired in Damcar and Fez became the foundation for his fraternity. Paracelsus, too, shares similarities with Arab sources. Like other alchemists, he drew on the Mercury-Sulphur dichotomy of medieval Islamic alchemy, although he adapted it to his own medical purposes within his own reform programme. He amended this dichotomy by adding salt so as to form the tria prima of Mercury (with liquid or fluid characteristics), Sulphur (oily or fiery), and Salt (alkaline or solid).107 Salt was also discussed in Arab texts, but there and in texts of the European Middle Ages it was not added to the dichotomy.108 For example, the famous but spurious Arab Book on Alums and Salts was written in the name of Muhammad ibn Zakaryya al-Razi (ca. 853925). This text deals with several types of salt, and had acquired enormous popularity during the Middle Ages and in the early modern period.109 Al-Razi was criticised by Paracelsus on numerous occasions, as was Avicenna, for example in relation to the Mercury-Sulphur dichotomy.110
Paracelsus further understood his tria prima first and foremost as principles rather than elements or minerals, and he believed that every thing and every body consisted of these principles in different combinations. Against the ancient philosophers and their followers, he wrote:
105 On his travels, see: Paracelsus, Spital Buch, i, 7; 374-375; Paracelsus, Grosse Wundarznei, i, 10; 19-20. For doubts on Paracelsus’ journeys, see: Crone, Paracelsus: The Man Who Defied Medicine, 38-40.
106 Fama, 94-98, 118.
107 On the diverse meanings that Paracelsus attributed to these three principles, see: Webster, Paracelsus, 132-139.
108 On the medieval Sulphur-Mercury dichotomy, see: Principe, The Secrets of Alchemy, 35-37, 56-58.
109 Al-Razi, Liber de aluminibus et salibus, discussed in: Newman and Principe, Alchemy Tried in the Fire, 39-40.
110 See, for example: Paracelsus, Paragranum, i, 8; 137-138, 147-149; idem, Paragranum, in Weeks, Paracelsus: Essential Writings, 74, 232; idem, Von der Franzosischen Krankheit, i, 7; 172-173. Paracelsus evidently also criticised Greek and Latin scholars in this respect.
Now notice in this: they say after the ancient philosophical teaching that from mercury and sulphur all metals grow, and that similarly no stone grows from clean soil. Now, what lies! What should be the cause for which the matter of the metals should be solely sulphur and mercury, while the metals and all mineral things consist of three things and not of two?111
The doctrine of the tria prima was also relevant to Paracelsus’ medicine, which was based on alchemically prepared cures. According to Paracelsus, every individual body has in it a minor alchemist, a so-called “archeus,” seated in the stomach with several sub-archei in every organ, which were responsible for separating the pure from the impure. Medicine, he thought, should work similarly, and should separate the pure from the impure when the archeus cannot effect this separation on its own. In analogy with the alchemical worker within humans, also physicians should proceed alchemically. When bad influences enter the body (invasion and contagion), and the archeus cannot work properly so that a person becomes sick, a physician should apply a chemically prepared cure which has to correspond to the disease in order to cure the body.112 Because medicines could also be extracted from poisonous substances, which was a radical claim at the time, medicines had to be chemically prepared and purified and then applied in a most minimal dosage as remedies to the ill person. The famous term spagyria is applicable here, which originates from the Greek words span (to draw out) and ageirein (to bring together), and was used to designate this specific Paracelsian type of medicine.113 Paracelsus, indeed, advocated the separation and recombination of medicines-to-be, such as herbs and minerals. He was very clear about the use of alchemy for medicines: “[...] because in the arcana [here: ’secret’ or ’hidden’ medicines] lies the determining factor, the foundation must be alchemy, through which the arcana can be prepared and made.”114 And it is “not, as they say, that alchemy
111 Paracelsus, Paragranum, i, 8; 147-148: “nun merken in dem: sie sagen nach der alten philo-
sophischen ler, aus mercurio und sulphure wachsen alle metall, item vom reinen erdrich wechst kein stein. Nun secht was lugen! Dan ursach, wer ist der, der do die materia der metallen allein sulphur und argentum vivum [mercury] sint zu sein, dieweil der metall und alle mineralischen dinge in drei dingen standen und nit in zweien?”
112 On this, see especially: Paracelsus, Opus Paramirum, i, 9; 39-230; idem, De causis mor- borum invisibilium, i, 9; 251-350; see also: Schott, “’Invisible diseases’.”
113 Principe, The Secrets of Alchemy, 129. For new interpretations of spagyria, see: Newman, Atoms and Alchemy, 68-69.
114 Paracelsus, Paragranum, i, 8; 186: “darumb so in den arcanis derbeschlufigrunt ligt, so mufi
hie der grunt alchimia sein, durch welche die arcana bereit und gemacht werden.”
makes gold, makes silver; here the purpose is to make arcana and to direct them against the diseases.”115
Paracelsus did not invent alchemical medicine. It had been practiced by medieval alchemists such as Rupescissa, Roger Bacon, and Arnald of Villanova, to whom Paracelsus also referred, as well as by pseudo-Ramon Lull, and later it had attracted physicians in the fifteenth century.116 Roger Bacon, for example, had argued that the corruption of the body as a result of the Fall could be resolved through alchemical cures.117 Paracelsus reshaped and popularised this medieval application of alchemy to medicine, as a result of which it became increasingly popular amongst those who wished to distance themselves from traditional medicine. It is well known that Paracelsian spagyric medicine, mostly practiced and taught outside of universities, became particularly popular after 1570 for its chemically prepared cures. Early Paracelsians, especially those responsible for the dissemination of Paracelsus’ medical works, remembered Paracelsus primarily as an iatrochemist, a chemical physician. They themselves, too, practiced, described, and prescribed (the study of) chymiatria.118
115 Ibid., 185: “nicht als sie sagen, alchimia mache gold, mache silber; hie ist das furnemen mach arcana und richte dieselbigen gegen den krankheiten.”
116 Lull himself probably never wrote alchemical texts, but such texts were published under his name. See further: Rupescissa, Liber de consideratione quintae essentiae omnium rerum deutsch; Benzenhofer, Johannes’ de Rupescissa liber de consideration quintae essentiae omnium rerum deutsch; Pereira, The Alchemical Corpus Attributed to Raymond Lull; idem, “Medicina in the Alchemical Writings attributed to Raimond Lull”; Newman, “An overview of Roger Bacon’s Alchemy”; Principe, The Secrets of Alchemy, 69-73; Devun, Prophecy, Alchemy and the End of Time; see also: Newman and Principe, “Alchemy vs. Chemistry^; Moreau, “Elements, atomes, et physiologie,” 117-120. On Paracelsus and medicine, see also the chapters included in: Dopsch, Goldammer, and Kramml (eds.), Paracelsus (1493-1541) Keines andernKnecht.
117 DeVun, Prophecy, Alchemy and the End of Time, 83-84.
118 Examples are Adam von Bodenstein, Michael Toxites, Gerhard Dorn, Alexander Von Suchten, Oswald Croll, Samuel Eisenmenger, Joachim Tancke, Pseudo-Paracelsus. Cf. Eisenmenger (Siderocrates), De methodo iatromathematicae conjunctionis qua astrologiae fundamenta certissima indicantur; Dorn, Artificii chymistici physici (1569); Von Suchten, Tractatus secundus de antimonio vulgari (1604); Croll, Basilica Chymica; the letters by Bodenstein, Toxites, Dorn, Von Suchten, Penot and others reproduced in: Kuhlmann and Telle, Corpus Paracelsisticum, vols. 1-3. Several alchemical Paracelsian tracts were also included in the six volumes of Theatrum chemicum, published by Lazarus Zetzner in the seventeenth century. The Theatrum chemicum included works by the Paracelsians Thomas Muffett, Dorn, and Penot. The spurious Manual on the Medical Philosophical Stone also describes the use of alchemy for the benefit of medicine: Manuale de lapide philosophico medicinali, i, 14; 421-432. See further: Hannaway, The Chemists and the Word; Kuhlmann,
So novel and antithetical were Paracelsus’ ideas that he was soon dubbed the “Luther of medicine,” especially and pejoratively by his opponents.119 Paracelsus emphatically rejected this epithet and argued: “With what mockery have you made me a caricature, calling me the Luther of physicians, with the explanation that I am a heresiarch [arch-heretic]? I am Theophrastus and I am more than he with whom you compare me. I am myself and I am the king of the phycisians.”120 Despite his objections to this comparison, his medicine was indeed considered heretical to established medical scholars.
Like Paracelsus, the Rosicrucians were also pursuing a reform of medicine, and one which would involve the use of alchemy. It should be remembered that, in their view, “[p]hilosophy includes much of theology and medicine,” and that the reform of one implied the reform of the others.121 Although the transformation of medicine was not explicitly addressed in the manifestos, passages about Rosencreutz and the brethren as physicians, like those examples provided above, indicated that the reform of medicine was one of their most abiding concerns. The brethren, after all, understood themselves first and foremost as physicians working outside of universities,122 and claimed that alchemy opens medicine and was “the highest medicine of the world.”123 By linking alchemy to medicine, with the first being used for the benefit of the latter, the Rosicrucians advocated the use of alchemically prepared cures which their hero Paracelsus had popularised.
This use of spagyria represented a break with tradition. Traditional medicine was based on the works of Hippocrates of Kos (46o-37obc), Galen of Pergamon (129-ca. 215) and Avicenna or Ibn Sina (980-1037). After the rediscovery of ancient texts in the eleventh century and their translations into Latin, Galen’s medical and anatomical works became the standard authority within medicine during the Middle Ages. They were used alongside Avicenna’s Canon of Medicine, a medical textbook also inspired by Galen’s writings, which was
“Oswald Crollius und seine Signaturenlehre”; Kahn, “Alchimie et Paracelsisme”; Debus, The Chemical Philosophy; Kuhlmann and Telle, “Einleitung,” in: Corpus Paracelsisticum, vol. 1.
119 Kuhlmann and Telle, Corpus Paracelsicum, vol. 2, 810.
120 Paracelsus, Paragranum, i, 8; 62-63: “mit was spot habt ir mich ausplasimirt, ich sei Lutherus medicorum, mit der auslegung ich sei haeresiarcha? Ich bin Theophrastus und mer als die, den ir mich vergleichent; ich bin derselbig und bin monarcha medicorum [...].” Cf. ibid., 43.
121 Confessio, 45: “[philosophia] theologiae ac medicinae plurimum [...] habeat.”
122 Although the Chemical Wedding is an overtly alchemical text, it does not express or relate to the general reformation of the other two manifestos, which is the central theme of this study.
123 Confessio, 58-59. Cf. above, n. 86.
used at universities upto the eighteenth century (and was presumably the book burned by Paracelsus in Basel). Galenic medicine, influenced by the humoural theory of Hippocrates, treated diseases by correcting a surplus or shortfall of the humours (blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile) that were thought to make up the human body. The humours, in turn, were related to the four temperaments and qualities.124 These four humours were also closely related to the four Empedoclean and Aristotelian elements (earth, water, air, and fire) and especially their qualities (each element had two of the qualities dry, wet, cold, and hot), by which also the Galenic humours were characterised. Traditional, Galenic medicine, based on the works of these authorities, remained dominant at universities in Europe in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, but came under increasing pressure, especially by Paracelsus and his followers because it was unable to cure diseases such as leprosy, syphilis, and epilepsy.125 Paracelsus, rejecting Galenic medicine and the humoural theory, viewed human beings as individuals with individual diseases (rather than with humoural imbalances), which were to be cured by corresponding alchemically prepared cures.126
In the eyes of Paracelsus, not only was the Mercury-Sulphur dichotomy to be replaced by a trichotomy, but the theory of the four humours was a mere invention, because human beings consisted of the tria prima, instead. In his foremost challenge to traditional medicine, his Buch Paragranum (the book that goes against the grain), he provocatively wrote:
Although this philosophy of Aristotle, Albert, etc. has been written down, who will however believe the liars, who do not speak from philosophy, that is, from the light of nature, but from fantasy? Just as they invented in medicine the four humours, [namely] black bile, phlegm, etc., so also in philosophy they made up the lie about mercury and sulphur.127
124 On Galen and Galenic medicine, see for example: Hankinson (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Galen; Tempkin, Galenism.
125 Cf. for example: Paracelsus, Von der Franzosischen Krankheit, i, 7; 67-181; Bodenstein, cp, vol. 1, nr. 23, 462.
126 In Paracelsus’ Astronomia Magna, one of the four pillars foundational to medicine is titled
“alchemy”; see: Paracelsus, Astronomia Magna, i, 12; 3-444.
127 Paracelsus, Paragranum, i, 8; 148-149: “Wiewol dise philosophei von Aristoteles, Alberto,
etc beschriben ist, wer wil aber glauben den lugern, die do nicht aus der philosophei reden, das ist aus dem liecht der natur, sonder aus der fantasei? gleich wie sie haben erdacht in der medicin 4 humores, choleram, phlegma, etc, also haben sie auch hie in der philosophei erdacht die lugen mit mercurio und sulphure.” On this lie, see above, n. 111. “Choleram” originates from the Greek word “chole,” meaning “bile.” Cholera, then, was thought to
The authors of the manifestos were obviously aware of the increasing rejection of Galenism by authors such as Paracelsus and his followers. While promoting the reform of medicine, the Rosicrucians included in their criticism of established learning specifically Galenic physicians, who feel that “one should stick to the old tunes and esteem the pope, Aristotle, Galen—indeed everything that has the appearance of a codex—more than the clear and manifest light; who [sc. Aristotle and Galen] if they were alive no doubt would happily correct their errors; but here man is too weak for such great works.”128 Contemporary Galenic physicians were seen as perpetuating Galen’s mistakes and were considered so vain that they cared more for their own reputations than for the truth. The Rosicrucian manifestos explicitly challenged and rejected the traditional medicine taught at universities, and endorsed a different type of medicine instead. No doubt this found its origin in the Paracelsian promotion of a new medicine at the expense of accepted authorities. Paracelsus and Christian Rosencreutz were understood to have been the heralds of this transformation.
According to the Fama, medicine was to be reformed, just like theology and law, and was also viewed as subordinate to philosophy. Unlike the other two disciplines, medicine was not sanctioned directly by the authority of the Church (unlike theology or canon law) or by the empire (unlike civil law), for which reason the Rosicrucian support of alchemically prepared cures and their criticism of Galenism was a direct offence neither to the Church nor to the empire. But the Rosicrucian reform of medicine and rejection of authorities was, of course, an offence to traditional university-taught and established physicians.
Because Galenism and Aristotelianism were so closely related, the rejection of the one implied the rejection of the other. In rejecting Galenism, both Paracelsus and Christian Rosencreutz were also dismissing the traditional Aristotelian natural philosophy as taught at universities, and seeking to replace it with their own philosophy. As has been mentioned in the previous chapter,
be bile coming out of the body. See also the second half of the passage: “[...] wie sich eins reimpt also auch das ander. sie zeigen vil auf den Albertum, Thomam, nit Albertus, Thomas, sonder sie, das ist ir, sollen darumb stehen. dan Albertus hat dise ler nit von h. Geist gehabt, sonder nur aus vergebner speculation. also auch Thomas und ander, Hermes und Archelaus. darumb so mufitu dich underrichten lassen aus der natur, deren Albertus, Thomas, Aristoteles, Avicenna, Actuarius etc kein verstand anderst dan speculiren, das ist wenen, gehabt haben.”
128 Fama, 93: “[Man] bleibe bey der alten Leyren [.] und mufi Bapst, Aristoteles, Galenus, ja was nur einem Codice gleich siehet, wieder das helle offenbahre Liecht gelten, die ohn zweiffel, so sie lebten, mit grossen Frewden sich corrigirten: hie aber ist man so grossen Werken zu schwach [.]”; see also above, section 1.3.
Rosencreutz formed his brotherhood in opposition to established teaching, and the authors of the manifestos were dismissive of Aristotle and his followers. The imperative to remove the pope as the Antichrist was mirrored by challenges to the authority of Galen and Aristotle, and the need for their legacies to be dismantled and replaced.
Aristotelian philosophy was the basis of the standard curriculum at universities. In the mid-twelfth century, Aristotle’s work had been translated into Latin. The commentaries and scholarship that thereafter accrued to his work meant that his logic, metaphysics, moral philosophy, and natural philosophy subsequently came to form the foundation of university education. It is in the rejection of this received wisdom that we encounter the essence of the Rosicrucian call for a reform of philosophy.129 In the manifestos, the brethren instead promoted their own ideas, constituting a reform of natural philosophy.
In this regard they were, once more, following in the footsteps of Paracelsus and his disciples-at-a-distance, who in numerous places and in no uncertian terms had expressed their distaste for traditional philosophy in general and Aristotelianism in particular. Admonishing traditional university philosophers who followed medieval Arabic, Greek, and Latin authors, Paracelsus had suggested:
[...] you must follow me with your Avicenna, Galen, Al-Razi, etc., it is not me who must follow you. But you me, you from Paris, Montpellier, Salerno, Vienna, Cologne, Wittenberg, and all of you in the crowd, and none should be excluded, not remain even in the most remote little spa, because I am the monarch [.]. How would it be for you cuckolds, that Theophrastus will be the prince of the monarchy? And you the heaters [of spas]? What do you think of it, that you will have to enter my kingdom of philosophy and shit on your Pliny and Aristotle, and piss on your Albert, Thomas, Scotus etc., and [you] will say: ’They could lie well and subtly, what great fools are we and our predecessors that they and we did not notice it’.130
129 On Aristotelianism in the Renaissance and the early modern period, see: Schmitt, Aristotle and the Renaissance. See also: Luthy, “What to Do with Seventeenth-Century Natural Philosophy.” Cf. Fama, 98-99.
130 Paracelsus, Paragranum, i, 8; 137-138: “[...] ir mussen mir nach mit euerem Avicenna, Galeno, Rasi etc. und ich nit euch nach; ir mir nach, ir von Paris, von Montperlier, von Salern, von Wien, von Coln, von Wittenberg und all ir in der summa, und keiner mufi aus- genomen sein, im hindersten badwinkel nicht bleiben, des bin ich monarcha (und ich fur die monarchei und gurt euch euer lenden). Wie wird es euch cornuten anstehn, das Theophrastus der monarchei wird der furst sein? und ir calefactores? wie dunket euch, so ir werden in mein philosophei mussen und auf eueren Plinium, Aristotelem scheifien, auf
This fierce rejection of established philosophical and medical thought and the promotion of Paracelsus’ own ideas was copied by early Paracelsians. Bodenstein, for example, claimed that true knowledge had been lost upon the entry to the philosophical stage of Aristotle, whom he described as having been “the wonder of nature and a demonic man.” University scholars erred because they still followed his example: “The theologians who followed Aristotle, fell in many disgraceful ways into errors and brought excessively loathsome heresies into the churches, because they mingled the sacred with the profane and the heaven with the earth.”131 Just like the authors of the manifestos, Bodenstein referred to the practice in universities with the term “heresy,” because scholars persisted in errors that were offensive to God.132 This label applied especially to the theologians, who involved the pagan Philosopher in theological matters.
Bodenstein was the son of the religious reformer Andreas Karlstadt von Bodenstein (1486-1541), who originally collaborated with Luther and was aware of, and influenced by, Luther’s early uncompromising criticism of Aristotle and scholastic philosophy in general.133 Bodenstein’s dismissal of the use of Aristotle in theology perhaps found its origin in his father’s criticism of this practice in the early days of the Reformation. During the Wittenberg movement, when Luther was exiled at Wartburg Castle, Karlstadt distanced himself from the famous reformer and developed views that were soon deemed too radical by Luther himself. During this time, Karlstadt preached vehemently against the mixture of pagan Aristotelianism and theology that he felt ought to be concerned with divine matters.134 It was mainly Karlstadt’s radicalism that prompted Luther to return from his exile to steer matters into a different direction. Upon Luther’s return, Karlstadt was forced to leave Wittenberg and to lead a life quite like that of Paracelsus, as a lone drifter.135 Bodenstein may well have been inspired both by his father’s stance, which drew such fierce early criticism, and by Paracelsus’ outbursts against the Philosopher. The Karlstadt-
eueren Albertum, Thomam, Scotum etc. seichen und [ir?] werden sprechen: die konten wol und subtil liegen, wie grofie narren sind wir und unser vordern gewesen das sies und wir nie gemerkt haben.”
131 Bodenstein, cp, vol. 1, nr. 6,116: “[...] Hinc Graeci Platonem appellabant diuinum, et Aris-
totelem naturae miraculum et daemonium [...]”; “Theologi autem, qui Aristotelem secuti sunt, turpissime in multis aberrarunt, ac haereses nimis foedas in ecclesias inuexerunt: quia sacra prophanis et coelum terrae miscuerunt.”
132 For the Rosicrucians and the term “heresy,” see above, section 1.3.
133 Roper, Martin Luther, 220-221.
134 Sider, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, 55.
135 Dixon, “The Radicals,” 191-193.
connection, in any case, provides the religiously abstruse backdrop to some of the Rosicrucians’ precursors.
The reform of knowledge propagated by the Rosicrucians involved the formulation of a better alternative to Galenic, Aristotelian, and scholastic practices, for which they turned to Paracelsus. Importantly, however, and for reasons that remain obscure, the Rosicrucians never referred specifically to Paracelsus concerning (alchemical) medicine or the rejection of Aristotelian thought. Like Paracelsus and the early Paracelsians, they described themselves as physicians, supported spagyria, and scorned Galenic physicians, but they were never explicit in their adoption of Paracelsian medicine. This is surprising, given that it was his medicine that formed the primary basis for Paracelsus’ popularity around 1600. While Paracelsians were not the only ones to use chemically prepared cures as a remedy for diseases, and while some physicians came to use these cures in combination with Galenic medicine, alchemical medicine remained first and foremost related to the medicine of Paracelsus, and Paracelsus was still primarily known more for his iatrochemistry than for his other, e.g. religious, contributions.136 Although the Rosicrucian criticism of Galenism and scholastic Aristotelianism was not explicitly derived from Paracelsus or Paracelsians, it must have been motivated by the growing rejection of Galen and Aristotle by Paracelsians.
2.4 Philosophical Inspirations
The Rosicrucians implicitly sided with Paracelsus and early Paracelsians in their rejection of scholastic thought and acceptance of spagyrical medicine, but, more importantly still, they explicitly accepted and promoted the new philosophy of Paracelsus and his followers as their own. By doing so, they positioned Paracelsus as a precursor of the Rosicrucians’ own philosophy and, indirectly, of their general reformation. While his name occurs several times in the Fama, there are no references to him in the Confessio and the Chemical
136 Severinus and Sennert are well known for having combined both strands of medicine, although Sennert accepted fewer Paracelsian ideas than Severinus; see: Severinus, Idea Medicinae; Shackelford, “The Early Reception of Paracelsian Theory”; idem, “To Be or Not to Be a Paracelsian”; idem, A Philosophical Path for Paracelsian Medicine; Hirai, “Living Atoms, Hylomorphism and Spontaneous Generation in Daniel Sennert”; Moreau, “Elements, atomes, et physiologie”. Other examples include Johannes Hartmann and Joseph DuChesne (Quarcetanus); see: Moran, The Alchemical World of the German Court; Kahn, “Alchimie et Paracelsisme.”
Wedding. The repeated suggestions that Paracelsus’ name appears in a cryptogram inscribed on a basin in the Chemical Wedding cannot be verified. Kienast’s reading of the cryptogram ignores any possible astronomical or alchemical symbolism, and one can only make out a reference to “Paracelsus Hochhei- mensis Medicinae Doctor” when one reads into four strange characters four letters from three different alphabets (Greek, German, and Latin). The characters said to refer to Paracelsus could just as easily be interpreted to refer to anything else. Moreover, a reference to Paracelsus would make little sense: it would be a unique instance in the Wedding, and there is no obvious connection between Paracelsus and what, according to Kienast, are occult elements in the cryptogram. Contrary to the Fama and the Confessio, the Wedding does not reveal any Paracelsian inspiration, even if alchemy constitutes part of the subject matter. A reference to Paracelsus would be at odds with the rest of the text and therefore lacks plausibility.137
The centrality of Paracelsus in the Fama is evident from the episode recounting the rediscovery of Christian Rosencreutz’s vault, a central episode of this manifesto. Hidden in the vault, deep below the house of the Rosicrucian brotherhood called Holy Spirit, and next to the body of the founder of the fraternity, a Paracelsian work was discovered. As the third generation of brethren of the fraternity opened the vault, they discovered the following:
Each side [of the vault] had a door to a chest, in which lay various things, especially all our books, which we already possessed, together with the Vocabulary of Theophrastus Paracelsus von Hohenheim and those books of which we faithfully report daily: Herein we also found his Itinerary and Vita, from which most of this [work] is taken.138
137 For the cryptogram, see: Chemical Wedding, 118. Scholars suggesting that Paracelsus’ name
could be read here include: Kienast, Johann Valentin Andreae und die Vier echten Rosen- kreutzer-Schriften, 90, followed by: Montgomery, Cross and Crucible, vol. 1, 198; Edighof- fer, Rose-Croix et societe ideale, 237 idem, “L’enigme Paracelsienne,” 238; Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 7; idem, “Vom agyptischen Hermes,” 72.
138 Fama, 116-117: “Eine jede der seyten [des Gewolb] hatte eine Thur zu einem Kasten, darinnen unterschiedliche sachen lagen, besonders alle unsere Bucher, so wihr sonsten auch hatten, sampt deme Vocabulario Theoph. P. ab: Ho. und denen so wihr taglich ohne falsch mittheilen: Hierinn funden wihr auch sein Itinerarium und Vitam, daraufi dieses meisten theils genommen [...].” “Theoph P. Ab: Ho” is short for “Theophrastus Paracelsus ab Hohenheim.” Tilton claims that in the vault books were found containing the “prisca sapientia,” but this is not clear from the description in the Fama: Tilton, “The Rosicrucian Manifestos and Early Rosicrucianism,” 128.
The Itinerary and Vita are presumably Rosencreutz’s, not Paracelsus’, because only Rosencreutz’s itinerary and life are described in the Fama. But next to the society’s important founding works lay Paracelsus’ Vocabulary. Both the explicit reference to Paracelsus as well as the sacred place where his book was found are indicative of the importance the authors attached to this philosophical, medical, and religious reformer. But to what does the Vocabulary refer? Is this a reference to a work unknown to us today? It is well known that the cryptic nature of Paracelsus’ works meant that they were often difficult for readers to interpret. Might the Vocabulary therefore have been a work that enabled the Rosicrucian brethren to unlock the full significance of Paracelsus’ writings by providing clear and authoritative definitions for his terminology? It certainly seems that the fraternity was claiming unique authority to expound Paracelsus’ writings based on a treatise that could unlock his code. The implication of this reference to the Vocabulary is that the Rosicrucians have fully incorporated Paracelsian concepts into their worldview.
From the point of view of a literal interpretation, it is impossible that works by Paracelsus or Paracelsians could have been found in the vault. The legendary Rosencreutz is said to have died in 1484, ten years before Paracelsus’ birth in 1493/4, and the vault allegedly was not opened before 1604.139 Perhaps the authors of the manifestos were unaware of Paracelsus’ dates of birth and death. But on the more likely supposition that they were aware of Paracelsus’ biography, they deliberately placed him outside of time, thereby conferring upon him a mythological status. He then inhabits a mythological world, similar to the one attributed to both Elias Artista and Christian Rosencreutz, from where he inspires the Rosicrucians’ philosophy and their narrative context.
Still, the reference to Paracelsus is not entirely unforeshadowed, because in the years before the manifestos were drafted the publication of hundreds of his works was answered with a similarly prodigious flow of books by other authors who popularised his philosophy. The authors of the manifestos must have been aware of this flood of publications and owed an intellectual debt to the medical reformer. Paracelsus, using a specific and unconventional terminology, had at times provided explanations of individual terms, which could have been known to the Rosicrucians.140 It could also be that the Vocabulary refers to one of the thematic lexica published at the end of the sixteenth century. One of these was the Dictionary of Theophrastus Paracelsus (1584) by Dorn, in which Paracelsian terms are discussed and explained. It might also have been
139 The vault was described as having been hidden for 120 years, see: Fama, 113, 119.
140 See, for example: Paracelsus, Vom BadPfaffers, Huser, Vii, 242 ff.
a reference to one of the Onomastica (thematic lexica) published in the 1570s and 1580s by authors such as Toxites, Bodenstein, and Thurneysser, who themselves contributed greatly to the diffusion and popularisation of Paracelsus’ writings.141 The opaque writing style of Paracelsus, alongside the occasionally chaotic structure of his texts and his habit of inventing new words, had proven challenging to the early modern reader.142 Works like those by Dorn and Thurneysser organised and codified Paracelsus’ texts. Since such works were key resources for understanding the obscure language of Paracelsus, it is plausible that the brethren referred to one of them, and were thereby claiming to have the key to unlock the meaning of Paracelsus’ new philosophy.
What, then, was this new philosophy? What was Paracelsus’ explicit contribution to the Rosicrucian cause and their call for a general reformation? We have seen that the authors of the manifestos referred to the efforts of unnamed heroes towards the reformation of the world on the eve of the new period. The only one such hero mentioned by name was Paracelsus:
We must certainly acknowledge that the world even in those days was already pregnant with great commotion and was labouring to give birth, and that she already brought forth tireless, worthy heroes, who forcefully broke through the darkness and barbarism, so that we weaker ones could press on after them. They were the tip in the Fiery Trigon, whose flames now shine even more brightly and will certainly kindle in the world the final fire. One of these men, in his calling, was Theophrastus.143
That the world was labouring to give birth depicts metaphorically the birth of the new age. As preparation for this birth, Theophrastus Paracelsus had
141 Toxites, Onomasticon i & ii (1574); Thurneysser, Onomasticon (1574-1583); Bodenstein, Onomasticon Theophrasti Paracelsi (1575); Dorn, Dictionarium Theophrasti Paracelsi con- tinens obscuriorum vocabularum, quibus in suis scriptis passim utitur definitiones (1584); see also: Edighoffer, Les Rose-Croix et la crise, 164.
142 The claims by Paracelsus’ assistant, Johannes Oporinus, that Paracelsus would dictate his
writings to students, sometimes even while he was still drunk from the night before, might lend further explanation to the impenetrability of his works; see: Sudhoff, Paracelsus. Ein deutsches Lebensbild aus den Tagen der Renaissance, 46-49.
143 Fama, 100-101: “Gewifilichen wihr mussen bekennen, dafi die Welt schon damahls mit so grosser Commotion schwanger gangen und in der Geburt gearbeitet, auch sie so unver- drossene ruhmliche Helden herfur gebracht, die mit aller Gewalt durch die Finsternufi und Barbarien hindurchgebrochen und uns schwachern nur nachzudrucken gelassen und freylich der Spitze im Trigono igneo gewesen, dessen Flammen numehr je heller leuchtet und gewifilichen der Welt den letzten Brand antzunden wird. Ein solcher ist auch in seiner Vocatio gewesen, Theophrastus [...].”
appeared alongside some other worthy heroes whom the Rosicrucians would follow and whose contributions were to be used for the future reformation. Paracelsus worked his way through darkness and barbarism, which presumably signified scholastic thought, and reformed some of the arts. As part of the imminent final fire—a reference to the idea that the world will be consumed in a final conflagration before being made new again—the Fiery Trigon signals in the skies the advent of the new period. Although less likely, the blazing fire might also have carried an alchemical connotation. According to Paracelsus’ Paragranum, calcination was one of the first steps in transmutational alchemy, which was accepted as a parergon in the manifestos. Calcination was conducted under the influence of fire.144 In this sense, it might be regarded as the first step towards the renewal of the world by fire, in which case transmutational alchemy would play a significant role in the renovation of the world.
Immediately after the passage just quoted, it becomes clear in what sense Paracelsus was taken to be a worthy hero announcing and contributing to the Rosicrucians’ reformation. The Fama expands on Paracelsus’ specific merits as follows:
[...] although he [Paracelsus] never entered our fraternity, he had nonetheless diligently read the Book M., which had ignited his sharp mind. But this man was so hindered in his best course by the preponderance of the learned and the know-it-alls, that he could never peacefully discuss his considerations concerning nature with others. Therefore, in his writings he rather mocked these know-it-alls than revealing himself fully.145
Throughout his life, Paracelsus was unable to engage in peaceful dialogue with others, and his writings are verily interspersed with sarcastic comments on
144 Paracelsus, Paragranum, i, 8; 187: “[.] also hier auch im feur die zerbrechung geschi- het. Und da fermentiren sich die arcanen und geben von inen die corpora und gehent in ir aufsteigen zu iren exaltationibus, deren zeit ist calcineren, sublimiren, reverberiren, solvireren, etc.” Through calcination metals or minerals turn to dust or powder under the influence of fire.
145 Fama, 101: “Theophrastus, so gleichwohl in unsere Fraternitet nicht getretten, aber doch den Librum M. fleissig gelesen und sein scharffes ingenium dardurch angezundet. Aber diesen Mann hat der Gelehrten und Nafiweysen Ubertrang auch in dem besten Lauff gehindert, dafi er sein Bedenken von der Natur nimmer friedlichen mit andern conferiren, und defiwegen in seinen Schrifften mehr der Furwitzigen gespottet, als dafi er sich gantz sehen lassen [.].” The anti-Paracelsian and anti-Rosicrucian Libavius, who identified himself with the learned community, would later take offence at this passage; see: Libavius, d.o.m.a. Wohlmeinendes Bedenckenvon der Fama und Confession, 79-80. OnLibavius, see below, section 5.1.
traditional philosophers and physicians. Medically, Paracelsus had become increasingly notorious, especially after the expulsion from Basel. Religiously, by the end of his life, he claimed “[t]hat is the foremost reason that has hindered me to write: that I have not been taken for an entitled Christian; that has troubled me much.”146 Paracelsus had never matriculated in theology, and was therefore not taken seriously by university-taught theologians who may have questioned his Christian fidelity, but who in any case problematised the fact that Paracelsus styled himself as a doctor in Scripture.147
Here we find another similarity between the heterodox physician and Christian Rosencreutz: according to the manifestos, both men had studied the Liber M. Paracelsus was said to have read this book, while Rosencreutz had translated it into Latin and brought it with him from Damcar.148 With this analogy, the Rosicrucians once more co-opted Paracelsus as an ally of Rosencreutz and the Rosicrucian cause.
The Liber M. in the manifestos was perhaps the Liber mundi, the “Book of the World” or the Book of Nature, referred to also by Paracelsus. But the Rosicrucians’ Liber M. must refer to something else, or more, than simply to nature as it appears before our eyes, otherwise Rosencreutz did not need to translate it from Arabic and bring it with him to the German-speaking regions. The Rosicrucians claimed to have in their possession secret knowledge, about which Rosencreutz was taught in Fez, and it may very well be that the Liber M. was the key that granted them (and others) knowledge of the secrets hidden in nature, making this book a manual that could help to decrypt nature’s mysteries. Understood in this sense, most people had forgotten or lost the ability to probe beyond nature’s surface and properly read the book of nature—with the exception of a few enlightened men in Fez who had preserved this secret knowledge—and the Liber M. served as a repository of this information.
The idea that the Liber M. signifies a unique code to decipher nature’s secrets is testified by another reference to the Liber M. in the Fama. This reference
146 Paracelsus, De secretis secretorum theologiae, ii, 3; 169: “[...] und uber alles das, das ich erzelt hab, das dann der wenigste teil ist. der mehrer ist grofi, dafi ich ihn nit beschreiben mag. das ist die grofieste ursach die mich gehindert hat zu schreiben, dafi ich nit fur ein volmachtigen christen bin geachtet wordnen; das mich hart betruebt hat [...]. mir ist ent- gegen gestanden ein anderer hauf und reich, der da gesagt: du als ein lai, als ein paur, als ein gemein mann solt von den dingen nit reden, was die heilig geschrift antrifft, sonder uns zuhoren, was wir dir sagen, dabei bleiben, und kein anderen sollstu horen oder lesen dann allein uns.”
147 Kuhlmann and Telle, Corpus Paracelsisticum, vol. 1, 556.
148 Fama, 95: “In Damcar lehrnet er die Arabische Spraach besser, wie er dann gleich in folgendem Jahr das Buch und Librum M. in gut Latein gebracht, unnd mit sich genommen.”
implies that by means of secretly reading the “Book M.,” the Rosicrucians could observe the entire world “before their eyes.”149 In the Salzburg manuscript version of the Fama, this passage refers to the “Book mysteriorum” rather than to “Book M.,”150 which further gives the impression that the book contained the key to all the mysteries of the world. Likewise, the Confessio stated that “the Book of Nature is opened wide before the eyes of all, even though few can either read or understand it.”151 The study of nature required a unique means to decipher all its secrets, and the Rosicrucians seemed to believe that they now had such a key in their possession. Paracelsus was thus seen as one of the few humans capable of studying and understanding the secrets buried in the Book of Nature.
A third and final reference to this book—and in the Salzburg version to the “Book mysterium”152—explains that Rosencreutz began writing the first part of the Book M. together with the first brethren of the Rose Cross. As the task of writing the Book M. became too heavy for them, others were admitted into the brotherhood to help out with their daily chores.153 That Rosencreutz translated the book into Latin, and that he wrote it together with the other brethren, may suggest—despite the incongruity of writing a book that he had translated earlier and that thus was already in the brethren’s possession—that it was to serve as a means to make hidden knowledge public. Latin was still the lingua franca of the scholarly community, and scholars communicated their ideas to the international intellectual community predominantly through Latin works. It may be that the Rosicrucians had similar objectives in mind for this book.
According to tradition, the Book of the World was interpreted as the Book of Nature, creation, complementing the Book of Scripture. Traditionally, both
149 Ibid., 109: “[—] was wihr auch aufi dem Buch M. heimlichs erfahren/ (wiewohl wihr der ganzen Welt imaginem und contrafactur konnen fur augen haben), ist uns doch weder unser Ungluck unnd Serbstundlein bewust [...].”
150 Fama Fraternitatis, Universitatsbibliothek Salzburg, ms M i 463, 6V.
151 Confessio, 55: “De sua quidem voluntate jam praemisit nuncios Deus, Stellas in Serpentario
atque Cygno exortas, quae magna profecto magni Consilii signacula illud docere possunt, quam junctis iis, quae humanum ingenium adinvenit, suae occultae scripturae inservire faciat, ut Liber Naturae in omnium quidem oculis expansus adapertusque sit; pauci tamen vel legere omnino, vel intelligere possint.”
152 Fama Fraternitatis, Universitatsbibliothek Salzburg, ms M i 463, 4r. Note that this time the text reads “mysterium” rather than “mysteriorum.”
153 Fama, 104: The first brothers “machten auch den ersten Theil des Buchs M. weil ihnen aber die Arbeit zu grofi worden und der Kranken unglaublichen zulauff sie sehr hinder- ten, auch allbereit sein newes Gebaw Sancti Spiritus genennet, vollendet war, beschlossen sie noch andere mehr in ihr Gesell und Bruderschafft zu ziehen.” See also the reference to the Book M. on ibid., p. 109.
books, scriptural and natural, were thought to be the means through which God expressed himself.154 The Bible was the revealed Word of God, but God had revealed Himself also through His creation, in order for His existence to be knowable to all people, even to those who had not received His Word.155 The French theologian Alanus ab Insulis (Alan of Lille, 1120-1202) wrote a famous poem that was thought to refer to the Book of Nature, and which begins with the following triplet:
Omnis mundi creatura, Quasi liber, et pictura Nobis est, et speculum.
Each creature of the world, is like a book, and a picture for us, and like a mirror.156
The theory of the two books, Nature and Scripture, was well known in the Middle Ages, but became popular—and open to a variety of interpretations— especially in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It influenced the works of such natural philosophers and scientists as Oswald Croll (1563-1609), Francis Bacon (1561-1626), Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), Robert Boyle (1627-1691), and others. This analogy between Scripture and nature occasionally mixed with traditions like the philosophia perennis, and some concluded that while after the Fall humans were cut off from immediate divine inspiration, through Scripture and nature they were still able to acquire such original knowledge.157 Both the theory of the two books, as well as the philosophia perennis, were central to
154 On the book of nature, see: Blair, Theatre of Nature; Trepp, “Im ’Buch der Natur’ lesen”; Howell, God’s Two Books; Van Berkel and Vanderjagt (eds.), The Book of Nature in Antiquity and the Middle Ages; idem, The Book of Nature in Early Modern and Modern History; Harrison, “The ’Book of Nature’ and Early Modern Science”; Palmerino, “The Mathematical Characters of Galileo’s Book of Nature”; Van der Meer and Mandelbrote (eds.), Nature and Scripture in the Abrahamic Religions up to 1700; Bono, “The Two Books and Adamic Knowledge”; Jorink and Mason, Reading the Book of Nature in the Dutch Golden Age, 15751715, especially chapter 2. Such ideas had their origin in the Bible, consider for example: Romans 1:20; Psalm 19.
155 Cf. for example: Augustine, Enarratio in Psalmum xlv, 7, mentioned in: Jorink and Mason, Reading the Book of Nature, 40-41.
156 Alanus ab Insulis, De Incarnatione Christi, in Patrologia cursus completus, series Latina, 210, p. 579. On Alanus, see, for example: Evans, Alan of Lille: The Frontiers of Theology in the Later Twelfth Century.
157 Bono, “The Two Books and Adamic Knowledge,” 301-307. These authors could not have been sources for the Rosicrucians. Croll’s Basilica Chymica (1609), in which he adopted the two-books theory corresponding to two lights, became very popular after Croll’s death in 1609.
the Rosicrucian general reformation; they were each fundamental to the new citadel of truth which for the Rosicrucians was to replace traditional thought.
Paracelsus gave his own description of the Book of Nature. He had suggested that one should study nature just as his predecessors had studied books. Studying paper books, he argued, would help us neither to acquire new knowledge nor to understand local or new diseases. In analogy with Alanus, Paracelsus argued that one should instead read nature like a book:
Then this is what I want to attest concerning nature: whoever wants to investigate it, should study its books with his feet. Scripture is studied through its characters, but nature from country to country: A country is like a page. Thus is the codex of nature, thus must its leaves be turned.158
Paracelsus, distancing himself from the bookish study of the scholastics, turned his attention to the external world to acquire empirical knowledge—while never neglecting the importance of Scripture and divine inspiration. Boden- stein later testified that Paracelsus “used new principles, which he proved by means of the Holy Scripture and experience itself [...].”159 Both this passage and Paracelsus’ numerous studies and interpretations of biblical texts indicate his concern for the natural and scriptural books.
Corresponding to the two books, Paracelsus postulated two lights, the light of nature and the light of the spirit.160 The light of nature, he argued, comes from God the Father, to inspire human beings to study all worldly things. The light of the spirit (or the light of grace) comes from God the Son, to illuminate matters of faith, especially regarding the life of Christ and the life in Christ.161 With the help of the light of nature, one could cure diseases, study nature, and create artefacts:
158 Paracelsus, Sieben defensiones, i, 11; 145-146: “[D]an das wil ich bezeugen mit der natur: der sie durchforschen wil, der mufi mit den fufien ire bucher treten. Die geschrift wird erforschet durch ire buchstaben, die natur aber durch lant zu lant: als oft ein lant als oft ein blat. also ist codex naturae, also mufi man ire bletter umbkeren.”
159 Bodenstein, cp, vol. 1, nr. 6, 117: Paracelsus “nouis principijs est usus, quae sacris literis ipsaque experientia probat [.].”
160 Paracelsus, Liber de sancta trinitate, ii, 3; 259-260: “Zwei liecht seindt, menschlich und geistlich und komben beide von gott, nemblich das liecht der weisheit und das liecht des menschlichen lebens und das liecht des glaubens und des geistlichen lebens [.] eine zu menschlicher vernunft, die ander dienet zum glauben. und eine gehort auf erden, undter uns zum leben in der liebe des nechsten, die ander hort in den glauben, zum ewigen reich [.].”
161 Ibid., 260 ff. On the importance of an ethical, Christian life in Paracelsus, see: Biegger, De
invocatione, 50; Daniel, “Paracelsus’ Astronomia Magna”; idem, “Paracelsus on Baptism”; Gantenbein, Paracelsus, 6.
The light that is given to man by God the Father is such a light that through this light humans learn all worldly things, which belong to the world, [and] to the body. When something is equal to the light of nature, it is known properly. Because the light of nature, the knowledge of humans about all worldly things, is nothing but the Holy Spirit of God the Father.162
It is the light of nature, originating from God, which Paracelsus believed would enable humans to study the Book of Nature. The Rosicrucian characterisation of Paracelsus as student of the Liber M. presumably found its origin in such passages.
The theory of the two books continued to be influential among later followers of Paracelsus. A case in point was Toxites, who had already referred to the light of nature, and claimed:
God wants the human being [...] to study the secrets in all of God’s gifts, in the heavenly and earthly philosophy and astronomy, so that he focuses on the natural and the eternal in the work, so that he may not only know God correctly through it, and serve his fellows, but so that he may reveal himself with it, so that others may perceive his work and acclaim and praise God.163
Like the authors of the manifestos, Toxites suggested that knowledge of the natural and divine realms was possible.164
In two ways, this analogy between Scripture and nature stands in contrast to the Lutheran notion of sola scriptura. Firstly, Luther put the emphasis on Scripture alone and never complemented this one book with another; his
162 Paracelsus, Liber de sancta trinitate, ii, 3; 262-263: “[S]o ist das liecht so vom vatter dem
menschen geben wird, ein solches liecht, dafi durch dasselbig liecht die menschen alle weltliche ding lernen, die in die welt gehoren, zu dem leib. ist etwas gleich dem liecht der natur, in dem so es recht erkent wird. wann lumen naturae, das wissen des menschen in allen weltlichen dingen, ist nichts als der heilig geist von gott dem vatter [.].”
163 Toxites, preface to Astronomia Magna, Avi-Avii: “Derhalben will Gott dafi der Mensch nicht feire oder mussig gehe/ sonder dafi er in teglicher ubung bleibe/ zu erforschen die heimligkeiten in allen gaben Gottes/ in der Himlischen und irdischen Philosophey und Astronomey/ damit er das naturlich/ und das ewig in das werck richte/ auff das er nicht allein Gott dadurch recht lerne erkennen/ und dem Nehesten damit diene/ sonder dafi er sich damit offenbare/ damit andere seine werck sehen/ und Gott darumb loben und preisen.”
164 Fama, 91-92, see above, section 1.3.
Reformation was solely grounded in scriptura and traditio. Secondly, Luther turned to Scripture in order to salvage faith and not as a means to knowledge. The Rosicrucian study of both books, instead, provided insights into natural and divine things, and both the Rosicrucian and Paracelsian views are in keeping with the renewed stress on human agency as opposed to divine revelation alone.
In the manifestos, the external world that was to be studied also corresponded to the inner world of man: both worlds, the macrocosm and the microcosm, were understood to be in harmony. The microcosm and macrocosm were each a mirror to the other; everything in the macrocosm had its equivalent in the microcosm. The Fama described this harmony as follows:
Just as every seed contains a whole good tree or fruit, likewise the entire great world is contained in a small human being, with his religion, politics, health, bodily parts, nature, speech, words and works, all in the same tone and melody with God, heaven and earth.165
The potential for human beings to find themselves in harmony with God, the firmament, and the external natural world, implies that as microcosms they contain something within them corresponding to God, heaven, and earth. This is an important element of the Rosicrucian understanding of human nature. It is also again contrary to Luther’s view: if humans were “in the same tone” as God, they were not corrupted by sin, while also religion was understood to be an internal experience and not solely an outward expression of the lived service of God.
Already on the opening page of the Fama, humans are introduced as microcosms of the universe. We recall from above that God was said to have revealed secrets and previously hidden creatures in the macrocosm, and highly illuminated minds were said to have come to renew the arts. Thanks to these important developments, the Fama stated, “the human being may understand his nobility and glory, in what way he is the microcosm, and how far his art extends into nature.”166 Because of the harmony between the microcosm and the macrocosm, revelations in the universe and the renewal of the arts and philosophy on
165 Fama, 97-98: “[G]leich wie in jedem Kernen ist ein gutter gantzer Baum oder Frucht, also die gantze grosse Welt in einem kleinen Menschen were, dessen Religion, Policey, Gesund- heit, Glieder, Natur, Spraache, Worte und Wercke, aller in gleichem tono und Melodey mit Gott, Himmel und Erden ginge.”
166 Ibid., 92: “[...] damit doch endlich der Mensch seinen Adel und Herrlichkeit verstunde, welcher gestalt er Mircocosmus, und wie weit sich sein Kunst in der Natur erstrecket.”
figure 5 Fludd, Utriusque cosmi historia, line engraving by Theodor de Bry, Wellcome Collection
the eve of the new age implied a re-evaluation and reinterpretation of humans themselves. Within them, that which was in harmony with the macrocosm, was divine; that which was not, could be considered devilish.167
In the Confessio, the authors explained: “Philosophy [...] examines heaven and earth through a more careful anatomy, or, to put it briefly, we say it expresses sufficiently the one man, the microcosm.”168 For the Rosicrucians, philosophy could be used to study the nature of the universe, the macrocosm, as well as the nature of human beings, the microcosm. It encompassed astronomy and natural philosophy for the study of the heavenly and natural worlds, and religion for the study of the divine. Astronomically, humans were seen as the centre of the cycles of the sun and the moon.169 Religiously, having a
167 Ibid., 97-98.
168 Confessio, 45: “[.] philosophia [.] caelum atque terram exquisitiori Anatomia scrutetur,
aut ut summatim dicamus, Unum hominem Microcosmum satis exprimat.” This is one of the sentences also found in the Theca gladii spiritus (1616), 31, nr. 177, written by Andreae but published under Hess’ name; see the Appendix.
169 Confessio, 62-63.
divine counterpart within, they may once again understand their (original) glory. They were both actors of the general reformation as well as objects of study in all their earthly and heavenly aspects. The renovation of philosophy thereby cleared the path for the renovation of the world.170
These statements about humans as microcosms echo earlier ideas. The famous phrase on the Emerald Tablet (Tabula Smaragdina), to which Bodenstein referred, was attributed to the legendary Hermes Trismegistus and reads as follows: “That which is below is like that which is above, and that which is above is like that which is below.”171 During the Middle Ages and the early modern period, this formula had a considerable influence. Ficino invoked the analogy of microcosm and macrocosm in his Three Books on Life (De vita libri tres), which was written in the 1480s.172 But it was in fact Paracelsus to whom the authors of the Fama referred when speaking of this harmony:
This harmony is profoundly present in his [Paracelsus’] works, which he would have shared with the learned without doubt, if he had found them to be worthier of higher art rather than of subtle mocking. So he wasted his time living free and carefree, leaving the world to its own foolish pleas- ures.173
While Paracelsus had discussed the microcosm-macrocosm analogy in his works, the Rosicrucians were nevertheless critical of him for squandering his life away.174 As for Paracelsus himself, he knew Ficino’s work, as is clear from a reference to the latter as the “best of the Italian physicians” in a letter to Christoph Clauser.175 Later Paracelsians were also familiar with Ficino and with the
170 Confessio, 45. Cf. above, section 1.3.
171 On Hermes, see: Kahn, Hermes Trismegiste. The notion of man as microcosm is not specifically a Paracelsian or Hermetic idea, but it was a widespread concept also in other traditions in the Middle Ages and the early modern period. See, also for further literature: Weeks, Paracelsus. Essential Theoretical Writings, 113n1 and n2.
172 On this analogy in the Renaissance, see also: Yates, Giordano Bruno; Gentile and Gilly, Marsilio Ficino; Daniel, “Paracelsus’ Astronomia Magna,” 134-228; Hanegraaff, Dictionary of Gnosis, 1127-1128; Robichaud, “Ficino on Force, Magic and Prayers.”
173 Fama, 101-102: “[...] gedachte Harmonia [ist] grundlich bey ihme [Paracelsus] zu finden, die er ohn zweiffel den Gelehrten mitgetheilet hette, da er sie grosserer Kunst, dann subtiles vexirens wurdiger befunden, wie er dan auch mit freyem unachtsamen Leben seine zeit verlohren und der Welt ihre thorichte Frewde gelassen.”
174 For the microcosm-macrocosm analogy in Paracelsus’ work, see, for example: Paracelsus, Das Buch Paragranum, i, 8; 33-221.
175 Paracelsus, Begleitbrief an Clauser (1527), i, 4; 71: “[.] Italorum vero Marsilius medicorum
optimus fuit.” On Paracelsus and Ficino, see: Schutze, “Zur Ficino-Rezeption bei Paracelsus.”
harmony he described between man and the world.176 That both Christian Ros- encreutz and Paracelsus relied on the microcosm-macrocosm analogy is a final similarity between the two.
As is clear from the passages above, the anatomy of the universe was thought to reflect the anatomy of human beings. This is reminiscent of views expressed by Paracelsus, who understood human beings as having an image which mirrors the external world. While Andreas Vesalius (1514-1564) and Michael Ser- vetus (1511-1553), for example, conducted anatomical investigations by which they corrected Galen’s anatomy—with Vesalius’ famous On the Fabric of the Human Body (1543) being published by Paracelsus’ former assistant, Opo- rinus—Paracelsus used the term “anatomy” to refer to the inner framework of man.177 The physician should probe beyond the appearances, but not through dissection, in order to see the inner anatomy, the Biltnus or image of man. According to Paracelsus, humans were intimately related to the universe through astral and supernatural influences. For him, they contained within themselves all things in the universe, its entire pattern including all elements and, beyond the earth, the firmament. Man and the cosmos were thought to be different from each other in appearance, in form, and in figure. But in “sci- entia,” a word used by Paracelsus in an unusual way, meaning something like ’(the study of) invisible reality’, they were similar: “From this it follows that heaven and earth, air and water are a human being in scientia, and the human being is a world with a heaven and an earth, with air and water, similar in sci- entia. So Saturn of the microcosm takes after Saturn of the heaven [...],” as do the other internal planets.178 Not only all earthly elements but also all heavenly stars had their counterparts in human beings, in similarity to the medieval melothesia, the image of man with his parts assigned to the different signs of the Zodiac.
176 Forshaw, “Marsilio Ficino and the Chemical Art,” 265 ff.
177 Paracelsus, Opus Paramirum, i, 9, 62: “Aber nicht anderst ist zugedenken und zuwissen, dan das alle ding in dem bild stent. Das ist alle ding sind gebildet. In diser biltnus ligt die anatomei. Der mensch ist gebildet; sein biltnus ist die anatomei, eineim arzt voraus not- wendig zuwissen [...], zu solcher biltnus der anatomei sollen wir uns fleifien, dan on die wird uns die natur nicht arzt heifien”; see also: Weeks, Paracelsus, 21-47, especially pp. 3132.
178 Paracelsus, Opus Paramirum, i, 9; 95: “Darauf so folgt nun das himel und erden, luft und wasser ein mensch ist in der scientia, und der mensch ist ein welt mit himel und erden, mit luft und wasser, dergleichen in scientia. also nimpt der saturnus microcosmi an saturnum coeli, [.].” Paracelsus’ theory of the elements, in which fire was replaced by heaven as a superior element, was taken over by several later Paracelsians; see, for example: Roeslin, De opere Dei creationis, 11-12.
figure 6 Limbourg Brothers, The Anatomy of Man, contemporary repro
duction in tiles, Nijmegen
Corresponding to these philosophical views, Paracelsian medicine worked from the supposition that the world—God’s creation—was a complex aggregation of individual entities linked together through sympathy and antipathy, astral influences, and magical and invisible powers. As described in his Volumen Paramirum, diseases could be caused by bad food, the human constitution, the imagination, astral influences, or by God.179 Paracelsus used the microcosmmacrocosm analogy to the advantage of his medicine. By observing the signs, or symptoms, of the disease, he searched for the corresponding cure in nature.
179 On the influences of diseases, see: Paracelsus, Volumen Paramirum, i, 1; 165-239. Here, Paracelsus described 5 entia (origins of diseases), namely ens astrale, ens veneri, ens natu- rale, ens spirituale, and ens dei.
From the microcosm-macrocosm analogy it follows that something in the external world could cure humans, that is, “the external member is a medicine to the internal member,” to the illness shown through its symptoms.180
To Paracelsus, this understanding of man as microcosm was related to his Signaturenlehre, the belief that there are signs in nature that reveal the essence of things and diseases.181 Everything in nature was seen to be endowed with hidden virtues or powers (Krafte), which are revealed through signs. According to Paracelsus’ theory of signatures, the form of an object reveals its essence. For example, if something is crooked in its form, it probably is so also in its essence. The possibility of understanding a thing’s essence or “virtue” through its form allowed Paracelsus to find in nature medicines for ailments and apply the cure on the basis of the homeopathic principle of ’like cures like’, which had earlier been used also by Hippocrates. The remedies to the disease found in nature were believed to carry the same “virtues” as the disease itself.182
These signs in the visible world, in the macrocosm, correspond to the arcana, the secrets, of the invisible world:183
Thus nature has ordained that the outer signs indicate the inner works and virtues, thus it has pleased God that nothing will remain hidden, but that through the sciences it will be revealed what lies [hidden] in all creatures.184
The signs reveal the essence, or anatomy, of a thing. Through the signs, “the secrets of hidden, invisible things” were recognised and discovered.185 The
180 Paracelsus, Opus Paramirum, i, 9; 94: “aus solches so ist das eufier glid des innern glids arznei.”
181 Edighoffer suggests that the theory of signatures is also found in the manifestos, but there is no evidence in these texts that supports this; see: Edighoffer, “Die Manifeste der Rosen- kreuzer,” 164-165.
182 Paracelsus, Opus Paramirum, i, 9; 94-95; idem, Astronomia Magna, i, 12; 173.
183 Idem, Opus Paramirum, i, 9; 97.
184 Idem, Astronomia Magna, i, 12; 177: “Also hat die natur verordnet, das die eufiern zeichen die innern werk und tugent anzeigent, also hat es got gefallen, das nichts verborgen bleibe, sonder das durch die scientias geoffenbart wurde, was in allen geschopfen ligt.”
185 Ibid., 173-175: “Dieweil nichts so heimlichs im menschen ligt, es mufi geoffenbaret wer- den, so wissent, das solches geschicht in dreierlei weg: durch die zeichen der natur, das ist, durch das signatum, durch welches nichts verschwigen bleibt, und zum andern durch selbs angeben [...] also zum dritten durch gottlich urteil [...]. Also mag nichts im menschen sein, das nicht aufierhalb von im bezeichnet werde, durch welchs der mensch erkennen mag, was in dem selbigen sei, der das signum signatum tregt. und zugleicher weis wie ein arzt sein kunst hat in der erkantnus, die er nimpt aus dem signo signato, also
physician should read the characters visible in the macrocosm like the letters of a book, and use them to prepare a medicine for the microcosm, thereby opening up all the mysteries hidden in nature. For Paracelsus, the microcosm and the macrocosm indeed mirrored each other.
Similar ideas were expressed in On the Internal Signatures of Things (1609) by the alchemist and Paracelsian physician Oswald Croll. Croll described the analogy between the microcosm and the macrocosm, and proposed tables of correspondences between the two. He explained how herbs and plants can work as a medicine for the microcosm based on their signatures, and which plants correspond to which diseases. Euphrasia (eyebright) and Paris quadrifolia, for example, correspond to the eyes, and can therefore be used to treat ocular problems, whereas the fruit citrium corresponds to the heart and could help in heart diseases.186
Several other Paracelsians also emphasised this analogy between microcosm and macrocosm in their works. Julius Sperber referred to the inner anatomy of human beings and explained that “the human being, as the microcosm” was in harmony with the macrocosm.187 Bodenstein’s reference to the Emerald Tablet revealed that he, too, believed the microcosm to be in harmony with the macrocosm, and that the efficacy of medicine depended on this correlation.188 He further claimed that:
In the third place, they [sc. the doctors] encounter the elements and everything that emerges from them, through which the individual parts of the greater and smaller world, that is, of human beings, are known. Because the parts of the two worlds correlate to one another in a certain proportion, connection, and necessity.189
auch der astronomus in dem signato, das ist so den der himel furstelt [...]. vier ding seind, durch die die natur den menschen offenbar macht und ein ietlichs gewechs, das verstehet also. in den vier kunsten werden die heimlikeiten der verborgnen unsichtbarn ding erkant und erfunden, nemlich als durch chiromantiam.” Paracelsus also names astronomy, philosophy, and medicine.
186 Croll, Tractatus de signaturis internis rerum, seu de vera & viva Anatomia maioris & minoris
mundi, 19, 21.
187 Sperber, Von den dreyen seculis, 208-209: “Und endlich/ was die innerliche und warhaffte Anatomia des Menschen seye? Wie nemlich der mensch/ als der Microcosmus, fast in allen dingen mit der Welt/ und also mit dem Macrocosmo (davon der Weise-mann mys- tice etwas andeutung thut) sich vergleicht/ und mit demselben in gar richtiger harmonia ganz arthlich uberein komme?”
188 Cf. below, p. 157.
189 Bodenstein, cp, vol. 1, nr. 7, 153: “Tertio loco elementa occurrunt, et quaecunque ex ipsis
nascuntur, quo maioris ac minoris, hoc est hominis, singulae partes sint notae: Cohaerent namque partes utriusque mundi certa proportione, cognatione et necessitate [...].”
Toxites referred to this analogy in his edition of Paracelsus’ Astronomia Magna:
The human being has not been made out of nothing like heaven and earth, but from a matter, that is, from the great world, which is why he is also called ’microcosm’. Because everything that is essentially in heaven and on earth, is also spiritually in the human being.190
Human beings were similar to the external world, but, again, only in what Paracelsus called the human Biltnus, their image. For Toxites, this meant that human beings were the most exalted of all of God’s creatures: “The human being should be correctly acknowledged as the most noble creature, and should be held in high esteem by many, not only because he is the microcosm and a miracle of the world, but rather because God created him in His image.”191 With this claim, Toxites associated himself with the Renaissance philosophy of, amongst others, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola. For both Toxites and the manifestos, humans as microcosms mirror not only the external world, but, echoing Genesis 1:26, also God: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness [...].”
Such ideas in the Paracelsian movement obviously exercised an influence on the authors of the manifestos and occupied a prominent place in their plans for the announced reformation. Paracelsus was remembered for having studied and described such powers and structures of the universe, while not only he, but also some of his early followers held such views. Although these ideas were not solely Paracelsian and some of them had a long history also in other traditions, the Rosicrucian manifestos explicitly associated them with Paracelsian thought. Owing to such ideas, Paracelsus was understood to have been a forerunner of the Rosicrucians. Paracelsus was thus neither regarded as a practitioner of transmutational alchemy, nor mentioned as a medical innovator, but he was instead heralded for his Hermetical-philosophical views. This is a cru-
190 Toxites, preface to Astronomia Magna, Aiiiv: “[...] Dann der Mensch ist nit aufi nichts wie
himmel und Erden/ sonder aufi einer materia/ das ist/ aufi der grossen Welt/ gemacht worden/ daher er auch Microcosmus genennt wirt. Dann alles was in Himmel und Erden wesentlich ist/ das ist auch im Menschen geistlich [.].”
191 Ibid., Aiir-Aiiv: “[...] so soil der Mensch billich als die Edlest Creatur recht erkennt [wer- den]/ und in hohen Ehren von meniglichen gehalten werden/ nicht allein dafi er Micro- cosmus/ und ein miraculum Mundi ist/ sonder viel mehr darumb dafi ihn Gott ihm zum Bildtnufi geschaffen [.].” Pico had different reasons for granting man this position, but in his view also, man has every aspect of the external world within him; see: Pico, Oration on the Dignity of Man, theses 1-23,27-30.
cial point, because anti-Paracelsian physicians of the time, such as Andreas Libavius (1555-1616) and Thomas Erastus (1524-1583), criticised Paracelsian medicine not so much for its chemically prepared cures, but instead for its natural-philosophical concepts, such as the microcosm-macrocosm analogy and the theory of signatures. These were the exact elements in the manifestos that were explicitly associated with Paracelsus, which means that it was this Paracelsian philosophy that was to become the foundation of the new age.192
2.5 Primeval Wisdom
The microcosm-macrocosm analogy corresponded to ideas in the Hermetic tradition, which was a movement related to the tradition of a philosophia perennis. In the years before the manifestos were drafted, Paracelsus had come to be known as the German Hermes Trismegistus, a title that appeared on several of his posthumous publications, including those edited by Huser.193 The Rosicrucian authors drew some of their inspiration from these traditions, as they claimed to be the inheritors of the primeval wisdom known to some ancients in the far past, which was to serve as the foundation for their “citadel of truth.”194 Their philosophical renovation was therefore at the same time also a restoration of a long-lost philosophy. Through God’s revelation and the study of nature one could still acquire divine knowledge, even after the Fall. A similar idea of a primeval philosophy coming back to light is found in the Paracelsian tradition. Paracelsus himself had been equivocal in his statements about ancient wisdom. In his On Elevating the Hearts, he referred to ancient figures and biblical ones as having been led “by a divine voice,”195 but else-
192 On Libavius, see below, section 5.1. See further: Erastus, Disputationes de medicina nova Paracelsi; Libavius, Examen philosophiae novae; Gunnoe, “Thomas Erastus and his Circle of Anti-Paracelsians”; idem, “Erastus and Paracelsianism”; Shackelford, “The Early Reception of Paracelsian Theory”; Moran, “Medicine, Alchemy and the Control of Language”; idem, Andreas Libavius and the Transformation of Alchemy.
193 Kuhlmann, “Der ’Hermetismus’ als literarische Formation”; idem, “Paracelsismus und Hermetismus”; Kuhlmann and Telle, Corpus Paracelsisticum, vol. 2, 27-38; Gilly, “Vom agyptischen Hermes zum Trismegistus Germanus.”
194 Fama, 123-124; Confessio, 49.
195 Paracelsus, Liber de sursum corda, npe 1, 462: “Was aber gesein ist in Abraham, Isaak, Jakob,
in Moses, in David, in Salomon, in Esaia, in Jeremia etc. und andere dergleichen mehr, die- selbigen alle, wieviel ihr seind under denen, die seind von gottlicher stimm und uber die inspiration darzu geweisen und gefuhrt worden. Und ist nichts gesein us der inspiration, das so sie gehandelt hont, sunder us gott hernach geben, us beschehen ursachen, so gott darzu geursacht.”
where he claimed that only God and Christ possessed the truth.196 Generally for Paracelsus, true wisdom comes only from Christ, and only true Christians could acquire true wisdom—all those preceding Christ had fallen short of that standard.
The author of On the Tincture of the Natural Philosophers, in turn, having used the name of Paracelsus pseudonymously so that, at the time the manifestos were written, his text was thought to have been drafted by Paracelsus, spoke highly of Hermes Trismegistus. He argued against an unnamed “sophist” that “the Emerald Tablet [of Hermes] gives evidence of even more art and experience of philosophy, alchemy, magic, and so forth, than could ever be learned by you and your gang.”197 Pseudo-Paracelsus thus incorporated the Hermetic tradition into his understanding of Paracelsianism.
Similarly, just before the manifestos were published, Sperber claimed that true wisdom had already been known to Adam. Originally written in 1597, one anonymous editor dedicated Sperber’s About the Highest Treasures to the Rosicrucian brotherhood when it was eventually published in 1615 as the Echo of the Divinely Illuminated Fraternity and Commendable Order of the Rose 2 Cross.198 In the original preface of 1597, entitled Preface to the Christian reader, Sperber claimed that “Adam has after the Fall kept all sorts of insight and knowledge of such divine wisdom in his memory,” and that now humans could once again “come to the attainment of such wisdom of God.”199 This resonated with
196 Idem, De summo et aeterno bono, ii, suppl.; 14: “Salomon und andere seindt nit unsere vorgeher, allein Christus!”; idem, Liber de venerandis sanctis, npe 1, 425: “Wieviel mehr ist er dann gegen gott, dass er uns sein reich des himmels offenbart hie uf erden, was dassel- big sei, wie wir darein sollen kommen. Wer wollt uns das gelernt haben unter allen uns schadlichen menschen? Nit Abraham von ihm selbst, nit Moses, nit David, nit Salomon, nit Plato, nit Cato, allein der vom himmel ist, der kann uns die wahreit sagen.”
197 Pseudo-Paracelsus, De tinctura physicorum, i, 14; 391: “So zeigt die alt schmaragdinische tafel noch mer kunst und erfarung der philosophei, der alchimei, der magica und der gleichen an, dan imermer von dir und deinen haufen wird gelernet werden.” See also: ibid., 392-393.
198 Sperber, Von der hochsten/ allerbesten unnd thewresten Schatze, republished in the Echo, 1615. Gilly doubts that Sperber was the author of the About the Highest Treasures (Echo), see: Gilly, Johann Valentin Andreae, 31. Here, we will refer to him as the author of the text, but his authorship should be studied carefully in future literature.
199 Sperber, “Preface,” Von der hochsten Schatze, 5: “[...] hat doch Adam nach dem Falle von solcher Gottlichen Weifiheit allerley Erkandtnufi vnnd scientias im Gedachtnus behal- ten/ sonderlich aber den weg/ dadurch man widerumb (so wese [?] und viele als dem Menschen nach dem falle von Gott vorgunstiget und zugelassen) zu erlangung solcher Weifiheit Gottes kommen kan.” See also Sperber’s Von den dreyen seculis (1597/published 1660).
a statement in the Fama’s that “our philosophy is nothing new but is the same which Adam received after his Fall.”200
Sperber’s view was akin to that of Steuco, as well as to that of Ficino, who had provided a genealogy of ancient wisdom starting from Hermes through Orpheus, Pythagoras, and Plato through to later authors. Ficino believed that Hermes was, if not identical with Moses, then at least a contemporary of Moses, thereby linking the Egyptian and Greek lines of true wisdom with the knowledge of the foremost prophet.201 For Sperber, original and true knowledge was a pious philosophy, which in his opinion entailed primarily magic. From Adam it was passed down to Abraham and Zoroaster, and “from this Zoroaster such an art descended afterwards to the Chaldeans and then to the Persians, who used it for a long time like the Egyptians [...]. The excellent scholar Plato says about this magic that it is a cult of the gods.”202 This magic, Sperber explained, “is nothing but the pious wisdom, that is a beatific wisdom,”203 which had also been known to the Jewish Kings David, Samuel, and Solomon, and their disciples. It was termed Kabbalah by the Jews and was ultimately known to Christ and his mother Mary.204 Christ had then started his own magical school to further disseminate the divine wisdom—identifying original wisdom with Christian thought.205 Compare this again with the Fama: “[.] wherein Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, and others recognised the truth, for which Enoch, Abraham, Moses and Solomon provided the crucial argument, and which above all is consistent with that wonderful book, the Bible—all ofit comes together.”206
200 Fama, 123-124: “unser Philosophia ist nichts newes sondern wie sie Adam nach seinem Fall erhalten.”
201 On Steuco, see above, section 1.3. Ficino, Platonic Theology, ii, 125; iv, 61; vi, 83.
202 Sperber, “Preface,” Von der hochsten Schatze, 7-8: “Von dies ein Zoroaster ist nu solche kunst hernacher auff die Chaldeer und folgends auff die Persianer kommen, bey welchen sie wie auch bey den Egyptern sehr lange im brauch gewesen [.]. Der treffliche Gelehrte Mann Plato beschreibet die Magiam das sie sey eine cultus Deorum.”
203 Ibid., 8: “Dann magia ist ein Persianisch wort/ wie Porphirius bezeuget/ So gibt es der Per- sianischen Sprach art und eigenschafft/ das es nicht anders sey, denn pia sapientia, das ist eine Gottselige weifiheit [...].”
204 Ibid., 17-18: “In solcher Schule werden nu unzweiffelich immer nacheinander/ ob wol nicht viele/ jedoch nutzliche Discipuli ein erzogen worden/ vond enen erzliche dieses hohe studium auff Samuel, David, Salomon Discipulen/ unnd bifi gar auf den Priester Esoram kommen [...] wie er dan auch von defi HErrn Christi und seiner Mutter Marien kunfftigen zustand gweissaget. Mit diesen beyden hat nun diese hohste Kunst der Gott- lichen Weifiheit im alten Testament auffgehoret.”
205 Ibid., 20.
206 Fama, 123-124: “[.] worinnen es Plato, Aristoteles Phytagoras und andere getroffen, wo Enoch, Abraham, Moses, Salomo den aufischlag geben, besonders wo das grosse Wunder- buch die Biblia concordiret, das kommet zusammen [.].”
Pious wisdom and primeval wisdom were identified in both the Fama and in Sperber’s preface to About the Highest Treasures, in line with traditions such as the Mosaic physics.
According to Sperber, this original wisdom had been lost, because after the era of the saints “this high study [...] was increasingly more forgotten [...] so that it could unfortunately happen that almost in the entire world one does not know anything specific anymore about this holy and very high dis- cipline.”207 Still, it was not entirely lost, because “in all ages one could find among Christians some individual and very few people, who were inclined to such a study,” among whom Sperber listed mystics, Neoplatonic philosophers, and Cabalists such as Cornelius Agrippa, Johannes Reuchlin, Johannes Tauler, Marsilio Ficino, Guillaume Postel, and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola.208 Sper- ber believed that the original philosophy had come to light and was preserved in the thought of these authors who drew on ancient arts and philosophy, and who defined their own ideas as explicitly Christian in nature.
Sperber, as if expressing the aims of the Rosicrucian brotherhood, wanted to found a society on the basis of this rediscovered pious wisdom for anyone who took an interest in his book, so as to discuss magic and secrets and to spread original and divine wisdom. The good reader, he noted, “should not doubt me that he will read this work with great use and benefit, and that he will find in it explained many passages from the Holy Scripture, which had previously appeared somewhat obscure to him.”209 Like the manifestos after him, Sperber
207 Sperber, “Preface,” Von der hochsten Schatze, 24: “also ist auch dieses hohe studium von derselben Altvater zeiten der Heiligen je lenger je mehr vergessen [.], also das es leider darhin gerahten das man von solchem heiligen und aller hochsten studio fast in der gan- zen Welt nichts mehr sonderliches weis.”
208 Ibid., 25-26: “man noch zu jeder zeit, wiewol allein einzlich unnd sehr wenig Leute, unter den Christen gefunden die ihnen solch studium haben angelegen sein lassen, darzu auch etwa mediate et inmediate andeutung und nachweissunge bekommen. Als der sonder- lich gewesen sein (wie aus ihren Schrifften zum theil abzunehmen): Heinricus Cornelius Agrippa; Aegidius de Roma; Gerhardus Zurphaniensis; Johannes Hagem de Indagine; Johannes Reuchlinus; Taullerus ein Prediger Munch; Perrus Galatinus und Franciscus Georgius beyde Minoritaner Munche, Marsilius Ficinus Theologus, und Medicus Guil- helmus Postellus, Henricus Harpius Theologus, Picus comes Mirandulanus; Marcus Anto- nius Mocenicus ein Venetiamscher patricius und Stephanus Conventius und andere mehr [.].” Most, if not all of these men had studied magic and Cabala.
209 Ibid., 40-41, 50: “[.] der gutherzige Leser [.] zweiffelt mir alsdann nicht, er werde solchen tractat mit grossem nutz und frucht lesen, auch im selben viel orter der heilgen Schrifft so ihme zuvor etwas dunkel werden furkommen sein, deutlich und wol erklaret finden.”
believed that the primeval wisdom of the ancients expressed biblical secrets, was witnessing a restoration, and was to become the new philosophy for the new age.
We have already seen that Bodenstein believed that the newly restored medicine had once been practiced and conveyed by Hermes Trismegistus, and that he borrowed from both Hermeticism and the philosophia perennis. He emphasised the link with original pious thought by bringing the wisdom of the ancient philosophers in line with the knowledge of the Church Fathers and interpreters of the Holy Scripture:
When they [sc. the Church Fathers and interpreters of the Bible] for the first time received the rules and revelations of God and perceived His miracles, they dedicated themselves first and foremost to a divine philosophy, which is manifest in the Cabala, in Mercurius Trismegistus, Berosus,210 Orpheus, Pythagoras, Plato, and the entire philosophy of the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Assyrians. All of them taught much about the spirit, God, about the divine and secret causes. After Plato the Greeks fell for the most part from this more noble philosophy to a cruder and rudimentary philo- sophy.211
Bodenstein compared the divine wisdom of the earliest philosophers also to theology.212 Thus knowledge of the ancients, understanding nature through magic and Cabala, had in Bodenstein’s view provided a wisdom similar to Scripture, and was likewise studied by the Church Fathers.
In some pseudo-Paracelsian texts, specifically alchemy was used for the purpose of bringing back to light ancient knowledge. The pseudo-Paracelsian Apocalypse of Hermes and On the Tincture of the Natural Philosophers purported to reveal the “secret of secrets.” According to On the Tincture, this secret had been sought and found by Hermes Trismegistus, [pseudo-]Aristotle,213 Avicenna, Albertus Magnus, and others, and it combined ancient wisdom and divine
210 Pseudo-Berosus, i.e., Annius of Viterbo (ca. 1432-1502), who published his forgery in 1498.
211 Bodenstein, cp, vol. 1, nr. 6, 115: “Nam, primi Dei praecepta et reuelationes, ubi [patres sacrarum literarum interpraetes] acceperunt, et miracula uiderunt diuinam philoso- phiam maxime coluerunt, quod liquet in Cabala, in Mercurio Trismegisto, Beroso, Orpheo, Pythagora, Platone, totaque philosophia Aegyptorum, Chaldaeorum et Assiriorum. Illi, de mente, Deo, diuinis et ocultis causis multa docuerunt. Post Platonem Graeci maiori ex parte a nobiliori defecerunt ad crassiorem et elementarem [...].”
212 Cf. Fama, 123-124; see above, section 1.3.
213 The author presumably refers to pseudo-Aristotle, Secretum secretorum. On this text and its circulation, see: Williams, The Secret of Secrets.
secrets. The sought-after ancient secret was an alchemical preparation that would counteract bane, return youth, and prolong life—one of the key functions of the philosophers’ stone.214 This stone, the quinta essentia, was said to be prepared alchemically in order to restore health, and was referred to as the “lily of medicine and alchemy,” or “the most quiet and highest secret of nature, that is, the spirit of the Lord.”215 In similarity to the restoration of divine secrets, medicine was also thought to reverse the consequences of the Fall. This medicine was the Spirit of the Lord, meaning that God himself was responsible for the restoration of original purity and that He had revoked His original punishment, granting some humans access to His Spirit through their work in alchemy.
That this material could counteract the consequences of the Fall was made explicit in the pseudo-Paracelsian Apocalypse of Hermes, which reads: “Then our ancestors Adam and Eve were given death as punishment, which cannot be separated from their descendants.” But the treasure that was hidden in all “elemental creatures” was found again by a few, among whom notably Hermes and Aristotle, who named it the “secret of secrets.” It was this treasure “from which Adam and the other Patriarchs had had their bodily health and long life.”216
214 Pseudo-Paracelsus, De tinctura physicorum, i, 14; 391-399. Cf.: Pseudo-Paracelsus, Apoca- lypsis Hermetis, edited by Zetzner (1603), part 2, 668-671.
215 Pseudo-Paracelsus, De tinctura physicorum, i, 14; 393: “ich werde euch lernen die tinctur, die arcana, oder das quintum esse, in welchem alle heimlikeit, grunt und werk ligt.” Ibid., 394: “Darumb die materia tincturae das grofit perlin und edlester schaz ist, das nach des almechtigen erofnung und aller menschen betrachtung auf erden sein mag. und is die lili der arznei und alchimei, welche die philosophi so heftig und streng gesucht haben, aus gebresten ganzer erkantnus und volkomner bereitung, doch nicht perfect zum end gebracht.” Ibid., 398-399: “Das ist die tinctur, dardurch etliche von den ersten physicis in Egypten, wie dan auch noch auf dise zeit, hundert und funfzig jar gelebt. viler vita hat sich aug lengert und etwan auf etlich secula erstrekt, wie die historien offentlich aus- weisen und solchs doch niemants glaubwurdig gedunkt. dan ir kraft ist so wunderbarlich, das sie den leib hoher, dan die angeboren cimplexion erzeigt, bringt, und in dem selben grad stanthaftig erhelt, das er vor allen krankheiten frei bewart und ob er mit alter behaft scheinet, gleichsam seiner vorigen jugent zugestelt were [...]. Dan das ist die catholicum physicorum, darumb das alle physica dem langen leben seind nachgangen”; cf. PseudoParacelsus, Apocalypsis Hermetis, 670: “Diese Gottliche Werck ist gar zu tieff/ dafi es kein Narr verstehen kan/ dann es ist das leiste und hochste Geheimnufi der Natur/ das ist/ der Geist defi Herren/ [...].”
216 Pseudo-Paracelsus, Apocalypsis Hermetis, 668: “[...]. Dann unsern voreltern Adam und Evae/ ist der Todt zur straff auffgesetzt worden/ das sich von ihren nachkommnen nicht scheiden lafit. Dahero offtgedachter Philosophus, und andere viel mehr/ dasselbig Einig vor allen dingen mit grosser Arbeit gesucht/ und haben befunden/ dafi dasselbige/ welches dann den menschlichen Leib von seinem verderben enthalt/ und das leben erlengert [...]. Das geistlich Wesen/ difi einig ding/ ist dem Adam von oben herab geoffen-
The rediscovered secret was hidden throughout nature and had the capacity to restore and improve health, and presumably worked as panacea, as a cure to all diseases. Both the instauration of lost knowledge and the regeneration of the body would counteract the consequences of the Fall and enact a reversal of original sin.
The elemental creatures were beings living within the four elements. They were discussed by Sperber and in the pseudo-Paracelsian Liber Azoth.217 Paracelsus had described these creatures earlier, for example in On the Long Life, which deals, as the title suggests, with longevity, and which work was edited by Bodenstein in 1560 and 1562.218 The theme of longevity returned in the Brief Consideration of the More Secret Philosophy to which one of the first editions of the Confessio was appended in 1615. This text specifically refers to Paracelsus several times, including one reference to his On the Long Life.219
Both the elemental figures and the notion of longevity return also in the Rosicrucian manifestos. According to the Fama, Christian Rosencreutz was educated by elemental beings in Fez about various unnamed secrets of na- ture—which again indicates his knowledge of what was hidden beyond the surface in nature.220 Likewise, not only the rediscovery of lost knowledge and the return of prelapsarian conditions were mentioned in the Rosicrucian manifestos, but also the restoration of the original human body. According to the Fama, the bodies of the Rosicrucian brethren remained healthy throughout their entire lives. They died, but not as a result of diseases, but because it was time for their spirits to return to God.221 They could keep their bodies healthy thanks to the panacea, which the brethren claimed to have in their possession. This means that they could restore bodies to paradisiacal conditions.222
baret worden/ und von den heiligen Vattern sonderlich begert worden/ welches Hermes und Aristoteles, das wahre/ ohne lugen/ das gewiste/ das aller gewisseste/ das Geheime aller geheimen nennen [...]. Und wie die Seel in alien gliedern des Leibs ist/ also findt sich dieser geist in allen Elementirten geschopffen: wirdt gesucht von vielen/ von weni- gen aber gefunden [...] aufi welches krefften der Adam und die andern Patriarchen ires Leibs gesundtheit und langes leben gehabt haben.”
217 Sperber, Von den dreyen seculis, 208; Pseudo-Paracelsus, Liber Azoth, i, 14; 582-583.
218 Paracelsus, De vita longa, i, 3; 249-292. For elemental forces in other works by Paracelsus, see: Paracelsus, Astronomia Magna i, 12; 3-507; idem, Paragranum, i, 8; 135 f.; Weeks, Paracelsus. Essential Theoretical Writings, 12, 17, 26, 28, 30, 130; idem, Paracelsus, 9.
219 Philippo a Gabella, Secretions philosophiae consideratio brevis, 11, 39, 41; Clulee, “Astro- nomia inferior,” 218. On the manifestos’ association with this text, see below, section 3.1.
220 Fama, 96-97.
221 Fama, 108, 119.
222 Elsewhere, perfect bodies were merely mused upon: Confessio, 47-48: “Qui itaque sordeant nobis tanta; si Nobis tantum haec scire, et non potius seculi sui ornamento data
The Rosicrucian reformation of philosophy consisted in bringing back the pious wisdom of the ancients, and possibly even prelapsarian conditions and perfectly healthy bodies—intentions that had earlier been voiced in the works and thought of Paracelsus and his followers. The instauration of such knowledge was fundamental to the Rosicrucian general reformation.
In Sperber, we find a writer who expressed further ideas similar to the Rosicrucian reformation. Before the manifestos had been drafted, he specifically wrote about the reform of theology, medicine, and philosophy. With respect to theology, Sperber characterised the first age by the Jewish theology of the law; the second age by a Christian theology, and “in the last time there will be a theology of the Holy Spirit, which is named by Johannes an eternal gospel: An angel will announce it, to those who will dwell and live on earth.”223 This clearly resonates with Joachim’s three statuses or ages: the age of the Father or the Old Testament, the age of the Son or the New Testament, and the age of the Holy Spirit.
In medicine, Sperber argued, some changes for the better had already occurred. While in the first age, physicians practiced an empirical medicine, and in the second age a rational medicine, “in the last time of the Holy Spirit there will be the chemical or spagyric medicine.”224 Although Sperber, like the manifestos, did not explicitly refer to Paracelsus in this sense, the spagyric art of which he speaks is obviously Paracelsian. While discussing medicine, he reiterated Paracelsian elements relevant to medicine such as the microcosm-
essent? Qui non libenter in una veritate, quam per tot anfractus, tot labyrinthos quaerunt Mortales, libenter acquiesceremus, si Candelabrum sextum nobis tantum lucere Deus voluisset? Nonne satis erat Nobis, nec famem, nec pauperiem, nec morbos, nec senium metuere? Nonne praeclarum, sic in qualibet hora vivete, quasi a Mundo nato vixisses: quasi ad Mundi interitum victurus esses? [...] sic legere in uno libro, ut quidquid omnes libri, qui fuerunt, sunt, prodibunt, habuerunt, habent, atque habituti sunt, legas, intelli- gas, retineas? [...] O Mortales, aliud est consilium Dei et commoditas vestra, cui decretum Fraternitatis nostrae numerum hoc Fraternitatis tempore augere atque multiplicare.”
223 Sperber, Von den dreyen seculis, 42: “Zur zeit des Vatters im ersten Seculo und Testament ist gewesen die Judische Theologia oder Religion/ nemlich das Gesetz. In der zeit des Sohnes im Newen Testament haben wir bifihero gehabt und haben noch die Christliche Theolo- giam oder Religion/ nemlich das Evangelium der Gnaden Gottes/ und unsers heyls [.]. In der letzten zeit wird seyn die Theologia des Heiligen Geistes/ welche Johannes nennet ein Ewiges Evangelium: Welches ein Engel wird verkundigen denen die auff erden sitzen unnd wohnen/ [.]”; see also: ibid., 165.
224 Ibid., 80-81: “In der zeit des Vatters war im brauch die Empirische Medicina, welche allein auff gewisse experimenta oder erfahrung gerichtet gewesen [.]. In der zeit des Sohnes it auffkommen die jenige Medina [sic], welche man Rationalem nennet [.]. In der letzten zeit des Heligen Geist wird seyn die Chymische oder Spagyrische Medicina.”
macrocosm analogy, the inner anatomy of man, and, notably, the influence of the imagination on diseases.225
Philosophically, “in the third and last age will come and remain in highest perfection and certainty another perfect and permanent philosophy, together with the seven liberal arts.”226 As already described above, also for Sperber this state of perfection resonated with primeval wisdom, so that he combined the philosophia perennis with the traditional medieval liberal arts. In that future age, magic, the divine wisdom, would also be perfect.227 Previously a secret and hidden wisdom, magic in the last age will be entirely revealed.228
The reform described by Sperber differed in its details from that of the brethren, but the overall framework, that is, the changes within the fields of theology, medicine, and philosophy, on the eve of the new age, is strikingly similar. Sperber’s emphasis on the reform of these areas, complemented by magic and restored wisdom, resonates with the goals of the Rosicrucian brethren’s reform agenda just a few years later.
2.6 Concluding Remarks
In Chapter One, several elements in the manifestos were established that announced an imminent new age, but these did not specify in precisely what way the new age should be different, and from where the Rosicrucian philosophy for the new period was to come. With respect to Paracelsianism, in turn, there are few elements originating from that movement that also indicate the new age: the Antichrist and celestial portents are largely absent, and instead of a political-spiritual figure—the lion—early Paracelsians expected a figure based on Elijah, the alchemical prophet Elias Artista. Paracelsianism did not provide the context of the Rosicrucians’ general reformation, but its contents. Taking into account, besides Paracelsus’ medicine and philosophy, also apocalyptic themes and works by Paracelsus’ followers, has enabled us to shed fresh
225 Ibid., 206-209; Paracelsus, Volumen Paramirum, i, 1; 165-239.
226 Sperber, Von den dreyen seculis, 81: “In der dritten unnd letzten zeit aber wird eine andere gewisse vollkommene unnd bestandige Philosophia, sampt den sieben Freyen Kunsten/ in hochster vollkommenheit unnd gewisheit aufkommen und bestandig bleiben”; see also: ibid., 210.
227 Ibid., 82-85.
228 Ibid., 219: “Und ob woll auch im ersten unnd andern Seculo diese Magia gar eine heim- liche und verborgene Weifiheit ist: So wird sie doch dort im letzten Seculo ganz offenbahr werden. [...] Es is nichtes verborgenes/ dafi nicht offenbahr werde.”
light on the Paracelsian influence on the manifestos. Although the manifestos refer only to Paracelsus, the parallels with the early Paracelsians are unmistake- able.
In their apocalyptic views, the Rosicrucians shared very little with Paracelsus’ own religious notions,229 and were much more closely aligned with early Paracelsians. Early Paracelsians, such as Bodenstein and Sperber, expected a new earthly age before the end during which all things will be revealed and Paracelsian medicine and natural-philosophy will thrive.
The new medicine advocated by the Rosicrucians must have been Paracelsian, even though they do not refer to it as such. But the figure of Paracelsus himself was no doubt inspirational, as is evident from the various references to him and the similarities between him and Christian Rosencreutz. The Rosicrucians aligned themselves with the growing rejection of scholastic thought by Paracelsus and early Paracelsians, and were aware of the new medicine and its corresponding natural-philosophical worldview that was promoted by Paracelsus and further communicated by early Paracelsian editors. Here, we may also observe the possible influence of pseudo-Paracelsian texts: Cabala, longevity, and the promise of perfect conditions and bodies—mentioned in the manifestos—can be traced back particularly to pseudo-Paracelsian writings such as On the Nature of Things, On the Tincture of the Natural Philosophers, and The Apocalypse of Hermes.230
Wels argues that the manifestos are not heterodox, and only convey a very moderate sense of Paracelsianism, one grounded in Lutheranism.231 On the contrary, more so than providing the millenarian imagery and its ingredients, Paracelsus and his followers offered the content of the Rosicrucian reformation. With respect to philosophy, the influence of Paracelsus is unquestionable, but these ideas are not as mystical as has sometimes been suggested.232 Notions such as the microcosm-macrocosm analogy and the Book of Nature are explicitly derived from Paracelsus and are a central aspect of the Rosicrucian reformation. In “the new kingdom” of Paracelsus, Paracelsian philosophy was
229 This is contrary to what has been argued in: Murase, “Paracelsismus und Chiliasmus,” 1119.
230 Cf. Paracelsus, i, 14; for De natura rerum; see: Sudhoff, Bibliographia Paracelsica, 345, 392; for De tinctura physicorum, see, ibid., 189-190, 235, 268, 392; Sudhoff, Samtliche Werke, i, 14; xii-xvi.
231 Wels, “Die Frommigkeit der Rosenkreuzer-Manifeste.”
232 Edighoffer, for example, who perhaps discussed the Paracelsian influence on the manifestos at greater length than most, speculated about the meaning of their philosophical elements and its mystical and esoteric character; see especially: Edighoffer, Rose-Croix et societe ideale, vol. 1, 270-278; idem, “Die Manifeste der Rosenkreuzer.”
to prevail at the expense of scholastic philosophy; likewise for the Rosicrucians, this type of philosophy provided the foundation for the new age.
Paracelsus’ followers associated themselves with the philosophia perennis, and their many publications may have prompted the authors of the Fama to refer to a Vocabulary that would unlock Paracelsus’ code. Because, as the brethren claimed, the new age was a return to the beginnings and a restoration of the order of nature, their new philosophy was—in terms contrary to orthodox Lutheranism—at the same time also a restoration of long-lost knowledge. Like early Paracelsians, the Rosicrucians identified primeval philosophy with Paracelsian thought. In particular Sperber’s belief in a new age, combined with the instauration of lost knowledge and the reformation of philosophy, religion, and medicine, would have been a singular example to the Rosicrucian authors.
Lyke de Vries - 978-90-04-24939-4
Downloaded from Brill.com05/24/2022 05:15:25PM via free access
part 2
The Bibliographical Origins
Lyke de Vries - 978-90-04-24939-4
Downloaded from Brill.com05/24/2022 05:15:25PM via free access
chapter 3
The Authors and the Rosicrucian Worldview
The Rosicrucian manifestos articulated that the brethren’s principal aim was a reformation of religion, politics, and knowledge (scientia) or philosophy. Religiously, politically, and philosophically, they described a world that was in a dire state of decay and which they hoped to revive, restore, and renew to full splendour and glory. In the previous chapters, these ambitions were traced back to heterodox religious and philosophical sources, and were shown to be antithetical to confessional interpretations of history and to established education. But a study of these ideas in relation to the alleged authors of the manifestos has remained a desideratum. Having established the contents of the Rosicrucian manifestos and the movements, traditions, and writings their authors may have drawn upon, it is now appropriate to turn to the origins of these texts themselves.
The Rosicrucian manifestos were published in 1614, 1615, and 1616, respectively. Both the Fama and the Confessio were published anonymously by Wilhelm Wessel at the court printing press of the German Landgrave Moritz von Hesse-Kassel (1572-1632) in Kassel. The language of the first published edition of the Fama was German, and appended to it was the Answer to the Commendable Fraternity of the Theosophers of Rosencreutz by the theosopher Adam Haslmayr, which will be discussed in the next chapter. Prefixed to the Fama was a German translation of chapter 77 of the satirical work News from Parnassus (Venice, 1612) by Traiano Boccalini (1556-1613), which carried the title General and Universal Reformation of the Entire World.1 In this satirical text, wise men discuss the evils of the time and the need for a universal reformation. They proffer solutions as absurd as they are impossible, including the plan to abolish all financial trades and the suggestion that windows be placed in human hearts to allow the character of each individual to be immediately established.2 As none
1 The full title of the Fama, together with the texts by Boccalini and Haslmayr, reads: Allgemeine und General reformation, dergantzenweiten Welt. Beneben derfama fraternitatis, defi Loblichen Ordens des Rosencreutzes/ an alle Gelehrte und Haupter Europae geschrieben: auch einer kurtzen responsion, von dem Herrn Haselmeyer gestellet/ welcher defiwegen von dem Jesuitern ist gefanglich eingezogen/ und auff eine Galleren geschmiedet: Itzo offentlich in Druck verfertiget/ und allen trewen Hertzen communiciret worden. On Haslmayr, see below, section 4.1.
2 Penman, “Traiano Boccalini’s Ragguagli di Parnaso,” 104. About the text, see especially: Hendrix, Traiano Boccalini fra erudizione e polemica. Studi sulla fortuna di un’opera satirica
of the solutions are practically realisable, the wise scholars instead decide to implement superficial changes only, such as determining fixed prices for fruit.3
During the following year, 1615, the Confessio was published several times in both Latin and German. The first Latin edition was published in Kassel alongside a German edition of the Confessio and a republication of the Fama. Within a few months, a second Latin edition of the Confessio followed from the same publisher, which was prefixed by a text written by the pseudonymous Philippus a Gabella, entitled Brief Consideration of the Secret Philosophy. The latter text relies heavily on John Dee’s Monas Hieroglyphica, but also resembles the Emerald Tablet attributed to Hermes Trismegistus with respect to the microcosmmacrocosm analogy and the alchemical references it included.4
Despite some similarities between these two manifestos and the texts with which they were printed, it is likely that neither the reformation plans of Bocca- lini’s text nor the alchemical contents of the Brief Consideration had prompted the authors of the Fama and Confessio to append their writings to these works, for the simple reason that they were possibly not at all involved in the publication process and perhaps even dreaded the manifestos’ publication.5 After all, the contents of the manifestos had already proven dangerous for several years, at least since Haslmayr’s unfortunate fate brought him to the galleys in 1612.6 That the Fama was printed with a section from the News from Parnassus was presumably the direct result of Landgrave Moritz von Hesse’s involvement in the publication process, as the Fama could probably only have been printed with the explicit permission of Moritz.7
nella coscienza politica europea, 89-92, 227-228; Penman, “Traiano Boccalini’s Ragguagli di Parnaso.” Besides the three Rosicrucian texts discussed here, Kienast took the Allgemeine und Generalreformation fora fourth Rosicrucian work in his Johann Valentin Andreae und die Vier echten Rosenkreutzer-Schriften, 2-3.
3 Penman, “Traiano Boccalini’s Ragguagli di Parnaso.”
4 Secretioris Philosophiae Consideratio brevis a Philippo a Gabella Philosophiae St. Conscripta, et nunc primum una cum Confessione Fraternitatis r.c. It is unclear by whom the pseudonym ’Philippo a Gabella’ was used. Moran has argued that the author was Raphael Eglin, while Gilly suspects that the text may have been written by Johannes Rhenanus; see: Moran, “Alchemy, Prophecy and the Rosicrucians,” 112; Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 73. For an introduction to the Consideratio Brevis, including the alchemical references and the links to the Emerald Tablet and John Dee, see: Clulee, “Astronomia Inferior,” 197-234. Because of the connection with John Dee, Yates argued that the Rosicrucian movement was influenced by Dee; see: Yates, The Rosicrucian Enlightenment. This thesis has been challenged by, amongst others: Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 22; McIntosh, Rosicrucianism, 29; Akerman, Rose Cross over the Baltic, 6869, 80; Clulee, “Astronomia Inferior,” 225; Kahn, “The Rosicrucian Hoax in France,” 236-237.
5 Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 70; Clulee, “Astronomia inferior,” 197.
6 Cf. below, section 4.1.
7 Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 70; Penman, “Traiano Boccalini’s Ragguagli di Parnaso.” This
The last of the Rosicrucian texts that appeared in print was the German Chemical Wedding, published in Strasbourg by Lazarus Zetzner in 1616, where the Chemical Theatre was also published. This allegorical tale was published as a separate text, was not appended to other writings, and it is the only Rosicrucian work with an avowed authorship. The German author and theologian Johann Valentin Andreae (1586-1654) confessed to having written the Chemical Wedding in his autobiography entitled Vita, a memoir written in 1642 but which remained unpublished until it appeared in a 1799 German translation. Having reluctantly acknowledged his authorship, Andreae immediately dismissed the Chemical Wedding as a “ludibrium,” a mere play.8 He claimed to have written it in 1605, when he was approximately 19 years old. But as many writings dated to that same year were actually written later, it may well be that also the Chemical Wedding was written at a later stage.9 In any event, the text had been written by 1607, because in that year Karl Widemann (1555-1637), the Paracelsian physician, collector of heterodox texts, and friend of Adam Haslmayr, wrote the following about a friend and temporary co-tenant of Andreae: “M. Winter. Printer in Lauingen. He has the Alchemical Wedding [.]”io—from which remark it may be concluded that the narrative existed by that time.
The origins ofthe first two Rosicrucian writings are of far greater significance in the context of the topic of the general reformation, but these have proven much more difficult to determine. Written under the cover of anonymity, ever since the manifestos’ publication scholars have puzzled over questions related to their origin and purpose. It has proven to be particularly difficult to pinpoint exactly when, where, and especially by whom these Rosicrucian texts were written. Answers to these questions would not only help our understanding of
is remarkable, given the fact that it was the same Moritz von Hesse-Kassel who ordered one of the first trials against the Rosicrucians; see further below, section 5.3.
8 Andreae, Vita, 10 (1642/1849): “Superfuerunt e contra Nuptiae Chymicae, cum monstrorum foecundo foetu, ludibrium, quod mireris a nonnullis aestimatum et subtili indagine expli- catum, plane futile et quod inanitatem curiosorum prodat.” Gilly commented that distancing himself from the Wedding was a tactic by Andreae to avoid criticism; see: Gilly, “Campanella and the Rosicrucians,” 197. On Johann Valentin Andreae, see, for example: Kienast, Johann Valentin Andreae; Montgomery, Cross and Crucible, 2 vols. (although the latter author had a clear agenda in mind which involved distancing Andreae from the manifestos); Van Dulmen, Die Utopie einer christlichen Gesellschaft; Brecht, “Johann Valentin Andreae”; idem, Johann Valentin Andreae.
9 Andreae, Breviarium vitae, see: Brecht, “Johann Valentin Andreae,” 299; Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 82.
10 “M. Winter. Buechdrucker in Laingen. Hat die alchimistische Hochzeit [...],” cited in: Gilly,
Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 82; Brecht, Johann Valentin Andreae, 66. Andreae lived with Winter for a year in 1607, see: Gilly, “Don Quijote und Rosenkreutz,” 21.
the origin of the manifestos themselves, but may also shed light on questions related to their authors’ motives.
In the available historiography on the manifestos, much attention has been given to the question of authorship, and contextual investigations have recently provided some clues asto the origin of the manifestos themselves.11 In addition, scholars have compared the contents of the Rosicrucian manifestos with the known works of possible authors, so as to either confirm or deny their involvement. They thereby hoped to explain not only the origin of the manifestos, but also the origin and meaning of the ideas conveyed in them by tracing them back to these authors. The downside of this latter approach is that the contents of the Rosicrucian texts have not been analysed from the starting point of the manifestos themselves, but through the lens of authorship,12 a method that has also contributed to the misleading interpretation of the manifestos as Lutheran texts.13
It is not the intention here to reinterpret the contents of the manifestos in relation to their presumed authors. Having already elucidated in the previous chapters the meaning and significance of the most central theme of the manifestos—the general reformation—in this chapter we will investigate the role that this theme, in particular its apocalyptic implications as well as the reform of religion, politics, and scientia, played in their authors’ other writings. To what extent were the general reformation and related themes incorporated or perhaps central to their works and worldviews? The answer to this question will provide crucial insight into the topic of the general reformation, the possible intentions the authors may have had while writing these manifestos, and it may also help to further elucidate the question of authorship.
11 See, for example: Gilly, Johann Valentin Andreae, 60,71-73; idem, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica,
esp. 70,77-79; idem, “Die Rosenkreuzer”; Brecht, “Johann Valentin Andreae”; idem, Johann Valentin Andreae, 65-92.
12 Peuckert, Die Rosenkreuzer, 88 ff.; idem, Das Rosenkreutz, 165-173; Yates, The Rosicrucian Enlightenment, 140-155; Brecht, “Chiliasmus in Wurttemberg”; Wehr, “Johann Valentin Andreae,” 21 ff.; Edighoffer, Les Rose-Croix, 47-58; idem, Les Rose-Croix et la crise, 24-28, 30, 51-124; Gilly, CimeliaRhodostaurotica, 10,12,51-56,75-80; idem, “Die Rosenkreuzer”; Aker- man, Rose Cross, 69-70; Dickson, The Tessera of Antilia, ch. 3; Schmidt-Biggemann, “Von Damcar nach Christianopolis”; Wels, “Die Frommigkeit der Rosenkreuzer-Manifeste.”
13 On the manifestos contradicting Lutheran doctrines, see Chapter 1.
3.1 Authorship in Question
Before comparing the manifestos with the ideas of their alleged authors as they were articulated elsewhere, it is appropriate to shed some light on the question of authorship first. The author of the Chemical Wedding, Andreae, was born into a well-established family from Tubingen as the son of Johannes Andreae (1554-1601), a Lutheran theologian interested in alchemical preparations, and as the grandson of Jakob Andreae (1528-1590), a famous Lutheran theologian involved in writing the Formula of Concord.14 Tubingen, indeed, was a hotbed of orthodox Lutheranism.15 Johann Valentin Andreae could neither escape the geographically dominant religion nor the influence of his pedigree, so that he too studied to become a theologian, while also being taught in mathematical sciences by Johannes Kepler’s mentor, Michael Mastlin (1550-1631).^ After his studies, Andreae became deacon in Vaihingen and pastor in Calw. From an early age, he wrote poems and comedies, which were soon followed by utopian stories.17 His religious motivations are evident from his voluminous bibliography, in which he always emphasised Christian values, the evangelical faith, and the importance of a Christian society and science.
Andreae was associated with several other Tubingen scholars, who together formed the so-called “Tubinger Kreis,” the Tubingen Circle, and who have always been central to any discussion of Rosicrucian authorship. Andreae referred to this group of friends as a society, but there is little evidence that they were anything more than close and likeminded friends or that they had organised themselves in any official way. Among its members was Abraham Holzl (dates unknown), who was a close friend of Andreae from 1608 onward, as well as Tobias Adami (1581-1643) and Wilhelm von Wense (1586-1641), who were acquainted with Campanella and who met Andreae no earlier than 1612.18 As will become clear shortly, these three men became friends with Andreae only after the composition ofthe manifestos.19 Central to the group, and the scholars
14 On Jakob Andreae, see for example: Kolb, Andreae and the Formula of Concord; Ehmer, Leben des Jakob Andreae: Doktor der Theologie von ihm selbst mit grosser Treue und Aufrich- tigkeit beschrieben, bis auf das Jahr 1562; Ludwig, Philippismus und orthodoxes Luthertum an der Universitat Wittenberg.
15 Brecht, Theologen und Theologie an der Universitat Tubingen; idem, “Johann Valentin Andreae,” 272; Manuel and Manuel, Utopian Thought, 289.
16 Brecht, Johann Valentin Andreae, 25-27.
17 Cf. Brecht, “’Er hat uns die Fackel ubergeben ...’,” 29.
18 On their relation with Campanella, see above, pp. 67-68.
19 Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 48; idem, “Campanella and the Rosicrucians”; Bohling (ed.),
Gesammelte Schriften 6. Schriften zur Christlichen Reform, 14.
with whom Andreae is most often associated as co-authors of the manifestos, were the lawyer and Paracelsian physician Tobias Hess (1568-1614) and the lawyer Christoph Besold (1577-1638).
Hess became acquainted with Andreae before 1601.20 Very little is known about his life and occupation, and, aside from a few letters, no works by his hand have survived. It is only from these letters and from Andreae’s Vita and the Immortality of Tobias Hess (1614), the obituary Andreae wrote for him, that we learn about Hess’ life and his religious, medical, and philosophical per- suasions.21 Although he matriculated and graduated in law, Hess worked as a Paracelsian physician. He collaborated with Andreae’s father in alchemy and cured, among others, Andreae’s sister from a knee injury. In several of his writings, Andreae defended Hess against criticism that had been voiced against the latter, not least as the result of investigations into Hess’ religious views and his practice as a Paracelsian physician.22 Almost twenty years his senior, Hess was revered by Andreae as a father-figure, but even more so as his teacher and friend, and as a devout Christian.23
Hess owned only a few works, most of which came after his death into the possession of Christoph Besold, a highly-educated man who owned a library containing over 4,000 writings.24 Besold was well acquainted with Andreae, but also with the theosopher Daniel Mogling, whom we will encounter in the next chapter, and with the Tubingen astronomer Johannes Kepler, whose mother was successfully defended by Besold during a witch trial.25 Besold’s interests were varied, ranging from history to geography and from theology to oriental languages. He translated works by Tommaso Campanella, and published writings by the German mystic Johannes Tauler (1300-1361), the Italian Dominican friar Girolamo Savonarola (1452-1498), and the Lutheran theologian and proto-pietist Johann Arndt (1555-1621).26 Besold helped Andreae in
20 Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 48.
21 Andreae, Tobiae Hessi Immortalitas (written 1614, published 1619).
22 Cf. especially: Andreae, Tobiae Hessi Immortalitas. On investigations into Hess, see below, sections 3.2 and 3.4.
23 Gilly, “Die Rosenkreuzer,” 44.
24 The works owned by Hess include a Bible translation by Castellio, Severinus’ Idea medi- cinae philosophicae, Lull’s Ars Magna, Brocardo’s interpretation of Genesis, two work by Johannes Reuchlin, and Trithemius’ steganography; see: Brecht, Johann Valentin Andreae, 36. Besold’s library can now be found in the Universitatsbibliothek Salzburg. The complete list of the books owned by Hess can be found in uat, 20/3a. Some books owned by Hess came into the possession of Christoph Schallenberg: Gilly, “Die Rosenkreuzer,” 48n88.
25 Rublack, The Astronomer and the Witch, 155.
26 Gilly, Johann Valentin Andreae, 131-132; idem, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 65; Brecht, Johann
his study of languages, and Andreae made avid use of his library.27 Adressing Besold, Andreae wrote: “Many people I owe very little, few a lot, you [I owe] everything.”28 Besold’s conversion from Lutheranism to Catholicism in 1630, however, resulted in an ever-growing disagreement between the two scholars.29
No sooner had the manifestos appeared in print than the librarian and philologist Caspar Bucher (1554-1617) depicted Andreae as the creator of the Rosicrucian writings. Bucher’s claim was made in his Antimenippus (1617), which was a direct attack on Andreae’s Menippus of the same year.30 Two years later, a second scholar, Friedrich Grick, voiced his suspicions about Andreae’s involvement,31 as did Melchior Breler (1589-1627), the physician to Duke August ii of Brunswick-Luneburg (1579-1666), in 1621. In his Mystery ofPseudo- evangelical Evil, Breler asserted that the Fama had been written by three authors. Although he did not mention the authors’ names, Breler’s Mystery consisted primarily of a discussion of the Sheath of the Sword of the Spirit (Theca gladii spiritus, 1616), which was at the time attributed to Hess; of Besold’s Axioms (1616), which was published with the Sheath; and of unnamed works by Andreae.32 Lastly, in 1700 the Lutheran theologian and historian Gottfried Arnold (1666-1714) concluded that Andreae was the author of the Rosicrucian manifestos.33
Despite these insinuations, several scholars in recent literature deny that Andreae had any involvement in the manifestos. On the basis ofa philological comparison, especially of the Chemical Wedding with the Fama and Confessio, Richard Kienast dismissed both Andreae and Hess as possible authors of the latter two writings and concluded that the texts were written by Besold alone.34 John Warwick Montgomery, in turn, rejected the involvement of all three scholars, especially of Andreae and Besold, for reasons related to both content and
Valentin Andreae, 48, 90. Proto-pietists are Lutherans who held pietist views before Philipp Spener (1635-1705).
27 Brecht, Johann Valentin Andreae, 46-49. Andreae described his friendship with Hess in his Vita, 47-50, 52-54, 55, 154, 207; and his friendship with Besold on pp. 20 ff., 155, 178 ff., 273.
28 “Vielen Leuten schulde ich wenig, Wenigen viel, Dir alles,” cited in: Brecht, Johann Valentin Andreae, 49.
29 Brecht, Johann Valentin Andreae, 46; Salvadori, “From Spiritual Regeneration,” 4-5.
30 Bucher, Antimenippus (1617).
31 On Friedrich Grick, see below, section 5.2.
32 Breler, Mysterium iniquitatis pseudo evangelicae. The text is included in Widemann’s work in Augsburg and is mentioned in: Gilly, “Die Rosenkreuzer,” 28-29; see also: Andreae [Hess], Theca gladii spiritus (1616); Besold, Axiomata philosophica-theologica (1616).
33 Gottfried Arnold, see: Gilly, “Die Rosenkreuzer,” 29.
34 Kienast, Johann Valentin Andreae, 137, 140, 229-230.
confession. He suggested that Andreae’s religious conviction as expressed in many of his writings was at variance with the contents of the manifestos, and he repeatedly emphasised Andreae’s explicit distance from the Rosicrucian story. According to Montgomery, the Paracelsian, apocalyptic, and esoteric elements of the manifestos resemble neither the Chemical Wedding nor Andreae’s other writings.35 He does not however provide a definite alternative to the question of authorship, but suggests that authors like Julius Sperber, Simon Studion, and Aegidius Gutman may have been involved.36 Likewise, Frances Yates does not definitively attribute the manifestos to any specific author but considers the German physician, mathematician and natural philosopher Joachim Jungius (1587-1657), a friend of Andreae who lived in the printing centre Hamburg, to be a likely candidate.37
The exclusion of Andreae as a possible author is in keeping with his own statements about the Rosicrucian story. The Second, Advisory Part of the Invitation to the Fraternity of Christ (1618) begins with a reference to the unrest caused by a certain society, that is, the Rosicrucian one.38 That fraternity, Andreae explained, was only disturbing, while “we present a more certain and more evident one.”39 Published the following year (1619), his Tower of Babel, or the Chaos of Judgements about the Fraternity of the Rose Cross contained further explicit rejections of the Rosicrucian fraternity and especially of the furore that it seemed to unleash in its wake.40 Despite his apparent disdain towards it, Andreae ambiguously claimed that rather than the Rosicrucian fraternity he desired a society that “under the cross smells like roses.”41 In this same year he
35 Montgomery, Cross and Crucible, vol. 1, 178-209. Montgomery observed a clear difference between Andreae’s Lutheranism and Rosicrucianism, and he interpreted the Rosicrucian manifestos solely as outpourings of esotericism, see: ibid., 211-228.
36 Montgomery, Cross and Crucible, vol. 1, 209-210.
37 Yates, The Rosicrucian Enlightenment, 91-92. This is in the footsteps of the famous philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716), who was once told that Joachim Jungius was the author of the Fama, see: Kangro, “Joachim Jungius und Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz,” 176. A more extensive overview of past positions regarding the authorship of the manifestos can be found in: Kienast, Johann Valentin Andreae, 133-137; Schick, Das altere Rosenkreuzertum, 64n151; Peuckert, Das Rosenkreutz, 400-402; Montgomery, Cross and Crucible, 160-162; Gilly, “Die Rosenkreuzer,” 35-39.
38 Andreae, Invitationis ad fraternitatem Christi pars altera paraenetica, 148 (1618).
39 Ibid., 2: “Dum animos hominum nescio quae fraternitas suspendit, nos certiorem aliquam & evidentiorem exhibemus [...].”
40 Andreae, Turris Babel, sive judiciorum de fraternitate Rosaceae Crucis chaos (1619). Cf. Montgomery, Cross and Crucible, vol. 1, 186-187; Brecht, “Johann Valentin Andreae,” 301; idem, Johann Valentin Andreae, 87.
41 Andreae, Turris Babel, 70: “Itaque ut fraternitatis ipsam societam quidem mitto, nunquam
again wrote dismissively about the Rosicrucian fraternity, the manifestos, and the movement they had generated, in perhaps his most famous piece of work: the Description of the Republic of Christianopolis (1619), or Christianopolis for short. In this text, he explained that “there has been published striking evidence of a certain fraternity” which “in my opinion is a joke.”42 He added that “[i]t would be superfluous to say what commotion among people followed the Fama of this matter, what conflict of minds, what disturbance and gesturing of impostors and swindlers.”43 Many indeed, the text continued, were deceived by the Fama.44 And in his autobiographical work, lastly, in which he had already characterised the Chemical Wedding as a “joke,” Andreae stated that he had “always laughed at the Rosicrucian fable, and had chastised the little brothers for their curiosity.”45 Whatever reason he may have had, Andreae denied his involvement in the production of these texts on all accounts.
There are nevertheless several reasons to question the veracity of Andreae’s statements through which he intended to remove himself from the Rosicrucian story, and instead to propose that he was the author of the manifestos, perhaps in collaboration with his friend Tobias Hess.46 The fact that Besold had written in 1624 in his copy of the Fama, “autorem suspicor J.V.A.,” that is, that he
tamen veram Christianam fraternitatem, quae sub Cruce Rosas olet, & a mundi inquina- mentis, confusionibus, deliriis, vanitatibusque, se quam longissime segi egat, dimisero; sed ad eam cum quovis pio, cordato, & sagace ineundam aspiro.”
42 Idem, Reipublicae Christianopolitanae descriptio (1619), 13: “Hujus rei, post illa Theolo- gorum seria, Fraternitatis cujusdam, mea opinione ludibrium, conspicuum edidit testimonium.” The subject of this sentence is missing; on its interpretation, see: Andreae, Christianopolis, ed. Thompson, 150n303.
43 Andreae, Reipublicae Christianopolitanae descriptio, 14: “Hujus rei Famam quae homi- num commotio secuta sit, qui ingeniorum conflictus, quae impostorum & tenebrionum inquietudo & gesticulatio, dicere super vacuum est.”
44 Ibid., 15, see full quote below, n. 101.
45 Andreae, Vita, 183: “[...] risisse semper Rosae-Crucianam fabulam, et curiositatis fratercu- los fuisse insectatum.” On Andreae distancing himself from the Rosicrucian manifestos and the furore in other works, see: Montgomery, Cross and Crucible, vol. 1,178-187; Brecht, Johann Valentin Andreae, 85-90.
46 On scholars arguing that only Andreae was involved, see: Schick, Das altere Rosenkreuzer- tum, 64-96, esp. 86-87; Wehr, “J.V. Andreae,” 21-22; Schmidt-Biggemann, “Von Damcar nach Christianopolis.” On literature including Andreae and one or more of his friends as authors, see: Peuckert, Die Rosenkreuzer, 88-110; idem, Das Rosenkreutz, 108; Paul Arnold, Histoire des Rose-Croix, 103-112. Van Dulmen concludes that Andreae was the author of the Fama, but that the Confessio was written by others: Die Utopie, 74, 78. For scholars considering Andreae as the author, but acknowledging some influence from Hess, especially relevant are: Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 78; idem, “Die Rosenkreuzer,” 38; Brecht, “Johann Valentin Andreae”; idem, Johann Valentin Andreae, 85-90.
suspected Johann Valentin Andreae to be the author of the Fama, suggests that Besold was not himself involved.47 Besold’s dissociation from the manifestos leaves most prominently Hess and Andreae as possible authors.
One obvious reason for attributing authorship of the Fama and Confessio to Andreae is the fact that his family coat of arms depicts a rose and a cross, from which the name of the hero of the Fama and Confessio, “Christian Rosencreutz,” seems to have been derived.48 That Rosencreutz was the protagonist also of Andreae’s Chemical Wedding makes Andreae’s authorship of the other two Rosicrucian texts even more plausible. There are also similarities between the Fama and Confessio and Andreae’s other works. In both the Rosicrucian manifestos and in his early works such as the first and second Invitation, the Menip- pus, Image of a Christian Society, and the Christianopolis, Andreae described models of Christian societies, a recurring theme in his writings but apparently not a theme developed in the works of Hess or Besold.49 Descriptions in the Fama of the studies conducted in Damcar, to which Christian Rosencreutz travelled during his sojourn in the East, share further similarities with Andreae’s fictive Christianopolis.50
More persuasive evidence of Andreae’s involvement as an author of the Fama and Confessio is found in relation to the Sheath of the Sword of the Spirit (1616), a text that was published under Hess’ name. It is now established that Andreae was the author of the Sheath, as he himself claimed authorship twenty-six years later in his Vita.51 The text of the Sheath consists of 800 aphorisms, including sentences about religious and mystical reform, and
47 Gilly, “Iter Rosicrucianum,” 72; idem, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 62. Gilly suggests that Besold’s note in his copy was possibly a tactic in order to show his lack of involvement, because Besold was about to convert to Catholicism. Besold came into the picture because he owned a manuscript copy of the Fama; see: idem, “Iter Rosicrucianum,” 29.
48 The family’s coat of arms was developed by Andreae’s grandfather, Jakob Andreae, and Peuckert suggests, without compelling arguments, that ’Rosencreutz’ was in fact a pseudonym for Jakob Andreae: Peuckert, Das Rosenkreutz, 64-65. It should be mentioned that the coats of arms of Luther and of Paracelsus also carry a rose and a cross.
49 Andreae, Invitatio fraternitatis Christi ad sacri amoris candidatos (1617); idem, Invitationis ad fraternitatem Christi pars altera paraenetica; idem, Menippus (1617); idem, Reipublicae Christianopolitanae descriptio (1619); idem, Christianae societatis imago (1620). Such similarities have been noted by, amongst others: Yates, The Rosicrucian Enlightenment, 140; Brecht, “Johann Valentin Andreae”; Gilly, Johann Valentin Andreae, 118-121; idem, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 75, 77; Schmidt-Biggemann, “Von Damcar nach Christianopolis.” See further below, section 3.3.
50 Andreae, Reipublicae Christianopolitanae descriptio; see also below, section 3.3.
51 Andreae, Vita, 46: “Prodiere simul Axiomata Besoldi theologica, mihi inscripta, cum Theca gladii Spiritus, Hesso imputata, plane mea.”
was published, like the Chemical Wedding, by Zetzner in Strasbourg in 1616. The preface suggests that the Sheath includes sentences taken from Hess’ work,52 but in reality most sentences can be traced back to both published and unpublished writings by Andreae.53 Unfortunately, owing to the loss of some of his works due to multiple fires and the occasional plundering of his once extensive library, it is impossible to identify the provenance of all sentences imported into the Sheath.54 Among those that can be identified however were in fact twenty-eight sentences55 from the Confessio, which were copied almost verbatim into the Sheath (which was published the following year), which renders it even more probable that Andreae was the author of the Con- fessio.56 Andreae seems therefore the most likely candidate for authorship not only of the Confessio, but also, and by implication, of the closely related Fama.
Andreae’s close friend and teacher Tobias Hess, the purported author of the Sheath at the time of its publication, also seems to have been involved in the composition of the manifestos. His name frequently crops up in historians’ discussions regarding the origins of the Rosicrucian manuscripts. In fact, most of the copies of the Fama from before 1614 can be traced back to a copy that once belonged to Hess.57 This is confirmed in a letter by August von Anhalt, dated 21 July 1612, in which he asked Widemann to retrieve for him a copy of the Confessio from Hess, “because he [Hess] seems to have had the Fama in his
52 Idem, Theca gladii spiritus, 3: “Ex adversarijsTobiae Hefiij, viri pij, atque in omni litteratura,
verstissimi, nunc inter sanctos agentis, hasce sententias cruimus, Candide Lector: quas (ut conijcimus) partim ex Libris manuscriptis, partim praelo vulgatis excerpsit, partim etiam ipsi suggessit piarum observatio cogitationum, quibus cum praesentem seculi nos- tri faciem dijudicabat, tum privatarum suarum calamitatum vincebat importunitatem.” Salvadori mistakenly copies the claim that the Theca contains sentences from Hess’ works: “From Spiritual Regeneration,” 7n29.
53 Brecht, “Johann Valentin Andreae,” 284; idem, Johann Valentin Andreae, 44.
54 Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 56. Edighoffer claims that the work is an anthology of five
other works by Andreae; see: Edighoffer, “Rosicrucianism: from the Seventeenth to the Twentieth Century,” 198. For some sentences it is actually unclear from which source they derived: Brecht, “Johann Valentin Andreae,” 284; idem, Johann Valentin Andreae, 44.
55 Brecht and Gilly mistakenly mention only twenty sentences (nrs. 177-196): Brecht, “Johann
Valentin Andreae,” 285-286; idem, Johann Valentin Andreae, 43; Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostau- rotica, 49. Gilly later claims that 27 sentences of the Theca correspond to the Confessio; see: “Die Rosenkreuzer,” 51-52. Only Edighoffer and Dickson acknowledge that 28 sentences from the Confessio reappear in the Theca: Edighoffer, “Johann Valentin Andreae,” 226; idem, Les Rose-Croix etsociete ideale, vol. 2. xv-xix; Dickson, The Tessera of Antilia, 80.
56 Andreae, Theca gladii spiritus, 31-35, nrs. 175-202. For these sentences, see the Appendix.
57 Gilly, “Die Rosenkreuzer,” 39.
possession.”58 And when Widemann referred to a printer in Lauingen whom he believed to own a copy of the Chemical Wedding, he added that this printer “was acquainted with Dr Hess in Tubingen.”59 Hess was also familiar with the themes of the manifestos. He was interested in astrology, had studied alchemical writings, practiced Paracelsian medicine, and had made prophetic claims about a future age.60 Itis therefore not surprising that, when searching for the origin of the manifestos, Andreae’s and Hess’ names keep reappearing, so that they remain the most likely candidates for authorship of the manifestos, and possibly co-authored the Fama and Confessio.
Not only the authors, but also the years of composition of the Rosicrucian manifestos can now be established with some confidence. 1604 is treated as an important year in the manifestos, as this is the year when Christian Ros- encreutz’s vault was said to have been opened and that a new celestial omen had appeared in Serpentarius,61 an event that is mentioned in the Fama. The first respondent to the Fama, Adam Haslmayr, reported in his Answer that he had read the Fama in 1610. The text must therefore have been drafted sometime between 1604 and 1610.62 It is likely that the Fama was written after 1607, because in that year, Andreae testified, he and Hess had started to work together more closely.63 The Confessio was presumably written in that same
58 Letter by August to Widemann: “Demnach ist der grosse mangel, dass man noch zur Zeid
ihre Confession nicht mag an Tan bringen, ob docht etwa, wie wol alweit beschehen sein wird, an den D[octor] van Tubingen [in marg: factum. D. Hefi zue Tubingen] geschrieben hett, und vernommen, ob sich bei im zubekommen wehre, weil er [Hess] die Fama bei sich soil gehabt haben.” The letter by August von Anhalt to Karl Widemann is kept in Plotzkau, 2.07.1612, Landesarchiv Oranienbaum des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt, HStA, Kothen A 17a, Nr. 100,1-175, i2Or, and cited in: Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 40-41; idem, “Die Rosen- kreuzer,” 39-40.
59 “M. Winter. Buechdrucker in Laingen. Hat die alchimistische Hochzeit. Ist mit Dr. Hess in
Tubingen bekanndt gewesen,” cited in: Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 82; Brecht, Johann Valentin Andreae, 66.
60 On Hess’ views, see below. See further: Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 46-47; idem, “Die Rosenkreuzer,” 47-50.
61 The star in the other constellation mentioned in the Confessio, in Cygnus, was already visible from 1600 onwards.
62 On several scholars with diverging and subsequently corrected datings, see: Kienast, Johann Valentin Andreae, 128, 140, 147, 150; Peuckert, Die Rosenkreuzer, 96; idem, Das Rosen- kreutz, 73-74. Van Dulmen, Die Utopie, 78.
63 Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 1, 48, 82; idem, “Die Rosenkreuzer,” 52; Brecht, Johann Valentin Andreae, 66. Although Andreae had suggested in his Brevarium that his friendship with Hess started only in 1608, earlier, in 1607, he had proclaimed his admiration for his friend and had referred to Hess as an important physician and theologian; see: idem, Johann Valentin Andreae, 98. See also: Kahn, “The Rosicrucian Hoax,” 238.
period, between 1607 and 1610, which is also suggested by the fact that each of the manifestos refers to the other.
The dating of these two texts is a further reason for excluding Besold as a possible author, as his friendship with Andreae became close only from 1610 onwards, that is, when the Fama was already in circulation.64 Should this dating be correct, Montgomery’s suggestion that Andreae wrote the Chemical Wedding to Christianise the Rosicrucian story becomes untenable. The Wedding, after all, was written in 1607 at the latest, that is, before the Fama and the Confessio, and certainly before the manifestos’ circulation, publication, and the ensuing furore.65
3.2 Apocalyptic Expectations
Having established with reasonable certainty Andreae’s and Hess’ close involvement in the production of the Rosicrucian manifestos, it is appropriate to study their other texts and ideas specifically from the perspective of the Rosicrucian general reformation.66 When it comes to the Rosicrucians’ apocalyptic expectations, the chronology of epochal events, and the interpretation of
64 Brecht, “Johann Valentin Andreae,” 289; idem, Johann Valentin Andreae, 46.
65 Montgomery, Cross and Crucible, vol. 1, 228. Montgomery argues that the Fama was writ
ten before the Chemical Wedding, at the end of the sixteenth century, for which reason he further excluded Andreae’s involvement. Montgomery’s suggestion of such an early date is based on two insufficient arguments: 1) A diary entry by Martin Crucius asserts that already in 1597 Hess and Simon Studion shared political expectations concerning the year 1604, which year, as we have seen, plays an important role in the Fama. From this it supposedly follows that ideas from the Fama date back to 1597, when Andreae was merely 11 years old. But obviously, the fact that Hess and Studion communicated about political topics at the end of the sixteenth century does not itself imply in which year the Fama was drafted; 2) The author of the Echo, which Montgomery believes was Julius Sperber, wrote in 1615 that secret ideas conveyed in the Fama were known 19 years before their publication, that is, in 1595. Montgomery suggests that this would mean that the Fama itself was known by that time: Montgomery, Cross and Crucible, vol. 1, 209-210. But the claim that ideas conveyed in the Fama were known to others is itself also conveyed in the Fama, 100-101. Sperber seems to allude to the expression of ideas similar to those expressed in the manifestos in the years before their publication; see: Sperber, Echo, front page: “Exem- plarischer Beweis, Das nicht allein dasjenige was jetzt in der Fama unnd Confesion [sic] der Fraternitet r.c. ausgebotten, muglich und war sey, Sondern schon fur neunzehen und mehr Jahren solche Magnalia Dei, etzlichen Gottesfurchtigen Leuten, mitgetheilet gewesen, und von ihren privatschrifften depraediciret worden.”
66 As for Andreae, we will restrict ourselves to his early period until 1620, and to the writings in which he sought to depict a society.
history, we should first analyse the views of Hess. Although none of his books have survived, we do have access to a few letters in which he explained his ideas as well as to investigations into his religious persuasions, which at times consist of little more than hardly legible scribbles by his interrogators.67 Of interest is, for example, that Hess argued that there had followed a period of 120 years of repentance after what he called the beginning of the evangelical truth.68 This 120-year period of repentance had earlier been announced by the Italian Bible interpreter Jacopo Brocardo (ca. 1518-1594?), whose commentary on Genesis was in the possession of Hess and, later, of Besold.69 For Hess, the beginning of this period of repentance coincided with the birth of Luther in 1483/4. The period would end 120 years later, in 1603/4.70 Itis particularly striking that Hess’ periodisation would later return in the Rosicrucian manifestos. In the Fama, Christian Rosencreutz is said to have died in 1484, which coincided with Luther’s birth. After Rosencreutz’s death, his place of burial would remain hidden for 120 years, namely until 1604 when his vault was to be revealed and simulteneously a door for Europe would be opened.71 The year that according to Hess signified the end of repentance, here foreshadows momentous changes.
In keeping with the manifestos, Hess explained that a future earthly time of peace will follow this period of 120 years. His chiliastic tendencies are recognised in Andreae’s Immortality of Tobias Hess, which openly refers to Hess’ belief in a future Golden Age.72 Hess seems to associate himself with the Joachimite tradition, according to which history could be divided into three statuses or ages, the last of these being a beatific period that was yet to come.73 Inspired by the Joachimite interpretation of history, Hess described the future golden period as the third age of the world. Because of his views, for which he had already become notorious, Hess was investigated by the Lutheran University of Tubingen. In a letter dated 7 June 1605, Duke Friedrich i of Wurttemberg (1557-1608) informed the theological faculty that “it has credibly come to our attention, that in Tubingen a new opinion of a third age is awakened and spreads, especially strongly defended by Dr Tobias Hess, who is related to that
67 These texts and reports of the investigations are kept in Tubingen. For an analysis, see also:
Brecht, “Chiliasmus in Wurttemberg,” 25-31.
68 uat, 12/17, nr. 39, question vii: “[...] also auch vor dem JungstenTag, post revelatam Verit-
atem Evangeliam 120 Jahr Bufi gepradiget worden.”
69 Brecht, “Chiliasmus in Wurttemberg,” 31; Gilly, “Iter Rosicrucianum,” 70.
70 Brecht, “Chiliasmus in Wurttemberg,” 27; Gilly, “Iter Rosicrucianum,” 70.
71 Fama, 113-114.
72 Andreae, Tobiae Hessi Immortalitas, 63.
73 On the Joachimite view of the periodisation of history, see above, section 1.2.
university, and that besides that all sorts of blasphemies are uttered.”74 Duke Friedrich was worried that Hess’ views did not agree with Lutheran doctrines as formulated in the Formula of Concord, and he ordered the university to interrogate him.75
Two weeks later, on 21 June 1605, members of the theological faculty questioned Hess about his confessional beliefs.76 With reference to biblical passages, Hess confirmed that he believed in a third age, which he called in Joachimite fashion “the age of the Holy Spirit.” He believed that the preservation of Israel was to be fulfilled in that time.77 The upcoming new age provided a historical platform for worldly change.
In parallel with the manifestos, Hess argued that this age had already been announced by the stars. In response to the investigation, he wrote a letter to Duke Friedrich, dated 30 June 1605, in which he informed his Lord about this third age while referring to the new cycle of conjunctions of Saturn and Jupiter in the Fiery Trigon—the constellation that was later mentioned in the Fama as signalling imminent changes.78 The new cycle of conjunctions in the Fiery Trigon had begun in 1583, with the most recent conjunction between Saturn and Jupiter taking place in December 1603, one and one half years before Hess’ investigation. With such recent omens, the new period Hess announced was nigh, and must have been identical to the one he and Andreae not much later described in the first manifesto.
Hess explained to the Duke that the “great meaningful signs” close to the Fiery Trigon, possibly the stars in Serpentarius and Cygnus, signalled the imminent judgement over and destruction of the pope. The pope had “falsely pretended to be the head of all Churches,” which suggests that Hess identified the pope with the Antichrist, who was to be attacked by Christ.79 When asked about this by his interrogators in Tubingen, he associated the beginning of the
74 uat 12/17, nr. 37, letter from Duke Friedrich: “Uns langet glaublich an, das czue Tubingen ein Newe Opinion von einem tertio seculo erweckhet und spargieret, Sonderlich aber von D. Johann [in margin, corrected to ’Tobia’] Hefien, Universitet Verwandten allda starrch defendiert, und darneben allerley blasphemiae mitt ufigestofien werden wollen.”
75 Ibid., nr. 37.
76 Ibid., nr. 38.
77 Ibid., nr. 38, question i: “spiritus sancti seculum”; Brecht, “Chiliasmus in Wurttemberg,” 26.
78 uat, 12/17, nr. 40.
79 Ibid., nr. 40, letter by Hess to Duke Friedrich: “weil die Zeit nah sein mufi und [so] heuffig Wunder und grofi bedeuttliche Zeichen eins uber ander neben dem trigono igneo gesehen und gehoret worden, welche in die Schrifft gefurt, nichts anders anbringen und vorkun- den, denn dafi Christus nummehr die, so sich an seiner statt gesetzt und falschlich fur das Haupt aller Kirchen aufigeben, dieselben plagen, dringen und hindern [...] wolle,” cited in: Gilly, CimeliaRhodostaurotica, 43-44.
new period with the destruction of the papal “Antichrist,” which association would later recur in the manifestos.80 He calculated that the future judgement of the pope would take place in 1620, after which time Christ would reign over the people in the coming third age and before the Last Judgement.81 In the third age of the Holy Spirit, “the pope will no longer be the head of the Church, but he will be decommissioned.”82 Since Hess calculated that the Lamb, Christ, will triumph over Rome in 1620, this year marked the beginning of the new reformation—a prediction that was particularly close to the prophecies contained in the manifestos.83
The Rosicrucian lion, too, found its origin in Hess’ expectations. Hess referred to this figure in another letter submitted to Duke Friedrich and kept in Tubingen, in which he explained that the figure of the lion had appeared to him in a vision he had as a young boy. The lion had ordered him to write down what he saw and heard.84 Years later, he described this singular event in his letter to the Duke:
And he [the lion] explained the reason of his arrival with the most horrible roaring: he had come for his people, who had for day and night and up to the mature [present] age of Christ stood guard, diligently, to fight and to punish sins through his judgement.85
80 uat, 12/17, nr. 38, questions i and ii, where Hess identifies the pope with the Antichrist.
81 Ibid., nr. 38: “Der Bapst muefi hernider, Christus muefi das Haupt werden.” Cf. also ibid., question ix; uat, 12/17, nr. 39, question iii; Brecht, “Chiliasmus in Wurttemberg,” 28; Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 43-44.
82 uat, 12/17, nr. 38, question ix: “[...] wenn der Papst nicht mehr Caput Ecclesiae sondern aufigemustert sein wird.” See also: uat, 12/17, nr. 38, question viii about the third age of the Holy Spirit.
83 Ibid., nr. 38. A similar suggestion was made in Hess’ copy of Castellio’s Bible translation, in the margins of Apocalypse 17:12-16; see: Castellio, Biblia sacria (Salzburg copy owned by Hess and Besold), 397-398. Cf. also: Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 10.
84 uat, 12/17, nr. 42: “Proprius vero multo Leo a tergo iubatus me pressit, ut omnino scri- berem, calamum porrexit, ursit, nec remisit. Apparuit is mihi annis aliquoties iuve- nilibus magna undiquaque cinctus caterva clare acclamantium palmasque gestantium [.].” Brecht missed the reference to the lion which appeared as the astrological sign for ’Leo’; Gilly refers to nr. 48 but the document has been changed to nr. 42: Brecht, “Chili- asmus in Wurttemberg,” 29n12; Gilly, “Die Rosenkreuzer,” 48n89. For the vision, see also: Gilly, “Die Rosenkreuzer,” 48-49.
85 uat, 12/17, nr. 42: “[.] et rugitu perquam horrendo (Jer. 25. Amos. 1.3. Joel. 3) adventus sui rationem exponebat, se pro populo suo, cuius in mensuram usque aetatis plene adultae Christi (Epsi. 4) per diem et noctem integram excubias sedulo egisset (Isa 21) modo pug- natum adventasse (Isa 34, Zeph 7) peccata iudicio vindicatum (Mich. 5, Nah. 3, Apoc. 10.18).”
According to Hess, the present period will be ended with the lion’s judgement over sin, which was identical to Christ’s judgement over the papacy described earlier.
While the lion was speaking—so Hess informed the Duke—the ground began to shake and fire and stormwinds poured out of his mouth, and “even the eagle, who through time had overcome so many difficulties, gradually [becoming] featherless and mutilated, was removed without much ado from his triple throne.”86 Hess must have been inspired by 2 Esdras, the pseudepigraphic apocryphal text to which he referred in his letter and in which a lion is described as defeating an eagle.87 For Hess, the eagle was to be identified with Papal Rome, which he named the “Babylonian Whore,” again associating the pope with the Antichrist.88 Thus the lion was to come at the end of the second age to fight for the Christian people against the papal eagle.
The similarities with the Rosicrucian expectation of a lion are evident: According to both the manifestos and the folios documenting Hess’ interrogation, a roaring lion defeats the papal enemy after a period of 120 years, at the dawn of a new age announced by the stars, with the eagle identified as Rome and the rule of its feathers destined to be annulled.89
In the Fama, the lion was a ruler who came to enact both political and spiritual change. It seems that Hess had only spiritual change in mind brought about by a spiritual ruler. In Hess’ view, the lion was to pass judgement over the sinners and to become the people’s leader in replacement of the papacy, and he referred to the “spiritual arrival of Christ at the time of the ruling papacy.”90 This suggests an emphasis on spiritual change by Christ as ruler.91 Unlike the manifestos, Hess identified the lion with Christ, because both were to arrive as judges upon the arrival of the third age. A few lines above the explanation of his vision of the lion, he referred to the lion of Revelation 5 who opened the seventh seal, which is commonly interpreted to refer to Christ as the Lion of Judah.92 This specific biblical context and the associated
86 Ibid., nr. 42: “Aquilam quoque tot temporum difficultates eluctatam [...] paulatim implu- mem et mutilam nullo negotio e triplici solio deturbabat.”
87 On 2 Esdras, the fight between the eagle and the lion, see above, section 1.1.
88 uat, 12/17, nr. 38; uat, 12/17, nr. 42. Cf. Revelation 17:9.
89 See above, section 1.1.
90 uat, 12/17, nr. 39, question x: “[...] per Christi spiritualem adventum tempore regnantis papatus [...].”
91 Cf. Gilly, “Die Rosenkreuzer,” 49-50.
92 uat, 12/17, nr. 42. Revelation 5:4-5: “And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon. And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed
emphasis on spiritual change seems to be missing in the manifestos. Despite these variances in the details, Hess’ overall prophetic and apocalyptic expectations were left intact. It is therefore likely that several ingredients of the manifestos—including their millenarian imagery, the place of the Antichrist within history, the lion, the eagle, and the omens in the sky—originated with Hess.
Many of these specific ingredients are not easily traced back to Andreae, although he, too, shared with all Protestants the identification of the Antichrist with the pope.93 According to Andreae, the pope had “weighed down the Church of Christ with abominable burdens.”94 The Antichrist presented himself as the “earthly deity,” who filled the earth with the factions of his many orders—no doubt a reference to the monastic orders.95 When the Church became increasingly powerful and wealthy, as Andreae explained elsewhere, it lost Christ possibly because the Antichrist had taken over.96
Additionally, Andreae may once have had chiliastic tendencies. In his Immortality of Tobias Hess, he explained that he once believed in a coming Golden Age, although a few lines later he makes it clear that he has distanced himself from this conception.97 In his second Invitation, he suggested that the period of eternal peace was still far away, even though much anticipated.98 And in the
to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.” The lion was the lamb with seven horns and seven eyes, commonly understood to be Christ.
93 At times, Andreae’s definition of the Antichrist is merely a generic label applicable to everything that is opposed to Christ, see: Brecht, Johann Valentin Andreae, 114.
94 Andreae, Reipublicae Christianopolitanae descriptio, 6: “Specimen hujus evidentissimum Antichristus praebuit, qui cum nefandis oneribus Ecclesiam Christi deprimeret.”
95 Idem, Christianae societatis imago, Av-A3r: “Sed etiam antichristus ut omnino illi inviso suo Christo illuderet, variorum ordinum factionibus, Orbem replevit, non tam ut securi- tatem suis, voluptatemque procuraret quam ut ipse rerum omnium Primus motor, omes [sic] terrarum orbiculos suo arbitrio rotaret, orbemque his machinis undique dispersis, ad nutum moveret, atque ita Terrenam divinitatem usurparet.” There are two A3 folios; this one would usually be correctly designated A2.
96 Idem, Invitatio fraternitatis Christi, 21: “Nec parvifaciendum Ecclesiam postquam ditata &
opulenta facta est, a Christo suo descivisse.”
97 Idem, Tobiae Hessi Immortalitas, 63-64: “At hic calumnia tripudiare, hic jactare se illa & quae in Chymico nequicquam dentes impresserat, nunc Naometram, nunc Chiliasten, nunc Somniatorem deprehendisse, ovans. Mirum est, quam per sordida ora candidissi- mum virum macularit, & ut vulgus nuspiam, nisi mendaciis liberalius est, ita quosdam non adeo iniquos sed minus innocentis famae curiosos occupavit, me etiam, quod doleo, facile induxit, ut paradoxicum Hessi ingenium & nescio quod aureum confictum seculum, quam judicij curiosam computationem crederemus. Qua in re quam in Hessum fuerimus injurii, quam qui in sanctissima exercitia inquireremus nimium illoti, Ego paulo post non absque rubore agnovi, & nonnullis, qui minus calumniarum sunt tenaces, idem persuasi.”
98 Idem, Invitationis ad fraternitatem Christi pars altera paraenetica, 6-7: “[...] ut quod
Sheath he imported sentences from the Confessio that suggest a new period on earth. The first such sentence reads: “While the world is tottering and almost at the end of a period and rushes to its beginnings, God returns the order of nature [...]”"—which indicates that this notion of another age was not far from his own expectations. In his Christian Citizen (1619), finally, he discussed the millenarian worldview at length and argued that it could not so easily be rejected as many had done; it was not contrary to Christian faith and was therefore not to be condemned. What was to be ridiculed, by contrast, was the specific vision of a new Golden Age, but millenarianism was only dangerous when voiced by Anabaptists from Munster whose ideal was, he contended, the work of Satan.100 Andreae did therefore not reject a chiliastic conception of history, and perhaps once endorsed such a conception himself, albeit not explicitly. Nevertheless, the millenarian imagery seems to have originated with Hess, to whom its key ingredients can be traced.
3.3 New Societies and Attempts at Reform
The idea ofa Rosicrucian organisation as a society, in turn, presumably originated with Andreae. Andreae seems always to have had the establishment of a society in mind. Despite the fact that he routinely dismissed the Rosicrucian
neutiquam tam absurdum vobis ac inexspectatumm accidere potuit, quin non Christi vestri & aeternae quietis arcem velut e longinquo appropinquantem prospexeritis.”
99 Idem, Theca gladii spiritus, 31, nr. 175: “Iehova mundo labascente, & propemodum periodo
absoluta, ad principium properante; naturae ordinem invertit.” Cf. Confessio, 43: “Jehova est, qui mundo labascente, et propemodum periodo absoluta, ad principium properante Naturae ordinem invertit.”
100 Andreae, Civis Christianus (1619), 141-143: “Multos bonos, jam ab aliquos seculis, haec opinio exercuit, fore ut ante Mundi finem, Christus regnum aliquod Christianum sibi ex optimis colligat, & impietati terrenae imperet, fueruntque aliqui eo progressi, ut annos futuri hujus summi imperij annunciarent. Magna utique hujus negotii lubricitas est, quae etiam haud paucis illusit: tamen si qua sub Dei metu conjectura fiat, non plane ea con- temnenda est. Praeviderunt sane sub Ecclesiae onere multi Deo dilecti liberationis feli- citatem, & infamis tyrannidis excussionem, quod plerisque tum ridiculum imo & impium visum est. Qui tales ridere solent, ajunt aureum seculum expectare, ubi omnia sint ex voto futura. Et certe quid possit, aut velit Satan, Monasterij in Westphalia impudenter ostendit. Christianus quae non capit, non temere abijcit, si nihil contra rem Christianam moveant. Multas imagines revelationis Johanni factae nemo nobis hucusque dextere explicavit, & rebus nostris adaptavit, quas tamen multum etiam num portendere, credibile est []. Interim Christus senescentis Mundi caligines, calamitatem, gelu [sic], terroresque, ac judi- cii sui in opinatum interventum praedixit, quae cum illa ultima felicitate parum convenire videntur.”
one, he explicitly invoked that fraternity as a fertile source of inspiration. In his introduction to the utopian description of Christianopolis, he questioned the existence of the Rosicrucian fraternity, but took from the Fama the ideal to form a community in imitation of the alleged Rosicrucian brotherhood. He explained that his close friend, the nobleman Wilhelm von Wense, had proposed, while referring to the Rosicrucian fraternity, that “if these things seem to be good, why do we not try something [similar], and not wait for them [the Rosicrucians]?”101
In other texts, too, he depicted societies that were unaffected by religious, societal, and academic malfeasance. As for religious reform, these depictions reveal that Andreae was particularly influenced by the Lutheran theologian and proto-pietist Johann Arndt (1555-1621)^02 Arndt worked as a pastor in Braunschweig and Eisleben, but aimed to reform his confession under the influence of medieval German mystics such as Johannes Tauler and Thomas a Kempis (1380-1471), as well as Paracelsus. Andreae regularly praised Arndt as a reformer of Christianity who encouraged his readers to live a life of piety.103 Exemplary for Arndt’s views are his famous Four Books on True Christianity, in which he admonished his readers to have faith in Christ, to follow His example, and to live in Christ.104 To be a Christian meant to live like one and this was a practical, not a theoretical endeavour.105
This is why Andreae dedicated his utopian Christianopolis to Arndt, whom he wished to “esteem as a father in Christ.”106 As the city’s name indicates, the community described in Christianopolis was Christian in character, and
101 Idem, Reipublicae Christianopolitanae descriptio, 15: “Soleo autem laudare Viri pietate, moribus & ingenio nobilissimi judicium, qui cum suspensos videret, ac ut plurimum elusos ab illa Fama animos: ’quin nos, si bona haec videntur, tentamus aliquid, non expectamus illos?’.” Von Wense had visited Campanella in 1614, and further suggested that Andreae should establish a “city of the sun” in imitation of Campanella’s utopian story with the same title: Dickson, The Tessera of Antilia, 38n60.
102 On Arndt, see for example the articles included in: Gilly, “Johann Arndt und die ’dritte Reformation’”; Schneider, Der fremde Arndt. On the influence of Arndt on Andreae, see for example: Van Dulmen, Die Utopie.
103 Van Dulmen, Die Utopie, 115; Gilly, “Hermes or Luther”; Brecht, Johann Valentin Andreae, 121.
104 Arndt, Vier Bucher (1664), 2V: “[...] dak wir nicht allein an Christum glauben/ sondern auch in Christo leben sollen/ und Christus in uns/ wie die wahre Busse auk dem innersten Grund dek Herzens gehen musse/ wie Herz/ Sinn und Muhe musse geandert werden/ dak wir Christo und seinem H. Evangelio gleichformig werden/ wie wir durchs Wort Gottes mussen taglich erneuert werden zu neuen Creaturen.”
105 Ibid., 2v.
106 Andreae, Reipublicae Christianopolitanae descriptio, 3-4: “Vir reverende, et dignissime Dn. Joannes Arndti, etc. Pater in Christo colende.”
the studies practiced by its inhabitants served first and foremost the purpose of a Christian life, which meant that they lived in the type of union with Christ that Arndt had advocated.107 In his first Invitation, Andreae expressed his hope for the realisation of a community of goods in which all inhabitants were Christ’s brothers, friends, and imitators.108 And in the second Invitation, he provided 24 rules of piety according to which true Christians should behave. They should for example rule over themselves, aspire to heavenly things, abandon the concern for themselves but care for their neighbours, live in simplicity, and contribute to the common good.109 Andreae explained that the reward for present conduct was not on earth but in heaven, and that one should live for the sake of the eternal life.110 His pietist inclinations are even more evident from the following quote taken from the first Invitation:
But do you not see, o brethren, that it is in our hands, that forthwith we are not taken by the admiration of superfluous things like the rest of the insane populace, and become experienced in the bitterness of the world’s greatest luxuries, but let us free ourselves from many troubles, and continue on the least crooked and rough, but most straight and level path to our true rest and the end of all imperfections. Surely the safest and happiest means towards this is to establish a fraternity of Christ.111
The life of piety was not defined as a solitary pursuit but was best lived in a society. In his Image, Andreae specified about its society that “its path intends and considers nothing other than what Christ has previously already invoked, the apostles have insisted upon, the Church has propagated, and what all
107 Ibid., 15-17.
108 Andreae, Invitatio fratemitatis Christi, 5-7. The ideal of a community of goods is also described in his Reipublicae Christianopolitanae descriptio; and in his Christiani amoris dextera porrecta, included in: Andreae, Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 6, 254-275.
109 Andreae, Invitationis ad fraternitatem Christi pars altera paraenetica. Cf. also: Andreae, Christiani amoris dextera porrecta, included in: Andreae, Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 6, 256262.
110 Andreae, Invitationis ad fraternitatem Christi pars altera paraenetica, 10-11, 31-32.
111 Idem, Invitatiofraternitatis Christi, 74-75: “Videtisne autem, o Fratres, in nostra manu esse,
ut quamprimum non cum reliqua insana multitudine ineptarum rerum admiratione capi- mur, & summarum etiam Mundi delitiarum amaritudines experti sumus, liberemus nos plurimis molestiis, & via minime flexuosa ac salebrosa, sed rectissima planissimaque ad veram nostram requiem, & imperfectionum omnium Finem pergimus. Cujus sane tutis- simum atque felicissimum est medium Fraternitatem Christi intromittere.”
Christians should do.”112 In keeping with Arndt’s pietism, Andreae frequently described the need to move away from the world, removing its “shackles,” and enjoying a Christian peace of mind.113 A society was a means particularly suitable to enact such religious and societal changes.
Like Arndt, Andreae was not a conservative Lutheran academic involved in quaestiones, but a Lutheran interested in reforming his confession according to his pietist inclinations. In his Four Books, Arndt contradicted orthodox Lutheranism, drew on heterodox sources such as Tauler, and lamented the practice of orthodox theologians at universities.114 Because of its heterodox nature, this work was censured in Marburg and was criticised by orthodox theologians belonging to the religious establishment, especially after it was linked to ideas held by the Lutheran theosopher Valentin Weigel (1533-1588).U5 This was also the reason that Arndt, who had died in 1621, became the subject of a dispute in 1622 in Tubingen, Wittenberg, and Gdansk. In response to this conflict, Andreae defended Arndt in his Theophilus of the same year. Like Arndt, he lamented academic malpractices, ridiculed the theological studies at universities, and particularly complained about established Lutheran theologians who preached their interpretations of confessional dogmas but failed to practice their faith in daily life.116 As the Theophilus was a clear response to the Arndt episode, problematised the practice of established theologians, and proposed a reform of religion, the printing of this text was prohibited in Wurttemberg.117
Andreae saw the establishment of a society as the right means to carry out further changes, including the reform of politics and knowledge. In 1620, one year after the publication of Christianopolis, he developed a further plan for a society. In a letter sent to Duke August ii of Brunswick-Luneburg (1579-1666) over twenty years later, dated 27 June 1642, he related how in 1620 he had had plans to found a Christian society, the “Societas Christiana.” He informed the
112 Idem, Christianae societatis imago, A3V: “[...] cum nihil aliud [via] velit, exigatque quam quod Christus jam dudum inclamavit, Apostoli urserunt, Ecclesia propagat, Christiani omnes debent: scilicet Deo cultum Naturae modestiam, Humanitati eruditionem, non tam verbis, quam ipso opere servemus.”
113 Ibid., A3v: “[.] boni, et Coeli avidi, dum terrarum vinculis sunt impediti, semet mutua charitate et commoditatum, ornamentorumque hujus vitae communicatione solarentur, Mundi imposturas et insidias communi consilio evitarent, Ingenii humani nobilitatem rerum ab orbe nato cognitarum peritia condecorarent, denique aurea Christi pace tran- quilitateque perfruerentur.”
114 Gilly, “Johann Arndt,” 68-69.
115 Ibid., 68-69. On Weigel, see further below, Chapters 4 and 5.
116 Brecht, “’Er hat uns die Fackel ubergeben.’,” 40-43; idem, Johann Valentin Andreae, 173178.
117 Brecht, “’Er hat uns die Fackel ubergeben.’,” 28, 41.
Duke that at that time he had already wanted him to become the society’s leader, because every other political ruler seemed unfit for the job.118 This is an interesting fact, because Andreae and August ii, who only became Duke in 1635, seem to have engaged in epistolary contact only from 1630 onwards, which was resumed after an interval of a decade again in 1640, but they never met.119 In a letter to August ii from 1 June 1642, however, Andreae intimated that he had brought his plans for a society to the attention of August ii as early as 1617,120 putting his hope for change in this future political ruler. The two men do share some biographical similarities: August and Andreae had both studied in Tubingen, although not at the same time; they shared an admiration for Arndt; it is likely that they came into contact through Andreae’s friend Wilhelm von Wense; and the physician to August ii, Melchior Breler, had discussed the manifestos and their authorship in his Mystery in 1621, while also referring to texts by Andreae.121 It may well be that with August ii we find the origin of the Rosicrucian lion figured not as Christ but as a spiritual leader and a political ruler.
In his letter, Andreae listed the intended membership of the “Societas Christiana.” Besides several established Lutherans, famous and innovative early modern figures were included, indicative ofan interest in the reform of knowledge and academia. Among the members was Johann Arndt, but also included were Daniel Sennert (1572-1637), Wilhelm von Wense, Tobias Adami, Matthias Bernegger (1582-1640), Christoph Besold, Tobias Hess, Wilhelm Schick- ard (1592-1635), and Wilhelm Bidembach von Treuenfels (ca. 1588-1655).122 The objective of the fraternity remained unknown, but the list of prospective members may give some indication of its academic and scientific character. Sennert was a professor of medicine and natural philosophy at Wittenberg who adopted alchemically prepared cures, embraced atomistic views, and used
118 Andreae, letter to Duke August, 27 June 1642, in Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 6, 343: “Hujus iam tum Tu unicus princeps et caput animo nostro destinabaris, cujus se pararium esse posse Wensius crediderat, cum nemo alius in Orbe Germaniae occurreret, cui haec rei Christianae, et literariae provincia, certius et maiore dignitate committi videretur.” Numerous letters between Andreae and others are listed in: Salvadori, Inventar des Brief- wechsels vonJohann Valentin Andreae (1586-1654).
119 On the relationship between Andreae and Duke August ii, see: Brecht, J.V. Andreae und Herzog August, esp. 74-77. This work sheds further light on Andreae’s pious inclinations and his attempt to reform the Lutheran confession by reforming the people: Andreae advocated a reformation of morality. It should be noted, however, that Brecht seems to advocate a particularly Lutheran reading of Andreae and, in his Johann Valentin Andreae, 77-79, even of the manifestos.
120 Brecht, J.V. Andreae und Herzog August, 74n2.
121 Ibid., 27, 61, 74-76.
122 For the full list of members, see: Gilly, Johann Valentin Andreae, 121.
experimental methods to test his theories.123 Bernegger worked as an astronomer and translated classical and Italian writings, among which a text by Galileo Galilei.124 The Tubingen astronomer Schickard had developed a primitive calculating device as early as 1621, several decades before Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz created his mechanical calculator.125 Schickard was also acquainted with a Rosicrucian enthusiast from the same town, Daniel Mogling, as well as with Johannes Kepler.126
Bidembach was Hess’ companion who had translated Boccalini’s General Reformation, to which the Fama was appended.127 Adami belonged to the Tubingen group of friends, as did Besold and Hess. Von Wense, finally, was a close friend of Andreae. In the 1642 letter to August ii, Andreae referred to Von Wense as the “Knight of Luneburg,” and explained that it had been with him that he collaborated to form the society described in the Image of a Christian Society and in opposition to the Rosicrucian one. Only careful readers, he informed the Duke, would understand the true meaning of the society of the Image.128
It is likely that the formation of this “Societas Christiana” never advanced beyond the planning stages, and that the members on the list were never actually recruited.129 First of all, Andreae included Hess among the society’s prospective members, but Hess had already passed away in 1614 and could not have been a member of this society in 1620. But more importantly still, Andreae explained to Duke August ii that their hopes for this society had been crushed by the damage and despair caused by outbursts of religious destruction, that is, by the Thirty Years’ War—further suggesting that an implementation of the
123 On Sennert, see for example: Luthy and Newman, “Daniel Sennert’s Earliest Writings”; Clericuzio, Elements, Principles and Corpusles, 23-33; Hirai, Medical Humanism and Natural Philosophy, 151-172, and the references included there; Moreau, Elements, atomes et physiologie, 244-313.
124 On Bernegger, see: Bunger, Matthias Bernegger: Ein Bild aus dem geistigen Leben Strassburgs zur Zeit des Dreissigjahrigen Krieges.
125 On Schickard, Leibniz, and the calculus, see: Lehmann, “Schickard und Leibniz als Erfinder von Rechenmaschinen.”
126 On this, see: Neumann, “Olim, da die Rosen Creutzerey noch florirt,” 99-100; Rublack, The Astronomer and the Witch, 234. On Schickard in general, see especially the articles included in Seck (ed.), Zum 400. Geburtstag von Wilhelm Schickard. On Mogling, see sections 4.5 and 5.2.
127 Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 68; idem, “Die Rosenkreuzer,” 42-43; Brecht, Johann Valentin Andreae, 75. Earlier, Kienast mistakenly maintained that this translation was made by Besold: Kienast, Johann Valentin Andreae, 138-140.
128 Andreae, letter to Duke August ii, 27 June 1642, in Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 6, 343-344.
129 On this, cf. Gilly, “Die Rosenkreuzer,” 56.
plans never saw the light of day.130 At any rate, at various stages of his life Andreae desired to establish a society that would respond to religious, societal, and academic abuses and would carry out the necessary reforms.
The Reform of Religion, Politics, and Knowledge
Andreae outlined this agenda for reform in several of his writings, especially in his Christianopolis where he described on numerous occasions the reformation of exactly the three fields he had named also in the manifestos, namely religion, politics, and knowledge. The text is not a call for reform in the same way as the manifestos are, but instead depicts an imaginary place in which these reforms have already taken place, (1) with an evangelical Christian religion; (2) realised in an ideal state; (3) where exceptional studies were offered.
According to Andreae’s introduction to Christianopolis, Luther’s Reformation had already wrought improvements in these three areas: religion had become more pure, it had brought positive effects on government, and had restored scholarship.131 Similarly to the manifestos, Andreae began by giving the impression that there was no need for radical reform.132 But tellingly, he remarked that un-Christian practices had crept into the institutions related to these three fields—the churches, courts, and universities—so that further reforms were required.133 In his introduction, Andreae continuously referred to this triad of institutions and the errors they promoted. He declared that their leaders pretended to be “religious, statesmenlike, and scholarly,” but that in truth “the leaders of churches would acknowledge no simony, the leaders of politics no dishonesty, and the leaders of academia no ignorance.”134 Their stubbornness is reminiscent of the Spanish scholars encountered by Christian
130 Andreae, letter to Duke August i i, 27 June 1642, in Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 6, 343-344.
131 Andreae, Reipublicae Christianopolitanae descriptio, 7-8: “Ita invictus ille heros, D. Lutherus noster emersit [...]. Eluxit nobis purior Religio, indeque politiae administrate formata, & literarum nitor redditus.”
132 On the absence of radical reform and the support for the first renewed Churches and the Holy Roman Empire in the manifestos, see above, section 1.1.
133 Andreae, Reipublicae Christianopolitanae descriptio, 8-9: “Nam cum ad Christum nostrum, cujus nomen ferimus & provitemur, formata nostra omnia esse debebant, pes- sima nostra indulgentia sit, ut a Mundanis nihil Christiani differant. Sive enim Eccle- sias, sive Aulas, sive Academias intueamur, nuspiam absunt illa ambitionis, avaritiae, gulae, libidinis, invidiae, otij, & alia vitia imperantia, a quibus vehementer abhorret Chris- tus.”
134 Ibid., 9: “Nostra simplicitas animadverti, qui, dum religiosi, politi, & eruditi audiamus, qualibet rei umbra acquiescimus”; ibid., 10: “Cum Ecclesiarum Antistites nullam Simo- niam, Politiae nullam improbitatem, Academiae nullam imperitiam agnoscerent, & devo- tionis, probitatis ac literaturae moniti perduellionis accusarentur.”
figure 7 Johann Valentin Andreae, Reipublicae christianopolitanae descriptio, hab Wolfenbuttel
Rosencreutz, who likewise clung to their mistakes and denied their ignorance, thereby avoided reform.135 Thus Andreae decried the flaws, immorality, and vices abounding within these institutions and the wickedness of their expo- nents.136 The three institutions were disgraceful, destructive, and corrupt.137
135 On these Spanish scholars, see above, sections 1.1 and 1.3.
136 Andreae, Reipublicae Christianopolitanae descriptio, 10: “Si credimus retorsionibus, tota Ecclesia fenestrata est, cui involare licet, ubi libet, & intra aveolos susurrare: Respublica forum, ubi vitia emere & vendere concessum; Academia labyrintus, ubi oberrare lusus est atque artificium.” Cf. also ibid., 11.
137 Ibid., 12-13: “Quam turpiter enim ventris in media Ecclesia servitium, morum in medio fore dissolutio, ingenij in media literarum palestra, corruptela undique tituli sine re, prodigali- tasque sine fine excusentur, imo elogijs ornentur, & exponantur, non sine horrore cordati intuentur.”
Andreae lamented that the representatives of churches, courts, and universities were Christians in name, but not in behaviour,138 and in response he encouraged his readers to change their own conduct:
Because if conscience urges us to complain about the security of religion, the impurity of life, and the jokes of literature, what prohibits that we, at least within ourselves if others do not want it, pull out sins, plant virtues, and join ourselves closer to our Christ, whom we fear to be very far removed from our issues?139
Immediately before this passage, Andreae discussed the Rosicrucian fraternity and referred to itas a “joke,” a ludibrium. The ludibria mentioned in the passage above therefore possibly refer to the Rosicrucian manifestos, so that even while suggesting a reform of institutions and their representatives he made sure to dissociate himself from the enthusiasts that had contaminated his plans as laid out in the manifestos.140
Also in the main body of the text, which comprises one hundred chapters, Andreae frequently returned to this triad of religion, politics, and academia. As a counter-proposal to what he found in the real world, in this utopian novel he described an ideal community that lived on an imaginary island. The ship “Fantasy,” on which an unnamed stranger was boarded, crossed the “academic ocean,” but was shipwrecked. The storms at sea thrust the passenger off the ship, as a result of which he was stranded on the biblically named island of Capharsalama (“village of peace”).141 The stranger arrived in the city of Christi- anopolis, which he found so agreeable that he instantly decided that he wanted to live there. The stranded stranger described the role of money in corruption
138 Ibid., 8-9: “[...] possemus omnino triumphare tot devictis hostibus, superstitione, dis- solutione & barbarie; sed nos clandestinae Diaboli insidiae affligunt, ut minus solidum sit gaudium, nomenque sinere ut plurimum relinquatur. Nam cum ad Christum nostrum, cujus nomen ferimus & provitemur, formata nostra omnia esse debebant, pessima nostra indulgentia sit, ut a Mundanis nihil Christiani differant. Sive enim Ecclesias, sive Aulas, sive Academias intueamur, nuspiam absunt illa ambitionis, avaritiae, gulae, libi- dinis, invidiae, otij & alia vitia imperantia, a quibus vehementer abhorret Chirstus; sed quibus nos delectamur maxime.”
139 Ibid., 16: “Nam si nos conscientia urget, ut de religionis securitate, de Vitae impuritate, & literarum ludibrijs habeamus, quod conqueramur, quid prohibet, quo minus in nobis saltem, si alij nolint, evellamus vitiosa, plantemus virtutes, & Christo nostro propius iun- gamur, quem a rebus nostris remotifiimum metuimus [...].”
140 Ibid., 16.
141 Cf. 1 Maccabees 7:31: “Nicanor realized that his plan had been discovered, so he left Jerusalem to meet Judas in battle near Capharsalama” (Good News Translation).
in his home region, where humans “have sold Christian freedom to the Antichrist, natural freedom to the tyrant, and human freedom to sophistry.”142 This disapprobation aligns with the hope, expressed in the manifestos, of replacing the papal Antichrist with a new spiritual and political leader, and of replacing academic sophistry with genuine knowledge. The Rosicrucian brethren would have concurred with Andreae’s conclusion that “as ignorance desired and imposed, hypocrisy has taken upon itself and has with violence usurped the patronage of religion, the tyranny of politics, and the sophistry of know- ledge.”143 In fact, Andreae explicitly referred to the Rosicrucians “in relation to this,” who had, albeit “in jest,” reacted to these lamentable circumstances— and he thereby implicitly affirmed that his basic reform ideals still pointed in the same direction as they had done when he wrote the Rosicrucian manifes- tos.144
In this utopian story, Andreae pits against the perceived decadence and dishonesty of his own time the perfect state of the institutions of his fictional, ideal community on the island of Capharsalama. He portrayed its admirable religion and politics, and expounded at length on the perfect sciences and studies of the Christianopolitans. Where the Rosicrucian manifestos had especially sketched the third pillar of their reformation in the domain of philosophy, so Andreae went to great lengths in depicting the studies of the Christianopol- itans.145
Their learned endeavours were radically different from standard university practices of the time. The text explains how, before being admitted into the community, the shipwrecked stranger must submit to several interviews to determine his piety and modesty, and to assess whether he adhered to any group of religious fanatics, alchemists, or such imposters who falsely claimed to be members of the Rosicrucian fraternity.146 The studies in Christianopolis
142 Andreae, Reipublicae Christianopolitanae descriptio, 100: “O venale genus humanum, quod libertatem Christianam Antichristo, libertatem naturalem tyrannidi, Libertatem huma- nam sophisticae vendidit.”
143 Ibid., 11-12: “Atque ita Hypocrisis Religionis, Tyrannis Politiae, Sophistica literaturae patro- cinium, volente ita & imperante ignorantia, in se susceperunt & violenter usurparunt.”
144 Ibid., 13: “Hujus rei, post illa Theologorum seria, Fraternitatis cujusdam, mea opinione ludibrium, conspicuum edidit testimonium.” On Andreae imitating the Rosicrucian fraternity, see: ibid., 15, as noted above, n. 101.
145 On Andreae’s reform of the sciences, see: Brecht, “Kritik und Reform der Wissenschaften bei Johann Valentin Andreae,” esp. 132-147.
146 Andreae, Reipublicae Christianopolitanae descriptio, 29-30: “Arrisit praefectus: & ut haec Insula nihil importum habet, benigne monuit, ne ex ijs essem, quos civium communitas, apud se non ferret, sed ad sua remitteret, mendicantibus, circulatoribus, histrionibusve, quibus otium arrideat; curiosis, qui in insolitis scrupulentur; fanaticis, quibus nulla certa
diverged not only from academia, but also from the false practices of fanatics and imposters, among whom Andreae did not include the Rosicrucians, but only those who falsely claimed to be members of their society.147 This suspicion of imposters is in keeping with the Fama itself, in which imposters are denied the right to receive responses from the Rosicrucian brethren; as well as with the Chemical Wedding, where imposters are barred from entry into the royal castle.148 It is noteworthy that also in the Chemical Wedding Christian Rosen- creutz had to pass a test before being admitted into the royal palace.149
The stranded stranger in Christianopolis was tested on his knowledge of true and honourable studies. In the third and final examination, he was questioned about his knowledge of nature and the heavens, about which the stranger confessed to be ignorant.150 He explained that he had spent much time, effort, and money on his studies when he was still at university, but had encountered much in Christianopolis of which he was ignorant.151 His acknowledgement of his lack of knowledge, despite his university training, was the reason that he was eventually admitted into the community. University practices on the other side of the academic ocean were incompatible with and incomparable to the ideal intellectual training of the Christianopolitans. After having been admitted, the protagonist introduced his readers to the city which—incidentally not unlike the portrayal of Rosencreutz’s tomb in the Fama—included the mention of many measures of spatial dimensions.152
Christianopolis was not the only work in which Andreae rejected academia in general or university education in particular, while already in the manifestos he had deplored the prevalent practice of university disputations.153 Like Arndt, he explicitly distanced himself from scholastic book study and
pietas; ciniflonibus qui chymiam macularent; impostoribus, qui se Roseae Crucis Fratres mentirentur, & similibus alijs literarum, humani atisque verrucis, quibus nunquam hujus Urbis inspectio bene cessisset.” On the question of piety, see ibid., 30-32.
147 This is contrary to Brecht, who misreads this passage as being directed at the Rosicrucian themselves, rather than at those who falsely claimed membership, see: Brecht, Johann Valentin Andreae, 145.
148 Fama, 127; Andreae, Chemical Wedding, 31-32.
149 Andreae, Chemical Wedding, 31-42, esp. 41.
150 Andreae, Reipublicae Christianopolitanae descriptio, 32-34.
151 Ibid., 42-43: “De caetero mihi haec intuenti perpetua fuit animi exprobatio, qui tempore invitatus, sumptibus conductus, libris adjutus, nihil eorum didicissem, quae scire omnino deceret, & naturae vultum, quae maxime blandiebatur, inexcusabile socordia neglexis- sem.” The passage is about the study of metals and minerals.
152 Fama, 112-118.
153 Ibid., 123-124, cf. above, section 1.3.
the followers of Aristotle.154 But also his Menippus (1617), which incidentally argued against the Rosicrucian fraternity, implicitly concurred by satirising academic teaching and notably the practice of disputations.155 He voiced similar sentiments in his Turbo (1616), in which the eponymous main character (Turbo) had studied logic, rhetoric, and other academic subjects for over ten years, without gaining any noteworthy knowledge. And so Turbo turned to the study of the world, but became insatiably curious and lost himself in magic and alchemy (just like the imposters mentioned in the Fama, Chemical Wedding, and Christianopolis), and finally realised that the only meaningful knowledge was the knowledge that had its foundation in Christ.156
What was wrong with scholastic university practice was explained in no uncertain terms in Andreae’s second Invitation:
Just as dubitation, disputation, and opposition have taken their origin from no one but Satan, so today it has no stronger and more assiduous promotor than Satan; and just as the world has nothing more splendid in the present time than the collations, disquisitions, and examinations of the most diverse sentences, so the Holy Spirit has nothing sadder and less manageable than the reluctant and disputing soul. Man himself has nothing more troublesome and dangerous in the moment of death but the doubts and objections of the flesh.157
Although he was surrounded by scholars, Andreae dreamt of an educational system that was profoundly different from the academic educational landscape he knew. Importantly, despite his emphasis on Christ as the source of all valid knowledge, his ideal education served not only the soul. In several of his writings, he promoted studies that he believed could contribute to
154 On Arndt rejecting book study and followers of Aristotle, see: Gilly, “Hermes or Luther.”
155 Andreae, Menippus 24-25; Brecht “Johann Valentin Andreae,” 288-289. On the text, see: idem, Johann Valentin Andreae, 111-120.
156 Andreae, Turbo; Van Dulmen, Die Utopie, 97-105. See also ibid., 105-107, on other writings in which the prototypical curious person is mocked because his curiosity leads him away from Christ. On Andreae and magic, see: Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 51-52.
157 Andreae, Invitationis ad fraternitatem Christi pars altera paraenetica, 55: “Sicut enim dubi- tatio, disputatio, oppositio, a nemine nisi Sathana initium sumpsit; ita neminem hodie quam Sathanam fortiorem diligentioremque habet promotorem: Sicut Mundus nihil hoc tempore quo se jactet speciosius habet, quam tot diversissimarum sententiarum colla- tiones, disquisitiones, examina; ita Spiritus sanctus nisi animam reluctantem, disputan- temque infelicius ac intractabilius nihil habet. Ipse homo in mortis articulo, nisi carnis dubia & objecta nihil molestius, & periculosius.”
the improvement of life. The hierarchical society of the Image, for example, which Andreae had drafted with the support of Von Wense, counted twelve faculties or colleges which had as their unified aim the curing of evil and the improvement of the good.158 At its head could be found a German leader, which we now know was supposed to be Duke August ii, a most illustrious man whose “secret council” consisted of one Fellow of German origin from each of the twelve faculties. In this regard, the Image is similar to the manifestos’ description of the Rosicrucian order, which was established also by a German founder, Christian Rosencreutz, whose secret brotherhood was located in German regions and was dedicated to the improvement of earthly matters.
Three of the Fellows described in the Image were higher in rank than the others, namely those directing sacred things, virtues, and letters.159 Fellows from the other nine faculties included a theologian, politician, physician, censor (magistrate), historian, mathematician, philosopher, economist, and a philo- logist.160 With the inclusion of a censor, politician, and economist the society represented not merely a learned academy, but rather, like that in Christian- opolis, a community. The individual objective of all scholars contributed to the understanding of creation, as their collective aim was a comprehensive understanding of reality. The similarity to the Rosicrucian fraternity is evident, which also had as its explicit aim the understanding of the entire universe.
The society in the Image was to represent a true Christian, German gym- nasium.161 For Andreae, these studies had a Christian objective, as they found their purpose in a Christian society and were directed towards the service of Christianity. Despite its lack of pietist characteristics, the Confessio also qualified the studies and philosophy of the brethren as Christian, because their philosophy was “above all consistent with that wonderful book, the Bible.”162 They claimed that “the nearest and most similar to us are those who make the Bible their rule of life, the summa of their studies, and the compendium of the
158 Andreae, Christianae societatis imago, Br.
159 Ibid., A4V-A5V: “Caput societatis ex Germaniae Principibus vir Pietate, Probitate, & lit- eratura Illustrissimus est, qui sub Secretioris Consilii Collegas duodecim habet, omnes insigni aliquo Dei donario cinspicuos. E quibus tres eminent, Unus Sacrorum, Alter Virtu- tum, Tertius Literarum Antistites [...]. Omnes Germani sanguinis [...].”
160 Ibid., B2r-B8v.
161 Ibid., B8v-Cr.
162 Fama, 123-124: “unser Philosophia ist nichts newes sondern wie sie Adam nach seinem Fall erhalten und Moses und Salomon geubet [...] besonders wo das grosse Wunderbuch die Biblia concordiret.” Cf. above, pp. 83-84.
entire world [...]”—a sentence that reappeared in the Sheath.163 The Rosicrucian fraternity was inherently Christian in nature, and its religion, studies, and philosophy were formulated accordingly. The Fama invoked the words “Jesus mihi omnia,” “Jesus is everything to me,”—a phrase that was to reappear verbatim at the end of several of Andreae’s other works, such as his Turris Babel, and at the end of the main part of his Menippus in the formula “Jesus nobis omnia” (“Jesus is everything to us”).164
The resemblances between the philosophy of the Rosicrucians and the studies of Andreae’s fictitious societies are even more evident in his Christianopolis. Andreae located a college at the centre of his imaginary city. In keeping with the triad of religion, politics, and knowledge, he placed there a theologian, a judge, and a scholar—which indicates the essential nature of their roles.165 This crucial place was also reserved for the city’s archive, library, and printing press, which ensured that important works were stored, read, and distributed.166 In Christianopolis, the study and education of both boys and girls took place in eight lecture theatres, where they could practice many different arts and sciences, ranging from alchemy to theology, and from astronomy to theosophy. These studies were practised in a way that distinguished itself favourably from conventional university education. While neither the Fama nor the Confessio had expounded upon the structure of the Rosicrucian society, its educational programme, and the objects of its teaching, the studies performed within Chris- tianopolis’ lecture theatres might indicate the direction in which the young Andreae imagined a pedagogical reform in the days of writing the manifestos.
Alchemy had played an ambivalent role in the Fama and Confessio. While the manifestos rejected false alchemical practices along with the use of pictures, they depicted transmutational alchemy as a “parergon,” a secondary activity, of the Rosicrucian brethren, who sought to decode nature’s secrets. Unlike early modern university teachers, some citizens of Christianopolis dedicated their entire lives to the practice of alchemy—for which reason also Sennert, who was among the first to combine university teaching with alchemy, must have
163 Confessio, 57-58: “ita proximi ii, et maxime similes nobis, qui una Biblia suae vitae Reg- ulam, suorum studiorum summam, mundique universi compendium faciunt [.].” Cf. Appendix.
164 Andreae, Turris Babel, 72: “Jesus mihi omnia”; Andreae, Menippus, 183: “Societas nulla extra Fraternitatem Iesu, finis nullus praeterquam aeterna cohabitatio Iesu: ita Jesus nobis omnia erit in omnibus, quo in uno Acquiescemus.” Cf. Fama, 114.
165 Andreae, Reipublicae Christianopolitanae descriptio, 66-67. These officers and their wives had important duties, see: ibid., 76-90. Their wives were characterised by conscience, understanding, and truth, respectively.
166 Andreae, Reipublicae Christianopolitanae descriptio, 92-98.
been a suitable candidate for Andreae’s “Societas Christiana” of 1620. As in the manifestos, the Christianopolitans’ foremost objective was not the creation of the philosophers’ stone or of gold, but the study of the world. Alchemy, in Christianopolis, was practiced in order to investigate all aspects of creation experimentally, including the animal, vegetable, and mineral worlds. In the alchemical laboratory, the workers learned “to master fire, to employ air, to estimate water, and to test the earth.” Here, “heaven is married to the earth, and the divine mysteries impressed on the earth are also discovered.”167 In alchemy, they studied and combined earthly and divine matters, disclosing hidden patterns.
The use of alchemy was not merely experimental and epistemological. The alchemical laboratory in Christianopolis also served the human race in medical issues. In the footsteps of Paracelsus and in accordance with the spagyric medicine alluded to in the manifestos, elements were refined, concentrated, and combined for healing purposes.168 The Rosicrucian manifestos rejected traditional Galenic practices and praised alchemy as a gift of God and as the highest medicine of the world.169 Similarly, in Christianopolis alchemical medicine is viewed as a “gift of God.”170 But this utopian narrative also reflected other innovations in medical studies. The new study of anatomy, particularly that of Andreas Vesalius, must have inspired Andreae’s choice to include in his Christianopolis an anatomical laboratory, which was intended for the dissection, study, and improvement of the human body.171 Similarly in the Christian Mythology, Andreae described an imaginary anatomical study of Hess’ spiritual body, notably by Vesalius, who establishes that Hess was a healthy and pious person who would have been immortal were he not, like all human beings, affected by original sin.172
According to Andreae’s popular fictional story, the Christianopolitans could study the phenomena of heaven and earth in the mathematical theatre and the physical theatre, respectively.173 They admired the work of Tycho Brahe, as well
167 Ibid., 100-102: “Hic metallorum, mineralium, vegetabilium, animalium etiam vires exami- nantur, purgantur, adaugentur, combinantur, in humani generis usum & sanitatis com- modum. Hic Coelum Terrae maritatur, & Divina mysteria etiam terrae impressa reperiun- tur, hic ignem regere, aerem adhibere, aquam aestimare, terram experiri addiscitur.”
168 Ibid., 100-102.
169 Confessio, 58-59, cf. above, pp. 122, 130.
170 Andreae, Reipublicae Christianopolitanae descriptio, 168: “Medicinae subtilitatem, metho- dum, rationabilitatem nemo facile explicabit: fatendum est, Dei insigne donum esse.”
171 Ibid., 102-105.
172 Andreae, Mythologiae Christianae, 22 ff.
173 Andreae, Reipublicae Christianopolitanae descriptio, 105-107, 111-113.
as the use of instruments such as the telescope with which the heavens could be observed in more detail and explained with more accuracy.174 In the Fama, such celestial phenomena had prophetic astrological relevance, owing their origins, at least in part, to Hess’ preoccupations. But also in Christianopolis, in the fifth lecture theatre, the citizens studied the influence of celestial phenomena on earthly affairs and what “the heaven communicates to the earth.”175 The earth, they believed, was under the influence of the stars.176 Yet, “the routine of the stars is annotated, out of greater admiration for human curiosity than out of human safety.”177
The heavens communicated their influence, but one should preferably submit oneself to the spiritual heavens and the divine plan.178 Besides studies of the natural world, the Christianopolitans, like the Rosicrucian brethren, studied divine reality. According to the Rosicrucian manifestos, divine secrets were conveyed through creation; human beings could study God’s celestial portents and the characters He had kept hidden in nature and in living beings.179 Thanks to God’s grace, one could acquire knowledge of the Son and of the universe’s harmony through the microcosm that was pitched to the same tone and melody as God.180
Likewise, in the third lecture theatre in Christianopolis students had the possibility of studying divinity and of acquiring divine knowledge, notably through the study of creation and by means of arithmology.181 Students were taught in “mystic numbers” and studied the numbers and measures of creation so as to
174 Ibid., 110: “Non recensebo hic instrumenta, quoniam ex generosissimi Tychonis Brahei descriptione fere omnia liquent: accessere pauca alia, & in iis telescopium nuperum inventum elegantissimum.” Andreae adhered to the Copernican worldview, according to which the earth is in motion, and also assumed that there was life on other planets; see: ibid., 142: “Huic plurimum tribuunt Christianopolitani, nec sibi metuunt, ne terraemotu excidant, aut a novis Astricolis deturbentur.”
175 Ibid., 144: “In hoc eodem Astrologia se offert, multis nominibus estimanda. Nam quid Terra
Coelo debeat, quid Coelum Terrae cummunicet, ij experiuntur, qui utrumque patiuntur.” Elsewhere, Andreae rejected astrology as devilish; see: Brecht, Johann Valentin Andreae, 38.
176 Andreae, Reipublicae Christianopolitanae descriptio, 144: “[...] inter utrumque terra se coelo subjectam fatetur. Solis & Lunae vires magis in evidenti sunt [...].”
177 Ibid., 144: “Hinc astrorum regimen annotatum est, majore curiositatis humanae admira- tione, quam securitate.”
178 Cf. ibid., 144: “Certe animum, ut ut corporis carceribus clausum, nemini subiiciunt, nisi Deo, ac soli Deo.”
179 Confessio, 56-57, cf. above, p. 82 ff.
180 Fama, 123-124, cf. above, sections 1.3 and 2.4.
181 On arithmology, cf. Brach, “Mathematical Esotericism.”
acquire knowledge of God.182 According to Andreae, this arithmological study was a Christian interpretation of Cabala, which should be studied carefully and which ultimately depended upon God’s revelation.183 The students observed divinity within creation, because
above all, God placed His mysteries for us in His fabrics and typical structures, so that we may disclose the length, the breadth, and the depth of divinity by means of the Key of David, and we may perceive the presence of the Messiah through all things.184
From the measures of the universe, the measures of God could be deduced.185 The universe had therefore to be studied and measured in order to understand God’s mysteries and to observe Christ’s presence within it by means of the key with which one could, like Christ, unlock and reveal divine secrets.186 Hess, when investigated by the theological faculty of the University of Tubingen, also briefly referred to the Key of David, and explained that it could be used to understand the secret chronology hidden in the Bible.187 Like the Rosicrucians in the manifestos, Andreae and Hess both had recourse to the clavis universalis, by means of which they, as with the clavis Davidica, probed into the hidden reality beyond the visible exteriority of nature.
The Christianopolitans studied God specifically in the second lecture theatre of metaphysics and theosophy, and the divine secrets they were taught there agreed with the ideas expressed in the manifestos. In the second lecture theatre the wonders of God were studied, about which the stranger commented: “How foolish we are, that we prefer Aristotle to ourselves, that we embrace that little man instead of the marvels of God, which put him
182 Andreae, Reipublicae Christianopolitanae descriptio, 134: “De numeris mysticis [title]. Sed etiam altius ascendunt, quibus anni majores sunt. Habet enim Deus numeros suos & men- suras: quae contemplari hominem decet.”
183 Ibid., 136: “circumspectos oportet in hac Cabala esse, & conjecturarum temperantes: cum in praesentibus laboremus, in praeteritis caligemus, futura vero Deus uni sibi reservarit, paucissimis, ac maximis intervallis communicanda.”
184 Ibid., 135: “maxime vero in fabricis suis & typicis structuris nobis mysteria sua deposuit, ut per Clavem Davidicam, longitudinem, latitudinem, & profunditatem Divinitatis recluda- mus, atque Messiam per omnia diffusum annotemus [...].”
185 Ibid., 134-135.
186 Cf. ibid., 135-136: “Sufficiat nobis, Christum nobis omnibus ea omnia explanasse, quae ad corrigendam, tolerandamque vitam faciunt, quae illuminant non omnes invadamus, nisi Christi jubar praeeat, & ad interiora occlusa vocet.” For the Key of David, see: Revelations 3:7 and Isaiah 22:22.
187 uat, 12/17, nr. 39, question v; uat, 12/17, nr. 42; Brecht, “Chiliasmus in Wurttemberg,” 29.
[sc. Aristotle] to shame”—and which thereby shame the entire scholastic university enterprise.188 In metaphysics, the citizens lifted themselves up to the primum ens, the first being, God.189 In theosophy, they were instructed by God himself: “Where nature ends, here [theosophy] begins, and taught by the supreme divinity, it religiously guards its mysteries.”190 The students of theosophy could rise up, free themselves from worldly attachments, and come closer to God who revealed Himself not just through His Word but in manifold ways.191
The idea that one was able to acquire adequate knowledge of the world and of God even after the Fall—which implies that one is not affected by original sin as thoroughly as Augustine or Luther would suggest—was an important implication of the Rosicrucian reformation of the divine and the human.192 In his Christianopolis, too, Andreae seems to suggest that the consequences of the Fall could be reversed so that the citizens could again fully comprehend the Creator and His creation. While reading from a tablet about the religion of the Christianopolitans, the stranded protagonist of the story reads that “we believe [...] in the restitution of the dignity taken away through the Fall of Adam.”193 This beliefis an echo of the claim made in the Confessio that “God has declared truth, light and dignity to return to the world, which would not long afterwards be destroyed: such things as he had ordered to move from Paradise together with Adam and to temper man’s misery.”194 The mention of “dignity” is noteworthy, and presumably indicates that man had regained his original purity in the image of God. With such claims, Andreae incidentally violated the
188 Andreae, Reipublicae Christianopolitanae descriptio, 129: “Imprudentes nos qui Aristo- telem nobis praeferimus, homuncionem nobiscum, non Dei admiranda amplectimur, quae illum pudefaciunt.”
189 Ibid., 127: “Alij in hoc loco Metaphysicam audiunt, scientiam, quae ab omni se concre- tione abstrahit, & ad prima entia subvolat, condignam utique homine, cujus ingenium ad id natum, ut terrenis se subtrahat. Hic verum, bonum, pulchrum, unum ordinem, & similia contemplantur [.].”
190 Ibid., 129: “Ubi natura desinet, haec incipit, & a superno numine edocta, mysteria sua religiose servat.”
191 Ibid., 129: “Momento se pandit Deus, diu adytis suis involvitur, semper optimus, raro vis- ibilis; Sunt tamen infinita ejus revelata, in quibus deliciari cujusvis vere Christiani est.”
192 Cf. above, section 1.3.
193 Andreae, Reipublicae Christianopolitanae descriptio, 71: “Credimus [.] dignitatisque per Adami lapsum ablatae restitutionem.”
194 Confessio, 53-54: “Illud itaque unum nobis confirmandum est, Mortales, Deum mundo haud longe post interituro, reddendam veritatem, Lucem et dignitatem decrevisse: qualia cum Adamo Paradiso emigrare, & hominis miseriam condire jussit.” On this passage, see above section 1.3.
interpretation of human nature after the Fall as expressed by his grandfather when he co-authored the Formula of Concord.
According to the tablet that the stranger read in Christianopolis, the restitution of dignity had already taken place thanks to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ: “We believe that by His life, suffering, and death, He satisfied the justice of God, and that the compassion of God has been deserved [...] and so the dominion of sin has been crucified, destroyed, and buried.”195 Thanks to Christ’s sacrifice, the triumph of sin has come to an end and the possibility of perfection has been restored, as “the kingdom of Hell and the poison of death are destroyed”—a passage quite in keeping with the Rosicrucians’ contemplations regarding the prolongation of life, but in opposition to Lutheran orthodoxy.196 Whilst Christ’s sacrifice had for long permitted the possibility of a restoration of Adamite conditions, it was also necessary to engage in the right moral and scientific conduct in order to benefit from this possibility. It was one thing to be reconciled with God, but yet another to know how to live a long and healthy life like the old Jewish Patriarchs—but this was now possible for the Christianopolitans.
Hess had held similar views. Although he had answered his Lutheran investigators that sin would not be entirely eliminated in the future earthly age of the Holy Spirit, he expected the attainment of complete and perfect knowledge in that time.197 Andreae’s belief in earthly perfection and Hess’ promise of perfect knowledge specifically in a future age are both encountered in the Rosicrucian manifestos.
In other texts, Andreae also emphasised that a perfect restitution of the body and perfect knowledge were possible. In his first Invitation, for example, he revealed that the members of a fraternity, bound through Christ and unattached to the world, could come to perfect knowledge not only of oneself and the world, but also of God:
For how long are we summoned, invited, and admitted elsewhere? Namely to that place where we could know God, ourselves, and the machine of the world more fully, and call everything by its true name, discern it by its true colours, and distinguish it by its sounds: we distinguish
195 Andreae, Reipublicae Christianopolitanae descriptio, 71: “Credimus, Vita ejus Pafiione & morte justitiae Dei satisfactum, & misericordiam promeritam [.], indeque peccati dominium crucifixum, peremptum & sepultum.”
196 Ibid., 71: “Credimus inferni regnum, mortisque venenum destructum, & Resurrectionis victoria securitatem nobis sub Dei cura redditam.” Cf. above, pp. 159-160.
197 uat, 12/17, nr. 38.
with eyes, illuminated by God, the happy from the unhappy, the fruitful from the poor, the eminent from the dejected, in retrograde, that is, in the divine order.198
In other words, those members could acquire knowledge of God and His creation in this earthly life and come to an understanding of the “machine of the world”—a term also invoked in the manifestos—as was once possible for Adam in Paradise.199 Just as Adam named the creatures according to their nature, in the Invitation the true names became discernable, while in the Confessio a new language was used to express the true essences of things.200 In fact, Andreae claimed that one could on earth live in spirit as if already in the New Jerusalem:
Thus what is this, that we lose if we lose the world? [...] We will have a small piece of earth; the wide space of heaven awaits us. We will live in the people’s temple, but we will soon be citizens of this Jerusalem constructed from pearls: we will be confined in a small space, but in our minds we will walk in paradise.201
This passage of the first Invitation shares certain notable similarities with the views of Paracelsus, who also identified the Paradise of Genesis with the New Jerusalem of the Book of Revelation.202
198 Andreae, Invitatio fratemitatis Christi, 40-41: “Nos vero quam longe aliorsum vocamur, invitamur, admittimur? Scilicet illuc ut & Deum, & nos ipsos & Mundi machinam, plenius agnoscamus, quodlibet vero suo nomine appellemus, suis coloribus discernamus, suis sonis dijudicemus: felicem ab infelice, divitem a paupere, sublimema b [sic] dejecto, ret- rogrado, id est Divino ordine, oculisque a Deo illustratis dignoscamus.”
199 Confessio, 52: “sane cuicunque Magnas illas Dei litteras, quas Mundi machinae inscripsit [.] intueri, legere [.] concessum.” Cf. above, p. 68
200 Confessio, 56-57, see above, p. 90 ff.
201 Andreae, Invitatio fraternitatis Christi, 78-79: “Quid est igitur illud, quod amittamus si Mundum amittimus? [.] Terrae exiguum possidebimus; at Coeli lata spatia nos expectant; aedes plebeias inhabitabimus; sed Hierosolymae illius ex margaritis constructae cives mox erimus; In angusto conclusi erimus, sed mente Paralysum [sic] inambulabimus.” In other versions, “Paralysum” is replaced by “Paradysum,” cf.: Andreae, Gesammelte Schrif- ten, vol. 6, 140. According to Revelation 21:21, the New Jerusalem had twelve gates: “And the twelve gates were twelve pearls: every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparant glass.” Cf. also: Andreae, Reipublicae Christiano- politanae descriptio, 21, where he suggests that the text of the Christianopolis reveals the way towards heaven.
202 On Paracelsus’ view, see above, p. 110.
As far as the central element of the manifestos is concerned, that is, the call for a general reformation, the similarities with Christianopolis are striking. Admittedly, Christianopolis does not call for change, nor does it present a reform programme. As Andreae remarked in his introduction, he was disappointed by the responses the Rosicrucian manifestos had induced. But in the introduction as well as in the body of the text, he continued to criticise the contemporary state of affairs within the three areas for reform already identified in the manifestos—religion, politics, and knowledge. He thereby suggested that despite Luther another reformation was required, and he drew on notions antithetical to orthodox Lutheranism—an important facet of his thought given that he was a Lutheran deacon at the time of writing these tracts, and that in recent scholarship Andreae has been depicted as a faithful Lutheran.203 Aspects once related to the general reformation of the Rosicrucians reappeared in this utopian narrative and partly also in other stories drafted by Andreae. What the manifestos had called for in a non-programmatic way is realised in Christianopolis: there, the citizens studied the divine and the human, nature and God, in lecture theatres and institutions set up for that purpose; and the successful restoration of long-lost dignity before the end of history is quite in keeping with the contents of the Rosicrucian manifestos. In effect, Christiano- polis represents an ideal community that seems to have successfully undergone the Rosicrucians’ reformation.
Both the brethren of the Fama and the stranger of Christianopolis petitioned for their readers’ responses. The Fama called for people to examine their own arts and to communicate their findings; the stranger, after having introduced readers to Christianopolis, expressed his hope that they would visit the city themselves and communicate their own findings about the studies conducted in Christianopolis.204 Only the Fama met with a significant number of answers, no doubt because readers would rather embrace a reformation to which they
203 Brecht, Kirchenordnung undKirchenzucht in Wurttemberg vom 16. biszum i8.Jahrhundert, 59-60, for example concludes that even though Andreae cannot be regarded as a scholastic theologian and that he aimed to reform religion, nonetheless “[d]afi Andrea auf dem Boden des orthodoxen lutherischen Bekenntnisses stand und stehen wollte, durfte mit all dem Vorhergehenden bewiesen sein [...].” His distance from university theology “beweist nur, dafi Andrea geistig schon zu einer spaten Zeit der Orthodoxie gehort, nicht aber, dafi er sich von ihr losgesagt hatte.” Cf. Montgomery, Cross and Crucible, vol. 1; Edighoffer, Rose- Croix etsociete ideale, 2 vols.; Wels, “Die Frommigkeit der Rosenkreuzer-Manifeste.”
204 Andreae, Reipublicae Christianopolitanae descriptio, 167: “Atque ita rudi stilo percurri, quicquid in Auditoriis Christianis mihi est commenstratum. Quod utinam nihil de mea balbutie, forsan & oblivione haberet! sperarem utique si non omnia, imo si pauca etiam, aliqua tamen pio & Christiano lectori placitura, vel sane datura animum, ut Christiano- polim quispiam adiens, certiora & exactiora his experiatur: quae si eodem candore,
felt they could contribute and from which they could benefit, than respond to a text that was obviously fictional.
3.4 Paracelsian Motivation
Andreae’s views are evidently incorporated in the manifestos, but Hess’ stamp on the manifestos should not be understated, because his contribution was not limited to the chiliastic interpretation of history and the apocalyptic figures that played a role in epochal times. He was also the source of the brethren’s regard for Paracelsus and their promotion of Paracelsian views. There is no comparable esteem for Paracelsus to be found in Andreae’s writings, apart from a few instances such as in his Menippus, where Andreae suggests combining Galenic and Paracelsian medicine.205 In their explicit praise for the medical reformer, the manifestos seem to reflect particularly Hess’ aspirations. Hess had studied Paracelsus’ writings and had worked as a Paracelsian physician for many years, using his alchemical knowledge in the preparation of cures. In his obituary, Andreae described Hess as a follower of Paracelsus.206 In German lands, Hess was known as one of the foremost Paracelsians.207 Because of his various views and practices, to Hess befell the unfortunate fate of being investigated not only for his Joachimite views by Tubingen’s Faculty of Theology, but also for his Paracelsian practices by that university’s Faculty of Medicine.
The investigations Hess was forced to undergo spanned the period from 1599 until 1613, the year before his death. In an official handwritten report of the medical faculty, dated 1599, the professors complained about Hess’ medical practice.208 Physicians and apothecaries were supposed to comply with the medical statutes of the university, and as a corollary, the practice of medicine without the necessary academic qualifications was forbidden.209 The
eademque mecum libertate communicaverit, illorum certe, quorum id commodo fiet, sed meam etiam, quod juverit, & emendarit, gratitudinem maximam promerebitus.”
205 Idem, Menippus, 274. Cf. also: Brecht, “Kritik und Reform der Wissenschaften bei Johann Valentin Andreae,” 136-141.
206 Andreae, Tobiae Hessi Immortalitas, 57-58. On this, see also: Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostauro- tica, 47; idem, “Die Rosenkreuzer,” 47-48; Brecht, Johann Valentin Andreae, 34.
207 Ulrich Bollinger had written at the end of Croll’s Basilica Chymica about Hess: “Ille prius rigidi perplexa volumina iuris, Nunc Opus evolvit, Rex Paracelse, tuum”; see: Gilly, “Die Rosenkreuzer,” 47.
208 Fora brief discussion of this report, see also: Brecht, “Johann Valentin Andreae,” 281-282.
209 uat, 20/3a (1599): “Ferners und zum anders, ob wol in unsers gnadigen Fursten unnd Herrn ordination, die doctores der Leibartzney belangendt, Gorblich [sic] verbotten, das
professors took additional measures to protect their practice by condemning the use of medical theories other than those taught at the university.210
Hess, who had not graduated in medicine but in law, but was working as a Paracelsian physician, obviously did not meet these demands. He was seen as a “student of Paracelsus” who practiced alchemy and hoped in vain to make gold, losing much money.211 And, so the professors commented, “as all alchemists finally do, for the sake of making up the harm he had suffered he delved into medicine.”212 Hess combined the alchemical art with his practice as a physician, ignoring the established practices. He was furthermore accused of having “communicated his allegedly Paracelsian cures” only to make his name greater among his well-placed clients.213 The report complains that he trained his own students in Paracelsian medicine and criticised the traditional medical treatment and its accompanying cures.214 Hess, who seems to have been a successful practitioner, thus became a threat to the medical establishment. The professors, displeased by his successes and his rejection of traditional medicine, deemed his cures “very dangerous” and denounced Hess for “selling himself as an ordinary physician.”215 They warned their students against Hess, but in their conclusion they did not press any formal charges against him.216
im ganzen Furstenthumb kainer, der sich fur ain Medicum Aufigebe neben anders ordi- narijs Medicis practiciren solle.”
210 Ibid.: “[...] in unnsern Statutis capite De Decani officio einem Jeden Facultatis nostrae decano in seinens Jurament eingebunden ist, ut nulli medendi rationem in hoc oppido exercere permittat, qui in Universitate Scholae huius insignia doctorea non consecutus sit etc.”
211 Ibid.: “[.] hat sich furs erstehens ein gutte Zeitt hero Tobias Hefi Juris prudentiae Doctor, vel Alchymista potius imbij illius Paracelsi discipulus herfur gethon, und nachdem Ime sein Goldtmachen nicht gerathen wollen, dardurch er doch viel Gelts onworden.”
212 Ibid.: “[Er] hatt wie alle Alchemisten entlich pflegen, zu etwas ergotzlichkeit seines erlit- tenen schadens sich uff die Medicin begeben.”
213 Ibid.: “Er [hat] seine vermainte pharmaca Paracelsica vergebenlich mittgetailt, Wolchs wir auch desto weniger geachtet, bifi wir nhun mer Im Werck gnugsam spuren unnd erfarren wissen das er durch solches allain Ime ain namen unnd zulauff zu machen sich listig- lich beflissen. Dann er ietzundt nicht nuhn allain die seinigen, sonder meniglichs, unnd bevorab hoches Laudt personen, nicht one worrtlichen schaden (wie solches nuhn zuvil offenbar und mit laidigen exempels wol zu erweisen ist).”
214 Ibid.: “Ja auch seine aigne discipulos annemet, dargegen unsere Medicam doctrinam und remedia, per tot seculorum sapientes approbata, et huc usque in omnibus bene constitutis Academijs et Rebuspub conservata (damit er desto hocher unnd allain fur gelert angese- hen werde) falschlich bey Jederman verclainert unnd verachtet.”
215 Ibid.: “Leider unsers gnedigen fursten unnd Herrn ordnung seine Medicamenta Pericu- losissima vom Gaufi umb uberschwencklichen Werth ufigibt, uff die practickh ufineuttet, consilia ufishreibet [sic], und in summa sich allerdingt fur ainen Medicum ordinarium vendirirt.”
216 Ibid.
A second investigation followed ten years later, in 1609. The professors appealed again to their statutes and referred to the 1599 report. Again they argued that Hess did not know his profession because he had no degree in medicine and because his cures were dangerous.217 But this report was markedly more negative about Hess’ practice as a Paracelsian physician than the first one. The professors agreed with the previous report that Hess’ recipes and cures were harmful, because they considered him an inadequate physician without any formal training.218 But this time his procedures were deemed “magical, devilish, and blasphemous.”219 Once the charge of blasphemy had been pronounced, Hess’ medicine became also a religious issue, which called for a severe intervention as it threatened Tubingen’s orthodox Lutheran tradition. By promoting “Paracelsian arts,” Hess was seen to have installed himself in the movement of the Paracelsians that challenged not only the medical faculty but, according to the report, also the “higher faculty” of theology.220
The medical professors inserted Hess into their larger argument against all dissenting “sects,” whether belonging to the Paracelsian, alchemical, or “empirical” currents, and against all other “novatores” who deviated from school medicine and its canon. Any art practiced without the necessary academic qualifications was seen to belong to a new and strange philosophy and was therefore considered dangerous.221
The Tubingen physicians would have found their worst fears confirmed by the Rosicrucian manifestos, which similarly promoted Paracelsian and Her-
217 uat, 20/12 nr. 5 (1609).
218 Brecht, “Johann Valentin Andreae,” 282.
219 uat, 20/12 nr. 5 (1609): “[...] unnd konden [...] bey hohen schuelen Paracelsica medica- tiones oder seiner scriptorum commendationes & lectiones nicht gedultet werden, dann was fur magische, teufflische, gotslasterliche sachen nach seinem ungereimbten medendi methodo, diser Paracelsus [...] hinderlafien.”
220 Ibid.: “Und ist gewifi, dass der Teuffel ein feind aller ORdnung und Schuelen, aber ein hurtiger Promotor seiner [Paracelsus’] Kunsten, nicht nuhr unserer, sondern auch hoherer FAcultet Zerrittung volrangst damit austrowet unnd gesuchet, wie dann ungereumbte sectierische Paracelsisten, fremder Theologi nach ihres Meisters defi Paracelsi weifi, vor andern sich vielmahls haben gelustet lafien.”
221 See ibid.: “Darumb dann auch bay andern wolgestallten Universiteten, Inner oder aufier Deutschlands, wo man gleich solcher chymicastrorum unnd empiricorum inn umblich- genden orten [.] dieselbige oder ihr artzney in eo loco nit geduldet werden”; ibid.: “Dann auch ebe defi offtgemelten statutis gemafi yede Facultet ihre besondern assig- nierte authores, unnd medicae facultatj allen Hippocratis unnd Galeni Scripta medica zue docieren befohlen/ konden wir nicht sehen, zum wafi erspriefilichem End, nova illa Paracelsica & empirica medendi ratio uns passieren zuelafien mochete zuegemuert worden. Dann unsere alte weise vorfahren nicht weniger hirns gehabt alfi unbedachtsam Novatores, unnd wol gewust.”
metical arts. Hess’ combination of Joachimite expectations and Paracelsian doctrines left its clear mark on the manifestos. After all, in Hess’ mind, religion and natural philosophy were so closely related because through the study of nature God could be observed—an idea later represented in the manifestos.222 His philosophy involved a combination of theological and medical endeavours, while neglecting the discipline of law in which he had been trained. This was quite in keeping with the manifestos’ statement, also copied in the Sheath, that “[p]hilosophy includes much of theology and medicine, but little of law.”223 It seems evident that the manifestos’ apocalyptic expectations and Paracelsian impetus came from Hess rather than from Andreae.
3.5 Concluding Remarks
Andreae combined the piety of Arndt with a strong desire to change society and its religious, political, and educational institutions. He distanced himself from the Rosicrucian furore, of which he was the cause, so as to protect his name from what had become a proposal that, in his view, had gotten out of hand. He seems to have been singularly disheartened by the vociferous and fanatical mob that clamoured for membership of the fraternity—as he unambiguously pointed out in his second Invitation, Tower of Babel, Christianopolis, and other works224—and that thereby overlooked and ignored his goal for reform. Perhaps given the institutional prosecution of Hess and of would-be Rosicrucians by political and academic institutions,225 it seems that Andreae deemed it better to dissociate himself from the manifestos and to reject those who attributed their authorship to him and his friends. Andreae withdrew from what had become a dangerous alliance and discussed instead in new ways the reformed society that he and Hess had dreamed about in the first place.
The ideal of a reform of religion, politics, and knowledge remained so close to his heart that he now poured these plans into explicitly fictional writings, and Christianopolis in this regard represented the ideal intellectual community Andreae had hoped for but could not realise.226 One of the most remarkable
222 Brecht, “Johann Valentin Andreae,” 282.
223 Confessio, 45: “[philosophia] theologiae ac medicinae plurimum, jurisprudentiae minimum habeat.”
224 See above, section 3.1.
225 On these investigations, see below, section 5.3.
226 This conclusion is also drawn by Dickson, The Tessera of Antilia, 42-43, 56, 81-88, especially ibid., 45: “[...] Andreae never repudiated the ideals of the manifestos; he merely
signs of the continuity between the manifestos and Andreae’s later work are those twenty-eight sentences from the Confessio that are included in almost identical form in the Sheath (Theca) of 1616. While this detail has been used to confirm Andreae’s authorship of the second Rosicrucian manifesto, it should also be seen as a testimonial to Andreae’s continued belief in the need for a general reformation. It is no coincidence that the first sentence of the ’selfplagiarised’ passage reads, as has been mentioned, “while the world is tottering and almost at the end of a period and rushes to its beginnings, God returns the order of nature.”227
Other sentences taken from the Confessio include: “From the revolution of the world we are able to estimate in some way both the future and the present,”228 as well as
He, to whom it has been granted to behold, read, and thereafter to comprehend the great letters of God, which He inscribed on the machine of the world, and which He repeats alternately according to the vicissitudes of the empires, is said to be a magician.229
Further repeated sentences concern the microcosm-macrocosm analogy; predictions of future times; the signs in nature, the heavens, and Scripture readable to few and announcing imminent changes; the lion effectuating these changes; the false practice of pseudo-alchemists that was to be rejected; the Book of Nature; the Rosicrucians’ magical language to express the essences of things
repudiated—at a time when the so-called “secret brotherhood” of the Rosicrucians has become the butt of many jokes—the use to which these ideals had been put,” and ibid., 78: “Why had the Fama been written by Andreae and his friends? Quite simply, to serve anonymously the cause of reform”; as well as by Brecht, “Kritik und Reform der Wis- senschaften bei Johann Valentin Andreae,” 131-132.
227 Andreae, Theca gladii spiritus, 31, nr. 175: “Iehova mundo labascente, & propemodum periodo absoluta, ad principium properante; naturae ordinem invertit.” Cf. Confessio, 43: “Jehova est, qui mundo labascente, et propemodum periodo absoluta, ad principium properante Naturae ordinem invertit.”
228 Andreae, Theca gladii spiritus, 31, nr. 178: “Ex mundi revolutione futura simul & praesen- tia aliquo modo metiri quimus.” Cf. Confessio, 46: “ex mundi revolutione futura simul et praesentia metiuntur.”
229 Andreae, Theca gladii spiritus, 32, nr. 181: “Magus dicitur, cuicunque magnas Dei literas, quas mundi machinae inscripsit, & per imperiorum vicissitudines alternatim repetit, intueri, legere, atque exinde se erudire consessum est.” Cf. Confessio, 52: “Sane cuicunque Magnas illas Dei litteras, quas Mundi machinae inscripsit, & per Imperiorum vicissitu- dines alternatim repetit, intueri, legere, atque exinde se erudire concessum; ille quidem (etsi hoc tempore inscius) jam noster est; Atque uti scimus, non neglecturum nostram invitationem: ita vicissim fraudem omnem ejuramus [...].”
and their own philosophy, redolent of the Adamic language; and the Bible as the greatest work—that is, sentences directly related to the topic of a general reformation as we have untangled it in the previous chapters. Andreae slightly altered some of these sentences, but the general topic remained the same: they provide in a nutshell the overall theme of this study, for which reason the sentences in question are included in the Appendix.
It has been argued that in seeking and finding common ground between the manifestos and Andreae’s other writings, scholars have emphasised superficial similarities and have ignored radical differences.230 From the perspective of the theme of this work, this criticism looks misplaced. The common ground between the manifestos and Andreae’s later works is constituted by Andreae’s belief in the need to reform society and its institutions, convinced as he was that, thanks to Christ’s sacrifice, it was possible for humans to return to the original splendour of knowing divine and natural secrets—which is fully in agreement with the manifestos’ notions. Additionally, the relevance of astrological and alchemical studies and the return to primeval knowledge is clearly voiced in these other writings by Andreae, especially in his Christianopolis.
The role of Hess in the composition of the manifestos was also significant, as many of the apocalyptic themes are his: the destruction of the papal Antichrist by a roaring lion who was to become the ruler of future times, as well as the millenarian imagery according to which another age was on the horizon, all have their origin in Hess’ beliefs and expectations. Hess’ lion coalesced with Andreae’s hopes for a German political ruler and appeared as a spiritually and politically ruling German lion in the manifestos. We may assume that the manifestos’ conspicuous optimism and the hope for a new, reformed age was first and foremost due to Hess. The same is true for the traces of Paracelsianism—in all likelihood it was Hess who embedded Paracelsian notions into the manifestos.
It seems that the attempt to trace the various topics related to the overall theme of a reformation back to the presumed authors of the manifestos also sheds light on the contested topic of authorship itself. Brecht and Gilly agree that the contents of the Rosicrucian manifestos were partly inspired by Hess, but they nevertheless deny Hess’ direct involvement in the composition of the manifestos for stylistic reasons: both the internal consistency of the manifestos and the use of Latin idioms would point to a single author, Andreae, only.231
230 Montgomery, Cross and Crucible, vol. 1, 192.
231 Brecht, “Johann Valentin Andreae,” 288; idem, Johann Valentin Andreae, 40, 43, 85; Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 78; idem, “Die Rosenkreuzer,” 52.
However, it remains unclear as to why this should be the case, that is, whya collaboration cannot result in a coherent narrative. As for style, besides a handful of letters no works by Hess have survived, which makes it impossible to compare the manifestos to a recognisable style in other writings and to rule out, or argue for, his authorship on that basis. Based on the contents of the manifestos it seems in fact appropriate to consider both Andreae and Hess as the authors of the manifestos. It is precisely from the theme of a general reformation that their combined efforts become visible. After all, it was only thanks to the combination of Hess’ Joachimism and Paracelsianism with Andreae’s reform plans that the manifestos could arrive at the powerful message that they delivered.
part 3
The Response
Lyke de Vries - 978-90-04-24939-4
Downloaded from Brill.com05/24/2022 05:15:25PM via free access
Rosicrucianism Praised: The Early Response
The Rosicrucian manifestos were clearly mission statements, promising the reform of divine and worldly matters, and their readers were invited to join the Rosicrucian cause. But the texts did not outline a precise programme of how the world and the divine should be transformed or how people could contribute to the improvement of all aspects of life. The absence of such a programme might have contributed to the texts’ appeal, as it gave readers the opportunity to develop and express their own interpretations. The manifestos’ unorthodox message and optimistic tone, fuelled by the use of well-known apocalyptic themes, stirred up a very strong response in the years immediately after their publication.1 As was observed by Andreae, hundreds of authors responded to these provocative texts, proclaimed themselves to be Rosicrucian prophets, emphatically defended the Rosicrucian cause, or hoped passionately one day soon to become members of the Rosicrucian brotherhood. With such a flood of written responses—over 400 within the first decade after the publication of the manifestos—this episode can aptly be characterised as the “Rosicrucian furore.”
But why exactly did these texts cause such an uproar? What ideas aroused the interest of their readers, and which themes were featured in the earliest replies to them? More specifically, to what extent did the ideas associated with the announced general reformation play a role in the initial Rosicrucian turmoil? As the earliest reactions differed substantially from each other, there is no simple and straightforward answer to these questions. Some authors made it their mission to describe to their readers the Rosicrucian fraternity, its location, and its structure. A case in point is Raphael Eglin (1559-1622), theologian, alchemist, and student of the Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno (1548-1600). Eglin worked at the court of Moritz in Kassel, where the manifestos had been published, and is thought to have been the author of a poem entitled Assertion of the Fraternity (1614).2 He posed as a brother of the Rosicrucians, but kept his name secret, signing the text only with the initials B.M.I.3 In response to widely
1 For an overview, see: Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica.
2 Strieder (1783) presents Eglin as the publisher of the Assertio: Strieder, Grundlage zu einer Hessischen Gelehrten und Schriftsteller, vol. 3, 316.
3 On Eglin as the poem’s probable author, see: Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 89. On Eglin, see:
expressed doubts about the fraternity, he affirmed its existence, alluded to the brethren’s secret arts and studies, and described their habitat as a monastery hidden in a wooded area in central Germany.4
Faced with the danger of prosecution and the risk of losing their professions, many Rosicrucian enthusiasts concealed their true identity. A few years later, in 1618, Eglin’s poem was followed by another pseudonymous text, published under the name of Anastasius Philaretus Cosmopolita. This letter can now be traced back to Joachim Morsius (1593-1643).5 The short text was meant to describe how Morsius himself became acquainted with the Rosicrucians, and how their manifestos had brought him “from wandering shrouded in darkness on my narrow ways” to the path of truth.6 Morsius was related to the well-known Rosicrucian adept Adam Haslmayr (1562-ca. 1631), because he was the author of the Nuncius Olympicus (Heavenly Herald, 1626). This text was a catalogue of 228 writings from a “secret library,” which we now know was Haslmayr’s, and which included 160 works written by Haslmayr himself.7
Equally inspired by the Rosicrucian message was the engraver Michel le Blon (1587-1657), who was born in Germany of Dutch parents and who lived in the Netherlands during his adult life. There he met the painter Torrentius, whom we briefly encountered in Chapter One and who was suspected of belonging to the Rosicrucian brotherhood. So impressed was Le Blon by the manifestos’ description of the Rosicrucian fraternity that he immediately wrote a reply to these laudable writings and instantly sought to join the brotherhood.8
These replies, like many others, show how enthralled many early modern readers were by this secret fraternity and what it represented, but they did not discuss the contents of the manifestos. The enthusiasm of these proponents was shared by others who, by contrast, aimed to explain the Rosicrucian philosophy and the fraternity’s objectives. This was the case for Morsius’ colleague
Moran, “Alchemy, Prophecy, and the Rosicrucians. Raphael Eglinus and Mystical Currents of the Early 17th Century”; Hotson, Johann Heinrich Alsted, 59-65, 98-103.
4 B.M.I. [Eglin?], Assertio fraternitatis, 2r-4v.
5 On Morsius, see: Schneider, Joachim Morsius und sein Kreis; Schick, Das altere Rosenkreuzer- tum, 189-192; Gilly, “Iter Rosicrucianum,” 65, 73-75; Hotson, Johann Heinrich Alsted, 102, 119120, 144, 155.
6 Anastasius Philareti Cosmopolitae, Epistola sapientissimae f.r. c. remissa, A2-A3: “Unicum hocce tantum restat, uti quo queam ab erroneis tenebricosis meis semitis abduci, inquit luci- dissimam veritatis regiam viam reduci [...].”
7 For the text, see: Gilly, Adam Haslmayr, 241-290. See further: ibid., 23-25, 239; idem, “Iter Rosicrucianum,” 73-75; Akerman, “The Rosicrucians,” 2; eadem, “Paracelsianism in Sweden,” 428.
8 Michel le Blon, Antwort oder Sendbrief; Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 91. On Torrentius, see below, section 5.3.
Haslmayr, as well as for Michael Maier (1568-1622), the pseudonymous Juli- anus de Campis, Daniel Mogling (1596-1635), and several anonymous authors. Unlike many others, these authors offered an interpretation of the message, mission, and philosophy of the brethren. While several of these key figures have been discussed by the Rosicrucian scholarship, others have only briefly been touched upon, and their responses to the manifestos are yet to receive careful and detailed analysis.9 Whereas historiography on the early optimistic response has largely attempted to sketch the Rosicrucian furore,10 this chapter takes again a different approach: it will not discuss the early response in general terms or in the context of authorship, but it will analyse the response from the specific perspective of the theme of a general reformation. In so doing, it aims to address and explain the main appeal of the manifestos in the early seventeenth century.
Each of the key figures discussed in this chapter was well-known in the years after the first publication of the manifestos. Haslmayr’s Answer was published together with several editions of the Fama, and his name appeared on the title page of later editions of this manifesto. Maier was a renowned alchemist who worked as court physician to Rudolph ii in Prague and who defended the Rosicrucians on several occasions. Julianus de Campis attracted attention because also his reply was published in an edition of the manifes- tos.11 And Mogling, finally, was acquainted with well-established figures such as Johannes Kepler and the engraver Matthaeus Merian the Elder (1593-1650),
9 Gilly, for example, discusses Haslmayr at great length, but especially focuses on his context
and includes many of his manuscript texts. We will instead analyse in detail his published response to the manifestos: Gilly, Adam Haslmayr. Julianus is only touched upon in: Schick, Das altere Rosenkreuzertum, 238-245; Peuckert, Das Rosenkreuz, 5,115,124,148,157; Gilly, “Las novas.” Mogling, his life, and his ideas have been discussed at greater length in general terms, but his texts in defence of the manifestos still require in-depth discussions; see especially: Van Dulmen, “Daniel Mogling”; Neumann, “Olim, da die Rosen Creutzerey noch florirt.” The anonymous authors have only briefly been referred to twice: Schick, Das altere Rosenkreuzertum, 168-169; Peuckert, Das Rosenkreuz, 100-101, 103, 110. Maier has been studied extensively, but here we will focus on his ideas of reform in relation to the Rosicrucian manifestos, specifically. On Maier, see especially: Tilton, The Quest for the Phoenix; Nummedal (ed.), Furnace and Fugue.
10 See, for example: Peuckert, Die Rosenkreuzer; idem, Das Rosenkreutz; Schick, Das altere Rosenkreuzertum; Van Dulmen, “Daniel Mogling. ’Pansoph und Rosenkreuzer’”; Yates, The Rosicrucian Enlightenment; De Jong, “The Chymical Wedding”; Edighoffer, Les Rose-Croix; McIntosh, TheRosicrucians; Akerman, Rose Cross over the Baltic; eadem, “The Rosicrucians and the Great Conjuntions”; Gilly, Johann Valentin Andreae; idem, “Iter Rosicrucianum”; idem, “Campanella and the Rosicrucians”; Snoek, De Rozenkruisers.
11 Julianus de Campis, Sendbrieff oder Bericht, appended to: Fama Fraternitatis (Frankfurt am Main, 1615).
and his works circulated widely in early modern German regions.12 The images included in his texts still grace the covers of some recently published books. A similar fate befell the four anonymous replies that were published together with the German edition of the Confessio: thanks to the prominent place of publication they reached a wide audience, not least because the earlier edition of the Fama had made people aware of and sensitive to the Rosicrucian cause. Some of the above-mentioned authors also moved in circles close to the presumed authors of the manifestos: Haslmayr, the first responder to the Fama, must have known of Andreae through Figulus, while Julianus and Mogling lived in Tubingen and were acquainted with Hess and Andreae.13
But the responses, even of those who addressed the brethren’s intentions and contributions, were anything but homogeneous. The Rosicrucian message was explained through, integrated into, and sometimes adapted to each author’s own theological and philosophical worldview, and this gave rise to a variety of unique, innovative, and occasionally enigmatic interpretations of the Rosicrucian cause. In some replies, the Rosicrucian manifestos were explicitly associated with Paracelsus and Paracelsianism. Paracelsus even came to be seen as the father of the so-called “Theophrastia Sancta,” a label referring to a religious interpretation of the writings of Theophrastus Paracelsus.14 Other authors put the emphasis on the apocalyptic nature of the manifestos or emphasised their alchemical connotations. Again others read the manifestos as messengers provoking religious, academic, philosophical, and scientific transformations. Finally, some authors were particularly inspired by the religious implications of the manifestos, and linked the Rosicrucian texts to theosophy. This chapter will analyse and discuss the responses of these authors to the Rosicrucian manifestos in order to establish how they interpreted the Rosicrucian message and what part the call for a general reformation played in their respective replies.
4 .1 Avoiding Tribulations: The First Response to the Fama
The first response to the Fama Fraternitatis came from the hand of the Paracelsian adept Adam Haslmayr, whose Answer to the Laudable Brotherhood of the Theosophers of Rosencreutz was printed as early as 1612, two years before the
12 Van Dulmen, “Daniel Mogling,” 44; Neumann, “Olim, da die Rosen Creutzerey noch florirt,”
105.
13 On Julianus’ identity, see below, section 4.4.
14 On the “Theophrastia Sancta,” see below, pp. 239-240.
figure 8 Famafraternitatis, manuscript version from Besold’s library, Universitatsbiblio-
thek Salzburg
publication of the Fama itself.15 It was republished together with the first edition of the Fama in 1614, and in following years with several editions and translations of the Fama and Confessio. In the title of his text, Haslmayr referred to the “theosophers of Rosencreutz.” Of the surviving manuscript versions of the Fama written before Haslmayr’s Answer, only the edition kept in Salzburg refers to Rosencreutz by his full name. One of the London manuscripts (ms 310) refers only to “r.c.” throughout the text, while the other manuscript in London (ms 150) and the manuscript in Wolfenbuttel were written after 1612.16 Published versions of the Fama and the Confessio, with titles giving Rosencreutz’s name, were naturally not yet in circulation. This means that when Haslmayr wrote his Answer, the name “Rosencreutz” had not been publicly communicated in the surviving documents except for the Salzburg version, which came from Besold’s library. This suggests that Haslmayr had access to either Besold’s version of the Fama, from which unfortunately several folios are missing, or to a now missing manuscript version related to it.17
15 Adam Haslmayr, Antwort An die lobwurdige Bruderschaft der Theosophen von RosenCreutz
n.n. On Adam Haslmayr, see: Senn, “Adam Haslmayr—Musiker, Philosoph, und ’Ket- zer’”; Gilly, Adam Haslmayr; idem, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 29-41; idem, “’Theophrastia Sancta’”; Murase, “Paracelsismus und Chiliasmus,” 215-227. Senn’s analysis is at times corrected by Gilly. Here, the facsimile edition of the Antwort in Gilly’s Adam Haslmayr will be used.
16 Cf. Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 27-28.
17 Fama Fraternitatis, Herzog August Bibliothek (Wolfenbuttel), Cod. Guelf. 39.7 Aug 2o fols. 365r-374r; Universitatsbibliothek Salzburg, ms M i 463, fols. 1r-13r; Wellcome Library, ms 150 fols. 129r-139r; Wellcome Library, ms 310 fols. 245r-264v. On the early circulation of the Confessio, see below, p. 248.
In order to situate this author in the early diffusion of the Rosicrucian ideas, we need to know something about his life. Haslmayr was born in the South Tyrolean city of Bolzano (in modern-day Italy) on 31 October 1562.18 From 1588 onwards, he worked as a teacher of Latin.19 Around the same time, he received a copy of the Paracelsian Philosophia Sagax (or Great Astronomy) from a friend named Lorenz Lutz, but the beginning of his documented interest in Paracelsianism dates from 1594.20 He became closely related to the alchemist and Paracelsian physician Karl Widemann (1555-1637), who copied Paracelsian, Weigelian, and magical manuscripts,21 and with whom Haslmayr shared a house for a couple of years. While living in the Tyrolean city of Schwaz, he was surrounded by alchemists and Paracelsian physicians. There he met Benedictus Figulus (Benedict Topfer, 1567-after 1619) in 1607, who was presumably responsible for the early distribution of the Fama, and with whom Haslmayr co-authored several writings.22
Widemann had invited Prince August von Anhalt-Plotzkau (1575-1653), who was equally inspired by Paracelsian and mystical writings, to publish works by Paracelsus and the medieval mystics Johannes Tauler and Meister Eckhart (1260-1328), as well as “theological manuscripts [...] against the errors and mistakes of the papists, Lutherans, and Calvinists”—a request that August declined, considering the enterprise too dangerous.23 In 1611, Widemann introduced Haslmayr by letter to Prince August, after which the three men studied heterodox texts together. They started searching for the Rosicrucians in the same year, and are thought to have run a secret printing press in which they
18 In his Adam Haslmayr, Gilly suggests that Haslmayr was born around 1560, but he revised
this in his Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, where he dates Haslmayr’s birth to 31 October 1562; see: Gilly, Adam Haslmayr, 32; idem, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 30.
19 Gilly, Adam Haslmayr, 32-33.
20 Idem, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 30. According to Widemann, Lutz had been personally acquainted with Paracelsus: “Lorentz Lutz, burger von Baden im Algeu dt XA Meil von Meron im Etschland. Obiit. Diser hat Theophrastum selber khenndt”: Widemann, Sylva scientiarum, Hannover, Niedersachsische Landesbibliothek, ms iv, 341, fols. 314-316, cited in: Gilly, Johann Valentin Andreae, 48.
21 Idem, Adam Haslmayr, 106-107.
22 Idem, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 38.
23 “Manuscripta Theologica [.] wider die Irrtumb und fahler der Papisten, Luttrischen, Calvinischen [.],” cited in: Gilly, Adam Haslmayr, 110. The terms “mystic” and “mystical” refer to a tradition which is characterised by a study of God, a quest for unity with the divine, and in general by the purification and perfection of the individual human being through non-physical means. On mysticism, see also: Rousse-Lacordaire, “Mysticism,” in: Hanegraaff (ed.), Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism, 818-820.
printed Paracelsian and Weigelian texts.24 Irrespective of whether or not printed books actually did fly off their presumed press, they considered it their task to disseminate the ideas contained in these elusive writings and to spread their message of promise and hope. They mixed Paracelsianism with mystical thought and, later, with Rosicrucianism, and their ideas found their way through subterraneous mazes to readers across Germany.25
Haslmayr wrote prolifically on Paracelsian, mystical, and heterodox concepts, and between 1605 and 1630 his output amounted to almost 200 texts.26 His fervour to make his ideas public, as well as the unfortunate fate that befell him as a result, is apparent from several events in his life. Convinced by his Paracelsian and Rosicrucian ideas and eager to communicate them, he sent several Paracelsian writings as well as letters in which he preached about the Rosicrucians to Maximilian iii (1558-1618), who at the time was governor of Tyrol (1602-1612) and later Archduke of Austria (1612-1618). Haslmayr either expected the governor to be interested in Paracelsian and Rosicrucian ideas, or else he wanted to persuade Maximilian to adopt the mantle of ruler over the End Times. His appeals, however urgent they may have been, fell on deaf ears. On several occasions, the governor had Haslmayr searched and investigated for his heterodox views: first in 1603, after he had sent letters containing Paracelsian notions to Maximilian, and again in 1612 after Haslmayr had sent a series of letters about the Rosicrucians.27
The final episode was preceded by direct and indirect attacks from one of Haslmayr’s opponents, the Jesuit protector Hippolytus Guarinoni (1571-1654), a Galenic physician who originally came from Tyrol but was educated by the Jesuits in Prague. Guarinoni criticised Paracelsian doctors, including Haslmayr, and was determined to discredit him in the eyes of the authorities. In this, he proved to be successful. Haslmayr replied to Guarinoni in his Apology of 1611, which was dedicated to Maximilian iii. Haslmayr had always spoken highly of the governor in his letters, and seems to have had complete confidence in the latter’s intentions and possible Rosicrucian dispositions. He was in for a disappointment. In January 1612, Guarinoni warned the government about Haslmayr, after which, on 8 February 1612, an investigation was conducted
24 August confessed to owning this press in a letter to Widemann; see: Widemann, Sylva sci- entiarum, Niedersachsische Landesbibliothek Hannover, ms iv 341, fol. 544, cited in Gilly, “Iter Rosicrucianum,” 76. On the early contacts between Widemann, August von Anhalt, and Haslmayr and their search for the Rosicrucians, see: Gilly, Adam Haslmayr, 118-145; idem, “Theophrastia Sancta.”
25 Gilly, “Theophrastia Sancta,” 180.
26 Ibid., 168.
27 Gilly, Adam Haslmayr, 35, 47-56.
against him, and a letter was sent by the government to the local authorities in Schwaz that ordered his books to be investigated and suspicious texts to be confiscated.28
Haslmayr, apparently unperturbed by these warning signs, delivered his Modest Advisory Letter of Insignificant Origin to the court chancellor on 21 August 1612. He must have been unaware of the secret arrest warrant of 1 August 1612 as a response to his letters, in which Maximilian named Haslmayr’s “evil heretical opinions,” “damaging views,” and his “poisonous evil writings” as reasons for his conviction.29 In his Advisory Letter, Haslmayr communicated his expectation that the Rosicrucians could be found in Montpellier, and— inspired as he was by such promising men—he hoped for Maximilian’s financial support to search for the brethren. His appeals were not well received. Upon delivering the text, Haslmayr was arrested and imprisoned. Although Maximilian released him for a short period, when the letter did eventually reach the governor in December 1612, the heterodox thinker was sent, not to Montpellier, but instead to enforced labour on the galleys departing from Genoa. There, Haslmayr worked as a slave until mid-1617, when he was released at the age of 55.30 His time on the galleys was miserable, but even while chained he occasionally had access to ink and paper. He concluded a letter sent to Widemann with the words: “in the year ivdicivm [1613], given on the New Year on the S. George galley in Genoa, written in a rush on my knees, filled with grief.”31
That these were terrible times for this aspiring Rosicrucian is clear from his Description of the Terrifying Life, a text written in 1622 that also deals extensively
28 “Derenthalben so ist in der Furstl. Durchlaucht Erzherzog Maximiliani [...] unseres gnedigsten Herrn, namen unser bevelch an Euch, das Ir nit allein alspaldt und ohne ein- stellen, obgedachten Hafilmayr und Gotschl (da anderst der Infection halberkhain gefahr darbey zubesorgen) in Iren Wonnungen im gehaimb und unvermerckht uberfallet, Ire Puecher mit fleis durchsehet, und da Ir bey einem oder dem anderen, was verdachtigs befunden, alfidan dise zestund an zu Euwern hennden nemet, in ain Peutzel einschla- get, und uns volgendts solliche unverzegenlich hieher zu unnsern der Regierung hennden uberschickhet, sonder auch Ires thuens, lassens, und verhaltens, da Irs zuvor nit wissens hettet, mit fleis erkhundiget [...]. Datum den 8. Tag Februarii Anno 1612,” cited in Gilly, Adam Haslmayr, 45.
29 Gilly, Adam Haslmayr, 60: “bese khetzerische Opinionen,” “schedliche Meinungen,” “giff- tige bose Schrifften.”
30 Gilly, Adam Haslmayr, 55-58; idem, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 33.
31 Gilly, AdamHaslmayr, 58: “anno ivdicivm / geben zum Neuen Jahr auff S. Georgen Galern
zue Genua inn eill auff den knien voll Truebsall geschrieben.” ivdicivm is the year of judgement according to Haslmayr, and refers to the year mdcvviii = 1613; see below, p. 224.
with Paracelsus’Philosophia Sagax.32 When he first arrived in Genoa, Haslmayr recalls, his clothes were taken away from him, his beard and hair were shaved, and he was chained to the galleys.33 He rowed the ships to numerous places and, when recounting his horrors, explained that “what kind of restless, wild, improper, desperate, sodomic life has been led on the galleys, especially by the Welsh [French and Italian] prisoners, is therefore not to be described for chaste ears.”34 Even though his hopes for the archduke’s support had vanished, Haslmayr did not abstain from writing further theosophical and Paracelsian texts and promoting the Rosicrucians.35
Haslmayr’s Answer, which had not been confiscated by the authorities and was therefore apparently not the reason for his imprisonment, provides much insight into the earliest phase of the Rosicrucian furore as the first response to the manifestos.36 August von Anhalt, who had received Haslmayr’s Answer, may have been responsible for its publication, as the text was presumably issued from his secret press.37 Only one copy of the original publication survived until 2004, when the library in Weimar caught fire and Haslmayr’s Answer was lost in the flames. Fortunately, Carlos Gilly had previously included a facsimile edition of the text in his Adam Haslmayr.
Apocalyptic Changes
The Fama had been circulating in manuscript form as early as 1610, the year in which Haslmayr first read the manifesto in his home region, Tyrol. So enthralled was he by its contents that no sooner had he finished studying the manifesto than he began to work on his particularly cryptic Answer to its authors. Haslmayr, a deeply religious person, studded his reply with references to religious episodes and biblical passages, and staged it in the context of apocalyptic events announced in Scripture. Although he was a Paracelsian physician, he
32 Haslmayr, Beschreibung des erschrecklichen Lebens, Niedersachsisches Staatsarchiv Wol- fenbuttel, 1 Alt 22, nr. 226, fols. 227^232^ Many parts of the text are illegible due to water damage.
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid.: “Was aber fur ein Ruehlofi, whuestes, ungeheurigs, verzweifeltes, Sodomitisches Leben auf den Galern, von den Welschen Gefangnen sonderlich, ist gefhiert worden, ist daher wegen der keuschen ohren nicht zu schreiben,” cited in: Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaur- otica, 34.
35 Unfortunately, most of these writings are currently lost.
36 At an earlier stage of Gilly’s career, in his chapter on the “Theophrastia Sancta,” he explained that Haslmayr’s Antwort was what led him to the galleys, but in later works he shows instead that his many letters to Maximilian provoked the suspicion of the authorities; see: Gilly, Adam Haslmayr, 40-60; idem, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 33-34.
37 Gilly, Adam Haslmayr, 25,125-128.
was not primarily responding to the brethren’s medicine or the Paracelsian natural-philosophical references contained in the Fama. Instead, he took the manifesto as a warning about the world’s imminent end. While the Fama was optimistic in nature, Haslmayr’s Answer was decidedly pessimistic. He was convinced that his days were the last before the world’s end, and he made it his task to forewarn his readers and to suggest they take the Rosicrucian messages to heart: “Therefore we now also do not have any certain minutes left, when God will come with punishment, unforeseen as over Sodom.”38 Just as in Sodom, corruption and wickedness were abounding—and the expectation was that God would soon intervene and give vent to His wrath.
To announce the imminence of the Last Judgement, he used two anagrams, ivd i cvm and ivdicivm. These anagrams signal his dismay over present times, because they “demonstrate thus that we will not have anyone who will assist us, on whom we may be able to rely.”39 Disheartened as he was over the condition of the world, Haslmayr believed the final times to be characterised by abysmal hardship. ivd i cvm, or iudicum, is Latin for “of the judges,” but Haslmayr also saw it as a number symbol from the Roman year numbering mdcvvii, a variant of mdcxii, and thus the year 1612. ivdicivm, by contrast, is Latin for “Judgement,” which can be understood as an anagrammatic representation of mdcvviii (mdcxiii), 1613. In Haslmayr’s sentence, “ivd i cvm” and “ivd i c ivm” thus refer also to 1612 and 1613, respectively, and indicate the years when the judges will come and the Judgement would be pronounced. In the Answer appended to the Dutch translation of the Fama (Jan Berner, 1615), the words “ivd i cvm” and “ivd i c ivm” were directly translated to “judges” and “judgement” with, as superscripts, the numbers “1612” and “1613,” respectively.40 Later, in his letter to Widemann from the galleys, Haslmayr would indeed explicitly refer to “the year ivd i c ivm,” which was the year 1613.
His rewriting of these Roman year numbers was no doubt done intentionally, as he expected the “Judge” to come and “impose destruction in this year 1612,” and that the Final Judgement would follow shortly afterwards (1613).41
38 Haslmayr, Antwort, Aiiir: “Daher haben wir nun auch kein sichere Minuten mehr/ wann Gott kommen werde mit straff/ wie uber Sodoma unversehens.” For the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, see: Genesis 10:19; 13:10,14; 18-19.
39 Haslmayr, Antwort, Bv: “ivdi cvm und ivdicivm zeygen uns dermassen/ das wir keinen werden haben der uns beystehnt wirt/ auff den wir uns verlassen mochten.”
40 Fama Fraternitatis, oft Ontdeckinge van de Broederschap des loflijcken Ordens des Roosen- Cruyces, D7r.
41 Haslmayr, Antwort, Bv: “In dem sich difi 1612 Jar/ der Richter undergang erhebt/ zum anfang der schmerzen [...].”
Given that his Answer was written in 1612, the year of the final tribulations, the sense of urgency and distress is understandable. For Haslmayr, because there was neither time nor hope left for earthly improvement, the general reformation as envisioned and called for in the manifestos could not take place. He seems to have understood the Fama exclusively as a message about the imminent end rather than as an admonition to transform the world. In this regard, he found himself in the vicinity of both Luther’s and Paracelsus’ religious writings, hoping for imminent liberation from worldly misery.
But not all elements of the general reformation were lost in the Answer, and most of them played a prominent role in Haslmayr’s alternative reading of the Fama. In his Answer, he specifically referred to the pseudo-Paracelsian lion prophecy. The prophecy itself had been drafted around 1600 and had influenced the Rosicrucian authors, but it was not published until the 1620s. By the time of Haslmayr’s response, the Confessio, which included references to the lion, had not yet been published, which made Haslmayr the first to publicly refer to the Midnight Lion as announced in the pseudo-Paracelsian proph- ecy.42 He described the lion as a saviour who could rescue the people from the destruction caused by the “enemy of Christ.” Haslmayr explains that the latter, the Antichrist, in keeping with the Apocalypse, will come “with his Babylonian cavalry and courtiers,” and “bring great ruin.”43 The Confessio was later to identify the Antichrist with the pope, but Haslmayr, a Catholic, when writing his Answer was still hoping to win the Catholic governor Maximilian over to his cause. He presumably did not want to offend his governor with attacks on the Supreme Pontiff. For him, the “false Christ” was simply the biblical apocalyptic figure of the Endchrist, without any confessional connotations. During these Last Days, the false Christ “will show himself as if he had won, and as if life has ended with us,” that is, as if the world was to end under his rule. But God will intervene, Haslmayr believed, as He “will mortally destroy and exterminate” the false Christ through “the small flock.”44 With the latter term, Haslmayr
42 On this prophecy and its manuscript versions and published editions, see: Pfister and Schmidt-Tieme, “Der Lowe aus Mittemacht.” See also above, section 1.1. Haslmayr included this prophecy in: Widemann, Sylva scientiarum, Hannover, Niedersachsische Landesbib- liothek, ms iv, 341, fol. 689. On Haslmayr as the first to refer to the prophecy, see Gilly, Adam Haslmayr, 85.
43 Haslmayr, Antwort, Aiiiv—Aiiiir: “Auff solches wirdt der Feindt Christi (das ist der hoffer-
tig falsche Christ/ sampt seiner Babilonischen Reutterey und hoffhaltung) sich mechtig empor erzeygen/ unnd grofi verderben bringen.”
44 Ibid., Aiiiv—Aiiiir: “[...] unnd [er] wirdt sich sehen lassen/ samb hab er gewunnen/ unnd mit uns das Leben aufi sey/ so wirdt ihn aber Gott in seinem grosten Gluck/ durch das
was referring to the Rosicrucians, whom he believed were God’s helpers during these Final Days.45 For Haslmayr, God was not only to be feared for his possible punishment, but He was also understood as the final liberator.
Here, Haslmayr was not simply borrowing from the traditional understanding of the End Times, according to which the Antichrist will be defeated by divine intervention, because he attributed to the Rosicrucians this central historical task: they will ultimately be the agents defeating the enemy. But they will be “preceded by the Midnight Lion,” who will “rush up to the cruel enemy” first.46 Haslmayr clearly identified the lion with the personage from the Paracelsian prophecy, but for him this preliminary hero would come in the end to prepare for God’s, or rather the brethren’s, destruction of the Antichrist. The lion was not understood as a Last World Emperor, and he was therefore different from the Rosicrucian lion for the future age who was to defeat the Antichrist and rule over a future realm.
Although the lion had been announced in earlier prophecies, and the pseudo-Paracelsian prophecy circulated widely in manuscript form, no early modern ruler had yet claimed or taken up its role. Only during the Thirty Years’ War would rulers be identified, or identify themselves, as the lion of the prophecy. It was often used for Protestant political propaganda, first in relation to Frederick v of the Palatinate (1596-1632), but later, after Frederick’s demise at the Battle of the White Mountain in 1620, in support of Gustav Adolf of Sweden (1594-1632), who was supposed to save Europe from the invasion of the Catholic Habsburgs. In 1630 and 1631 alone, the prophecy was reprinted over twenty times. Gustav Adolf readily took on this role, and ordered medals to be produced depicting himself on one side and the Midnight Lion on the other.47
Years earlier, in 1612, Haslmayr had already witnessed the increasing religious tensions that ultimately led to this calamitous war. He implored the notably Reformed August von Anhalt to take the role of Midnight Lion upon himself. August, after all, had long demonstrated his desire to disseminate the true teaching. Given the lack of another suitable candidate, Haslmayr deemed the Prince the right person for the task. August however declined, believing that such a position would inevitably involve the use of violence.48 The fact that
kleine Heuflein/ (welchen der Low von Mitternacht vorgehn wirdt/ den grausamen Feindt zusturzen) sterblich verdilgen/ und aufirotten/ doch sollen viel an seinen Namen glauben/ Haec ille.”
45 Ibid., Aiiiiv.
46 Ibid., Aiiiv-Aiiiir; see n. 44.
47 Sudhoff, Versuch einerKritik, 322, 330, 338-354; Akerman, Rose Cross, 162-163. Cf Hotson,
Paradise Postponed, 61.
48 Gilly, Adam Haslmayr, 89-90.
Haslmayr believed the Reformed August and not the Catholic Maximilian to be the right person for the task is striking, and gives the impression that, for Haslmayr, the lion would be called upon to play a supra-confessional role during the End Times.
This alludes to another element that was used by the authors of the manifestos in their call for a general reformation, but that was ably adjusted by Haslmayr: apocalyptic revelations. Haslmayr’s lion was not only the attacker of the Antichrist but also an apocalyptic figure in the strict sense of the word, as he would disclose divine mysteries during the Final Times. The pseudoParacelsian lion prophecy had not only referred to the figure of the lion, but also to three treasures that were hidden throughout Europe. These treasures were later to be mentioned also in the Confessio as foundational treasures for the lion’s new realm. Haslmayr explained that Paracelsus had “hid away his treasures” to protect them from greedy and bloodthirsty people,49 but that they were to be rediscovered. Once more he expressed his belief that in the year of writing his Answer the world would undergo radical transformations, because the “three treasures shall be found shortly after the death of the last Austrian Emperor Rudolph.”50 This is a reference to Rudolph ii (1552-1612), Holy Roman Emperor from 1576 until 1612, who died in January of the year that Haslmayr wrote his Answer.
Rudolph ii, at whose court Haslmayr’s close friend Widemann had stayed, supported scholars working on magical and occult sciences.51 The apocalyptic sense is evident: the death of this guardian of the arts and sciences constituted for Haslmayr an important episode of the End Times. Thanks to the rediscovery of the three treasures, the Rosicrucians were to “illuminate the way for the Midnight Lion, who is rich in Christian teaching, in the light of Christ and the sanctuary of nature, so that the impure, imperfect, and diabolical [teachings] of the pagan masters will be entirely revealed and rebutted.”52 This new
49 Haslmayr, Antwort, Aiiiir: “daher auch gemelter Theophrastus seine Thesauros, den Gelt-
geyzigen unnd Blutgirigen Volck verborgen/ bifi auff die Zeyt/ da die kommen sollen/ die das Gelt nicht achten.” Cf. ibid., Aiiiv.
50 Ibid., Aiiiiv: “Unnd die obgemelte Prophetia Theophrasti auch meldet/ wie das seine 3. Schatz bald nach abgang defi lesten Osterreichischen Keysers Rudolphi/ sollen gefunden werden/ die dorfftigen dardurch zu erhalten.”
51 Cf. Evans, Rudolph ii and his World.
52 Haslmayr, Antwort, Bv-Biir “so kompt [...] dem Leoni von Mitternacht/ der voller Christ-
licher Lehr ist/ vorzu leuchten/ im Liecht Christi/ und der Natur Heyligthumb auff das das impurum, imperfectum, diabolicum der Heydnischen Meyster ganz reueliert und con- fundiert werde (1 Cor. 1).” 1 Corinthians 1:19-23: “For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise?
Christian ruler should overrule the pagan masters in the end and replace their studies with Christian secrets and natural treasures, making these treasures apocalyptically relevant. The lion, as in the manifestos, had both a political significance (in the person of August von Anhalt) as well as a spiritual, or philosophical, role.
As the harbinger of wisdom, the lion was similar to the prophet Elijah. It was a common belief, based on passages such as Daniel 12, Acts 2, and Joel 2:28-29, that in the Final Times God’s mysteries and wisdom would be revealed by Elijah. Haslmayr, unlike the Fama, borrowed from the early Paracelsians and awaited Elijah’s early modern derivative, the apocalyptic, alchemical, and medical figure Elias Artista.53 The brethren, according to him, revealed their secrets on the eve of Elias’ arrival: “So we sense and conclude, that you are now the ones chosen by God, who will amplify the eternal Theophrastian and divine truth, miraculously preserved until now, possibly to heed the times of the foretold Elias Artista.”54 By referring to Elias Artista, Haslmayr showed his proximity to early Paracelsians and their call for medical and alchemical change.
The pagan masters cited in the quote above hint at another element of the Rosicrucian general reformation that was appropriated by Haslmayr to his own apocalyptic scheme. According to him, hidden wisdom will resurface at the expense of established learning, because together with the three treasures will lie “the true liberal and unheard-of books on the arts, hitherto unthought of by the children of man.”55 His reference was to the liberal arts of the universities, but the true liberal arts to be discovered were not practised by academic scholars. Haslmayr readily agreed with the Paracelsian rejection of “pagan” knowledge, with the novatores of the early modern period, and with many others supporting the Rosicrucians who believed that university teaching and practices were to be replaced. He exclaimed: “But how desperate and unfortunate is the hour in which the happiness is denied to us, and in which we are bid by
Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greek seek after wisdom: But we preach of Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness.”
53 On Elijah and Elias Artista, see above, p. 123 ff.
54 Haslmayr, Antwort, Aiiiv: “So spuren und schlissen wir/ das ihr die jenigen nun von Gott erkoren seyt/ die die ewige Theophrastiam unnd Gottliche warheit erweitern solten/ wun- derbarlicher weifi bifi hieher reseruiert, villeicht auff die zeyten defi geprophetierten Eliae Artistae zu achten.”
55 Ibid., Aiiiiv: “[...] bey welchen Thesauris auch die wahren freyen unerhorten kunsten Bucher ligen/ deren die Menschen Kinder noch nie gedacht haben.”
the books of the pagans to place the eternal wisdom abandoned in the middle and to love the darkness.”56 The book of the pagans were the scholastic writings, which were still widely read at the universities, but which did “not lead to Christ.”57 Again borrowing from the Fama, Haslmayr dismissed the teachings of Aristotle and Galen, and criticised
[the] asinine world-wise Christians of the universities, [who] believe that there can neither be found a better philosophy than Aristotle’s, nor a more certain medicine than that of Galen or Avicenna, [who] have reinforced the teaching of false idols and have denounced the doctrine of eternal wisdom.58
Haslmayr rejected the “idolatrous pagan writings” of the scholastic masters of university, by which he referred to their idolizing of Aristotle and Galen.59 Not God or Christ, but pagan masters were heralded as Gods by academic scholars. In response, God and His “priests of the Rose Cross” should come so that the world will see that “all [the world’s] wisdom so far has been nothing to God
56 Ibid., Aiiiiv: “O wie verzweyfelt unnd ungluckseelig ist die stund aber/ darinn uns das gluck wirdt verhindert/ darinn uns die ewige weifiheit zwischen Stul unnd Benck nider zu set- zen/ unnd die Finsternufi zu lieben gebetten wirdt/ durch der Heyden Bucher.”
57 Ibid., Br: “[...] auff das die Christenheit sehe/ das man der vergebnen Welt weifiheit der Heyden/ unnd ihren Meyster/ die nicht nach Christum gehet Col. 2. Ganz und gar durchaufi nicht bedorfft hette.” By the word “pagan,” Haslmayr did not solely refer to pagan wisdom, but also, in a more traditional interpretation of pagans, to immoral acts of pagans such as “destruction of the empire, invasions of tribes, oppression of the poor, pomp and pageantry of the princes, hoarding of possessions,” see ibid., Br. Cf. also: ibid., Aiiiiv.
58 Ibid., Biir: “[.] das ist von euch Thorechtigen Weltweysen Christen der hohen Schulen geredt/ die ihr vermeint es konne kein bessere Philosophia gefunden werden/ als Aris- totelis also auch kein gwissere Medicin/ als Galeni oder Auicenae die Lehr der Abgotter habt ihr fulciert/ unnd die Lehr Sapientiae aeternae [.] habt ihr verketzert.”
59 Ibid., Biir: “Und der Abgottischen Heyden Schrifften/ von ihren vergeblichen Summo bono, unnd falschen Philosophia, falschen Medicina, falschen Sacrificien, dem Vulturno, zugericht/ noch difien H. Sentenz: Et non erunt in memoria priora quoniam odibilia opera Domino faciebant, per medicamina & sacrificia iniusta Electi mei non laborabunt frustra ibi. Esaiae 65.” The latter part refers to Wisdom 12; see: Wisdom 12:3-4 (New American Bible): “For truly, the ancient inhabitants of your holy land, whom you hated for deeds most odious—works of sorcery and impious sacrifices.” Cf Isaiah 65:22-23 (kjv, as usual): “They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days ofa tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them.” Volturno is a God of rivers, and it is also a river in Italy.
but foolishness.”60 The Rosicrucian brethren were understood to be priests and mediators between God and the world. They performed the sacred rites that were not to take place in any religious or academic institution, but which were necessary in the divine plan of the development of history. Again, not only the lion but also, and more importantly, God’s ministers, the Rosicrucians, have a special task during the Final Days: they had a religious and philosophical role to play, as they would both defeat the enemy of Christ and debunk pagan knowledge.
Haslmayr acknowledged the Fama’s rejection of academic scholars, but he did not advocate for a reform in academia and the arts. He described an educational programme that should have been implemented at the schools: “[W]e all should have educated our schools and students only from the Creator of the new Creature and from the Reviver Jesus Christ, Son of God, sent by the celestial Father into this world.”61 His claims were written in the past perfect tense, drawing attention once more to the lack of time for a thorough transformation of education and knowledge. The world could not be reformed anymore, but one could learn divine secrets from the Rosicrucians and thereby follow the true path of Christ.
Although they had identified themselves as physicians and had promoted reform, Haslmayr believed that the brethren’s contributions during the Last Days were neither medical nor reformative, but strictly apocalyptic: more so than the lion and Elias Artista, they were supposed to overcome contemporary folly by the disclosure of God’s wonders:
So come, you small flock of Christ, linger no longer, it will soon be night, the bright day is drawing to its close, the seducers of the people of the darkness are there. So God with His wonders [is] with you and through you, as with His Moses, Joshua, Samson, Daniel, Job, David, and the apostles; who will be against you?62
60 Haslmayr, Antwort, Biiv: “drauff nun der Allmachtige Gott kompt (mit seinen Priestern von
r.c.) auff das die Welt sehe/ das allihrWeyfiheitbifihernichts vor Gott sey gwest/ als ein Thorheit [...].”
61 Ibid., Biir: “[...] das wir alle allein ex nouae Creaturae Creatore & Regeneratore lesu Christo
Dei Filio, a Patre superno misso in hunc mundum; [...] unsere Schulen unnd Schuler sollen educiert haben.”
62 Ibid., Aiiiiv: “So komme doch du kleines heuflein Christi. Saume dich nit langer/ es will gar
Nacht werden/ der helle Tag hat sich geneyget/ die verfuhrer defi Volck der Finsternussen seind duck [sic]. So Gott mit seinen Magnalien mit unnd durch euch/ wie mit seinen Mose/ Josua/ Samson/ Daniels/ Job/ David/ Apostolis/ wer will wider euch sein?”
The world, in Haslmayr’s view, was approaching the final hour of daylight, but apart from the small group of enlightened Rosicrucians it was yet shrouded in darkness. The brethren, in imitation of biblical and apocalyptic figures, were to bring light into this period of final darkness, which means that humanity’s hope was directly linked to the brotherhood’s appearance on the world stage. It was in this context that he wrote that “we judge from your joyful statements which leap into our hearts, that we may also justly rejoice in a happy time.”63 The happy time is not the result of a reformation, and is presumably not a reference to the New Jerusalem of after the Last Judgement. Instead, it referred to the final revelations and outpourings of wisdom brought to the world by the Rosicrucians. The brethren, whose Fama had not yet been published, were to “come with the pacific word, with the simplicity and majesty of the celestial wise men” so that Christ would pass a favourable Judgement.64 Evidently, if Christ’s Judgement depended on the good works performed by the people, their salvation did not depend on sola fide, the Lutheran doctrine according to which salvation could be granted through faith alone. Thus, when Haslmayr warned his readers that God could soon unleash his wrath, he admonished them to change their behaviour, to become good Christians in imitation of the Rosicrucians—presumably to secure admittance for themselves into the New Jerusalem.
As God’s messengers and the revealers of wisdom during the Last Days, Haslmayr took the Rosicrucians for men walking in the footsteps of Christ. He implored the Rosicrucians to “hide no longer, o you warning brothers and undeceiving Jesuiters.”65 With the term “Jesuiters,” he was not referring to the order founded by Ignatius of Loyala (1491-1556), but to the people wandering on the path (“iter”) of Jesus. The Rosicrucians were the epitome of “Jesu-iters” thus defined.66 In this sense, the brethren were like the magi, “while the light
63 Ibid., Aiiv: “So befinden wir/ aufi ewren/ in unsern Herzen springenden/ freudenreichen Editionen, das wir uns billich einer gluckseligen zeit auch ruhmen mogen.” Compare the following passage from the Fama, 91-92: “Nachdem der allein wyse und gnadige Gott in den letzten Tagen sein Gnad und Gute so reichlich uber das Menschliche Geschlecht aufi- gossen, dafi sich die Erkantnufi/ beydes seines Sohns und der Natur/ je mehr und mehr erweitert/ und wihr uns billich einer glucklichen zeit ruhmen mogen [...].”
64 Haslmayr, Antwort, Bv: “In dem sich difi 1612 Jar/ der Richter undergang erhebt/ zum
anfang der schmerzen/ so kompt mit den pacifico verbo/ Sophorum caelestium simpli- citate & maiestate [...].”
65 Ibid., Aiiir: “So verbergt euch nicht lenger/ O ihr wahrnenden Bruder/ und unbetrieglichen Jesuiter.”
66 This relates to the Rosicrucian phrase: “Jesu mihi omnia,” “Jesus is everything to me.” See also the preface to the Confessio in the German edition of the Confessio (Gdansk, 1615), in
of God has also appeared to you, just as the star led the magi to come to God, to teach the erring world the true way of the eternal philosophy, such as the knowledge of the Messiah, and the light of nature.”67 The Rosicrucians were God’s messengers, because He had chosen them to speak His Word, in imitation of Christ. The eternal knowledge they were to reveal was both divine and natural: knowledge of the Messiah Christ, and knowledge of God’s creation, for which Haslmayr employed the term “light of nature,” a term used variably by philosophers throughout history, but particularly also by Paracelsians.68 In parallel with this twofold knowledge, the method for its acquisition was also twofold: new things were to come to light not only by divine illumination, but also as a result of human investigations and discoveries in the natural world.
Paracelsus and the Study of the Natural Realm
Haslmayr, who now drew explicitly on the Fama and implicitly on the general reformation that it propagated, placed further emphasis on the study of the natural world. He wrote that
at the time of the empire of the Holy Spirit or of the freedom of the Gospel, of which you report, in which are indicated and found not only half of the unknown and hidden world, but many wondrous and previously unknown works and creatures of nature, of herbs, animals and noble stones or metals.69
Haslmayr’s reference to the reign of the Holy Spirit seems reminiscent of the age of the Holy Spirit described by Joachim of Fiore and mentioned by Julius Sperber and Tobias Hess, but Haslmayr did not expect a third earthly age but hoped that in the remaining time, however brief, humans might be enlightened
which the anonymous author refers to Haslmayr’s Antwort and explains that true Jesuits walk in Christ. On this preface, see below, section 4.2.
67 Haslmayr, Antwort, Aiiir: “Weil euch das Liecht Gottes/ wie den Magis der stern vorge- leucht zu Gott zukommen/ auch vorleuchtend erschinen ist/ die verwierte Welt zu Lehren den wahren weg der ewigen Philosophei/ als der Erkantnufi Messiae, und derNatur Liecht [•••]’’
68 On the light of nature, see above, pp. 143-144.
69 Haslmayr, Antwort, Aiiir: “[...] bey der zeit defi Imperii Spiritus Sancti, oder Libertatis Evangelii; von der ihr meldet/ darinn nicht allein der halbe theil der unbekanten unnd ver- borgnen Welt/ sonder viel wunderliche/ unnd zuuor nie gesehne werck unnd gschopff der Natur/ von Kreutten Thier/ unnd edlen Steinen oder Metallen angezeigt unnd gefunden werden.” Cf. Fama, 91-92: “[.] daher dann nicht allein das halbe theil der unbekandten und verborgenen Welt erfunden, viel wunderliche und zuvor nie geschehne Werk und Geschopff derNatur uns zufuhren [...].”
through the brethren’s studies of the world. With such hopes, Haslmayr’s views share some similarities with those of John of Rupescissa, Arnald of Villanova, and Roger Bacon, who also expected progress of science for the benefit of the fight against the Christian enemy, that is, for apocalyptic reasons.70 Likewise for Haslmayr, knowledge of natural secrets would prepare for the Last Judgement. The discoveries related to the mineral, vegetable, and animal worlds, presumably found in the Americas, were, in his view, part of a final outpouring of knowledge.
This increase of knowledge owing to the brethren’s study of creation was in accordance with the divine plan, because—so Haslmayr argued while paraphrasing the Fama—God desired that we “shall shine light and splendour in His Son, so that the knowledge of both His Son and of nature will expand itself more and more, as you [Rosicrucians] wish and declare.”71 The brief period of illumination was accompanied by a sense of epistemic progress, in which there was a specific role for human agency. While human beings were unprepared to fight the Antichrist or disclose divine secrets—those tasks being left to divine intervention and God’s priests, the Rosicrucians—they could still all engage in the study of the natural world and help bring to light what had remained hidden. Haslmayr’s optimism in this regard was closer to the Rosicrucian Fama than his otherwise bleak view of history: what was to be revealed and man’s role within it were very similar to what was foretold in the Fama, but on the questions of when and why such revelations were to take place Haslmayr nurtured less optimistic expectations.
The natural secrets, Haslmayr continued, had been investigated by the Rosicrucians’ Rotae (wheels). The Rotae were mentioned in the Fama several times, but their meaning is obscure. At one point, they seem to represent wheels of time’s keeping, encompassing everything from God’s “Fiat” until his “Pereat”;72 elsewhere the “Rotae of the world” refer to the most artistic book kept in the
70 On this, see above, section 1.3.
71 Haslmayr, Antwort, Ai^: “Weil dann der Allmechtige getrewe Gott [...] will das wir [...] in seines Sohns/ liecht und glanz sollen scheinen/ also das sich die erkandtnufi/ beydes/ seines Sohns und der Natur/ je mehr und mehr/ als ihr begert und meldet/ erweiteren moge.” Cf. Fama, 91-92.
72 Fama, 105: “Ob wihr wohl freywillig bekennen/dafi sich die Welt innerhalb hundert Jahren
treflich gebessert/ seynd wihr doch vergewissigt/ dafi unsere axiomata unbeweglichen werden bleiben, bifi an den Jungsten Tag/ und nichts wird die Welt auch in ihrem hoch- sten und letzten Alter zusehen bekommen/ dann unsere Rotae nehmen ihren anfang von dem Tag/ da Gott sprach: Fiat, und enden sich wann er sprechen wird Pereat.” Cf. ibid., 110, 121.
Rosicrucian library;73 and after describing their rediscovery of Rosencreutz’s vault, the brethren explain that the Rotae instructed them to disclose several of their books, including the “M. Hoch.,” which possibly refers to the Chemical Wedding.74 For Haslmayr, the wheels seem to refer to a certain key which opens the door to knowledge of every aspect of the world. They may have been derived from the medieval author Ramon Lull (ca. 1232-ca. 1315), under whose name writings were published that promoted alchemical medicine.75 Lull placed nine letters on concentric circles, so-called wheels, which could be rotated so as to form new combinations, and which reflected and explained the universe. These letters represented the nine dignities of God. As the wheels represented the universe, God was believed to be able to ascend and descend through all levels and thus through the universe.76 Similarly, Haslmayr argued that the Rosicrucian Rotae could be used to study and understand the world:
So now we do not doubt at all that your Rotae of the world will now have espied and investigated such treasures well, among your other holy natural sciences and arts, to be brought to the light of day now by this time, alongside your rich, Christian, free, and formidable gifts.77
The brethren could use their Rotae to investigate the treasures and to comprehend the secrets of the universe. Here again their task was apocalyptic, namely to prepare for the end. Although not drawing on Genesis and thus on Mosaic physics strictu sensu,78 Haslmayr adapted the manifestos to a framework akin to an apocalyptic, pious philosophy.
Interestingly, the reason for studying the natural world was also missionary. Because the Word could be heard only by believers, it was to be complemented by a study of the world, so that “also the pagans may kindle the light from us, believers in Christ, so that one may recognise what is faithful and what is
73 Ibid., 110.
74 Fama, 121.
75 On this, see Chapter 2, n. 116.
76 Yates, The Occult Philosophy, 13-14. On Lull’s art, see: Bonner, The Art and Logic of Ramon Lull.
77 Haslmayr, Antwort, Br: “So zweyflen wir nun mit nichten/ ewre Rotae mundi werden under
andern ewren H. Naturlichen scientzen und Kunsten/ solche Thesauros nun wol ersehen und erforscht haben/ neben ewren Reichen Christlichen freyen gwaltigen/ Donis nun bey der zeyt ans Tagliecht zugeben.”
78 On Mosaic physics, see: Blair, “Mosaic Physics.”
unfaithful, what Christian or pagan.”79 For the conversion of Jews and pagans, “highly illuminated minds,” previously mentioned in the Fama, should stand up, “after the Ascension of Christ, to show the Jews and pagans the eternal light through the teaching of Christ and the work of wisdom, like Paul and the Cabalists or Aniads80 [educated] the lights of the pagans and the confused Christians.”81 The only possible reform was that of the Jews and pagans, but this does not suggest any worldly reformation: it was a common belief among Protestants and Catholics alike that during the Last Days Jews could be converted to the Christian faith.82 For this reason, Haslmayr begged the Rosicrucians one final time: “Come, O you sober and pure priests anointed by the eternal wisdom, and flourishing with wonders, come, come, come in the name of the triune divinity, Amen.”83
One of the illuminated minds announced in the Fama, Haslmayr recalled, had been “Theophrastus Paracelsus, the magician,” who will break through the darkness and dense fog which conceal the light.84 Paracelsus’ principal relevance for Haslmayr was neither of a medical nature nor did he refer to the famous physician particularly for his natural philosophy, as the authors of the Fama had done. Instead, Paracelsus was seen as a harbinger of divine wisdom, so that also the relevance of Paracelsus was shaped according to an apocalyptic context. The Rosicrucians were seen as walking in the footsteps not only of Christian Rosencreutz, but also of Paracelsus:
Like the German Theophrastus and your venerable father Christian von RosenCreutz, [who is] also of noble German blood, now you from the school of God and the eternal philosophy [are] offering to teach us, and [you are] also coming in public to delight us with a sound mind.85
79 Haslmayr, Antwort, Aii'r: “[...] und auch die Heyden das Liecht anzunden mogen von uns
Christglaubigen/ damit man erkenne/ was glaubig oder unglaubig sey/ was Christ oder Heyd sey?”
80 Aniads might refer to Virgil’s Aeneid, which tells the story of Aeneas, or alternatively to Aniadum, which in Paracelsian terminology refers to a celestial body that is received from the Holy Spirit. For the latter interpretation, see: Tilton, “Rosicrucian Manifestos,” 135.
81 Haslmayr, Antwort, Aiiir: “[.] darzu dann hocherleuchte Ingenia auffstehn mussen/ nach
der Himmelfahrt Christi/ den Juden und Heyden das ewige Liecht zu zeigen durch Christi Lehr und Weifiheits Arbeit/ als Paulus und die Cabalisten oder Aniadi, unnd Liechter der Heyden/ und der verwierten Christen.”
82 Hotson, Johann Heinrich Alsted, 218-222.
83 Haslmayr, Antwort, Bv: “Darumb so kompt ihr/ O ihr nuchtern und reinen Priester von
der ewigen weifiheit gesalbet/ unnd mit miraculen Florierend, kompt/ kompt/ kompt/ im Namen der drey eynigen Gottheit/ Amen.”
84 Ibid., Aiiiv:: “Theophrastus Paracelsus magus.” Cf. Fama, 91-92.
85 Haslmayr, Antwort, Aiiv: “So befinden wir [.] das wir uns billich einer gluckseligen zeit
Haslmayr’s aim was to reveal the eternal and Paracelsian wisdom that was now brought to light by the Rosicrucians in “this final world.”86 In his Answer, the link to Paracelsus was even more explicit than it had been in the Fama. As a self-professed Paracelsian physician, Haslmayr was obviously inspired by the works of this sixteenth-century medical reformer. Already in his opening sentence, he identified his thought with that of the “rejected Theophrastian school,” acknowledging the historical situation in which Paracelsus and his followers were ridiculed and dismissed by traditional Galenic physicians.87
The identification of divine wisdom with Paracelsianism had become increasingly popular in the years prior to 1610, when Paracelsus’ genuine and spurious works were published in several German and Latin editions. Like other Paracelsians before him,88 Haslmayr contended that “the doctrine of Theophrastus, which is just and without blemish, must flourish in eternity with the wise men of God (Sap. 4and 6). And no human being in the entire ridiculing world, nor the devils of the Gates of Hell will be able to overpower it.”89
The relevance of this doctrine was apocalyptic, but its contents were related to divine prophecy, alchemy, and medicine. In this, Haslmayr had recourse to several Paracelsian and pseudo-Paracelsian works. Although Huser, in his editions of Paracelsus’ works at the end of the sixteenth century, had at times suggested that some works were spurious, at this time there was no clear dis-
auch ruhmen mogen/ an Theophrasto Germano und ewren Ven. Patrem Christ. Von Ros- enCreutz/ auch Teutschen edlen Gebluts/ nun euch aufi der Schul Gottes und ewigen Philosophei uns zu lehren/ anerbietende/ auch geoffenbart kommende/ uns sana mente zu erfrewen.”
86 Ibid., Bv: “Lasset uns der H. Gutter der Herrligkeit defi allerhochsten Gottes/ und seiner Euangelischen Libertet, durch Theophrastum, und euch diser letzten Welt furgeschriben/ nicht weiters beraubet/ noch so ganz verborgen sein.”
87 Ibid., Aiir: “Wir geringfugige von der Theophrastischen verworffnen schul/ und Tyrol- ischen Mineral Geburg/ wuntschen/ von dem allein weisen/ allein Gnedigen/ barmherzi- gen Gott Schopffer aller Magnalien/ neben unserem armen Gebett/ Christbruderlichen grufi und liebe/ alle zeit von grundt unsers Herzens zuvor. Unser einfeltige antwort/ euch sonders erleuchten Apostolischen Mannern Gottes/ auff ewr so mildreiche anerbittung an die Heupter/ Stande/ Gelehrten/ unnd auch gemeinden und ungelehrten Europae, seind wir als bald entschlossen gwest zu geben/ als uns nemblich Anno 1610. Erstlich hierinn in difi Landt Tyrol/ ewer schreiben Fama Fraternitatis r.c. schrifftlich zukommen/ weilen wirs getruckt/ noch nie befihero ansichtig mogen werden/ Draufi wir die grosse Trew/ Lieb unnd milte Barmherzigkeit Gottes/ auch zu disen lesten zeiten/ so reichlich sich durch ewre Theophrastiam und gottes geschenck/ herfurgebene/ vernemen [...].”
88 Cf. above, Chapter 2.
89 Haslmayr, Antwort, Biiv: “[...] das Theophrasti Doctrin, gerecht und ohne macel, floriern
mufi/ in ewigkeit mit den wysen Gottes. Sap. 4.6. und kein Mensch der ganzen Spottischen Welt/ noch auch die Teuffel der Hollischen Pforten/ werdens mogen ubergwaltigen.”
tinction between Paracelsus and pseudo-Paracelsus. Haslmayr expected the brethren to help in the Final Days on earth by making Paracelsian philosophy public. He asked the Rosicrucians to
come with the theological necrocomia, the nectromancy of the blessed, come with the philosophical sacred magic of Bethlehem and the astronomy of grace, with an angel of the good council [Christ] and with the sacred evestrum of the sign star, come with the primordial medicine, and archidoxical90 mysteries and prescribed Cabalistic Christian liberal arts, and with wonders of the eternal uncontaminated Wisdom of Sophia and of the undefiled Theophrastian pure way of God.91
“Theological necrocomia” refers to divine prophetic signs in the firmament. The term originated in Paracelsus’Book on Images and his Great Astronomy (or Philosophia sagax), which was read by Haslmayr as early as 1588.92 It was discussed in pseudo-Paracelsian writings such as the Liber Azoth, and the term was explained by Gerard Dorn as follows: “Necrocomia are wonderful forebodings, announcements of some future thing by signs fallen from the air above the earth, such as crosses in earlier times and many other things.”93 For Haslmayr, these forebodings have religious and historical significance.
The closely related term nectromantia should not be confused with necromancy, as it refers not to communication with the dead but to the art of revealing secrets. That term also originated in Paracelsus’ Great Astronomy, where it is defined as the study of the disclosure of secrets which are kept
90 The printed version reads “arahidoxischen,” but the term should be “archidoxischen,” possibly referring to the pseudo-Paracelsian Archidoxis magica: i, 14; 437-498, which concerns magical signs.
91 Haslmayr, Antwort, Bv—Biir: “[...] kompt mit der Theologischen Necrovvenia und Beatorum
Nectromantia, kompt mit der Philosophischen Bethlemitica sancta Magia und Astro- nomia gratiae, Angelo boni Consilij, unnd Euestro sancto Stellae signatae, kompt mit den Necrolischen Medicament/ unnd Arahidoxischen misterijs, und verordenten Cabal- istischen Christfreyen Kunsten/ und Magnalien Sophiae aeternae incontaminatae, & intactae Theophrastiae purae Dei Viae.” “Necrovvenia” should be “Necrocomia.” On the meaning of “necrolisch,” see: pseudo-Paracelsus, Liber Azoth, i, 14; 552.
92 Paracelsus, Liber de Imaginibus, i, 13; 359-386. On Haslmayr having read the Great Astronomy, see above, p. 220.
93 Paracelsus, Astronomia Magna, i, 12; 275-406; Pseudo-Paracelsus, Liber Azoth, i, 14; 547
595, esp. 549 f.; Dorn, Dictionarum theophrasti paracelsi, 70: “Necrocomia, sunt prodigiosa praesagia, rei cuiuspiam futurae praenuntia per signa ex aere super terram decidentia, ut cruces olim ac alia multa.”
figure 9 Benedictus Liberius, Nucleus sophicus (1623), Paracelsus’ Signatstern, Bayerische Staatsbib- liothek
hidden inside human beings.94 The “sacred evestrum,” a term that is possibly taken from pseudo-Paracelsian texts, referred to a spiritual and astral body that could be found in both the universe and in man.95 Here it is related to Paracelsus’ sign star, but it implicitly also recalls the star that appeared over
94 Paracelsus, Astronomia Magna: i, 12; 14-444, see especially 87-88: “also verstehet auch
die nectromantiam, das die heimlikeit der menschen und dasjenig so sie verbergen, auch seind die solchs wissen. Nicht alein das einer vermein, darumb das niemant bei im ist, dasselbig alein wisse, sonder es ist noch etwas, das wir menschen nicht sehen, das bei uns ist in allem unserm verborgnen, worten und werken. Der mit demselbigen reden kan und weifi mit im zu handlen, der erforschet alles das, so der mensch gar verschlossen zu sein vermeint.” See also: Moseneder, Paracelsus und die Bilder, 167,173.
95 Pseudo-Paracelsus, Philosophia ad Athenienses, i, 13; 387-423, esp. 413 ff.
Bethlehem at Christ’s birth.96 It was complemented by “archidoxical mysteries,” which presumably have their origin in the Archidoxis and refer to remedies.97
These mysterious terms hint at Haslmayr’s understanding of the divine and alchemical nature of Paracelsus’ doctrine.98 He wished to suggest that the Rosicrucians were involved in interpreting divine signs, forecasting the future, and in an alchemical and medical study of the hidden reality of man and the universe. None of these Paracelsian terms had been mentioned in the Fama, but Haslmayr interpreted the manifesto’s message in these terms, so as to combine and identify Paracelsianism with Rosicrucianism, and to draw the Rosicrucian Fama into a specific set of beliefs and expectations.
Haslmayr further suggested that the Rosicrucians combine Paracelsian sciences and Christian teaching with the study of the Cabala. The true liberal arts mentioned above he now identified to be cabalistic in nature. Cabala, according to the Fama, had been studied by Christian Rosencreutz, but this art was also promoted in Paracelsus’ Great Astronomy, in pseudo-Paracelsian writings, and by Paracelsians such as Bodenstein and Toxites.99 In his Great Astronomy, Paracelsus understood Cabala as a magical art, as it appears under his discussion of magic.100 For Paracelsus, Cabala was some sort of natural magic, which was related to the study of the harmonies between the microcosm and macrocosm, the spiritual powers that dwell in nature, and the astral powers that influence the earth. Just as Paracelsus had turned away from the medieval, Jewish Kabbalah and the study of the Sefirot, so Haslmayr understood Cabala in a magical and Christian manner.
It thus becomes apparent that Haslmayr’s Answer differs in substantial ways from the Fama to which it responded. Firstly, the role of Paracelsus is much bigger than in the Fama, and the Paracelsian elements discussed were not natural- philosophical but religious and alchemical. While in the Fama, the brethren drew on Paracelsian views, Haslmayr did not hesitate to fully identify the two movements with one another, Rosicrucianism and Paracelsianism, by which he made the brethren’s message thoroughly apocalyptic and religious. Also the figures of the lion and Elias Artista had their origin in Paracelsian literature. Haslmayr was eager to spread Theophrastian thought, and he co-opted the Rosicrucian Fama to get this message across.
96 On Haslmayr’s and Paracelsus’ Signatstern or sign star (“stella signata”), see: Gilly, “Theo- phrastia Sancta,” 174.
97 Cf. Paracelsus, Archidoxis (ed. Huser), vol. 6.
98 Paracelsus, Astronomia Magna, i, 12; 14-444.
99 Bodenstein, cp, vol. 1, nr. 6, 116, 123; Toxites, cp, vol. 2, nr. 58, 374.
100 Paracelsus, Astronomia Magna, i, 12; esp. 78, 83-85.
Haslmayr went so far as to suggest that the Rosicrucians were Paracelsians bringing to light Paracelsian wisdom. He was one of the early modern authors who is seen to have transformed Paracelsianism into a religion, the so-called “Theophrastia Sancta”—a name that hints at the religious influences of Para- celsus.101 At the end of the Cabalistic Theology (1618), which was published under the name of Paracelsus but written by Haslmayr, the author described himself as a “disciple of the Theophrastia Sancta.”102 He also mentioned the “Theophrastia Sancta” in his earlier Revelatory Oration (1612), a text sent to Maximilian ii i. In that text, he claimed that science should be based on theology, and that “Naristotle” (“fool Aristotle”), Galen, and Cicero had not promoted such a science. By contrast, the “Theophrastia Sancta,” much like theosophy, was instead grounded in Christianity.103 The term “Theophrastia Sancta” signified to Haslmayr a specific type of theosophy, and he clearly read Paracelsian works as well as the Rosicrucian manifestos through a religious, notably apocalyptic, lens.
A second difference between the Fama and Haslmayr’s Answer is that the philosophy of the brethren as discussed by Haslmayr was much more clearly associated with Christian thought than had been the case in the first manifesto. This is evident from his frequent use of Scripture, his references to biblical events, his traditional understanding of history, and from the fact that he emphasised the Christian character of Paracelsus and the Fama more than they themselves had done. Haslmayr’s response to the Fama was first and foremost that of a religious person.
Thirdly, and most strikingly, Haslmayr’s view was undeniably eschatological, and radically differed from the Fama’s optimistic message, which means that it was not chiliastic in nature.104 Remaining close to traditional apocalyptic, the task Haslmayr took upon himself was to warn and to prepare his readers. Although he made use of apocalyptic tropes mentioned in the Fama and later also in the Confessio, according to Haslmayr: 1) there was no new time expected on earth; 2) the Antichrist was not the Roman pope; 3) the defeat of the Antichrist was to occur by divine intervention (and God’s priests) and not by humans, not even by the lion; 4) the only role for humans was the study of the natural world; and 5) there was a limited sense of earthly progress— results from earlier investigations were to be revealed and the world could be
101 Cf. Gilly, “Theophrastia Sancta,” 173; Murase, “Paracelsismus und Chiliasmus,” 223; Tilton, “The Rosicrucian Manifestos,” 129-130.
102 Haslmayr, Theologia cabalistica, 49.
103 Gilly, “Theophrastia Sancta,” 172-173.
104 This conclusion is contrary to: Gilly, Adam Haslmayr, 85.
studied, but this only had relevance for the Last Days. Haslmayr amended these elements in such a way that they were no longer related to a call for reform: whereas the authors of the Fama had asked their readers to contribute to the reformation, for Haslmayr, there was room neither for a thorough religious or political reformation, nor for scientific or educational progress.
4.2 The Instauration of Original Wisdom
Haslmayr’s Answer left few traces in the ensuing reactions to the Rosicrucian manifestos. Some elements continued to play a role, but the responses that will be discussed here deviated considerably from Haslmayr’s pessimistic outlook and fear concerning the final tribulations; and the apocalyptic figures central to the manifestos played a far less prominent role.
Exemplary are the anonymous letters attached to the German version of the Confessio published in Gdansk (1615), to which an anonymous preface and another edition of Haslmayr’s Answer was appended. These texts were particularly vague but optimistic about imminent events, interpreting the manifestos as messengers of long-lost wisdom, and inserting them into the tradition of a perennial philosophy. Their authors have remained unknown. By the time of the 1615 publication, Haslmayr, whose name was publicly associated with the Rosicrucians, had already for three years been chained in the galleys. Others, having learned of Haslmayr’s sentence from the title page of the Fama, might have taken the fate of that Paracelsian theosopher as a warning, for many further replies were written anonymously. At the same time, these replies were styled after the very example of the Fama itself, which had also been published anonymously, with all Rosicrucian brethren mentioned in it, including their “father” Christian Rosencreutz, named only by their initials. Unlike many other writings from the enormous flood of anonymous pamphlets, the 1615 letters reached a wide audience because of their prominent placement attached to the Fama and Confessio.105
Prefixed to the German edition of the Confessio was an undated Preface to the reader. Its author explicitly addressed the changing times and, like Haslmayr, announced the end of a period of disasters. He did not expect the final tribulations, but conveyed a message of optimism and excitement:
105 This edition of the Confessio, with the same preface and replies, was later translated into
Dutch and reprinted in Frankfurt in 1615 by Jan Berner.
The beatific aurora wishes now to dawn, which, after the ending of the dark Saturnine night, entirely faded out with its splendour the moonlight or the small sparks of heavenly wisdom that are still existing among the people, and which is a precursor of the lovely sun, which with its pure and fiery shining rays will bring forth the blessed day, for which many pious hearts nurture a fervent longing.106
Saturn signifies night, darkness, and melancholy (saturnine), but, as in the tradition of the philosophia perennis, the author explains that small sparks of wisdom have remained that will now once again turn into a blazing fire and culminate in the “lovely sun.” The reference to the new period remains vague, but it seems to imply that another earthly age was on the horizon. The ending of the saturnine night may also be explained by alchemical analogy. Saturn was associated with lead, carrying the same symbol as that metal. In alchemy, lead represented the lowest stage of the alchemical process; itwastobe perfected in order to transform it into gold, a metal that was symbolised by the sun. In this reading, through a process of transmutation lead will be purified through several stages, including the moon (the “moonlight,” silver), until finally the “lovely sun” (gold) will bring the “blessed day.”
The Preface was particularly apocalyptic, as it was entirely devoted to the revelation of secrets, but this revelation was, indeed, specified to contain alchemical and medical knowledge. Upon the new period, its author claimed, all metals will be transformed into gold, the purest of all metals. Hidden treasures returning to light will function as a means for the transmutation of metals and as a medicine for human bodies and fears:
These [heavenly treasures of divine wisdom] will be the true royal ruby, and a noble radiating carbuncle, about which one has learned that it emits a fiery sheen and light in the darkness, that it is a perfect medicine to all bodies and imperfect metals, capable of transforming these into the best gold, and of taking away from human beings all disease, fear, distress, and dreariness.107
106 Confessio (Gdansk), Preface, Avr Av';: “Es wil nunmehr anbrechen die selige Morgenro-
hte/ welche nach Ablauffung der finstern Saturnischen Nacht/ defi Mondesschein/ oder die geringe Funcklein der himmlischen Weifiheit/ so noch bey den Menschen verhanden/ mit ihrem Glanz gar vertrubet unnd ein Vorbotte ist der lieblichen Sonnen/ die mit ihren reinen unnd fewrigglentzenden Stralen/ den seligen Tag/ nach welchem viel fromme Herzen ein sehnliges Verlangen haben/ herfur bringen wirdt.”
107 Ibid., AvP: “Dieses [alle Himlische Schatze der Gottlichen Weifiheit] wird sein der rechte Konigliche Rubin/ und edle leuchtende Carfunckel/ von welchem man etwa gelehret/ dafi er ein fewrigen Glanz und Licht im Finsternufi gebe/ ein vollkommene Medicin sey
These treasures seem to have qualities similar to the philosophers’ stone (lapis philosophorum), with which alchemists believed that all metals could be transmuted into gold and which could work as a panacea, a universal medicine. They could purify body and world in analogy with an alchemical process upon the new age. Prophecy, alchemy, and medicine were related not in the sense of apocalyptic alchemy (alchemy used for revelations),108 but rather as what might be termed “alchemical apocalyptic,” that is: the revelation of alchemical secrets as reserved specifically for the last days of the era.
This beatific dawn was to bring with it further apocalyptic revelations, because “in the light of this day, all heavenly treasures of divine wisdom and all hidden invisible things in the mystery of the world will verily be known and espied after the first fathers and after the teaching of the old wise men.”109 All wisdom once known to Adam and the Patriarchs was to return to the world, which concerned the secret nature of nature itself, used by Adam to name all animals and birds.110 The Fall had blurred much of this primordial understanding, the author continued, but “some of God’s friends,” including Solomon, who is mentioned also in the Fama, had yet been enlightened by this divine spark. According to his own testimony, Solomon had known all aspects of creation, including the vegetable, animal, and human realms. Upon insistent prayer he had received from God insight into all hidden secrets and the origin of the world and of time, as the author of the Preface testifies:
He knows how the world was created, understands the power of the elements, the beginning, middle and end of time, how the day becomes longer and shorter, how the time of the year changes itself, how the year’s cycle works and the stars are positioned, so that he understands the nature of the tame and wild animals, how the wind blows, and what people have in mind, he knows all species of plants, the powers of roots, and other things.111
auff alle Corpora/ unvollkommende Metallen/ dieselben in das beste Golt zuverwandeln/ unnd alle Kranckheit/ Angst/ Noth und Trubselighkeit von den Menschen hinweg zuneh- men.”
108 Cf. above, p. 121 ff.
109 Confessio (Gdansk), Preface, Avv: “[...] bey welchem Tages Schein denn alle Himlische Schatze der Gottlichen Weifiheit/ auch aller verborgenen unsichtbaren Dinge in der Welt geheimnufi/ nach der ersten Vatter unnd Alten Weisen Lehre warhafftig werden konnen erkant und gesehen worden.”
110 Ibid., Aiiv: “Diesen Schatz hat vollkomlich gehabt unser erster Vatter Adam vor dem Fall/ welches daher erscheinet/ dafi nach dem GOtt der HErr alle Thiere auff dem Felde und alles Gevogel unter dem himmel fur ihn gebracht/ er einem jeglichen seinen eigentlichen Namen/ der ihm seiner Natur wegen geburet/ hat geben konnen.”
111 Ibid., Aiiv—Aiiiv: “Ob nun wol durch den trawrichen Fall in die Sunde/ difi herrliche Kleinot
The notions of Adamic wisdom and of Solomon as proto-scientist, not much later to be described also by Francis Bacon in his New Atlantis, come together here. The author of the Preface took the Rosicrucian brethren to have access to the very same type of wisdom as Solomon, and they therefore knew the true essences and powers of all creatures—which was also the brethren’s selfconception according to the manifestos. He thereby squarely placed the manifestos in the tradition of the philosophia perennis and connected this notion with hopes for a return to original conditions.
These views are reminiscent of what can be read in one of the other anonymous texts appended to the Confessio and published under the initials C.H.C., an interesting variant of C.R.C., the initials of Christian RosenCreutz. This text seems to have been appended to the other replies at a later stage, because the folio numbers do not correspond with the others.112 C.H.C. also believed that the Rosicrucians’ outpouring of wisdom was an indication of an imminent age of original wisdom having returned, but rather than link it to alchemical secrets he understood the lost wisdom as Paracelsian natural philosophy. He explained that according to the Bible and Paracelsus, human beings had originally been created in the image of God, therefore possessing all “wisdom and knowledge of God and of all visible and invisible things.” Man had lost this wisdom with the Fall, because “through the violation of the command he was fallen from the Spirit and the image of God into the external, corporeal, that is to say, the sinful flesh.”113 Fortunately, this “complete beatific wisdom” could be sought and
der Weifiheit verschertzet worden/ und eitel Finsternufi und Unuerstandt in die Welt kommen ist/ so hat doch Gott der HErr die selbe je bifi weilen etlichen seinen Freunden bifiher auffgehen und erscheinen lassen/ denn also bezeuget der Weise Konig Salomon von ihm selbst/ das er auff sein fleissig Bitt unnd Begeren ein solche Weifiheit von Gott erlanget und bekommen habe/ dafi er wisse wie die Welt geschaffen/ verstehe die krafft der Elementen/ der Zeit Anfang/ Mittel unnd Ende/ wie der Tag zu und abnehme/ wie die Zeit defi Jahres sich endere/ wie das Jahr herumb lauffe/ und die Sterne stehen/ ver- stehe auch die Art der zahmen und wilden Thiere/ wie der Wind so sturme/ unnd was die Leute im Sinne haben/ kenne alle Art der Pflantzen/ krafft der Wurtzeln und anders.” Solomon’s testimony is found in: Wisdom 7:17-22 (New American Bible): “For he gave me sound knowledge of what exists, that I might know the structure of the universe and the force of its elements, the beginning and the end and the midpoint of times, the changes in the sun’s course and the variations in the seasons, cycles of years, positions of stars, natures of living things, temper of beasts, powers of the winds and thoughts of human beings, uses of plants and virtues of roots—What ever is hidden or plain I learned, for wisdom, the artisan of all, taught me.”
112 C.H.C., Sendschreiben oder Einfaltige Antwort (12 January, 1615).
113 Ibid., Avir: “Ich hab zwar durch Gottes gnad aufi heiliger Biblischer Schrifft und defi hocherleuchten thewren Mannes theophr. Paracels. und anderer Gottes gelehrten Bucher erfandt unnd erlernet/ dafi der Mensch anfenglich im Paradifi zu Gottes Ebenbild erschaf-
found again in Christ by the Rosicrucian brethren,114 since “all great secrets and uncreated treasures” were confided by God to the Rosicrucians and could “still in this time be revealed and communicated.”115 The Rosicrucians were again posed as inheritors of original knowledge, having access to all aspects of creation and having restored within themselves the image of God.
C.H.C. connected this perennial philosophy with the Paracelsian analogy between microcosm and macrocosm. Referring to Hermes Trismegistus, he agreed that above and below mirrored each other. According to C.H.C., what was in actu in the one cosmos, was in potentia to be found also in the other, thereby drawing on Aristotle’s distinction between actuality and potentiality.116 The similarity is thus related to powers and abilities, and humans have all stars within them (as Paracelsus had explained) not physically but potentially, that is, as powers. C.H.C. described human beings as microcosms carrying heaven and earth in their fists. With this metaphor, he reversed an image evoked by the theosopher and Lutheran Saxon pastor Valentin Weigel (1533-1588).* 114 115 116 117 118 Weigel, in his Gnothi seauton (“Know Thyself,” 1571) had explained how God had created man out of the macrocosm, which he can contain in his mighty fist.118
fen worden/ und in solcher Bildnufi/ die Weifiheit unnd Erkandtnufi Gottes und aller sichtbaren und unsichtbaren dingen vollkommenlich gehabt und besessen. Auch dafi er durch den Fall unnd Ungehorsamb/ solche Weifiheit mehrertheils wieder verloren/ und dieselbige also bald sey in ihme verdunckelt/ hinein gekehrt/ und gleichsam gar aufigele- schet worden/ dieweil er durch die Ubertrettung defi Gebotts aufi dem Geist unnd Bild- nufi gottes in das eusserliche leibliche/ nemblichen/ in das Sundliche Fleisch gefallen war.”
114 Ibid., Aviir: “[...] die vollkommene selige Weifiheit/ so in Adam verloren worden/ in dem einigen Jesu/ defi lebendigen Gottes/ und der Jungfrawen Mariae Sohn widerumb konne und musse gesucht und gefunden werden.”
115 Ibid., Aviiv: “Im Fall is aber der wille Gottes nicht sein solte/ dafi mir die grosse Geheim- nussen/ und unerschopffliche Schatz/ welche euch von Gott dem Herren/ als seinen beliebten und geheimen Dienern/ anvertrawet worden/ noch zur zeit offenbart unnd mit- getheilt werden.”
116 Ibid., Aiiir-Aiiiv: “Furs dritte/ so hab ich mit grosser Verwunderung angehort/ das ewer hocherleuchte Vater weillant Fr. C.R.C. Christseligster Gedechtnifi der minutum mundum perfecte absolvirt hinderlassen/ von welchem ich als ein unerfarner anderst nichts zu- schreiben oder zu urtheilen weifi/ als dz ich aufi dem Liecht der Natur vermerck/ dafi ein solches Geheimnufi und mysterium in der Natur sein musse [.] wie auch der Spruch defi uhralten Egyptischen Magi Hermetis Trismegisti gnugsam an/ das nemlich das ob ergleich sey dem undem/ und e contra, dafi so unden gleich dem so oben/ sey allein was in dem einen ist actu, findet sich im andern potentia.”
117 Ibid., Aiiiv: “Aber wie viel sind deren/ denen es ganz unglaublich ist/ das ein Mensch solle durch Weifiheit zu wegen bringen/ dafi er Himmel und Erden in seiner Faust tragt.”
118 Weigel, Gnothi seauton, 15: “Und endlich die newgeborne Menschen haben auch ihre Speise/ unnd Tranck/ das ist das Fleisch/ und Blut Christi/ zum Himmel uns ewige Leben/
C.H.C., who explicitly drew on the Fama as well as on Paracelsus, insisted that because of this analogy, humans could comprehend the one world through the study of the other. By means of what he named the “minute world” (the microcosm), which was like a “compendium” and a “living image of the entire universe in which all Rotae of the world are contained,” one could understand and investigate all of nature. Like Haslmayr and Lull, he viewed the Rotae as keys to grasping the entire natural reality and he understood them as internal powers through which nature can be opened—a process that he claimed had previously been described by Paracelsus.119
Such means to complete understanding of the natural and divine worlds were also expressed in the anonymous reply by a certain I.B.P.120 The past age, I.B.P. argued, had been an age under the rule of the Antichrist, with deception and false opinions abounding.121 He now expected the arrival of a new earthly period, which he associated with another traditional character from the canonical literature, namely Elijah. During the new Elijan age, the once corrupted truth will become available, as the “Elijan spirit” will return
auff dafi nun der Mensch ein Begriff were/ unnd ein Beschlufi aller Geschopffen/ und gleich als ein Centrum und Punct aller Creaturen/ auff welchen alle Creaturen sehen sol- ten/ und ihn vor einen Herrn erkennen/ hat Gott wollen den Menschen nicht aufi nichtes/ sondern aufi etwas/ das ist aufi der grossen Welt formieren/ dann einen solchen gewalti- gen Schopffer haben wir/ dafi er diese grosse Welt fassen kan in eine Faust/ das ist/ in den Microcosmum beschliessen/ etc.” Weigel’s book is inspired by Paracelsian terminology.
119 C.H.C. Sendschreiben oder Einfaltige Antwort, Aiiii1’: “Aber wie ist mir Einfalitgen/ und der Weifiheit ganz unerfahrnen muglich/ von solchen hohen Geheimnussen und Wunder- wercken Gottes gnug wurdiglich zu schreiben/ sintemal ich ganzlich dafur halte/ das mit diesen minuto mundo als eim Compendio und lebendigen imagine totius vniversi inn dem alle Rotae mundi begriffen/ konne alles das jenige/ so in der ganzen Natur zuer- faren ist/ eigentlich ergrundet/ und aufigeforschet werden/ wie dann der hocherleuchte Wunderman theoph. Paracels. in seiner Mathematica adepta darvon auch Anregung thut.” The “mathematica adepta” is one branch discussed in the Astronomia Magna: Paracelsus, AstronomiaMagna, i, 12; 4-444, and concerns mathematical relations. Cf. Paracelsus, Opus Paramirum, i, 9; 39 ff.
120 I.B.P., Sendschreiben an die Christliche Brudern vom RosenCreutz, 102,111,117. Although the
reply was appended to the Confessio (Gdansk, 1615), this text was solely a reply to the Fama.
121 I.B.P., Sendschreiben, 112: “Erstlich aber dancke ich Gott dem Allmachtigen von ganzem
Herzen/ dafi er diese so vortrefflicher weiser Leute auff Christo und der Warheit gegrundte Fraternitet/ in dieser letzten grundsuppen den finsteren betrieglichen Welt/ und bey vollem Lauff defi Antichristischen Seculi, hat erwecket und auffkommen lassen.” Cf. ibid., 109. This verdict was shared by another letter, which was written by a certain M.V.S. A.Q.L.I.H. from Austria, but it is of less interest. The author of this text, too, claimed that the world had been filled with misery, until the Rosicrucians, sent by God, had come with their words of consolation and their philososophical canon: M.V.S. A.Q.L.I.H., Ein ander Sendschreiben, 116-121, especially p. 118.
truth to the world, “confirm” the Rosicrucian fraternity, and be “a teacher of all divine and human wisdom.”122
According to I.B.P., the Rosicrucian brethren had revealed “the divine wisdom and knowledge of all natural things”;123 they had provided the reader with “knowledge of God and of nature” and had “made public many secrets in all arts and sciences.” He argued that the Rosicrucian axioms, Rotae, and Proteus had to be put into use, because the fundamentals of the wisdom of God and of nature were still unknown.124 All these instruments had been mentioned in the Fama as being contained in the Rosicrucian library; the book of the axioms being the most important, the Rotae the most artistic, and the Proteus the most use- ful.125 I.B.P. desired to use these books to improve the knowledge of nature and the divine. It remains unclear what exactly the Proteus refers to in the Fama, but one suggestion may be that it derived from Heinrich Khunrath’s On Primaterial Chaos (1597). In this text, Khunrath writes about Proteus in reference to the sea god Proteus. He explains in alchemical terms that it is “catholic mercury” and has power over all things.126 For Khunrath, catholic mercury, and thus
122 I.B.P., Sendschreiben, 109-110: “Ich geschweige jetzunder/ dafi lang zuvor verkundiget worden/ wie diesem unserm Helianischen seculo die zum theil ganz verlohrne/ zum theil mit vielen irrigen meynungen verderbte Warheit/ wiedergegeben werden soil [...]. [Gott wird vertreiben und umbringen] mit den Geist seines Mundes/ alle Dunckelmeister/ als obgesagte Gottlicher Warheit und ewigen Liechtes Feinde/ welche Krafft denn defi Helianischen Geistes in Wiederbringung der Warheit/ ewre heilige Fraternitet bestetiget/ als welche eben derselbe Helianische Geist/ ein Lehrmeister aller Gottlichen und Mensch- lichen Weifiheit/ regiret und fuhret.”
123 Ibid., 110: “[...] sondern das auch die Gottliche Weifiheit und Erkandnus aller naturlichen Dinge/ jetzund in ewer Fraternitet von Gott geoffenbahret [werde].”
124 Ibid., 102-103: “Nicht weiniger weifilich als Christlich ist von euch geschrieben/ liebe Bruder vom RosenCreutz/ dafi die zwo vornehme Staffeln Gottlicher Weifiheit/ Gottes nemblich unnd der Natur Erkandtnufi/ fast auff hochste/ durch gemeinen Lauff und ubung gebracht/ und zwar viel Heimligkeiten in allen Kunsten und Wissenschafften offen- bar gemacht worden/ es aber doch noch an vielem mangele/ und die axiomata Rotae mundi & Protei, noch unberuhret stehen/ und der Kern so wol in Gottlicher Weifiheit als in der Natur Erkantnufi/ fur den Schalen nit habe konnen erkandt werden.”
125 Fama, 110.
126 Khunrath, Von Hylealischen Chaos (1597), 220: “Wie nun alleine ein Weldanfangs Hylea- lischer Mercury Catholicus ist/ Allgemeiner natur/ daraus unser Chaos auch gezeuget/ also ist gleich wie desselben auch unseres chaos (dieweil es ist jenes ebenbild) ein Cath- olische oder Allgemeine natur/ die nach lehr des Philosophi, in jedem gradu Philosoph- ischer arbeiten sich verkehret und vergestaltet in viele und mancherley wesen/ arten und gestalten: Und ist unser Mercury Catholicus (aus Krafft seinen Allgemeinen Fewerfun- ckens des lichts der natur) zweiffels ohne protevs, der uhralten Heidnischen Weisen Meer Abgott/ der die Schlussel zum Meer/ und wie orpheus lehret/ Gewalt vber alles hat [.].”
Proteus, was a general nature or ethereal spirit which permeates everything in the world. This “universal Proteus” was known to true philosophers only, that is, to true alchemists.127 In this sense, Proteus, as a power over and embedded in all things, would indeed be useful in order to acquire insight into hidden mysteries. The Proteus understood in this way could help make hidden knowledge explicit, as I.B.P. hoped it would.
The revelatory implications of the manifestos were also discussed by G.A.D., the author of the fourth anonymous text appended to the Confessio. He replied to both the Fama and the Confessio. His letter is dated November 1614, which was after the publication of the Fama but before the Confessio had appeared in print. Several months earlier, in July 1614, August von Anhalt had reported that the Confessio had not yet come to light, that is, into his possession. He presumably knew of the Confessio because of its mention in the Fama, and his reference to it was the first time that the Confessio was mentioned in any text other than the Fama. Two months later, in September 1614, August described that he had seen a manuscript edition of the text, which he had received from Widemann.128 Again two months later, in November 1614, G.A.D. referred almost verbatim to a passage in the Confessio, which suggests that, if the dating is correct, this Rosicrucian manifesto also circulated in manuscript form in a clandestine manner and through underground networks before its eventual publication.129 This gives the impression that this author was acquainted with either August von Anhalt, orin any case with someone close to the Prince, because otherwise he could not have had the text in his possession so soon afterwards.
What is striking about this text is its continual copying from the pseudoParacelsian Apocalypse of Hermes, and it thereby links the Rosicrucian perennial philosophy to (pseudo-)Paracelsian motives. By reading the manifestos in a pseudo-Paracelsian manner, G.A.D. took the Rosicrucian brethren for Paracelsians. But whereas Haslmayr had understood Paracelsianism religiously, as a sacred gift from God, G.A.D.—in line with the other anonymous texts—associated Paracelsianism particularly with alchemy, medicine, and restored Adamic purity.
G.A.D. referred to the Confessio’s passage about the return of “truth, light, and dignity” verbatim, and identified the return of “wisdom, light, life, and
127 Khunrath, Von Hylealischen Chaos, 222: “Dencke diesem Theo-Sophice nach; und lerne den Proteum Universalem recht erkennen.”
128 Gilly, “Iter Rosicrucianum,” 76.
129 About the Confessio and its possible circulation in manuscript form, see: Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 73.
splendour,” like the German Confessio, with the returned order of Paradise.130 This does not imply that Paradise itself will return, or that the new period was identical to the time in Paradise, but that the imminent conditions will be similar to the prelapsarian order. With this notion of an imminent return of the prelapsarian state of affairs, G.A.D.’s reply was evidently not primarily influenced by Haslmayr’s often printed Answer, but remained in contents close to the Confessio.
G.A.D. explicitly addressed the implication that the consequences of the Fall have been annulled. He argued that the sin of the first human couple, which had resulted in the Fall, had brought about a terrible condition on earth, but with the Rosicrucian manifestos this condition was now coming to an end:
Thereupon the miserable condition of our lives, in which we were landed because of the Fall of our first parents, will be brought to an end, everything will be relieved from the lies and darkness and brought back to light and rectified.131
The Confessio had hinted at the idea that the consequences of the Fall had been reversed and nullified, and this idea had been suggested by the author of the Preface, but no one had as yet stated it as explicitly as G.A.D. now did. Of course, only when original sin was eliminated could original splendour be restored.
The expectation that paradisiacal conditions will be restored is also expressed in G.A.D.’s discussion of long life, an expectation that was in keeping with the Apocalypse of Hermes. The Fama had mentioned the brethren’s capacity to remain healthy, and Andreae had described Hess as having had a body free from disease.132 G.A.D. pointed out that long life had once been enjoyed by the Patriarchs, and that their “secret of secrets” still abided on earth. He claimed that Adam and the other Patriarchs “had received their bodily health and long life” from the powers of a treasure, which
130 See n. 131 below.
131 G.A.D., Ein ander Sendschreiben, 123: “[...] und furnemlich inn der Confession aufidruck-
lich vermeldet wird/ dafi Gott der HErr beschlossen/ dieser verderbten Welt noch einmal vor irem interitu und letzten Untergang/ eben ein solche weifiheit/ Liecht/ Leben und Herrligkeit wiederfahren zulassen/ wie anfenglich der erste Mensch im Paradeifi gehabt/ bin ich dadurch in diese erwunschte Gedancken gerahten/ es mochte alsdenn dem jammerlichen Zustandt unsers Lebens/ in welchen wir durch den Fall unser ersten Eltern gerahten/ ein Ende gemacht/ alles von der Lugen und Finsternufi entlediget und wieder ans Liecht und zurecht gebracht werden”; Cf. Confessio (Gdansk), 69.
132 Cf. above, section 2.4 and p. 199.
as if it were the World Soul, is still to be found in all elemental creatures and moves all bodies, and as the ancient wise men had written that it was to be found in any thing, at any place, and in any time, it has in itself also the powers and effects of all creatures.133
The treasure is reminiscent of the world soul previously described by Ficino, and seems to be similar to Khunrath’s Proteus.134 Inspired by the pseudoParacelsian Apocalypse of Hermes, G.A.D. described the ubiquitous treasure as
the sanctification and cure of all things. How miraculous and laudable is your [the treasure’s] purity, in which lie hidden all true wealth and fertility of life together with the art of all arts, the entire world justly desires you, because you give joy to all who know you, you destroy all weakness, you lift up beauty to the loveliest degree and share often all that delights the people.135
Original Adamic life was restored, because body and world were purified and perfected. This treasure had a medical and purifying function, and was responsible for all that was good and beneficial, rendering all things holy because it possessed within itself and permeated, like the life-giving world soul, all aspects of the universe.
It comes as no surprise that G.A.D. also related this treasure to the philo- sophia perennis. Copying pseudo-Paracelsus, he explained that this treasure and unknown nature had once been known to Adam. It was revealed by the
133 G.A.D., Ein ander Sendschreiben, 124-125: “Ob nun wol dieser edle Schatz/ aufi welches
Krafften/ Adam unnd die andere Patriarchen/ ihre Leibes Gesundheit und langes Leben gehabt/ je und allwege in der Welt blieben/ unnd auch noch gleichsam als die Seele der Welt/ in allen Elementischen Geschopffen gefunden wird/ und alle Corper beweget/ wie denn daher die alte Weisen geschrieben haben/ dafi er in einem jeden Dinge/ an einem jeden Orte/ und zu jeder zeit gefunden werde/ auch aller Creaturen Kraffte und Wirckun- gen in sich habe.”
134 Cf., for example: Ficino, De vita libri tres, Lib iii, p. 121, where he describes that the world soul is present and alive everywhere, cited in: Luthy, “Centre, Circle, Circumference,” 316.
135 G.A.D., Ein anderSendschreiben,127: “[...] wiedahereobgedachterThephrastus [sic] nicht
unbillich geruffen: O du Geheimnufi aller Geheimnusse/ unnd aller geheimen Dinge Heimligkeit/ Ja aller dinge Heiligung und Gesundmachung/ wie wunderbarlich unnd lob- lich ist dein Reinigkeit/ darin alle ware Richthumb und Fruchtbarkeit defi Leben is sampt der Kunst aller Kunste verborgen ligen/ billich begeret dein die ganze Welt/ denn du allen die dich kennen/ Frewde gibst/ alle Schwachheit zerstorest/ die Schonheit auffs lieblich- ste erhelft/ unnd alles was dem Menschen wolgefellet/ heuffig mittheilest.” Cf. PseudoParacelsus, Apocalypsis Hermetis, 670.
Holy Spirit first to Adam, thereafter only to the wise through diligent study. It was purposely obscured by philosophers to conceal it from the fools of the world,136 but was now once more revealed by the Rosicrucian brethren.137 Referring to the Apocalypse, the author argued that Paracelsus was one of the men who had investigated this precious treasure, having written of “the secret of all secrets.”138 Paracelsus was thus explicitly identified as a figure professing original medical and alchemical knowledge, with his philosophy now incorporated into the manifestos. Whereas the restored Adamic knowledge, language, and order were a precondition for the general reformation according to the Rosicrucian manifestos, G.A.D.’s emphasis on the return of paradisiacal conditions rendered both the notion of a general reformation with all its political, social, and educational consequences as well as the apocalyptic array of lion or Antichrist superfluous.
In these anonymous texts Haslmayr’s pessimism made way for optimistic prophecies about the restoration of Adamic knowledge and purity. They deviated from the views of the three main confessions because of the notion of divine illumination before the end and the optimistic tones of their announcements. Their authors took elements from the Rosicrucian call for a general reformation, but omitted their reformative context. Other apocalyptic ele-
136 G.A.D., Ein ander Sendschreiben, 125-126: “So hat es doch dem Allmachtigen Schopffer
also gefallen/ dafi er einer unkendtlichen Natur were/ unnd von der Welt nicht begrif- fen wurde/ wie er denn allein durch Eingebung defi heiligen Geistes unserm ersten Vatter Adam von oben herab/ anfenglich/ nachmals aber durch fleissigen Unterricht/ quasi ex manu in manum, den Weisen geoffenbahret und gegeben worden/ welchen die Philosophi nachmals mit frembden dunckelen Worten/ unnd verblumbten Reden also verborgen haben/ dafi er den Narren wol verdeckt bleiben mufi und sehr wenigen in dieser Welt bekandt werden kan.” Cf. Pseudo-Paracelsus, Apocalypsis Hermetis, 668.
137 G.A.D., Ein ander Sendschreiben, 127-128: “Weil denn nun hochweise Bruder defi lob
lichen RosenCreutz/ inn Ewer [...?] Fama unnd Confession die Vertrostung menniglich geschehen/ da diese und andere Schatze der Weifiheit ins kunfftig ans Liecht gebracht und meniglich bekandt gemacht werden sollen/ [.] Ihr O allerseligen Manner werdet auch mir diese Gunst [?] widerfahren lassen/ dafi ich in ewre kundschafft gerahten/ und etwan eines kleines Funckleins ewrer Weifiheit theilhafftig werden moge/ wenn mi rein solches wiederfahren kondte/ wolte ich mich fur gluckselig halten und mir nichts liebers in dieser Welt wunschen oder begehren.” Due to the binding some words are partly illegible.
138 Ibid., 123-124: “Ich hab etwan hiebevor zum offternmahl mit Verwunderung gelesen/ was der hocherleuchte Theophrastus Paracelsus in seiner Apocalypsi geschrieben von dem Geheimnufi aller Geheimnussen/ welches der allerweiseste Hermes, das wahre ohne lugen/ unnd das gewisse defi aller gewissesten: Andere aber/ das beste unnd hochste so under dem Himmel mag gesucht werden/ genandt haben [.].” The passage is copied almost verbatim from: Pseudo-Paracelsus, Apocalypsis Hermetis (Zetzner, 1603), vol. 2, 668. Cf. also: Paracelsus, De secretis secretorum theologiae, ii, 3; 165-232.
ments present in the manifestos, such as the lion, the Antichrist, and the pseudo-millenarian expectations, which had still played a role in Haslmayr’s Answer, were now largely lost to sight, and the manifestos were almost exclusively read as harbingers of original wisdom, although each of these anonymous authors emphasised this in a different way.
4.3 The Rosicrucian Study of Alchemy and Medicine
When it comes to alchemical and medical endeavours, the case of the famous alchemist and physician Michael Maier (1568-1622) is particularly instructive, albeit very different from the authors analysed in the previous section. Maier had already worked as a surgeon and physician before he matriculated in medicine at the University of Basel in the late sixteenth century. He then worked from 1609 until 1611 at the court of the emperor Rudolph ii as physician-inordinary. Rudolph ii granted him the noble title of count palatine.139 From 1618 onwards, several years after the emperor’s death, Maier became affiliated with the court of Moritz von Hesse in Kassel, where the manifestos had been printed, Raphael Eglin worked, and Maier pursued alchemical and medical labours.140 He remained a Lutheran all his life, but also defended the Rosicrucian brethren and their fraternity on multiple occasions.
In 1616, just one year after the Confessio had been printed, Maier became interested in the Rosicrucian material.141 Over time, he became increasingly excited about the Rosicrucian manifestos. In his Silence after the Clamour (1617), he defended the Rosicrucians against slander inflicted upon them, and discussed at length secrets of nature and the panacea in the possession of the fraternity.142 By the time he published his Golden Themis (1618), he had become a fervent supporter of the brethren of the Rose Cross.143 The title of this work refers to the Greek Titaness Themis, known for her councel and authority on divine law. In this work, Maier defended the six laws or rules of the fraternity established in the Fama.144 The following year saw the publication of
139 Hubicki, “Michael Maier,” in Dictionary of Scientific Biography vol. ix, 23-24. On Maier, see especially: Kuhlmann and Telle, DerFruhparacelsismus, vol. 3,31-32,1241-1260; Tilton, Quest for the Phoenix; Nummedal (ed.), Furnace and Fugue.
140 On Maier at the court in Kassel: Moran, The Alchemical World of the German Court, 102-111.
141 Tilton, Quest for the Phoenix, 114.
142 Maier, Silentium post clamores (1617).
143 Idem, Themis aurea (1618).
144 These laws were: 1) not to practice any other profession than to cure the sick for free; 2) to wear the clothes of the land in which the brethren were living; 3) to return each year
Discovered Truth (1619), in which Maier further discussed the Rosicrucian cause, so that by this time he had become one of the most famous defenders of the Rosicrucians.145
Maier was a well-known alchemist, and in both Golden Themis and Discovered Truth he related the Rosicrucians’ efforts to chemical matters specifically. Like Haslmayr, he praised the Rosicrucians for their divine gifts, but unlike that Paracelsian theosopher, he emphasised one divine gift present in their fraternity in particular, namely the “unique gift of chemistry.” While discussing their revelations, he prioritised two elements from the Rosicrucian manifestos above all others, namely: 1) the brethren’s alchemy and medicine, which he decoupled from their call for a general reformation; and 2) their announcement of the return of divine gifts, which he interpreted in a specific, chemical, way. According to him, chemistry
had among them once been assumed and established as the foundation of the entire fraternity and still serves as its foundation, because if this is true (as they themselves have revealed), this is to be counted not the last among the true and good discoveries of Germany, but primordially, which is to be estimated not as the vile art (as the scoffers claim) of making gold, but as the greatest of God’s earthly gifts.146
Maier referred to the Rosicrucians’ comments on transmutational alchemy. The brethren had not rejected this art entirely, but had clearly made it subordinate to their other arts and sciences and dissociated it from the making of gold. Maier, an alchemist, was not hindered by the secondary position of alchemy in the manifestos, and understood the Rosicrucians first and foremost as chemists. He used the word “chymia,” chemistry, while discussing this art, so as to emphasise that it was not to be practised for the making of gold and the mundane benefits it might provide. As the Confessio had already announced, alchemy was a gift from God when it was used for medicine and the
to Christian Rosencreutz’s house named “Spiritus Sanctus”; 4) to each recruit a successor; 5) to carry the sign “r.c.” as their seal; 6) that the brotherhood shall remain secret for 120 years; see: Fama, 106-107,113,119, and the Introduction.
145 Maier, Verum inventum (1619).
146 Ibid., 221: “Nihil autem hoc loco dicturus sum de illorum variis artibus ex naturae fontibus deriuatis, at saltem de vnico illo Chymiae dono, quod apud illos pro fundamento totius Fraternitatis olim habitum & constitutum est & adhuc habetur; quod si verum est (sicut se patefecerunt) est hoc ex Inuentis Germaniae veris & Bonis non postremum, sed priori ordini annumerandum, quod non pro vili arte (vt nasutuli indigetant), faciendi aurum, sed pro maximo Dei ex terrenis hisce Dono aestimandum erit.”
figure 10 Michael Maier, Tripus aureus, “The Twelve Keys,” attributed to Basil Valentine, describing the creation of the Philosophers’ Stone. Wellcome Collection
disclosure of secrets.147 Maier drew on this passage from the second manifesto and stressed that the brethren were divinely inspired as they practised an art granted by God.148
In alchemy, gold was not merely a metal but could signify purity, wisdom, perfection, and health. It could be created with the philosophers’ stone, which could be used for rejuvenation or for healing in general. It seems that Maier used alchemy primarily for medicinal purposes and he took the Rosicrucians for chemical and medical heralds. He emphasised the first rule of the Rosicrucians, which states that the brethren were first and foremost physicians.149 Maier, especially in Golden Themis, discussed this rule at great length, arguing
147 On this, see above, p. 122.
148 Cf. Maier, Verum inventum, 237b: “Fratres nempe r.c. esse Dei donorum possessores: Hoc enim ipsi aperte in suis libris fatentur”; ibid., 240: “[...] Ex quibus vel minimum sufficit ad demonstrandum Fratres r.c. esse aurifico Dono a Deo ornatos: Vbi enim rerum testimo- nia adsunt, verborum vix requiri videntur amplius.” Because there is no page 236, but two pages numbered 237, the second page 237 is referred to as 237b.
149 Cf. Fama, 106.
that medicine was an “excellent art and profession” practised by the breth- ren.150 The Rosicrucians’ chemical art was used above all to cure the sick:
If the brethren of the r.c. have had this art or chrysopoeia (I will not say anything about their other secrets) in their possession from the first author for 200 years and more to this point and until even now, then they are themselves loved by God and are worthy of all respect by humans, they are the flower of our time, the apex of knowledge, the summit of glory, the sanctuary of true piety, the light of all doctors, and the pillar of the sick.151
This chemical art should be used specifically to “remove almost all diseases from humans” and return “health to the human body.” But the Rosicrucians, as pious chemical physicians, were also capable of purifying all metals and transmuting them “into the most perfect gold.” Here, Maier used again a medical term, namely when describing that the brethren “remove leprosy from all imperfect metals and banish the cause of all corruptions.”152 It was not uncommon to refer to the impure metals as “lepers” to signify the process of purification that was needed,153 but this medical analogy puts further emphasis on the importance of the healing process. To Maier, both bodies and metals should be cured. Medical chemistry, he concluded, was the highest and purest of all sciences, and the Rosicrucians’ treasure worked as a panacea. He claimed that “among the secrets of the society of the Rose Cross in Germany also the universal medicine” could be found, and it was revealed through the Fama and Confessio.154
150 Maier, Themis aurea, 39: “Tam sancta ergo, tamque preciosa & praelustris cum sit Medi- cinae professio, hinc Fratres r.c. non immerito huic palmam & principatum obtulerunt inter tot artes & scientias, quibus abundant & clarent.” Cf. Fama, 106.
151 Maier, Verum inventum, 224-225: “Quod si Fratres r.c. hanc artem siue Chrysopoeiam (ne quid de aliis arcanis dicam) in possessione inde a primo authore per ducentos annos & amplius huc vsque & etiamnum habeant, ipsos esse Deo dilectos & omni Reuerentia hominum dignos, florem nostri aeui, apicem scientiae, culmen gloriae, asylum verae pie- tatis, lumen doctorum omnium, & columen aegrorum.”
152 Ibid., 222: “Iampridem ante multa secula insonuit hic rumor in auribus vulgi nec non doc- torum, & ex scriptis quamplurimis, quae ad non peruenerunt, antiquorum innotuit, esse in potentia Naturae absconditam aliquam medicinam, quae vt ab hominibus fere omnes morbos profligat, sanitate in corpus humanum reducta, sic quoque a metallis omnibus imperfectis lepram & corruptionis causam tollat & abstergat, iis in aurum perfectissimum transmutatis.”
153 Nummedal, Anna Zieglerin, 105.
154 Maier, Silentium post clamores, 32: “Dafi under den Geheimnussen der Societat r.c. in
Maier took alchemy for a divine and ancient art that previously had been practised by Moses. The Rosicrucians, according to him, had possessed this art ever since Christian Rosencreutz founded the fraternity. It was similar to what has come to be known as Mosaic physics, because Maier argued that the art agreed with an original, Mosaic, and pious physics.155 Medicine, therefore, also had ancient origins, because “the medicine of the brethren is the spark of Prometheus, [which he] received with the help of Minerva from the sun as a borrowing, and delivered to the humans in a stick.”156 This fire, Maier explained, spread throughout the world and could be used to prepare medicines for both body and soul.157
The secret of the universal medicine had been in the possession of “several hidden secret colleges” of the far past, and was transmitted orally from generation to generation in Egyptian, Greek, Persian, and Arabic societies.158 Two of these colleges were located in Damcar and Fez, where Christian Rosencreutz had been introduced to these secrets.159 Such a transmission of pious wisdom was in the tradition of the philosophia perennis, as these secrets were known to a few people in the distant past and were “in this our time” brought to light in the Rosicrucian manifestos.160
Teutschland/ auch die Universal-Medicine/ und nach Gottes Erkandtnus das hochste Gut begriffen seye.” Cf. ibid., 40-41, and chs. 7 and 8.
155 Idem, Verum inventum, 230: “interim, [detractores & calumniatores] dicant, quo artificio Moses aureum illum vitulum combusserit in pulveres, absque Chymiae opera, & dederit Israelitis in potu: Ego hic infero, Qui potest aurum comburere in pulueres, Chymicus est: At illud Moses fecit: Fuit ergo Chymiae non ignarus.” The passage refers to Exodus 32, where Moses is described as burning the golden calf made by the Israelites in his absence.
156 Maier, Themis aurea, 40-41: “Et ut verum fatear, Fratrum Medicina est igniculus Pro- methei, auxilio Minervae, a Sole mutuo acceptus & ad homines delatus in ferula [...].”
157 Ibid., 41: “Ignis est propagatus per totum orbem, eoque Medicinae praeparatae, quae tam animo, quam corpori opem praestant.”
158 Maier, Silentiumpostclamores, 50-51: “[...] etliche verborgene heimliche Collegia.” On the ancient colleges across the world, see: ibid., 52-78.
159 Ibid., 77-78.
160 Ibid., 84: “Wann dann die Gesellschaft r.c. nunmehr viel Jahr lang/ ihren selbst Bekant- nus nach/ bifi anhero verblieben/ hat sie in solchem auff Gottes Ehre/ und der Menschen Wolfahrt gesehen/ wann sie dermal eins soll geoffenbaret werden/ wie dan zu dieser unserer Zeit geschehen.” Cf. ibid., 87: “[.] solche Offenbarung dieser Zeit geschehen mussen/ zu der zeit/ nemlich/ wann defi ersten Urhebers derselben [the Rosicrucian fraternity] /verborgenes Grab gefunden/ und eroffnet worden.” Maier emphasises, however, that neither all treasures will be revealed nor that all arts will become perfect; see: Ibid., 21. He presumably arrives at this conclusion to avoid portraying the Rosicrucians as revolutionaries; see below, p. 258 f.
Although Maier combined chemistry and medicine, he did not consider himself a Paracelsian physician. He rejected Paracelsus’ claims to uniqueness, and only used Paracelsian cures to complement many other efforts in medi- cine.161 The chemical medicine of the Rosicrucians, he believed, was older than that of Paracelsus. The medical practice of the Rosicrucian fraternity was not the result of novel human efforts or of a reformation, but of the restoration of an old medicine—which meant that the Rosicrucians were restorers of an ancient iatrochemical practice.
For Maier, the Rosicrucians restored ancient knowledge, but they did not set out to reform the world. Their task was to reveal original knowledge, but they could do so only in an incomplete and limited way. Maier specifically claimed that the Rosicrucian brethren did not have a general reformation in mind. Opening his twentieth chapter of the Golden Themis, he explained “[t]hat the brethren r.c. do not await or aspire to a reformation in the world, in religion, in the conversion of the Jews, in politics [...].” He argued that a general reformation was the aim and intention of “Anabaptists and enthusiasts,” whom he, like all Lutherans, dismissed.162 Surely, he protested, the Rosicrucians could not possibly be seen as one of those disreputable sects. His argument was that “neither does the fraternity r.c. ever declare such [a reformation], nor will it be elicited from their writings.” And even though the Fama was appended to a text about a reformation of the world, namely chapter 77 entitled General and Universal Reformation of the Entire World of the satirical work News from Parnassus,163 Maier insisted that this Italian text had been composed earlier and had no relation whatsoever to the contents of the manifestos.164 Instead
161 Maier, Themis aurea, 95: “Bona medicamenta, quae habet, non recuso, sed monarchiam eius, & tot plaustra calumniarum in omnes alios (se vno excepto) medicos congesta & effusa, non agnoscimus pro rationalis hominis, nedum virtute praediti tecmyrio, vel insigni.” Cf. ibid., 94.
162 Ibid., 187: “Si qui mutationibus Politiae, religionis, artium vel scientiarum suas cogita- tiones intentius infixerint, leuissima quaeque insectantur, vt id fiat, secundum voluntatem eorum: Hae causae fuerunt multorum in Rep. tumultuum, quibus delirae persuasiones non raro principium & fundamentum praebuerunt, vt in Anabaptisticis & Enthusiasti- cis motionibus nimis conspicuum euasit.” For Luther’s rejection of Anabaptists, see also: Williams, The Radical Reformation, xxiiff.
163 Cf. above, pp. 167-168.
164 Maier, Themis aurea, 188-189: “Nec n. Fraternitas r.c. eiusmodi vnquam asseruit, nec id ex eius scriptis eliciendum erit: Est quidem Reformatio totius mundi tractatu quodam Famae Fraternitatis adiuncta, quae nullo modo ad hanc referanda, sed veluti a Viro docto accepi, ex Italico idiomate ante hac translata, quasi vnius nouitatis aut sensus esset, cum Fama editi est.”
of preparing a general reformation, he claimed, the brethren were singularly dedicated to truth and justice.165
According to him, there had been a reformation of the arts in the past, which was desired by Christian Rosencreutz prior to Luther’s Reformation, and was carried out in Germany since 1400 “in this final age” by figures such as Agricola, Erasmus, Luther, Melanchthon, Paracelsus, Regiomontanus, Copernicus, and Brahe.166 Any further reformation of the arts and sciences was unnecessary. As for the further necessary reformation of religion and politics, it could only be brought about by divine intervention: “But the reformation of all heresies is rather a matter for God than for man, and it is not pursued by the brethren, even though it is hoped for by all good men.”167 Whereas the authors of the manifestos had clearly planned to reform these fields, Maier denied with absolute certainty that this had been their intention.
This was consistent with his orthodox Lutheranism, according to which there was no future time on earth; any reformation would be futile; change could only be brought about by supernatural beings but not by humans; and perfection could not be realised on earth. Accordingly, Maier explained that the end of the world was nigh;168 that no further reformation would take place; that the intellect “can only be illuminated by God”; that only God, not the Rosicrucians, could bring about mental illumination;169 and that most, but not all, diseases can be removed from human bodies. Maier evidently intended to protect the Rosicrucians against any charges of heresy, enthusiasm, or Anabaptism, and to make the manifestos acceptable to Lutheran sensibilities.
165 Ibid., 186, title of chapter 20, explaining the contents of this chapter: “Quod Fratres r.c. nullam reformationem in mundo, religione, Iudeorum conversione, Politia, qualem Enthusiastae quidam etiam ex sacris adducentes ad id probandum sententias, somniant, sperent aut intendant, at veritati & iustitiae se semper addictos testentur.”
166 Ibid., 189: “De reformatione artium ibi quid legitur, tentata a primo eius ordinis authore, ante ducentos & 17 fere annos, nempe circiter a.c. 1400. Et sane tum temporis Reforma- tione quadam indiguerunt, quam nonnullae earum acceperunt hoc vltimo seculo, vt caet- eras gentes taceam, in Germania, a Rudolpho Agricola, Erasmo Roterodamo, tanquam duobus luminibus omnis bone literaturae a D. Luthero, Philippo Melanchtone, Theoph. Paracelso, loh. Regiomontano, Copernico, Tychone Brahe, & aliis innumeris [...].”
167 Ibid., 189-190: “Nec dubium est, adhuc maiorem Reformationem posse institui ab iis, qui naturae latebras magis cognitas habent, quam alii: Ex his nihil de Repub. aut religione induci potest [...]. At Reformatio omnium heresum potius ad Deum, quam hominem spectat, nec a Fratribus affectatur, licet ab omnibus bonis speretur.”
168 Maier, Silentium post clamores, 90.
169 Idem, Themis aurea, 190: “Illuminatio intellectus hic magis, quam coactio voluntatis valet: Haec enim ab homine vt cogi nequit, sic ille a solo Deo illustrari saltem potest: Ille vnus dat posse & velle: ad quem hanc Reformationem referimus.”
He did not want the Rosicrucians to seem like revolutionaries—they were restorers but not reformers. Although he shared with the anonymous responses an interest in apocalyptic revelations of the alchemical and medical arts, he completely deviated from theirs—and the brethren’s—promises and hopes which were rejected in the orthodox Lutheran literature. With his interpretation, Maier was perhaps trying to save the Rosicrucian brethren from criticism by scholars such as Andreas Libavius, who had published his attack on the brethren several years before Maier published his Golden Themis.170
4.4 The Reform of Medicine and Sciences
Again very different were the views expressed by several other scholars, who did not steer clear from criticising established learning and promoting a reform programme. So far, we have come across elements related to the Rosicrucians’ reformation and its apocalyptic context, but only now will we encounter, albeit in a limited way, the theme of the reformation so eagerly desired by the Rosicrucians.
It should first be mentioned that the anonymous pamphleteer C.H.C. not only worked in the tradition of the philosophia perennis, but also discussed the Rosicrucian reformation and the active involvement therein of human agency. He linked the outpouring of original wisdom to the reformation of the arts specifically:
First with regard to your intended reformation [of] the faculties and arts, I can communicate with truth that I have desired such a reformation from the bottom of my heart, because by investigating the truth I have often sensed and concluded how sick and flawed several [faculties and arts] are.171
C.H.C. referred to the contemporary conservative academic programme, which Christian Rosencreutz, in the Fama, was said to have already wanted to cure one hundred years previously.
170 On Libavius, see below, section 5.1.
171 C.H.C., Sendschreiben oder Einfaltige Antwort, Ai^: “Was nun furs erste ewere furhabende
Reformation oder Faculteten und Kunsten betrifft/ kan ich mit warheit aufigeben dafi ein solche Reformation volengst aus grund meines herzen gewunscht hab/ dieweil in Nachforschung der Warheit vielfaltig gespuhrt und befunden/ wie Krank und mangelhaft etliche seyen.”
C.H.C. may have been a physician, because he especially decried the poor status of the contemporary “art of medicine” and hoped for its improvement.172 C.H.C. claimed that “the great heap of physicians and doctors accomplish not just in the heaviest and most important diseases little or almost nothing, but they also cannot accomplish much of value in the minor and little concerns of humans, often because of a lack of a fundamental knowledge of their art.”173 He rejected traditional Galenic medicine and used instead alchemically prepared cures. Medicine should be practised with the use of alchemy, that is, by means of a philosophical stone that could restore bodies back to health. Here, he differed from strict Paracelsian medicine, which worked with alchemically prepared substances from nature, such as herbs, plants, and minerals. C.H.C. instead wanted to use the stone that had been searched for by alchemists for centuries, believing as he did that it will function as a panacea. By means of the creation of the philosophical stone, alchemy “frees the human body from diseases and can preserve it in good health.”174 Unlike Maier, C.H.C. saw in the medical profession of the brethren an example of the reformation of the arts called for by the Rosicrucians.
Hopes for a reformation of the arts and sciences were also expressed in a text that appeared around the same time, under the pseudonym Julianus de Campis. In spring 1615, a short but influential reply to the Rosicrucian brotherhood was published, entitled Letter or Message to All Who Have Read Something by the New Brotherhood Called of the Order of the Rose Cross, or Also Learned From Others by Hearsay About the State of Things.175 The text is one of the best-known replies to the Rosicrucian brotherhood, not least because it was once published together with an edition of the Fama and the Confessio, but it
172 Ibid., Aiiv: “[...] Und aus difimal kurze halben allein die Kunst des Arzney zum exempel anzuziehen/ versehe [?] ich mich es werde niemand so unerfahren und unverstendig sein/ der da nicht wisse und verstehe/ wie schwach [.] es mit solcher herrlichen und furtreff- lichen kunst itziger zeit beschaffen sey.” Some words are partly illegible due to the binding.
173 Ibid., Aiiv: “[.] sintemal der meiste hauff der Artz und Doctorn/ nit allein in den schwer- sten und wichtigsten Krankheiten/ wenig oder schier nichts prestiren/ sondern auch in den geringen und schlechten Anliegen der Menschen/ manchmal aufi mangel grundlie- gen Wissenschafft ihrer Kunst/ nicht viel [...?] wurdiges au&ichten konnen.”
174 Ibid., Aiiir: “Was anlangt die Kunst des gold machens oder Lapidis Philosophici, bin ich seit vielen Jahren hero der meynung erwesen/ das dieselbe zwar in ansehung die zeitliche [?] Nahrung und notturfft dadurch reichlich zu wegen gebracht/ und der menschliche Corper von kranckheiten erledigt und in guter Gesundheit erhalten werden kan [.].”
175 Julianus de Campis, Sendbriefff oderBerichtAnAlle/welchevon der Newen Bruderschaft des Ordens vom RosenCreutz genant, etwas gelesen/ oder von andern per modum discursus der Sachen beschaffenheit vernommen.
has long remained under-studied.176 It provides a clear interpretation of the Rosicrucians’ programme and message.
Some historians have attributed this text to Julius Sperber (1540-1616), but his authorship has been called into question. Sperber was believed to have written about the Rosicrucians in About the Highest Treasures, published as the Echo in 1615, which gave rise to suggestions that he could have authored this Letter to the Rosicrucians as well.177 Since Sperber’s About the Highest Treasures was actually written in 1597, naturally the Rosicrucians are neither mentioned in the original 1597 preface nor in the main body of the text.178 Only the second preface of 1615 referred to the Rosicrucian manifestos and the fraternity, but it is doubtful that this preface was written by Sperber himself. It refers in several places in the third person to the author of the subsequent text, About the Highest Treasures, which makes it more likely that it was written instead by the publisher or another related figure.179 Sperber himself had nowhere referred to the Rosicrucians.
Several scholars have subsequently pointed to the Dutch painter, engraver, and engineer Cornelius Drebbel (1572-1633) as the author of Julianus’ Letter. The possibility that the pseudonym “Julianus de Campis” was used by Drebbel had already been considered by Haslmayr’s friend Karl Widemann: “Julianus de Campis, otherwise named Cornelius Trebel: he dwells with the King of England. An erudite man, well-intentioned.”180 Recent authors have
176 Fama Fraternitatis (Franckfurt am Main: Johannes Bringern, 1615). Julianus is mentioned in: Schick, Das altere Rosenkreuzertum, 238-245, although his discussion is mostly about Sperber; and in Peuckert, Das Rosenkreutz, 5, 115, 124, 148, 157, who attributes the About the Highest Treasures (Echo) to Sperber. Further references to Julianus include: Yates, The Rosicrucian Enlightenment, 94, 96; Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 91; Snoek, De Rozen- kruisers, 348-350. The name of Julianus de Campis also appears in the image of the college in Mogling’s Speculum, below a hand that carries a sword; see: Mogling, Speculum. For Mogling referring to Julianus, see below, p. 275.
177 Colberg, Das Platonisch-Hermetische Christenthum, vol. 1 (1710), 121-131; Arnold, Unpar- theyische Kirchen-und Ketzer-Historie, (1729), Th. ii, B. xvi i, C xiix, 1126; Schick, Das altere Rosenkreuzertum, 238; McIntosh, The Rosicrucians, 32; Wels, “Die Frommigkeit der Rosen- kreuzer-Manifeste,” 202. On Sperber, see further: Ferguson, Bibliotheca Chemica, 391-392; Schick, Das altere Rosenkreuzertum, 238-245; Peuckert, Das Rosenkreutz, 25-34; McIntosh, The Rosicrucians, 15-16; Akerman, Rose Cross, 210, 212; Murase, “Paracelsismus und Chili- asmus,” 127-152; Tilton, “The Rosicrucian Manifestos,” 135-136.
178 Sperber, Von der hochsten/ allerbesten unnd thewresten Schatze, prefixed by the title page Echo der von Gott hocherleucheten Fraternitet Lobl. Ordens r.c. Gilly doubts that Sperber was the author of this text; see: Gilly, Johann Valentin Andreae, 31.
179 An die Hocherleuchte Bruderschaft, preface to: Sperber, Von der hochsten Schatze, diiiv, dvv, dviv, dviir, cr.
180 Widemann, Sylva scientiarum, 723, refers to a text he had received from a J. Oswald
concurred with this identification.181 Most recently, also Drebbel’s authorship has been called into doubt, and at least Gilly now points to the Tubingen scholar and friend of Andreae and Hess, Christoph Welling (1582-1661), as the author behind the pseudonym, although additional evidence for this hypothesis is still needed.182
The Letter written under the name of Julianus de Campis discussed at length the Rosicrucian call for reform. According to Julianus, the Rosicrucian texts had been misunderstood and mocked by many,183 because hardly anyone was acquainted with what he called “the true material”—that is, the materia prima of alchemy—that was studied by the brethren.184 Like the Rosicrucians, Juli- anus wrote his text under the presumption that a new time was imminent. He expected not the end of the world but a new period that allowed for radical change for the better: “The time will come, that the thoughts of many hearts will become public,” although the Rosicrucian axioms will never be widely appre- ciated.185 In response Julianus took upon himself the task of explaining to the wider public the philosophy and true intention of the brethren.
Since the Rosicrucian brethren had called for an earthly reform, Julianus outlined a programme of change in philosophy and scientia. He, too, disassociated
from Montbeliard: “Julianus de Campis, sonsten Cornelius Trebel genanndtt; versatur apud Regem Angliae. Ain gelertter Mann. Wohlmainendtt,” cited in: Gilly, Johann Valentin Andreae, 51. On Drebbel, see: Jaeger, Cornelis Drebbel en zijne Tijdgenooten; Snoek, De Rozenkruisers, 348-386; Keller, “Cornelis Drebbel (1572-1633)”; eadem, “How to Become a Seventeenth-Century Natural Philosopher.”
181 Gilly, Johann Valentin Andreae, 51; idem, CimeliaRhodostaurotica, 91; Akerman, Rose Cross,
17; Snoek, De Rozenkruisers, 348-350.
182 Gilly, “Las novas de 1572 y 1604 en los manifiestos rosacruces,” 279-281; idem, “Khunrath und das Entstehen der fruhneuzeitlichen Theosophie.” Further evidence may be provided in Gilly’s eagerly awaited history of Rosicrucianism, scheduled to consist of six volumes.
183 Julianus de Campis, Sendbriefff oder Bericht, Aiir-Aiiir, Aiiv: “Denn es die tagliche erfah- rung bezeugt/ wie mancherley wunderseltzame/ abenthewerliche/ spottische unnd zum theil auch schmehliche judicia, gemelte Fraternitet aufistehen mufi/ bald wirdt sie von diesem/bald von jenem auff die bahn geritten.”
184 Ibid., Bvr: “Ich bin drey und dreyssig Jahr alt/ und habe nun dreyzehen Jahr fast immer gereiset/ unnd seynd mir uber zween nit zu handen gestossen/ welche die rechte mate- riam gewust/ es mogen aber wol etliche mehr seyn die sie kennen/ ob wol zwar wenig der Welt davon bekant ist.” Cf. ibid., Biiiv.
185 Ibid., Aiiiv: “Die zeit wirdt kommen/ dafi vieler Herzen Gedancken offenbar werden/ zehen Jar passieren wol hin/ aber man hat alsbald den Rohl zu der zeit auffgeschusselt/ qui non hodie est aptus, cras multo minus erit; qui non nunc, vix tunc: Bekanter mochte wol zu der zeit dieses Werck sein dann itzo/ aber nimmermehr wirdt ein offener Jahr- marck daraufi werden/ es erwehnet in irem schreiben die fraternitet doch sehr finster/ was ire axiomata seyn/ lafi dir die zeit nicht lang werden/ sey weifi/ verschwiegen/ und bestendig/ soltu es wissen es ist zeit genug thue du das deine dabey.”
himself from the scholars of the universities, but his criticism of the educational establishment did not emulate that of Haslmayr. Compared to Haslmayr, Julianus was much more explicit in his refutation of Aristotelianism and Aristotelian metaphysics; he had recourse to alchemy and not to Paracelsus when rebutting Aristotle; and, most importantly, he conceded that the deplorable state of the contemporary arts called out for a reform programme. Plato and Aristotle, he argued, would turn away in revulsion from the philosophies that later authors propagated in their names: “If Plato and Aristotle were to see the coinage of this age, I do not doubt that they would repudiate the incuse of its monks, and invoke with wonder the previous ages.”186 But also Aristotle himself, Julianus argued, had not developed a sound philosophy because he had drawn upon an earlier one which he had not fully comprehended: “I would almost say that Aristotle himself had not understood [De meteoris] in the right way, because it looks as if he had received it from an old chemical library and copied it.”187 Aristotle’s Meteorology iv, indeed, during the Renaissance was often seen as an alchemical work.188 Julianus regretted that Aristotle’s views, which were less valid than the alchemical ideas that had come before him, were still prevalent at universities and communicated in the distorted version of monkish Scholasticism—but he took comfort from the belief that the difference between the old and the new sciences, the wrong direction previously taken and the new path of truth, was soon to become apparent:
Look at how the arts and sciences increase, contemplate each of the sciences, arts, faculties and disciplines, and you will soon find the difference between what is old and what is new, and not just in those arts that one calls liberal, but also in all other arts, such as in manual labour, in sum in everything that a human being may know.189
186 Ibid., AV: “[...] wann Plato und Aristoteles denarium huius seculi sehen solten/ ich zweif- fele nicht/ si wurden das geprege ihrer munche verleugnen/ und mit verwunderung priora secula beschweren.”
187 Ibid., AV-AV: “Ich wolte fast sagen/ das Aristoteles selbst gemelt Buch [De meteoris] nicht nach dem rechten grund verstanden/ dann es sich ansehen lest/ als habe ers aufi einer alten Chymischen Bibliotheck bekommen/und aufigeschrieben.”
188 Newman, Atoms and Alchemy, ch. 3.
189 Julianus de Campis, Sendbrieff, Avir-Aviv: “Man sehe wie die Kunste unnd Wissenschafften zunemen/ man betrachte nur die scientias, artes, facultates unnd disciplinas eine jeder insonderheit/ man wirdt den underscheid bald finden/ was alt oder was new sey/ unnd
Julianus expected that the true liberal arts as well as all sciences and crafts would soon replace those still practised at universities. While Haslmayr had been concerned with the imminent end of the world, the anonymous replies had predominantly been concerned with the return of original wisdom, and Maier denied the possibility of a reformation, Julianus expected that all human intellectual activities would soon be transformed. Since Julianus and C.H.C. supported the reformation by the Rosicrucians only in a limited way, they extracted it from the original apocalyptic context and figures. The defeat of the pope as Antichrist, the expectation of a lion as political ruler, and the celestial portents announcing a new age, played no part in their reforming initiatives and were deemed irrelevant to the conclusion that current medicine and sciences were corrupt and needed reform. For this reason, their replies differ profoundly from Haslmayr’s earlier pessimistic Answer, but present a novel attempt to improve arts and studies.
4 .5 Rosicrucian Theosophy and the Reform of Divine and Human Things
Know God
In his Letter, Julianus provided a specific interpretation of the announced changes as he sought to explain the true intention and philosophy of the Rosicrucians. The old sciences were not only to be abandoned, they were to be replaced with a very different type of learning. When discussing the Rosicrucian philosophy, he took several elements, which were hinted at in the manifestos, and elaborated upon them, explaining that these were in fact the main objectives of the fraternity. The Rosicrucian message was thereby interpreted in a specific way and accordingly embedded into his own worldview.
One of the central elements in his Letter is the distinction between ergon and parergon. In the Fama there was once mention of a parergon, namely when the text describes the transformation of metals and the making of gold, which was said to be merely a parergon, a secondary activity.190 The first responder
nicht allein in diesen welche man freye nennet/ sondern auch in allen andern/ als in Handarbeiten/ summa in allem was ein Mensch wissen mag.”
190 Fama,125-126: “Sobezeugen wirhiermit offentlich/ [...] dafiihnen Gold zumachen einen geriches und nur ein parergon ist/ derengleichen sie noch wol andere etlich tausend bessere stucklein haben. Und sagen mit unserm lieben Vatter/C.R.C. Pfuh aurum nisi quantum aurum, dann welchem die ganze Natur offen/ der frewt sich nicht dafi er gold machen kan/ oder wie christus sagt/ ihme die Teufel gehorsamb seyen [...]”; ibid., 124-125:
to the Fama, Haslmayr, briefly referred to the practice of transmutation, and agreed that the making of gold was nothing but a parergon: “and you [brethren] however regard the making of gold to be just a parergon, and you have treasures which are a thousand times better, with which you cure all diseases out of the light of God and nature (like Paracelsus) and this without reimbursement.”191 The Rosicrucians, according to Haslmayr, considered such “despicable goods” as gold to be nothing but “dung,” and they used their treasures instead for medicinal purposes.192
Not surprisingly, Julianus also associated the parergon with praxis and alchemy, and for him it entailed the making of the philosophers’ stone. This stone was sought after often not for the sake of wisdom, he believed, but for money. He denounced would-be Rosicrucians interested in becoming members only in order to produce the philosophers’ stone;193 criticised alchemists that dismissed the Rosicrucians because the latter would think so little of the “high secret of tincture,” that is, the art of transmutation;194 and rejected alchemists who claimed that if the Rosicrucians were not primarily involved
“Was aber sonderlich zu unser zeit/ das gottlofi und verfluchte Goldmachen belangt/ so sehr uberhand genommen/ dafi zufordest vielen verlauffenen henckermassigen Leckern/ grosse Buberey hierunter zutreiben [...] als auch von bescheidenen Personen numehr dafur gehalten wird/ als ob die mutatio metallorum der hochste apex und fastigium in der Philosophia were [...].” See also above, p. 121.
191 Haslmayr, Antwort Aiiii1’: “[...] unnd ihr aber das Goldmachen nur fur ein Parergon achten/ unnd tausendt mal hohere Magnalia habt/ darmit ihr auch aufi Gott unnd der Natur Liecht (wie Theophrastus) alle Kranckheiten umb sonsten curiert.” Compare also: Fama, 106: “[k]einer solle sich keiner andern profession aufithun, dann krancken zu curiren und difi alles umbsonst [.].”
192 Haslmayr, Antwort, Bv: “Dann ewre Gemuter geben es uns zuverstehn/ dieweil ihr mit Paulo die schnoden Guter (so wider die Lieb des Nechstens erobert in wucher) nur fur ein Stercus achtet/ darnach alle Welt mit hochstem fleifi/ wohne unnd Arbeit Tag und Nacht trachtet/ und jetzt mussen sie darvon/ und ander besitzt es.”
193 Julianus de Campis, Sendbrieff, Bii1: “Im Aufischreiben der Bruder vom Rosen Creutz wirdt gesatzt/ das Magisterium lapidis philosophici sey bey ihnen ein Parergon. Hieruber ergert sich mancher, unnd es sehen sich dreyerley Richter an. Der erste gedenckt/ harr ist das ein Parergon, oder den Rosen Creutzern ein gemein Beywerck/ so mufi ich fleifi answenden/ das ich in die Bruderschafft auffgenommen werde/ das wirdt sehr gut fur mich seyn/ Dann alsdann bin ich ein magnum virum, wann ich nur dieses Parergon erlange/ so frage ich nichts nach der anderen Wissenschafft. Aber dieser iudex fehlet weit.”
194 Ibid., Biir-Biiv: “[...] Der ander felt auff einen unglauben/ und sagt/ Ich habe allezeit die Confection Magisterii Philosophici fur die hochste Wissenschafft gehalten/ so jemals in der Welt mag seyn gefunden worden/ unnd die Rosen Creutzer achtens fur ein Fol- gewerck/ welches ihrer scienz davon sie schreiben nur von fern nachfolget. Wolte derhal- ben schier glauben/ dafi es nichts sey mit der Bruderschafft/ weil sie das hohe Geheimnufi der Tinctur so geringe achten. Dieser iudex ist auch auff unwegen.”
in alchemy, their true art must be devilish.195 Whereas Maier, G.A.D. and the anonymous author of the Preface to the Confessio had praised the Rosicrucians for their alchemy, Julianus considered it an offence against God to mistake the Rosicrucians for men involved in that vile transmutational art.
He did not, however, ban the study of the perishable natural world from sight. In the natural world one could study and investigate God’s marvels. The parergon, alchemy, was not a means to obtain gold, but should be used to reach God and to acquire hidden wisdom. In this praxis, the human being “makes himself into an abstract and separate human being”; he “marvels at God, divine wisdom, and divine works” and “sees as in a mirror the future splendour of the other eternal life.”196 Through the study of the created world humans can learn about the eternal life of the New Jerusalem and acquire a preview of their eternal blissful future, which means that Julianus associated the parergon with apocalyptic alchemy, alchemy used to reveal divine secrets.197 This is why the reform of the sciences was so important to him, because through the right kind of natural investigations humans could learn about and approach divinity— a claim suggesting that Julianus was also far from convinced by the orthodox Lutheran doctrines.
Particularly relevant in this special alchemical praxis was a physical entity that still needed to be investigated, and which, Julianus hoped, would be revealed by him in due time. According to him, humans must commit themselves to this true material substance. This matter was of a spiritual or ethereal nature rather than corporeal, “not gold but the seed of gold, or virgin gold.” Juli- anus also characterised it as a vapour, mineral sulphur and mercury (often the ingredients of the philosophers’ stone), premature gold (electrum), and “the root of all metals”—all descriptions that suggest that this “philosophical matter” was the philosophers’ stone that could be used to transform bodies and
195 Ibid., Biir-Biiv: “[...] Der dritte hebt an zu lastern und spricht. Ist das Werck defi Philoso- phischen Steins bey den Brudern vom Rosen Creutz ein schlecht geringe nachwerck: So mufi ihre rechte sciens undWissenschafft/ welche fur das CardinalWerckbey ihnen gehal- ten wirdt/ eine lauter Teuffeley/ Zauberey/ Abgotterey/ unnd verfluchtes wesen seyn/ der ich gehort habe/ dafi keine hohere Wissenschafft in der Welt gefunden werde/ als de metallorum transmutatione.”
196 Ibid., Biiir: “[.] unnd wann der Mensch also in spiritu descendirt ad praxin operis vniuersi,
so felt er auffs Parergon, und macht sich wider zum abstracten und separaten Menschen/ der in steter bewegung der hochsten Weifiheit wurcklich versiret, er thut und gedenckt nichts/ als dafi er sich uber Gott/ Gottlicher Weifiheit und gottlichen Wercken/ verwun- dert/ und in dieser Arbeit/ sihet er gleichsam als in einem Spiegel die zukunfftige Herr- ligkeit/ defi andern ewigen Lebens [.].”
197 Cf. above, p. 121.
metals.198 Julianus confessed: “I have known now for five years through God’s mercy the right, true, sole, general matter about which the old philosophers have written, and have touched this with my hands just recently, and I have seen it with my bodily eyes.”199 The philosophers’ stone was the means to making the purest gold and the key to perfecting this world. Through the study of this matter God could be observed and eternity could be viewed. Unfortunately, Julianus was unable to share any further details of this special matter or enlighten his readers through a more extended description of it, his reasons being the need for further investigation and the lack of other, trustworthy people with whom to work.200
More important still for Julianus was the ergon, the main task or work of the Rosicrucians. This term was neither mentioned in the manifestos nor discussed by Haslmayr, but Julianus thought that it was exactly this ergon that needed to be explained to understand the brethren’s true intention and philosophy. This ergon, he thought, was nothing other than the study of the Supreme Being, the wisdom and knowledge of God: theosophy. With this idea, he moved from a material, alchemical praxis to an equally heterodox intellectual study of God.
The term “theosophy” was first coined by Porphyry (235-305), who suggested that theosophers were ideal beings: philosophers, artists, and priests in one. Throughout ancient and medieval times, the term was used by different philosophers in various ways. In historiography, diverse medieval theologians and mystics have been classified as belonging to this tradition, including the Christian monk Maximus the Confessor (580-662) and the German theologians and
198 Julianus de Campis, Sendbrieff, Biiiiv-BV: “[...] wann du aber die rechte materiam ken- netest/ und wustest dieselbe ad gradus naturae per rotam artis zu tractiren, so kemestu zur Hauptstadt unnd zu dem allgemeinen Emporio, dem Gelehrten ist gnug geprediget, etc. Was ist dann unser materia die rechte warhaffte uhralte Philosophische materia? Darff ichs sagen? Doch ich sage dir es vernimb es recht: Nostra materia est Spiritus non corpus: nostra materia non est minerale, sed sulphur et Mercuriu[s] mineralis, unctuositas et vapor, electrum immaturum minerale, nostra materia non est aurum sed semen auri vel aurum virgineum: materia nostra non est metallum sed metallorum omnium radix.” On the alchemical study of a spiritual entity, see: Zuber, “Spiritual Alchemy,” 34-44, 62-63, 70, passim.
199 Julianus de Campis, Sendbrieff, Bvv-Bvir: “Ich [...] bekenne dafi ich nun funff Jahr durch Gottes Gnade die rechte/warhaffte/ einige/ allgemeine/ Materiam dauon die alten Philo- sophen geschrieben/ gewust habe/ unnd habe dieselbe noch newlicher zeit mit meinen Handen betastet/ unnd mit meinen leiblichen Augen gesehen.”
200 Ibid., Bvir: “Dann ich sag es klar heraufi/ ich habe noch nie in unser materia gearbeit/ die ursach ist/ dafi ich noch immer ferner nach forsche/ daran hat es aber am meisten geman- gelt/ dafi ich keinen angetroffen/ dem ichs noch zur zeit hette vertrawen konnen.”
mystics Meister Eckhart and Johannes Tauler.201 Also in the early seventeenth century, the notion enjoyed no consensus in terms of what it was taken to represent. It would therefore be impossible to formulate a common definition of “theosophy” beyond broad assertions that it concerned the study of divinity in one way or another and that it emphasised the relationship between God, nature, and human beings.202 Theosophy, in contrast to theology, also entailed the study of the world as a means to acquire knowledge of God, while at the same time it improved the knowledge of nature, as we have seen in the case of Julianus.203 In addition, theosophers often believed that humans could connect with the divine world with the help of their imagination.
A famous example of a seventeenth-century theosopher was Valentin Weigel, who drew on Paracelsian notions such as the microcosm-macrocosm analogy and believed that true knowledge could be acquired through introspec- tion.204 Weigel understood human beings to contain within themselves the entire world, the macrocosm. In his Gnothi seauton, he explained how, by knowing the microcosm, humans could acquire knowledge of the macrocosm.205 Human beings should not be concerned with the external reality, but primarily with the inner Word.206 According to Weigel, there indeed existed a unity between humanity, nature, and God,207 and he underlined the importance of the transformation of the internal life and the reform of oneself. His works
201 Cf. Versluis, Theosophia, introduction.
202 On the lack of a unified definition and the common characteristics, see: Faivre, Theosophy, Imagination, Tradition, 1-8; idem, “Christian Theosophy,” in Hanegraaff (ed.), Dictionary of Gnosis and Esotericism, 259. Fora concise introduction to early modern theosophy, see: Gilly, “Khunrath und das Entstehen der fruhneuzeitlichen Theosophie.”
203 Gilly, “Khunrath und das Entstehen der fruhneuzeithlichen Theosophie.”
204 On Weigel, see: Peuckert, Pansophie, 290-310; Wehr, Valentin Weigel; Weeks, Valentin Weigel; Faivre, Theosophy, Imagination, Tradition, 50-59. Paracelsus’ theories of medicine, alchemy, and correspondences, for example, as well as his notion of a spiritual body and his use of the microcosm-macrocosm analogy, influenced the thought of early modern theosophers; see: Faivre, Theosophy, Imagination, Tradition, 6, 10; idem, “Christian Theosophy,” in Hanegraaff (ed.), Dictionary of Gnosis and Esotericism, 261. Gilly names Paracelsus, Heinrich Nollius, Robert Fludd, and Oswald Croll as theosophers; see: Gilly, “Khunrath und das Entstehen der fruhneuzeithlichen Theosophie.” Other theosophers include Heinrich Khunrath and Johann Arndt. On Khunrath, see: Forshaw, “Paradoxes, Absurdities, and Madness”; on Arndt, see: Koepp, Johann Arndt.
205 Weigel, Yvaei ssauTov, Nosce te ipsum. Erkenne dich selber O Mensch.
206 Here, Weigel is inspired by such spiritual Protestants as Sebastian Franck and Caspar Schwenckfeld; see: Williams, The Radical Reformation, 108-116, 255-258, 264-266; Faivre, Theosophy, Imagination, Tradition, 7, 51; McLaughin, “Spiritualism”; idem, “Radicals.”
207 Versluis, Theosophia, 97.
circulated from about 1610 onwards and might have had an influence on the theosophy of Julianus.
To be sure, there was no explicit mention of theosophy in the Fama and Con- fessio, but these manifestos did refer to the knowledge of both the Son and nature, and Julianus took the Rosicrucians to be students of divine wisdom. Unlike Weigel, he did not discuss the study of oneself, but he complemented the study and reformation of the outer world by a reformation of the inner world to be achieved through the knowledge of God. To this end, according to Julianus, the brethren were concerned with “the highest science of God, of the divine essence and will, of the divine miracle, of divine works, of heavenly prophecies, of apostolic genuine spirit.”208 To study the will of God was certainly unorthodox, and was deemed impossible by both Luther and official Lutheran texts on the supposition that humans were incapable of acquiring complete knowledge of God, because He always remained hidden to them (Deus absconditus).209 According to Julianus, the Rosicrucians’ central aim was to learn and reveal God’s divine secrets through a “secret wonderwork and all hidden powers of the highest God.” Their science was an “abstract, secret, and sublime work, and no Aristotelian metaphysics.”210 Julianus used both the practical investigation of the unnamed material and the higher study of theosophy to acquire insight into divinity. He took the brethren not first and foremost for physicians or alchemists but for theosophers who had substituted established learning with direct divine inspiration and with the study of that Being that was traditionally believed to be beyond human grasp.
In the study of the parergon, humans were separated from everything else and not affected or supported by anything or anyone. In the study of the ergon, in turn, they were united with the divinity:
When the highest, most wise and merciful God has made you and me to such an extent part of His spirit through the verdict of His secret
208 Julianus de Campis, Sendbrieff, Aviiv, Aiiiir-Aiiiiv: “Niemand kummer sich auch nicht/ dafi die wissenschafft welche die Bruder bekennen unnd treiben/ ein superstitios oder Aber- glaubisch Werck sey/ oder dafi das Gewissen dadurch beschweret werde/ solches geschi- het keines weges. Wie kan die hochste Wissenschafft von Gott/ Gottlichen Wesen undWil- len/ Gottliches wunders/ Gottlicher Wercke/ himlischer propheceyhung/ Apostolisches warhafftiges Geistes/ durch Vatter/ durch Sohn/ und durch den Mittelband, per Spiritum agitantem caelestem, ein aberglaubisches ding seyn?”
209 On this, see further below, pp. 323-324.
210 Julianus de Campis, Sendbrieff, Biiv—Biiir: “Es ist ein abstract, secret, unnd sublim Werck/ unnd keine Aristotelische Metaphysica, [...] das belanget defi hochsten Gottes geheime Wunderwerck/ unnd all verborgene Krafft [...].”
and immutable council, for which I beg patiently daily, then one may do without the world, and leave out all transient favour and splendour [...].211 212 213 214 215
God could grant humans access to His spirit so that they could leave the perishable world behind. The world was to be studied and transformed, but only in order to extricate oneself, to become free from it. One’s aim was ultimately the return to God, one’s origin. Julianus believed the Rosicrucian manifestos to have reintroduced theosophy and to have heralded such a union of the human with the divine. This idea of a union with God was indeed reminiscent of the claim, briefly touched upon in the manifestos, that religion was internal and that the microcosm mirrored God, heaven, and earth of the macrocosm.212
This notion of a union with God may have been inspired by Weigel, who in his On the Place of the World (1576) maintained that God could be found within human beings: “Hence no external place, not even our mortal body, is our true dwelling, but rather God within us, and we in God. Whoever lives in God and God in him is at home in his fatherland and cannot be driven out, no matter in what place in the world he will be.”213 Elsewhere he explained:
O my creator and God, through Thy light I know how wonderful I am created: Out of the world am I created, and I am in the world, and the world is in me. I am also created out of You, and remain in You and You in me [.]. And all that is in the greater world is also spiritually in me; thus am I and it one.214
According to Weigel, humans as microcosms represented and encompassed both the world and God. The kingdom of God was within humans, but they could also unite with Him.215 Likewise, Haslmayr wrote in a later work that not only the external world but Christ himself could be found within man. Like the
211 Ibid., Biiir: “Wann der allerhochste/ allerweiseste gnadige Gott dich unnd mich/ durch die sentenz seines geheimen/ unnd unwandelbaren raths/ so weit seines Geistes theilhafftig gemacht/ warumb ich in gedult taglich flehe/ so kan man der Welt wol entperen/ und vergenglich gunst und herrligkeit bleiben lassen [.].” On a union with God as spiritual alchemy, see: Zuber, “Spiritual Alchemy,” 38-39.
212 See above, p. 145.
213 Weigel, Ein nutzliches Tractatlein vom Ort der Welt; On the Place of the World., edited and translated in: Weeks, Valentin Weigel: Selected Spiritual Writings, 102. See also ibid., 138.
214 Weigel, quoted and translated in Versluis, Theosophia, 96, cited from: Wentzlaff-Eggebert, Deutsche Mystik Zwischen Mittelalter und Neuzeit, 177-178.
215 Weeks, Valentin Weigel, 80.
Protestant Spiritualists of the previous century, and akin to Weigel, he argued that “Christ can only be found in His temple, in which He is the altar, which temple is the human heart.”216 He explained that “the word of God, Fiat, lives in all creatures, as a soul and a power.”217 Because God was to be found within us, according to the view of the Protestant Spiritualists and Weigel, we should not have walled churches, but instead honour the Church within.218
Similarly, Julianus hoped to be able to leave the world behind through achieving a union with God, and presumably to live in spirit as if in the eternal world, a world that could already be studied in the parergon. This is why, according to Julianus, one should first study the ergon and only thereafter the parergon: “Search first the realm of God, that is the wisdom about God, that should be your ergon. In this way all else will befall you, that is what depends on the wisdom of God and what is verified in human beings and their works. That is your parergon.”219 The study of the human world was secondary to the study of the divine, both in order and in quality, but ultimately they had similar objectives.
Comparable views were expressed by the aforementioned respondent to the manifestos, I.B.P. He argued that knowledge of God could, on the one hand, be acquired through prophecies and from Scripture.220 On the other hand, according to an unorthodox notion, humans could gain knowledge of Him through internal study, more specifically through a union with God: “it consists of faith through which the soul of the microcosm or human being will be united with Christ as the true God.” Such faith he called an “infused science”
216 Haslmayr, Astronomia Olympi Novi, 38: “Dann Christus ist nur in seinem Tempel zu finden/ in welchem er der Altar ist/ welcher Tempel das Menschlichen herz ist.”
217 Idem, Theologia cabalistica, 45: “[...] das Wort Gottes, Fiat, in alien geschopffen wohnendt/ als ein Seel unnd Krafft [...].” For Paracelsus on the new birth, see: Daniel, “Paracelsus on Baptism and the Acquiring of the Eternal Body”; idem, “Paracelsus’ Astronomia Magna”; see also the preface by Toxites to his edition of Paracelsus’ Astronomia Magna, mentioned in Chapter 2.
218 Faivre, Theosophy, Imagination, Tradition, 51. August von Anhalt was also of this view; see: Gilly, Adam Haslmayr, 124-125.
219 Julianus de Campis, Sendbrieff, Biiiv: “Suchet am ersten das Reich GOttes/ id est sapien- tiam de Deo, Das lafi dein ergon seyn. So wirdt euch das ander alles: id est quae a sapientia Dei dependent & in hominibus eorundemque operibus verificantur; zufallen/etc. Das ist dein Parergon.”
220 I.B.P., Sendschreiben, 104: “Nun wird Gott von dem Microcosmo auff zweyerley weise erkandt/ nemlich Eusserlich und Innerlich/ die eusserlich Erkandnufi wird zu wege geb- racht/ durch eusserliche Organa und Mittel/ als die vornemblich seyn/ die Schrifften Gottliches Worts/ aufi eyngeben defi heiligen Geistes/ durch die Patriarchen/ Propheten und Apostel beschrieben und der ganzen Welt furgestellet.”
(scientia infusa), or rather “an angelic and prophetic science” through which God cannot be “understood” but “captured.”221 This infused science could unite mortal human beings to Christ and the immortal divinity. Only through such a union could one completely acquire divine wisdom. Like Julianus, Weigel, and Haslmayr, I.B.P. argued that this would take place within human beings, because “the microcosm is the temple of God and of the holy Trinity, and also a dwelling place of the Holy Spirit.”222 Humans have the trinitarian God within them, and could become enlightened by acknowledging God within. Not the world but man’s internal being was the object and place of study.
I.B.P. believed the Rosicrucians to be experienced in such a union with God, and he claimed that they had studied under the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was seated within humans in an internal school named the “schola mentalis.” Besides this “schola mentalis,” I.B.P. recognised an internal “schola rationalis et discursiva” and a “sensualis schola,” upon which he did not comment any further.223 The Holy Spirit was the teacher at those internal schools, teaching His pupils, notably the Patriarchs, prophets, and apostles, from within.224 At the internal schools, these venerable figures had learned about all secret mysteries of God and of the world, through direct inspiration from the Holy Spirit. While these three schools reflected a traditional Christian understanding of the three parts of human beings (spirit, rationality or soul, and body), they were also reminiscent of Weigel’s description of three ways of knowledge, which were the supreme, intellectual, and sensory ways—each similar to I.B.P.’s internal schools as internal ways of knowledge. In The Golden Grasp (1578),
221 Ibid., 105: “Gleich wie aber nicht allein eusserlich/ sondern auch innerlich im Herzen unnd
gemuth defi Microcosmi als in dem Centro defi ewigen Horizontis, unnd dasselbe zwar durch den glauben an Christum/ Gott der HErr in seiner unendlichen Ewigkeit/ ob wol nicht begriffen/ doch etlicher massen gefasset wird/ welches denn ein scientia infusa oder vielmehr ein Englische unnd Prophetische Wissenschafft genandt wird/ und bestehet im Glauben/ dadurch die Seele defi Microcosmi oder Menschens mit Christo als dem wahren GOtt vereyniget wird.”
222 Ibid., 106: “[...] denn der Geist Gottes erhelt die Fucklein der Erkandtnufi in dem Microcosmo, die offt ein grosses Fewer der Gottlichen Weifiheit unnd Liebe anrichten/ welches kein Wunder/ weil der Microcosmus ein Tempel Gottes und der heiligen Dreyfaltigkeit/ und also auch ein Wohnung defi heiligen Geistes ist.”
223 Ibid., 106.
224 Ibid., 106: “[Die heiliger Geist ist] allein defi Lehrmeisters/ wie die Seele defi Menschen eines Schulers Ampt verwaltet. Da denn die Schola mentalis ihre statt hat/ in welcher die Patriarchen/ Propheten/ und Apostel gelehret und unterwiesen worden/ welche auch/ wie aufi dem Exempel defi Apostels Pauli zusehen/ bifi in den dritten Himmel verzucket worden seynd.” Cf. 2 Corinthians 12:2-4.
Weigel explained that humans could gain knowledge via their mind, reason or sensory organs, and their imagination.225
The fraternity, according to I.B.P., had its origin in these internal schools, which he claimed had been attended by Christian Rosencreutz, according to his interpretation of a description given in the Chemical Wedding.226 Because of their privileged position, namely as co-students of the Patriarchs, prophets, and apostles, the Rosicrucian brethren could reproduce the evangelical wisdom after the example of Christ, which made them highly important Christian prophets educated in supernatural matters.227
Both Julianus and I.B.P. drew on an upcoming alternative to the prevailing but failing practice at universities, namely theosophy, when the study of this world would to a large extent be substituted by the study of eternity. I.B.P. and Julianus held views similar to those of Johann Arndt, who criticised university teaching and encouraged readers to study nature, but who also acknowledged God within and aspired towards the divine reality.228 These responses to the manifestos, much like the Rosicrucian manifestos themselves, were unorthodox and antithetical to the establishment because the notion of complete knowledge of the world and divinity before the end was in opposition to confessional dogmas. Where I.B.P. and Julianus differed from most anonymous responses was in the methods they prescribed for acquiring complete knowledge. Whereas most of the anonymous letters argued that perfect wisdom could be acquired by receiving a perennial philosophy, and whereas C.H.C. and Julianus further wanted to reform the arts and sciences, Julianus and I.B.P. also made explicit claims about the need to unite with the divine.
225 See especially: Weigel, Derguldene Griff . ch. 8.
226 I.B.P., Sendschreiben, 107: “Aufi diesen dreyerley Schulen Gottlicher Erleuchtung/ saget ihr recht und wol/ dafi ewer Vatter unnd gluckseliger erster Stiffter ewer Fratemitet/ Fr. C.R. zu der Hochzeit Gottlicher Weifiheit/ nach vieler Muhe/ Arbeit unnd Gefahr kommen sey/ wie denn auch/ das eben aufi diesem Fundament ewer Fraternitet iren Anfang ge- nommen unnd zu glucklichem Auffgang kommen/ man aufi ewrem Schreiben mit grosser Lust zuvernehmen hat.”
227 Ibid., 107-108: “[...] inmassen auch der Heyland aller Welt/ ob er wol allein alles gekundt hat/ dennoch nicht zulassen wollen/ dafi die Evangelische Warheit duch ihn allein fort- gepflantzet wurde/ sondern er hat sich hierzu defi getrewen Dienstes seiner lieben Apostel auch brauchen wollen/ nach welchem Exempel denn auch ewer Bruderschafft recht und wol angestellt worden.”
228 On Arndt and Andreae, see above, section 3.3.
Know Thyself
The study of theosophy was an even more central theme in the response of Daniel Mogling (1596-1635)^29 Mogling’s defences of the Rosicrucians against attacks by others were issued under the pseudonyms Theophilus Schweighart and Florentinus de Valentia, as had already been noted by Widemann: “Floren- tinus de Valentia, also named Daniel Mogling, doctor of medicine, who also calls himself Theophilus Schweigkartt Constantiens. Well-intentioned.”230 He came from a family of Tubingen scholars, and both Mogling’s grandfather (Daniel Mogling, 1546-1603) and his father ( Johann Rudolf, 1570-1596) had been professors of medicine at its university.231 He himself also moved in the academic circles of Tubingen. He was acquainted with Andreae and Besold. Andreae was a distant relative of Mogling through his cousin, who had married Mogling’s uncle in 1609. Andreae also referred to Mogling as someone who had visited him between 1614 and 1620. Mogling praised Besold in one of his texts (1619) and in a letter to Wilhelm Schickard dated 1627. He further corresponded with Kepler and was a close friend of Johannes Faulhaber (1580-1635), a mathematician and engineer who was later to be investigated for his Rosicrucian sympathies.232
Mogling wrote his Pandora of the Sixth Age (1617) under the pseudonym Theophilus Schweighart. To this text he added a riddle revealing his true name, which was soon solved by Besold.233 The following year, in 1618, he published
229 On Mogling, see: Schick, Das altere Rosenkreuzertum, 184-188; Peuckert, Das Rosenkreutz, 123-124, 139-140, 152-155, 159-160, 164; Van Dulmen, “Daniel Mogling”; Neumann, “Olim, da die Rosen Creutzerey noch florirt.” Neumann corrected some biographical claims made by Van Dulmen; see: Neumann, “Olim, da die Rosen Creutzerey noch florirt,” 99-100.
230 Widemann, Sylva scientiarum, 723: “Florentinus de Valentia, sonsten Daniel Mogling genanndt, Medicinae Doctor, der sich auch nenndt Theophilum Schweigkartt Constan- tiensem. Wohlmainenndtt,” cited in: Gilly, Johann Valentin Andreae, 51. Gottfried Arnold once claimed that the pseudonym Florentinus de Valentia was Andreae’s: Arnold, Unpar- theyische Kirchen- und Ketzer-Historie, 1126.
231 Neumann, “Olim, da die Rosen Creutzerey noch florirt,” 94-95.
232 Andreae, Vita, 9, 81; Neumann, “’Olim, da die Rosen Creutzerey noch florirt,” 99-100. When authors supporting the Rosicrucian case became associated with the ideas of Johann Arndt and Valentin Weigel, Mogling and Faulhaber became more circumspect. This prompted Mogling to stop writing Rosicrucian tracts, while Faulhaber continued his public support for the Rosicrucians and was thereupon investigated by the University of Tubingen; see: Van Dulmen, “Daniel Mogling,” 44-46. For the reports by the University on Faulhaber, see uat, 12/18, nrs. 59a-u. See also the comments on Mogling in: Gilly, “Khun- rath und das Entstehen der fruhneuzeitlichen Theosophie,” which argues that Mogling was influenced by Heinrich Khunrath. On Faulhaber, see: Schneider, Johannes Faulhaber.
233 Gilly, Johann Valentin Andreae, 94.
his Wise Rosicrucian Mirror under the same pseudonym.234 In both texts, Mogling took it upon himself to correct “falsely conceived persuasions” of those he believed had understood nothing of the true intentions of the Fama and Confessio—persuasions he claimed had previously been rebutted by Juli- anus.235 For Mogling, the manifestos were expressions of theosophical wisdom.
Important here is the fact that, like Julianus, Mogling discussed the brethren’s parergon and ergon, although his own explanation was much more elaborate than that of Julianus. He denied any interest in gold, reminding his readers of the phrase uttered in the Fama that “together with father Rosencreutz we say: pfuh, gold is nothing but gold.”236 According to him, during the Last Days those who are taken by chrysopoeia will not be illuminated by God’s light. Many readers, he argued, had been chrysophili, lovers of gold, rather than Christophili, lovers of Christ, and so he urged his readers to renounce the former and dedicate themselves to the latter.237 Alchemy could still be practiced, but this art was just a very minor part of the parergon, and readers should above all focus on the knowledge of themselves.238
Mogling believed that the true Rosicrucian objective was not to be found in wealth but in knowledge. The second chapter of the Pandora was entitled
234 The page numbers of the Speculum have been confused, although the text flows correctly. The order runs: 1-5,7, 6,8-17,13,18,20,12, so some numbers appear twice. When discussing the Speculum, the references will follow the page numbers as they appear on the folios, and will make explicit which of the doubled numbers is referenced.
235 Mogling [Theophilus Schweighart], Pandora, 3-4: “Was ich hierinnen gethan/ ist nicht geschehen euers von Gott genugsam illuminierten Fraternitet, einiges vorzuschreiben/ oder deroselben Hochweisen Judicio mich zuwidersetzen: Sondern einig und allein/ offtermelten Mydas sinnigen herzen ihre falsch concipierte persuasion zubenemmen [...], denen doch von Juliano de Campis verloffner zeiten genugsam solte respondiert seyn. Und hat michhierzu noch mehrers bewegt [...] dergeneralWeifiheit zu adumbriren.” Mogling’s references to Julianus and the similarities between the two may further suggest that Juli- anus was indeed a Tubingen scholar.
236 Ibid., 12-13: “[.] unnd dorffen wir kecklich sagen cum Patre Rosencreutzer/ pfuy, aurum nisi quantum aurum, verstehst du das und practicirest es recht/ wird dir an weifiheit nicht mangeln.” Cf. Fama, 125-126: “So bezeugen wir hiermit offentlich dafi solches falsch und es mit den wahren Philosophis ein geringes und nur ein parergon ist [.], Und sagen mit unserm lieben Vatter C.R.C. Pfuh aurum, nisi quantum aurum.” See further above, p. 121.
237 Mogling [Theophilus Schweighart], Speculum, 8: “dann es heist: venite digni: Tu autem indignus Christophilus esse debes, sed Chrysophilus es [.]. Folge mir/ imitier die Vogel/ so in meiner Figur/ in freyem Lufft fliegen/ thue gemach/ Non est periculum in mora, maius in festinatione.”
238 Mogling [Theophilus Schweighart], Pandora, 11-13.
figure 11 Daniel Mogling, Speculum Sophicum-Rhodostauroticum, fig. 2, hab Wolfenbuttel
“On the knowledge of oneself,” and it discussed the parergon.239 Time and again, Mogling advised his readers to “go into themselves,” to study themselves and to learn everything from themselves. Whereas after Paracelsus, many scholars had turned from paper books to the Book of Nature, Mogling did not want to learn from either type of book but instead desired to acquire knowledge
239 Ibid., 11: “Das Ander Capitel. Von der erkanntnufi seiner selber.”
through internal investigations. By doing so, humans would learn everything about themselves and the world, because the greater world, including all sciences and faculties, lay within them. According to Mogling, the key to such knowledge lay in the conviction that humans were made not after the image of the macrocosm but after that of the microcosm: “Go into yourself, contemplate your entire fabric and overly-artistic structure, which the Heavenly Father has granted to you by making you in the image of the microcosm.”240 According to the Fama, when the body of Christian Rosencreutz was discovered in his vault, he held in his hands a book that was written in gold and called “T.”241 This book was amongst the Rosicrucians’ highest treasures, and it explained that Christian Rosencreutz had created, as the text reads, “a minute world,” a compendium, which was aligned with the macrocosm.242 To Mogling, humans were made in the image of just such a minute world. By studying themselves, they could learn the arts and the entire philosophy of the Rosicrucians:
Go into yourself [...], examine each and every thing, compare it with the great world, so that a sphere or globe follows from it, which centre is truth and in which all faculties accord. Then you will learn from this plenty of wonderful arts and crafts, you will understand the Rotae of the brethren, and the minute world, you will know how to assemble the general axioms and to cure all diseases as much as possible.243
The Rotae and Axiomata were again not discussed any further, but Mogling evidently took the Rotae to be the keys that explained the minute world and revealed the entire structure of the world. The Axiomata may simply have been general underlying truths that defined the patterns and correspondences
240 Ibid., 11: “Gehe in dich selbst/ betracht deine ganze fabricam und uberkunstliche structur, so der Himmlische Vatter an dir erwisen/ in dem er dich nach dem ebenbildt Microcosmi formirt [.].”
241 Fama ,117-118.
242 Ibid., 118-119: “[...] posteritati eruendum costudivisset, & jam suarum artium, ut & nominis, fidos ac conjunctissimos haeredes, instituisset, mundum minutum, omnibus moti- bus magno illi respondentem fabricasset, hocque tandem praeteritarum praesentium & futurarum rerum compendio extracto, centenario major, non morbo [.] ullo pellente, sed Spiritu Dei evocante illuminatam animam [.].”
243 Mogling [Theophilus Schweighart], Pandora, 11-12: “Gehe in dich selbst [.] examiniert alles und jedes/ conferiren es mit der grossen Welt/ das ein Sphaera und Globus daraufi werde/ dessen Centrum veritas, darin alle facultates ubereintreffen/ so wirstu hieraufi lernen wunderlicher Kunst und handgriff genug/ du wirst verstehen die rotas fratrum, und Mundum minutum, du wirst wissen axiomata generalia zu colligieren/ alle Kranck- heiten/ so vil muglich zu heilen.”
between the microcosm and macrocosm from which also all medical knowledge followed. Mogling perhaps drew on Weigel’s The Golden Grasp, which reads that
the human being [...] encompasses within him all creatures with the entire world. For that reason he is called the microcosm, that is, the minute world, and how he is created from it, in accordance with his mortal part, so he is placed amidst of it, and he is a centre, that is, a midpoint of all creatures.244
Mogling expected a readership of physicians, after the example of the Rosicrucians. By studying themselves in comparison with the greater world they could learn how to cure diseases, sometimes even through an inconspicuous herb that was collected “in keeping with the due time of the Rotae, in consonance with the microcosm and macrocosm.”245 Here the Rotae have a temporal meaning; they turn in time into various constellations. According to Mogling, there existed a pre-established structure of sympathies and similarities in the universe, which exchanged forces according to the right temporal and spatial alignments. This view, too, echoes notions contained in the Fama, because the Rosicrucians’ compendium was said to contain things of the past, present, and future.246 For Mogling, the Rosicrucian philosophy was encompassed in such a compendium, which could teach everything. Mogling’s Rotae partly resembled the Rotae of Lull, which wheels spatially represented the entire universe, but were also the Rosicrucian wheels of time’s keeping.
244 Weigel, Der Guldene Griff, Biiiv: “aus diesem eussernt Garten ist der Mensch geschaffen/ vnd begreifft in jhme alle Geschopff mit der gantzen Welt, darumb er auch Microcosmos genennet wird/ das ist/ die kleine Welt/ und wie er daraus geschaffen ist/ nach seinem zeitlichen sterblichen Theil/ also ist er in Mitten hinein gesetzt/ und ist ein Centrum/ das ist/ ein Mittelpunct aller Creaturen.”
245 Mogling [Theophilus Schweighart], Pandora, 12: “[...] alle Kranckheiten/ so vil muglich zu heilen/ nit mit grossem unkosten/ nicht mit Edelgestein/ Gelt und Gut/ sondern manchmal mehr mit einem geringen in virtutum, summo gradu debito rotarum tempore cum Macro- & Microcosmo consonante colligiertem Krautlein au&ichten/ als andere Doctores mit vil tausend Donnen Golts schweren recepten.”
246 Fama, 118-119: “[...] posteritati eruendum costudivisset, & jam suarum artium, ut & nominis, fidos ac conjunctissimos haeredes, instituisset, mundum minutum, omnibus moti- bus magno illi respondentem fabricasset, hocque tandem praeteritarum praesentium & futurarum rerum compendio extracto, centenario major, non morbo [.] ullo pellente, sed Spiritu Dei evocante illuminatam animam [.].”
The call for a study of oneself had already been expressed in Weigelian and pseudo-Weigelian works.247 In his On the Place of the World, Weigel informed his reader that “if you can go into yourself, you will come to God in your fath- erland.”248 In The Golden Grasp, he had argued that “the assiduous contemplation of the works of God and the knowledge of oneself leads to God and makes the eye clear and bright; it also testifies that the understanding or knowledge flows from within outward.”249 Haslmayr, who read Weigelian texts and may have published them at the secret printing press of August von Anhalt, had likewise emphasised in multiple writings the Greek exhortation yvwQi csauTOV (know thyself), in analogy to the title of Weigel’s book, Gnothi seau- ton.250 He explained that the knowledge of creation was accessible through self-knowledge:
For the highest wisdom is the wisdom of oneself,251 also in imitation of Cabalistic theology, magical astronomy, spagyrian natural philosophy, medicine, and mathematics, upon a free fundament, without the pagan philosophy, by which we should not be seduced.252
Such an interpretation of human beings resembled the Rosicrucian description of the microcosm-macrocosm analogy, of which the Fama said that human
247 For the study of oneself in pseudo-Weigelian writings, see: Zuber, “Spiritual alchemy,” 5674.
248 Weigel, On the Place of the World, edited and translated in: Weeks, Valentin Weigel: Selected Spiritual Writings, 142.
249 Weigel, Der Guldens Griff■ Br: “Die fleisige Betrachtung derWercken Gottes und Erkantnik seiner selbst/ fuhret zu Gott vnd machet das Aug klar und hell/ bezeuget auch dak der Verstandt oder die Erkantnik von jnnen heraus fliesse.” Cf. also: Weeks, Valentin Weigel: Selected Spiritual Writings, 152-153.
250 Besides in Haslmayr’s Answer, this Greek terminology was mentioned in his Apologia, (hab, 163r); his Beschreibung des erschrecklichen Lebens (Niedersachsisches Staatsarchiv Wolfenbuttel, 231r); his Theologia cabalistica which was published under Paracelsus’ name in the Philosophia Mystica (1618, 44); and in his Pansophia (in Widemann’s Sylva scien- tiarum, Hannover, 708).
251 The text reads “Grothisenuiton” a misrepresentation of yvuSi ceauTOV, gnothi seauton. On this, see also: Gilly, Adam Haslmayr, 81.
252 Haslmayr, Antwort, Aiiir—Aiiiv: “Die hochste weikheit nemblich das Grothisenuithon, auch nach der Cabalistischen Theologei, unnd Magischen Astronomei, unnd Spagyrischen Phisica, Medicina, unnd Mathematica, auk freyen fundament, ohn der Heyden Philo- sophei, von welcher wir nicht sollen verfuhrt werden.” Compare also Haslmayr’s Astro- nomia olympi novi, 35: “Dann selig und uberselig mogen die Menschen/ die Lander/ die Statte seyn/ welche die Gnad haben/ diesen Himmel das ist/ Christum Jesum/ die ewige Weisheit/ und sich selbsten zu erkennen.”
beings contained within themselves “religion, politics, health, bodily parts, nature, speech, words and works [...],” which it described by a musical ana- logy.253
Mogling complemented this parergon, the knowledge of oneself, with the ergon, which entailed the study of God. He did not discuss this ergon at any length in the Pandora, but the first chapter of this first text was titled “Theosophy.” God, he clarified, could be found in everyone, as “God is all in all, and will yet be enclosed by nothing. He is the infinite circumference, whose centre is everywhere and His surface nowhere.”254 A similar notion had earlier been expressed by the German theologian and philosopher Nicholas of Cusa (Nicolaus Cusanus, 1401-1464), who, in his On the Game of the Globe (ca. 1462), described by mathematical analogy that not God but Christ, like a point or atom, resided in the centre of a globe while also extending outwards, encircling and pervading all.255 This notion had later been taken up by Giordano Bruno in his Cause, Principle and Unity (1584), which explicitly referred to Nicholas of Cusa and illustrated this notion in a geometrical woodcut engraving. Bruno explained, also drawing upon the work of Ficino, that the soul was all in all.256 Mogling’s notion of precisely God as being the centre and circumference of everything had notably been described by Weigel, who in his On the Place of the World argued that “God is not only a centre buta circle of all creatures, that is, God and His will or Word is not only in all creatures but also outside of them, conceiving and encompassing them.”257
In relation to such notions, Mogling, like Julianus, advocated the theosophical principle of a mystical union with God through Christ:
First you should know God, unite yourself thoroughly with Him through His Son Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit, direct all your willing and working after His pleasure, in sum change yourself entirely and put your
253 Fama, 97-98: “[G]leich wie in jedem Kernen ist ein gutter gantzer Baum oder Frucht, also die gantze grosse Welt in einem kleinen Menschen were, dessen Religion, Policey, Gesund- heit, Glieder, Natur, Spraache, Worte und Wercke, aller in gleichem tono und Melodey mit Gott, Himmel und Erden ginge.”
254 Mogling [Theophilus Schweighart], Pandora, 9-10: “Gott ist alles in allem/ und wird doch von keinem beschlossen/ er ist die unendliche circumferentz/ cuius centrum ubique superficies nullibi.”
255 Nicholas of Cusa, De ludo globi, 56-58. Cf. Luthy, “Centre, Circle, Circumference,” 318.
256 Luthy, “Centre, Circle, Circumference,” 316, 318-319.
257 Weigel, On the Place of the World, edited and translated in: Weeks, Valentin Weigel: Selected Spiritual Writings, 135. Cf. above, n. 244.
wealth in the last place. In this way, you will become healthy in your soul, and you are a theosopher.258
Theosophy was clearly not only the study of God, but included the necessary practice of uniting with Him. For Mogling, it therefore required an inner reformation.
In his second text, the Mirror, Mogling also suggested that his readers study the internal man, but no longer as some sort of higher-level parergon, but as one aspect of the ergon. Humans should perfect their soul while also listening to God’s command, just as he believed the Rosicrucians did.259 This renders the transformation of oneself a moral obligation, namely to prepare oneself for a union with the divine. His emphasis on an individual reformation was directly related to his human genealogy, as he believed that humans originated from God:
But note, that everything that you have so far seen and contemplated on, finally comes together within you as in a centre and image of God (because all comes from one, and all goes to one). From there arises the same ’Know thyself’, I say ’know thyself’, that is how you come to pansoph- ical perfection.260
The parallels with Weigel are evident. Man was the image of God because he had come from God, and pansophical wisdom implied the perfect knowledge
258 Mogling [Theophilus Schweighart], Pandora, 10-11: “Erstlich must du Gott erkennen/ dich demselbigen durchaufi vereinigen durch seinen Sohn christum in krafft defi H. Geistes/ all deinen willen und werck nach seinem wolgefallen anrichten/ Summa dich ganz ver- endern/ und deine vermoglichkeit hindan setzen. Auff dise weifi wirstu gesundt an der Seelen/ und bist ein Theosophus.”
259 Idem, Speculum, 18: “[...] das beste aber is diese der Seelen Perfection/ welche geschicht/ so man den innerlichen Menschen recht erkent/ seine Sund und unvermogligkeit betracht/ Gottes Gewalt und Barmherzigkeit zu gemuht furt/ alle Menschliche Gedancken hindangesetzt/ ihme allein alles befihlt/ seinem willen gehorcht/ seinem Namen heyliget/ bitt/ lobt/ anrufft/ und glorificiert ohn underlafi. Dieses ist das Ergon, das Vorwerck/ die groste und furnembste Kunst/ und Wissenschafft so wol der Bruder defi RosenCreuzes/ als auch aller Christliebenden Menschen.”
260 Ibid., 13 (2): “doch mercke/ dafi alles/ was du bifiher gesehen unnd contempliert/ kompt entlich in dir selber als in einem centro und Ebenbildt Gottes zusamen (nam omnia ab vno, omnia ad vnum) daher dann entspringt dasselbige Nosce te ipsum, Nosce teipsum inquam, so kompstu zur Pansophischen Perfection.”
figure 12 Daniel Mogling, Speculum Sophicum-Rhodostauroticum, fig. 3, hab Wolfenbuttel
of oneself in the awareness of one’s origin and end.261 The term “pansophy” was not an uncommon term even prior to the most famous pansophist, Jan Amos Comenius (1592-1670), as it had been used by, among others, Heinrich Nolle (1583-1626), Petrus Lauremberg (1585-1639), and Johann Heinrich Alsted (1588-1638).262 It referred to a Christian universal science, which is also how Mogling understood it.
According to Mogling, this knowledge of oneself required a moral attitude. Humans were nothing without God, and, again like the brethren, they were to read His Word, to follow His commandments, and to love their neighbours like themselves.263 God’s commands provided one’s moral directions, determined one’s being, and the signs of erudition were “a quiet and peaceful conscience, contempt of all pride (especially on the part of the lovers of themselves), compassion for the poor, love of God and one’s neighbour, hatred of the world, yearning for the eternal life, and what more pious virtues there may be.”264 Note here the similarities with the pietist inclinations of Arndt and Andreae.265
This is reminiscent of the moral attitude Haslmayr had assumed in relation to knowledge of oneself. According to him, the “fools” want to know all things better than prophets and apostles, “but have not yet learned to read themselves; they want to rule and teach others, but have not yet learned to rule and know themselves after the four above-mentioned rules of holy true Christendom.”266
261 Mogling seemed to have used “theosophy” and “pansophy” interchangeably. The two traditions were equally all-encompassing, and in both traditions the microcosm-macrocosm analogy played a pivotal role; see: Faivre, Theosophy, Imagination, Tradition, 9-10. For Peuckert, the two terms were interchangeable, and he also names Haslmayr a pansopher; see: Peuckert, Pansophie, 352 ff.; idem, Das Rosenkreutz, 18, 103.
262 See, including on Mogling and pansophy: Kuhlmann, “Pansophie,” in tre 25, 624-627. Cf. Hotson, Johann Heinrich Alsted.
263 Mogling [Theophilus Schweighart], Pandora, 10: “Derowegen folge den Brudern/ such Gott am ersten/ quaerite primo regnum Dei, lafi difi dein ergon und anfang in der Rhodo- stavrotischen Philosophi sein. Lise fleissig seine wort/ schreibs in dein herz/ sihe das du denselbigen ehrest und ihme gehorehest/ welches geschicht/ wann du deinen Nechsten liebest/ als dich selbst.”
264 Idem, Speculum, 14: “[...] gedenck unnd glaub festiglich dafi du summum humanae sapien- tiae in hac vita fastigium foeliciter attingirt, unnd deinem Kunstbegirigen Gemuth ein vol- liges genugen gethan hast/ das Zeichen deiner Erudition wirt seyn/ ein still ruhig Gewis- sen/ Verachtung alles Stolz/ sonderlich der philauti, Barmherzigkeit gegen den Armen/ Liebe Gottes/ und des Nachsten/ hafi der Welt/ Sehnen nach dem ewigen Leben/ unnd was dergleichen Gottseelige Tugenden mehr seyn.”
265 Cf. above, section 3.3.
266 Haslmayr, Theologia cabalistica, 45: “[.] die alle ding besser wollen wissen/ als der Geist der propheten und der Aposteln/ unnd haben doch noch nicht gelernet sich selbst zu lesen/ wollen also andere regieren und lehren/ unnd haben sich noch selbsten nicht
These four rules or “cabalistic main points” are: “i. To love our enemies. ii. To abandon selfhood. iii. To patiently endure slander inflicted upon us. iv. To refuse all honour offered to us.”267 The term “Cabalism” here lost its original meaning and is now used in a moral context to advise others to take the path of humility in imitation of Christ—perhaps in addition to how he used it in his Answer, in a Christian and magical context.268
It was in this context that Mogling referred his reader to the medieval mystic Thomas a Kempis (1380-1471), and especially to his Opuscula.269 Thomas a Kempis stood in the tradition of the devotio moderna (modern devotion), which originated with the Dutch friar Geert Grote (1340-1384).270 The brothers and sisters of the devotio moderna aimed to reform Christian life and propagated humility and the Imitatio Christi. The movement quickly acquired popularity in the Dutch provinces and further afield, and soon special monasteries were built for their followers. Thomas a Kempis is believed to have expressed the aims of this tradition in his immensely popular On the Imitation of Christ, of which no fewer than one thousand manuscript copies were produced, and before 1650 the text was published in over 700 editions in various European and non-European languages.271 In his less famous Opuscula, which consists of several small texts and sermons, he described Christian rules of piety, including humility, poverty, and patience, and admonished his readers to follow Christ’s example and to obey Christian rules.272
In the Opuscula, Mogling suggested, one finds “the entire art so impressively and beautifully” that if one follows them, one “is already more than half
lehren regieren und kennen nach den 4. Obgesetzten Regeln defi heiligen waren Chris- tenthumbs.”
267 Ibid., 41-42: “Den Unterscheid nun zu erkennen/ eines vollkommenen Menschens/ oder eins vollkommenen Viehs und trunckenen unvollkommenen Gesturns/ lunatischen Men- schens/ und Antichristischen Scribenten solt ihr mich vernehmen/ ihr Auditores und Sohn der ewigen wahre Lehr unnd Weifiheiten GOttes in vier obangeregten Regeln/ unnd Hauptpuncten unsers Christenthumbs/ als unuberwindlichen Cabalae, welche seind: i. Unsere Feinde lieben. ii. Eigens verlassen. iii. Angethane Schmach gedultig leiden. iii [sic] Anerbottene Ehre allenthalben vernichten. Das sind die Schlussel zu der H. Gehai- men Scienz/ unnd Magnale Gottes/ der Cabalae, das ist der Christenheit Recht unnd Gerechtigkeit/ und ewiger Bund defi newen heiligen Gesatzes.”
268 See above, p. 237 ff.
269 Thomas a Kempis, Opuscula aurea.
270 On the Devotio moderna, see: Van Engen, Sisters and Brothers of the Common Life: The Devo- tio Moderna and the World of the Latter Middle Ages.
271 On the editions, see: Von Habsburg, Catholic and Protestant Translations of the Imitatio Christi.
272 Thomas a Kempis, Opuscula aurea.
a Rosicrucian, and will soon find the treasures of the microcosm and macro- cosm.”273 To be a Rosicrucian meant to live a Christian life in the tradition of the devotio moderna and proto-pietism, but also in the tradition of theosophy. According to Mogling, Thomas a Kempis was versed in the Rosicrucian ergon, and in his booklet “does nothing else but teach you to practice this ergon correctly and properly. For this reason his golden text can correctly and properly be named a source and origin of the dogmas of the Rosicrucians.”274 In the way that the soul was more glorious than the body, so the ergon—which was described by “our dear and faithful brother” Thomas a Kempis—was more glorious than the parergon.275 To Mogling, Thomas a Kempis embodied the true Christian behaviour that was necessary for a renewed union with God and the heavenly Jerusalem that he believed to be the goal of the Rosicrucians.
These moral implications had their origin in Mogling’s anthropology. Alongside the distinction between ergon and parergon, and body and soul, he distinguished two sets of eyes, that is, besides the physical eyes he identified also “two spiritual eyes.” With one’s spiritual right eye one could “see into eternity” and perceive the eternal and divine. With one’s spiritual left eye one could perceive “time and creatures,” and thus the natural world. An understanding of this distinction was also called the parergon, because it entailed knowledge of human anthropology, not of the divine.276 According to Mogling, these two eyes had to
273 Mogling [Theophilus Schweighart], Speculum, 10: “[...] betrachte die alte Theologische 2. Opuscula Thomae a Kempis vor anderthalb 100. Jahren beschrieben/ folge ihnen nach/ du hast hierinnen die ganze Kunst so stattlich/ unnd schon/ dafi sie wol wert in Silber/ Golt und Edelgestein einzuhafften/ und als den aller hochsten Schatz zubewahren/ kanst unnd thustu das/ so bistu schon mehr ein halber RosenCreuzer/ und werden sich die Magnalia macro-& microcosmica bald finden.” Cf. ibid., 20: “Ist aber einer der es Christlich und gutt meynt/ und ime das Ergon von Herzen gehet/ wil ich ime mein getrewen Rath geben. Er lasse sich ein geringes Gelt nit rewen und kauff bey den Buhfuhrern das so offtgemelte kostliche Buchlein Thomae a Kempis, lese unnd widerlese solches zum offteren/ schick seyn Leben so viel Menschlich und moglich darnach an/ ists das ime von Herzen gehet/ wirt sich entweders schrifftlich oder mundtlich (wie im ersten Capitel gemeldet worden) bald ein Frater, oder dergleichen mit dem Parergon bey im finden.”
274 Ibid., 12: “[.] wirstu solchen in obgemelten Buchlein D. Thomae a Kempis wytlauftig genug finden: Dann der Author im selbigen Buch/ thut nichts anderst/ als dafi er dich dieses Ergon recht und wol lehrt exercirn/kan also dieses seyn guldines scriptum, recht und wol ein fons & origo dogmatum Rhodo stauroticorum genent werden.”
275 Ibid., 18: “Nun merck/ so viel herrlicher (wie vorgemelt) die Seel ist als der Leyb/ so viel vortrefflicher ist dz obgesetzte Ergon, als dieses Nachwerck/ und wisse und gedencke fehl- stu in dem ersten/ so komptu nimmermehr zu dem lesten/ merck auch wol was unser lieber getrewer Bruder a Kempis ferner setzt.”
276 Ibid., 18: “Und hier ist zu mercken dafi die geschaffene Seel defi Menschens hat zwey Geist- liche Augen/ das rechte Aug ist die Muglichkeit zusehen in die Ewigkeit/ das lincke Aug
work separately and not be engaged at the same time.277 One should first see with one’s spiritual right eye into eternity, rise up to God and “know God your Creator and yourself.” Thereafter humans should “descend,” look with their spiritual left eye, and recognise the diversity in the perishable world, all aspects of nature, the elements, and the “mineral, vegetable, and animal” realms, and also, again, themselves, namely their bodily aspects.278 Human beings, therefore, were both natural and divine, because they had to use both spiritual eyes to study themselves. For Mogling, to see alternately with both eyes, to study both aspects of reality, to combine the ergon and the parergon, was “Rosicrucian pansophia.” The ergon and parergon should be in harmony in order for humans “to acquire complete perfection in this life.”279 Human beings thus had a double nature, which was intimately related to ethics and rules of behaviour.
For an understanding of the origins of this anthropology we must again turn to Weigel. In his Gnothi seauton and The Golden Grasp, Weigel had referred to two sets of eyes. According to his Gnothi seauton, one set of eyes was carnal and was shared with all animals, and another was intellectual or mental and was aimed at the highest, that is divine, knowledge: it could observe both God and the angels. Weigel added a third set, placed between the first and second types, which were the rational eyes that could study the arts and the sciences,280 but
zusehen in die zeit und Creaturen/ darinnen Underscheid zuerkennen/ was besser oder geringer/ und geliebter dem Leib leben zu geben und zuerhalten: hierinnen ist das Parergon.”
277 Ibid., 18, 20: “Es mogen diese zwey Augen der Seelen des Menschens miteinander ihr Werck zugleich nit uben/ sonder soll die Seel mit dem rechten Aug in die Ewigkeit sehen/ so mufi sich das lincke Aug aller seiner Werck verzeyhen/ das ist nicht nach den Creaturen sehen/ und sich halten als ober er todt sey: Soll aber das lincke Aug sein Werck uben nach der aufiwendigkeit/ das ist in die Zeit sehen/ und mit den Creaturen handlen/ so mufi das rechte Aug gehindert werden in seiner beschawung (zuverstehen von dem Menschen) und Rhodostaurotosophischer Weifi zu experiren/ daruber nichts seeligers in der Welt.”
278 Mogling [Theophilus Schweighart], Speculum, 18, 20: “Sihe erstlich mit dem ersten Aug in die Seeligkeit/ erkenn Gott deinen Schopffer und dich selbers/ bitt ihn umb gnedigen beystand/ und verzeyhung deiner Sundt/ ist eins und das vornembste/ unnd must hier das lincke Aug zuhalten; Nachmalen steig von dem Berg herunder sehe mit dem lincken Aug (doch das das rechte den Vorzug behalte) in die zeit und Creaturen; Betrachte erstlich die Natur/ wafi derselben moglich [...] darnach die Elementa/ wie sie dardurch operiren das sperma, als dann die drey underschiedliche Reich der Natur/ minerale, vegetabile, ani- male, und darinnen entlich widerumb dich selbens/ von dannen du wider auffsteigest zu Gott dem Allmachtigen deinem Schopffer.”
279 Mogling [Theophilus Schweighart], Pandora, 13: “Jetzt gib achtung/ wie selbige zugeb- rauchen/ damit aufi dero concordantz du mogest endlich erlangen die volkommene perfection in disem leben.”
280 Weigel, Gnothi seauton, 24: “Nun wollen wir auch vor vns nemen/ die innern Krafften defi
he especially emphasised the carnal and intellectual eyes. In The Golden Grasp, he linked these two sets of eyes to a number of corresponding twofold distinctions, such as between two objects, two kinds of wisdom, two lights, two Adams, and two faiths.281 Weigel, like Mogling, also distinguished between the left and right eye: the former sees internal powers while the latter is directed at external things.282
Mogling argued that by means of the ergon and the parergon, by reuniting one’s soul with God, and by letting the “evil godless world die,” one could allow the “heavenly Jerusalem” to be “reborn.”283 This was a spiritual process. In Mogling’s view, Jerusalem could rise anew even before Christ’s Second Coming and His Judgement at the end of time. By means of an internal reformation it could be realised on earth. Preparing oneself for this was what Mogling named pansophia, the ergon, and the achievement thereof was “pansophical perfection.” Here he clearly anticipated the views later expressed by Andreae, who was to argue that internally one could already inhabit the New Jerusalem while physically abiding still on earth.284
This view of the ergon and parergon also had apocalyptic significance. The internal rebirth of the heavenly Jerusalem, according to Mogling, was to take place during the Last Days, when the rays of God send the godless world into the final fire and, in the tradition of the philosophia perennis, divine wisdom increases:
[...] that from such brightly luminous flames, hardly any sparks remained, until this our concluding final time, through which the long-expected rise of the sole holy beatific gospel and the revelation of the Son of God finally expel such darkness, and the rays of the divine wisdom shine forth more
Menschens/ welche wir ordnen in drey Theil/ oder in ein dreyfaches Auge. Das erste ist/ oculus carnis, ein Auge defi Fleisches/ damit man ansihet/ die Welt vnd alles was auff die Kuchen gehoret. Das ander ist/ oculus rationis, das Auge der Vernunfft/ damit man sihet/ vnd erweiset/ oder erfindet die Kunste/ vnnd vollbringet alle vernunfftige Gewercke/ vnd Handwercke: Das dritte vnd oberste Auge im Menschen/ heisset oculus mentis seu intel- lectus, das Auge defi Verstandes/ damit man anschawet Gott vnd die Engel.” Cf. ibid., 25 ff. 281 Weigel, Der Guldene Griff, ch. 6.
282 Idem, Gnothi seauton, 24.
283 Mogling [Theophilus Schweighart], Speculum, 13 (2): “[.] so viel ist auch derselben Perfection hoher und grosser in acht zu nemmen/ dardurch wir Menschlicher Natur/ und Geb- rachlichkeit enteussert/ unserem Archetype Gott dem Allmachtigen widerumb seeliglich vereiniget/ der bosen Gottlosen Welt absterben/ und dem Himmlischen gebenedeyten Jerusalem newgeboren werden; diese ist die seeligste unnd beste Kunst/ so der Mensch- liche Verstandt mag apprehendieren.”
284 See above, section 3.3. Cf. Mogling [Theophilus Schweighart], Speculum, 13 (2).
and more and hopefully soon kindle the last fire for this godless world; and because the obdurate hearts of the humans having walked in error and in a dangerous labyrinth inspected mostly the parergon, because of this darkness they will not understand the eternal divine gleam of light.285
Mogling believed that the end was nigh. The title of his first tract, Pandora of the Sixth Age, referred to the seven ages of the world that were mentioned in biblical texts, as well as to the Rosicrucians’ reference to this age in their Con- fessio.286 Presumably, Mogling considered his time to be the sixth age, which was to be followed, as claimed by Augustine, by a seventh age of the eternal Sabbath. The inner reformation was to prepare one for the New Jerusalem, and those unworthy of it would not receive God’s light. According to Mogling, the biblical figure Elijah would return to the world to reveal all secrets and original wisdom once known to Adam and his descendants, resulting in a final apocalyptic outpouring of original knowledge.287
The “true philosophy” of the Rosicrucians would be at the expense of established academics, so that also for Mogling theosophy was complemented by academic reform. Acknowledging the need to reform academia and its teachers, Mogling believed that it was his task to cure “their uncouth Stagirite humours” through “pills of truth.”288 At places of learning, he commented,
285 Mogling [Theophilus Schweighart], Speculum, 16: “[...] dafi von solchen helleuchtenden Flammen/ kaum etliche Funcklein verblieben/ bifi zu dieser unser zu endlauffender let- zten Zeit/ dadurch lang erwarteten Auffgang defi Heyligen enig Seeligmachenden Evan- gelij/ und offenbahrung defi Sohns Gottes/ entlich solche Finsternufi vertriben/ die Stralen Gottlicher Weifiheit je mehr und mehr herfur leuchten/ unnd verhoffentlich der Gottlosen Welt bald den letzten Brandt anzunden werden/ unnd derhalben die verstockte Herzen der Menschen im Irthumb und gefahrlichen Labyrinth gewandelt/ mehrertheyls das Parergon angesehen/ und vor defi selbige Finsternufi/ des ewigen Gottlichen Liechtes Schein nit begreiffen mogen.”
286 On this, see above, p. 58.
287 Mogling [Theophilus Schweighart], Speculum, 16-17: “Wer dieses hat/ hat alles in ihm/ dann er Iehouah unser Gott ist Allmachtig/ unnd eine unerschropffliche Quell alles guten/ wer ihm vor dem Fall gehorcht/ darffvor Weifiheit nicht sorgen/ gleich wie Adam hieran kein mangel erlitten/ und auch zweyffels frey/ wir seine Nochkomnen gleicher gestalt hiemit begabt weren/ wo nicht die so offt verfluchte Teuffelische Philauti gedachte unsere Voraltern Diabolo insidias struente hindergangen/ und dieses Gottlichen ewigen Lichtscheins (Leyder Gott erbarms) dermassen obfuscirt, dafi von solchen helleuchten- den Flammen/ kaum etliche Funcklein verblieben/ bifi zu dieser unser zu endlauffender letzsten Zeit [.]. Wir sprich ich sollen die lange Zeit verborgene Funcklein Gottlicher All- macht/ unnd so viel hundert Jahr hero versteckte Pansophische Concordanzen mit ernst/ und Christlichem Eyffer herfur suchen.”
288 Mogling [Theophilus Schweighart], Pandora 3: “Hab ich nicht unterlassen sollen noch
there could be found nothing but “useless quarrel” and the scholastic practice of useless repetitions of disputations based on Aristotelian and Platonic texts.289 Copying the Confessio verbatim, Mogling borrowed its explanation that Rosicrucian theosophy should replace these pagan practices so that the students could awake “from the sleep of sins, and may meet the new rising sun or beneficial Elijah with an open heart, bare-headed and barefoot, happy and jubilant.”290 True knowledge was possible shortly before the end and while still living, while also academia was to be cured and reformed. For Mogling, theosophy, the reform of academia, and the apocalyptic preparations for the New Jerusalem were interconnected.
4.6 Concluding Remarks
All of the commentators discussed in this chapter set themselves the task of explaining or clarifying the Rosicrucian manifestos, and they did so by coopting the texts into their respective worldviews. Each interpreted the manifestos in their own way, according to their own background, and this resulted in a variety of readings, ranging from an emphasis on alchemy or medicine to readings based on theosophy. The early response was therefore highly eclectic.
Some emphasised the Paracelsian inspiration of the Rosicrucian manifestos and understood the brethren of the fraternity to be Paracelsians. The anonymous authors hidden behind the initials G.A.D. and C.H.C. discussed Paracelsian medicine and alchemy, of course irrespective of whether these had their origin
konnen/ solchen vor der Welt subtilen und eygensinnigen kopffen [von Gottlosen Welt- kindern]/ ein Electuarium Rhodostauroticum zu componiren/ und deroselbe grobe sta- giritische humores durch gegenwertige pilulas veritatis ausser dem Haupt zu purgieren.” 289 Idem, Speculum, 17: “ziehe auff Universiteten/ Academias, Gymnasia und Schulen/ wo du wilt/ finstu nichts anders/ als mehrertheyls unnutze vergebliche Zanck/ ohnnotige quaes- tiones von dem sensu dieses oder jenes Aristotelischen/ Platonischen oder eines andern Philosophi Texts viel hundert disputationes.”
290 Ibid., 4: “[ich] kan doch aufi christlicher Liebe gegen dem Nechsten [...] nit umbge- hen/ meine vor der zeit umb gleicher Ursach willen in offentlichen Truck gegebene Pan- doram mit Schematismis weytlaufftiger zuerklaren/ das so fielfaltig begerte Collegium/ Losament oder Behausung/ der Hochlob. Rodostaurotischen Bruderschafft/ beneben der- oselben wahren philosophy/ den fidelibus Pansophiae studiosis zuentdecken, damit sie doch einmal vom Schlaff der Sunden erweckt/ der new auffgehenden Sonnen und salu- tifero Heliae, mit eroffnetem Herzen/ entblostem Haupt/ und nackenden Fussen/ frolich und freudig mochten entgegen gehen.” Cf. Confessio, 56: “postquam venenati et sopori- feri calicis crapulam edormiverit Mundus; atque manet exorienti Soli apertis pectoribus, detectis capitibus, amotis calceis, laetus jubilansque; obviam processerit.” See above, p. 90.
in authentic or spurious texts. Both understood Paracelsian philosophy as the restoration of original Adamic wisdom. While in the early days of Paracelsi- anism, Paracelsus was primarily understood as a physician, he was now heralded for his philosophical contributions and expressions of divine wisdom, presumably thanks to the manifestos. As a result, he came to be seen as a precursor of the Rosicrucians. Haslmayr in turn related Paracelsianism to theosophy, and claimed that the theosopher Weigel had been an advocate of the “Theophrastia Sancta.”291 His similarities with Weigel are evident, and cover not just the emphasis on knowledge of oneself, but also the shared admiration for Paracelsus.
In his Answer, Haslmayr understood the manifestos as announcing the end of the world, which rendered a general reformation superfluous. As the first public response to the Rosicrucian texts, published numerous times, one might have expected the Answer to have shown a marked influence on these later authors. This seems not to have been the case, although Haslmayr was not alone in neglecting the theme of a general reformation. Maier, who had understood the Rosicrucians as alchemists and physicians, specifically rejected their call for a reformation, believing that it contradicted orthodox Lutheranism. Maier admired the brethren and discussed the Rosicrucian writings in several of his publications, but he only supported those ideas he believed were compatible with the Lutheran confession.
Other readers of the manifestos understood the Rosicrucians’ reformation in a limited sense, namely in relation to apocalyptic expectations or as a reform of medicine and the arts, of man, or of divinity—thereby viewing it as a particular reformation.
The elements of the Rosicrucian manifestos on which G.A.D., C.H.C., and the author of the anonymous Preface elaborated were unorthodox, as they expected a return of Adamic wisdom and divine illumination. Such beliefs were part of the Rosicrucian general reformation, but these three authors took final illumination to indicate a period of full enlightenment, not an age of general reform.
C.H.C., however, combined this with the hope for a limited reformation of the arts and sciences, which was shared by Julianus and by Mogling. Their reformation of knowledge implied that more was to be expected than perfect knowledge granted by God, and that not God, but human agency could and should change and reform the world.
291 Gilly, “Theophrastia Sancta,” 177-178.
For Julianus, as for Mogling, such an external reformation was to be complemented by a personal, mystical union with God. For Mogling, as in the manifestos, the development of God’s plan and the judgement of the state of contemporary learning provided the framework and defined the need for the change he championed. Evidently, if humans were able to unite with God, they were not only illuminated in a limited sense by Scripture, but could be illuminated also by God; they were no longer sinful and corrupt, but had become worthy of ’receiving’ God. I.B.P. and Mogling went so far as to suggest that humans could acquire complete knowledge of the Creator. Julianus, I.B.P., and Mogling exhorted their readers to unite with the divine, so that not only human beings but also the divine itself would be interpreted anew as it found its seat within human beings. With this interpretation, they subsumed the message from the manifestos into the broader movement of theosophy. In so doing, they provided the Rosicrucian reformation divini et humani with a new significance; the “divine” was now an internal reality. In this sense, these authors were not only inspired by the manifestos, but also by the tradition of theosophy, and it may be concluded that particularly the works of Weigel had an influence on these authors, especially on Mogling.
Thus the elements of the Rosicrucian manifestos that these authors highlighted, and the traditions with which Rosicrucianism came to be combined, excited hope. Like many others, the authors of the anonymous replies, Juli- anus, and Mogling all felt the need to posit an alternative to the traditional Aristotelian and Galenic worldview of the scholastics and in opposition to Lutheran orthodoxy. The idea of reform was preconditional for most of their alternative worldviews, but the details of reform were not elaborated.
Rosicrucianism Challenged: Early Debates
Once published, the Rosicrucian manifestos and their proponents attracted much criticism from all quarters of Europe, and from all corners of the intellectual world.1 Chemists, physicians, and theologians alike were shocked and outraged by these heterodox texts. Scholars immediately penned their critiques, while representatives of several universities and courts launched investigations into individuals they suspected of Rosicrucianism. While Haslmayr was forced to row the galleys, arguments for and against the manifestos continued apace. In a study of Rosicrucianism, an analysis of the movement through the eyes of its most fervent adversaries is appropriate, because only by also studying its critics is one able to identify all the salient points and novelty of the Rosicrucian claims.
A good method for an analysis of anti-Rosicrucianism is to tackle the opposing arguments involved in polemical constellations, and to investigate key discussions between anti-Rosicrucian scholars and Rosicrucian apologists. One of the best-known critics of the Rosicrucian manifestos was the Lutheran physician and alchemist Andreas Libavius (ca. 1560-1616). His alchemical writings and anti-Paracelsian sentiments have received appropriate attention in the recent available historiography, but his fierce attacks on the Rosicrucian fraternity and their followers still deserve proper investigation.2 Libavius’ criticism
1 Kahn, “The Rosicrucian Hoax in France,” for more detail on key participants such as Gabriel Naude, Jean Roberti, and Francois Garasse. On anti-Rosicrucianism in general, see, for example: Schick, Das altere Rosenkreuzertum; Peuckert, Das Rosenkreutz; Yates, The Rosicrucian Enlightenment.
2 On Libavius, see: Thorndike, A History of Magic and Experimental Science, vol. 2, 244-270; on Libavius in relation to alchemy and Paracelsianism, see: idem, A History of Magic and Experimental Science, vol. 6, 238-253; Partington, A History of Chemistry; Multhauf, “Libavius and Beguin”; Hannaway, The Chemists and the Word; Moran, “Medicine, Alchemy, and the Control of Language”; idem, Andreas Libavius; idem, “Andreas Libavius and the Art of Chy- mia”; Debus, The Chemical Philosophy, 169-173, 215, 217; Newman, Atoms and Alchemy, 66-81; Gilly, “La ’quinta colonna’ nell’ermetismo: Andreas Libavius”; Forshaw, “ ’Paradoxes, Absurdities, and Madness’ ”; on Libavius’ alchemy and atomism, see: Luthy, “The Fourfold Democritus on the Stage of Early Modern Science,” 475-479; Newman, Atoms and Alchemy, 66-84; Moreau, “Elements, atomes et physiologie,” 179-232; on Libavius and Rosicrucianism, see: Schick, Das altere Rosenkreuzertum, 206-212, 258-264; Peuckert, Das Rosenkreutz, 96-97, 102-103, 116-120; Yates, The Rosicrucian Enlightenment, 69-72; Gilly, Johann Valentin Andreae, 83-86; Shackelford, A Philosophical Path for Paracelsian Medicine, 337-340.
of the movement was not much later vigorously refuted by the English neo- Platonist philosopher, astrologer, and physician Robert Fludd (1574-1637), who is well known for his Rosicrucian sympathies.3 In 1617, one year after Fludd’s written defence of Rosicrucianism, another Rosicrucian opponent, Friedrich Grick (dates unknown), published a ruthless attack on the fraternity. While not as famous a figure as Libavius, and not yet studied comprehensively, he belongs to the few well-known names of anti-Rosicrucianism.4 Grick’s attack soon received a response from Daniel Mogling, whom we have encountered in the previous chapter.
In the texts of these four authors about the Rosicrucian phenomenon, the arguments pro and contra the Rosicrucian manifestos are best brought to light, revealing what was most at stake for these defenders and detractors of the Rosicrucian writings and the ideas expressed in them. How and to what extent did the general reformation play a role in their writings?
Alongside these debates, universities and courts responded formally to Rosicrucianism. What urged institutions to officially suppress or contain the ideas and sympathies of their members, and how do these formal responses compare to the informal critiques of Rosicrucian opponents? By way of conclusion of this chapter, the early modern debates over Rosicrucianism will briefly be compared to several official investigations.
5 .1 The Rosicrucian Manifestos Debated: Libavius and Fludd
Libavius publically rejected the Rosicrucian manifestos in the Analysis of the Confession of the Rose Cross (1615).5 In response, the following year Fludd penned a refutation of Libavius’ arguments in his defence of the brotherhood, the Short Apology (1616).6 Shortly after the publication of Libavius’ second blast, the Well-intentioned Considerations (1616, ten times as large as his
3 On Fludd, see, for example: Schick, Das altere Rosenkreuzertum, 257-270; Hutin, RobertFludd (1574-1637). Alchimiste etphilosophe rosicrucien; Godwin, Robert Fludd. Hermetic Philosopher and Surveyor of Two Worlds; Debus, Robert Fludd and his Philosophicall Key; idem, The Chemical Philosophy, 205-293; Huffman, Robert Fludd and the End of the Renaissance. Fludd also used two pseudonyms: Rudolfus Otreb and Joachim Frizius.
4 On Grick, see: Waite, Real History, 258; Schick, Das altere Rozenkreuzertum, 230-235; Peuckert, Das Rosenkreutz, 135-144, 165, 361-367, 390, 392; Gilly, “Iter Rosicrucianum,” 63; idem, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 78-79; Neumann, “Olim, da die Rosen Creutzerey noch florirt”; McIntosh, The Rosicrucians, 34-35; Keller, Knowledge and the Public Interest, 70-79.
5 Libavius, Analysis Confessionis Fraternitatis de Rosea Cruce.
6 Fludd, Apologia Compendiaria (1616).
1615-refutation), he passed away, and he probably never had a chance to read Fludd’s reply.7 Despite his opponent’s death, Fludd published an enlarged version of his defence in his Apologetic Tract (1617).8 Although the Apologetic Tract has received some attention from historians, Fludd’s Short Apology still awaits a careful analysis, even though this was his first clear response to Libavius’ cri- ticism.9 In order to analyse Libavius’ and Fludd’s arguments for and against the fraternity in a polemic context, it is best to examine the two writings where the second was a clear response to the author of the first, the Analysis and the Short Apology.
Libavius: Protecting Faith and Learning
By the time of writing his Analysis, Libavius was an established scholar. He had studied at the universities of Wittenberg and Jena, and had matriculated in medicine at the University of Basel in the 1580s. After graduation, he worked as a teacher at several schools and universities, and as a physician in Rothenburg from 1591 onwards. The topics about which he wrote were varied and included, among others, medicine, history, botany, zoology, and chemistry. His most famous work was his Alchemia (1597), putatively the first textbook on chemistry, which was followed by a second, revised edition under the title Alchymia in 1606. Libavius was further involved in numerous disputes and polemics, in which he openly and pointedly criticised his opponents.10 For example, in his Consideration of the New Philosophy (1615) he attacked many physicians for belonging to the so-called Paracelsian movement, which had developed mostly outside of the universities. Among those were most famously Joseph DuChesne (Quecertanus, ca. 1546-1609), Petrus Severinus (1542-1602), Oswald Croll, and the editor of Crolls’ Basilica Chymica, Johann Hartmann (1568-1631)^ Hartmann, who had provided the Danish physician and Rosicrucian critic Ole Worm (1588-1655) with a copy of the Fama,12 was notably the first professor of
7 Libavius, Wohlmeinendes Bedencken (1616).
8 Fludd, Tractatus apologeticus integritem societatis de rosea cruce defendens (1617).
9 Idem, Apologia Compendiaria, 7. A brief analysis of Fludd’s defence can also be found in:
Moran, Andreas Libavius, 242-246. Schick, Das altere Rosenkreuzertum, 257-270, focuses on a German translation of the later Apologetic Tract and on later texts; Debus, The Chemical Philosophy, 216-224 discusses only the Apologetic Tract.
10 Hubicki, “Libavius, Andreas,” in Dictionary of Scientific Biography, vol. viii, 309-310.
11 Libavius’ critical works of Paracelsianism include: Examen philosophiae novae (1615); Exer-
citatio Paracelsica nova (1615); Analysis Confessionis (1615); Wohlmeinendes Bedencken (1616). Libavius also criticised the views of Heinrich Khunrath; on this, see: Forshaw, “’Paradoxes, Absurdities, and Madness’,” esp. 77 ff.
12 Worm also referred to Libavius as someone who attacked the Rosicrucians: Worm, Laurea
chymiatria when he acquired a position in chemical medicine in 1609 at Moritz von Hesse-Kassel’s University of Marburg—a fact that Libavius particularly deplored as it meant that Paracelsian ideas were now being taught even at a university.13
Although primarily known for his alchemical and medical writings and his criticism of Paracelsianism, Libavius was not unfamiliar with subjects of a theological nature—an aspect of his work that merits further investigation.14 He was a Lutheran who belonged to the academic establishment and moved primarily in Lutheran academic circles. The universities at which he had studied, Wittenberg and Jena, were Lutheran, and the same is true of the cities in which he took up work, including Ilmenau, Rothenburg, and Coburg. The gymnasium in Coburg, where Libavius worked as rector from 1607 onwards, was especially characterised by its orthodox Lutheranism, which is why it was never granted the status of university by Rudolph i i.15 Libavius also published religious and anti-Catholic writings under the pseudonym Basilius de Varna (an anagrammatic representation of Andreas Libavius). In his Dialectic Analysis of the Colloquium of Regensburg (1602), for example, he vehemently argued against the Roman confession. The text was a response to the Regensburg Colloquium on religious matters held between Lutherans and Catholics under the examining eyes of the Lutheran Count Philip Ludwig of Palatinate- Neuburg (1547-1614) and the Catholic Duke Maximilian i, Elector of Bavaria (1573—1651).16 As a devout Lutheran, Libavius extolled the authority of Scripture in his text and argued against anyone who sought to diminish its authority.17
philosophica summa (1619): “Sed unicus, quod sciam, tum extitit Andreas Libavius Theo- logus & Medicus celeberrimus qui primum fratrum impetum retundere quasi aggressus est,” cited in: Shackelford, A Philosophical Path for Paracelsian Medicine, 339.
13 Moran, Andreas Libavius, 225-226, 232.
14 See, for example: Hubicki, “Libavius, Andreas,” in Dictionary of Scientific Biography, vol. viii, 309-310; Moran, Andreas Libavius, 315 ff.
15 Hubicki, “Libavius, Andreas,” in Dictionary of Scientific Biography, vol. viii, 309. On Libavius’ time as rector, see: Moran, “Medicine, Alchemy, and the Control of Language,” 137-139.
16 Libavius [Basilius de Varna], Analysis dialectica colloquii Ratisbonensis (1602); Moran, Andreas Libavius, 111-112. On this colloquium, see ibid., 105-111. Libavius’ adherence to the Lutheran confession is also evident from his criticism of Oswald Croll; see, for example, the first sections on Croll in: Libavius, Examen novae philosophiae, 18-87, in which Libavius analysed Paracelsian and Crollian ideas not only from a medical and alchemical perspective, but also in relation to biblical passages and orthodox Lutheran views, such as the impossibility of earthly perfection.
17 Moran, Andreas Libavius, 116.
His Lutheranism is also instrumental in his attack on the Rosicrucians.18 His Analysis casts no doubt on the existence of either the fraternity or of their proclaimed father, Christian Rosencreutz. Libavius understood the manifestos as serious mission statements from a brotherhood consisting of several members, working in a secret place in Germany. What worried Libavius were the objectives of the Rosicrucian fraternity as conveyed in their manifestos. He took seriously their alleged prophetic nature, and so he investigated these writings as prophecies. For this, he found inspiration in warning words from the Bible. Recalling Paul’s words that a time will come when some will not follow the Christian doctrine, but fables instead,19 Libavius wondered whether such was the nature of the Rosicrucian manifestos: did they not merely tell fabricated stories like evil spirits rather than prophesy the truth? To Libavius, Scripture was the ultimate authority for truth, and therefore true prophecies had to be consistent with biblical accounts.20 To prove his allegations against the Rosicrucians, he structured his text into 76 paragraphs in which he discussed thirteen Rosicrucian claims (“argumenta”) about their fraternity, philosophy, and mission.21 “The brethren,” he wrote, “warn that we should not consider [their arguments] for fictions,” but Libavius was not so easily convinced and instead tested their veracity in relation to religion, academic reform, and Paracelsian magic.22
18 Wels mistakenly argues that Libavius only cared for the development of natural- philosophical investigations and not for religious matters: Wels, “Die Frommigkeit der Rosenkreuzer-Manifeste,” 183.
19 2 Timothy 4:3-4: “For a time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after
their own lists shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears. And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”
20 Libavius, Analysis Confessionis, 3: “Vnde et Apostolus Paulus annunciato eugelio [sic] de Christo, Philosophis videbatur noua quaedam auribus eorum ingerere de daemonibus nouis, noua quaedam doctrina [...]. Noui quid nostrorum temporum Theologis et Philo- sophis a Societate Roseae Crucis proponitur. It cuisusmodi sit, non pruritu nouitatum in doctrina Christiana, de quo loquitur Paulus 2 Tim. 4.3. [...]. perpendendum est, sed iuxta regulam Paulinam 1 Thessal.5.20 ’prophetias nolite spernere. Omnia probate, quod bonum est, tenete’. Et Johannis 1.Joh.4.1. ’Nolite omni spiritui credere, sed probate spiritus, si ex Deo sint. Nam multi Pseudo-prophetae exierunt in mundum’. Sunt et vaticinia grauissima de apostasiis vltimorum temporum, de charitate frigida, et fide tam tenui, vt vix possit in terris inueniri. Non ergo extinguemus spiritum, neque spernemus prophetiam ante pro- bationem; sed faltem quid rei sit, confiderabimus.” 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21: “Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” 1John 4:1: “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.”
21 These arguments were followed by another 20, of which an overview can be found in: Libavius, Analysis Confessionis, 17-18.
22 Libavius, Analysis Confessionis, 3: “Monent fratres, ne pro figmentis habeamus ea, quae in
A General Reformation
To Libavius, it was precisely the Rosicrucian call for an earthly general reformation that was the most central, radical, and refutable aspect of the manifestos, and he referred to it even in the first sentence of his Analysis:
The society predicts a general reformation after the example of an earthly [reformation] shortly before the end of the world (which some say to take place in the year 1623, others in 1643, others in 1656, others in 1670, etc.).23
This sentence provides us with a snapshot of what Libavius considered most troubling: a comprehensive reformation, which would take place on earth and come to pass before the Last Judgement. In numerous places throughout the text, he returned to the brethren’s general reformation and problematised it from multiple perspectives.24
Libavius criticised the fallibility of the Rosicrucian general reformation, and argued that the brethren’s prophetic predictions of the future lacked the detail and evidence needed to substantiate their claims. He lamented the brethren’s assertion that:
the total reformation has its origin from God, which is indicated both by the harmonious union of the world, and by the appearance of the new stars in Serpentarius and Cygnus, which [for them] is a testimony concerning the divine will, and [concerning] sublime things and things of great moment.25
Libavius did not discuss these astronomical events as such, but considered the Rosicrucians’ claims to be lacking in detail, argument, and precision, and regarded them as unconvincing: “This argument is very obscure. And so it is to be explained what this instauration and renovation is; then who can learn this from the new stars and from the characters of the great world?”26
Fama sunt prodita, quaeque iam in Confessione proponuntur, cum nec nugae leuiculae sint, nec ex opinione vana fratrum profluant [...].”
23 Ibid., 2: “Societas generalem reformationem ad exemplum terrenae paulo ante mundi finem (quem alii dicunt futurum esse An. 1623. alij 1643: alij 1656: alij 1670 etc.) praedicit.”
24 Cf. ibid., 2-6, 8-12,17, 21-23, 25, 28.
25 Ibid., 3: “[...] verum ex Deo tota reformatio ortum habeat, id quod tum harmonica mundi conciliatio indicet, tum novarum stellarum apparitio in Serpentario et Cygno, quae sit testimonium de voluntate divina, deque sublimibus et magni momenti rebus, etc.” For the first part of this passage, see above, n. 22.
26 Libavius, Analysis Confessionis, 3: “Hoc argumentum valde est obscurum. Itaque
The brethren claimed authority over such matters, but Libavius questioned and problematised them:27 “When were your characters impressed on the world?”28 And if truly such a universal reformation were to occur, as the brethren had professed, Libavius wondered who would be granted such an “integrity of Paradise.” Solely the Rosicrucian society, or would it also extend beyond their fraternity? Would there be a reform only in their fatherland, orin the entire world? In one place, Libavius argued, the Rosicrucians professed that such enlightenment was selective, while elsewhere they argued that the reformation was uni- versal.29 He presumably referred to the promise contained in the Confessio that everyone is granted the right “to behold, read and thereafter to comprehend these great [celestial] letters of God,” whereas the manifesto taught earlier that “the Book of Nature is opened wide before the eyes of all, even though few can either read or understand it”—which in Libavius’ eyes contradicted the previous statement.30 The brethren, as Libavius pointed out time and again, were ambiguous and contradicted themselves. They are “seen to write falsities and deceive the world with empty hope.”31
This was neither a substantive rejection of Rosicrucianism, nor was it Libavius’ foremost criticism. The announcement of a general reformation was, in his view, a religious claim, and for that reason Scripture had to be the foundation for any legitimate Rosicrucian expression—but the brethren had made no references to the biblical account. Throughout his text, and implicitly invoking the Lutheran sola scriptura, Libavius argued that the Rosicrucian plan for a general reformation, as made public in their manifestos, did not agree with the plan of God as communicated in Scripture.
explicandum est, quae sit ista instauratio et renouatio: Deinde qui possit id ex stellis nouis, et mundi magni characteribus disci.”
27 Ibid., 4: “Quod aut attinet ad nouas stellas, et characteres, qua fide probatis vestras ex eis praedictiones? Video vos affere, ’utiles esse quidem ad id arcanas scripturas et charac- teres, sed licet magnus liber naturae omnibus pateat, tamen paucos esse, qui illum possint legere.’ Sensus est: a vobis ista singulariter in mundi libro lecta esse, utpote illuminatis.”
28 Ibid., 5: “Vestri characteres quando impressi sunt mundo?”
29 Ibid., 9: “Si reditura est integritas Paradisi, sane immunitas erit a molestiis, sed tunc nihil intererit, siue in societate sis, siue extra eam. Si autem ea non erit vniuersalis, sed tantum particularis, eos attinens, qui sunt membra societatis, videant de suo Christianismo.”
30 Confessio, 52, 55. Cf. above, sections 1.2. and 1.3.
31 Libavius, Analysis Confessionis, 10: “quo argumento quis vereatur, ne et vos sitis foris, qui
videmini falsitates scribere, et inani spe mundum lactare, nisi fortassis haec est mens vestra, quod non totus orbis sit futurus Paradisus, sed tantum vestra patria [...].” Libavius probably referred to: Confessio, 45: “Caeterum ut plerumque in eo ipso loco, ubi nova lues exsurgit, Natura remedium aperit, ita inter tantos Philosophiae paroxysmos, patriae nos- trae satis idonea, imo ad sanitatem unica media succrescunt, per quae revalescat et nova, vel renovata, mundo renovando appareat.”
Libavius’ criticism of the Rosicrucian general reformation in his Analysis was, to a large extent, directed at the Rosicrucians’ apocalyptic expectations and millenarian imagery. According to Libavius, the brethren had wanted their general reformation to take place in a future age of felicity. He specified that they had claimed that the world was yet to be renewed, that it was at the end of the period and would rush back towards its beginning.32 Libavius granted that renewal was announced in the gospel, and he quoted Isaiah 43:19, which cites the words of the Lord: “See I make everything new.” But, so Libavius explained, the Lord’s renewal did not refer to the new period of which the Rosicrucians prophesied, because it was “previously fulfilled by the Gospel preached by the Son.”33 With no announcement in biblical prophecies of another, second, renewal on earth, the belief that any such event could take place was not ten- able.34 Addressing the manifestos’ authors directly, Libavius argued that “about your restitution before the end of the world we have nothing in the prophecies, but rather the contrary.”35 He claimed that only after Christ’s Second Coming could there be a restitution of the world; the millennium lay not in the future, but presumably, as Luther had taught, in the past.
Even if Scripture had foretold that there should be a thousand-year Golden Age in the future, as Libavius suspected was the Rosicrucians’ conviction, he believed that the general reformation the Rosicrucians envisioned would still not take place. The Bible taught that such a millennium would be followed by a short period under the rule of Satan. But if that were the case, Libavius commented, “the reformation of the world will not be universal, but only a small group of saints will remain,” as was explained in the Book of Revelation 20. Even chiliasts would have to agree that Satan will rule after their proclaimed millennium and that perfection before the end would neither be universal nor
32 Libavius, Analysis Confessionis, 3: “Pag. 55. Mundus ad finem perductus absoluta periodo
festinat ad principium. P. 57. Mundus iam debet renouari.” Cf. Confessio, 43: “Jehova est qui mundo labascente, et propemodum periodo absoluta, ad principium properante Naturae ordinem invertit.”
33 Libavius, Analysis Confessionis, 3: “Nouimus quidem ex Esa.43.v.19. Devm dicere: ’Ecce facio omnia noua’: sed hoc pridem impletum est Euangelio per Filium praedicato.” Cf. Isaiah 43:19 (New International Version): “See I am doing a new thing! Now its springs up; do you not perceive it? I am making a way in the wilderness, and streams in the wasteland.”
34 Cf. Libavius, Analysis Confessionis, 21: “’Credimus enim, restitutionem omnium bonorum,
atque insuper etiam gloriae accefiionem, et vitam aeternam Electorum Dei’. At non ante finem mundi nihil tale fore, persuasum habemus, quia contrarium est in Prophetiis non mendacibus [...].”
35 Ibid., 4: “At de vestra restitutione ante finem mundi nihil habemus in vaticiniis, sed con- trarium potius.”
complete. According to Libavius, there could neither be perfection on earth “nor will the bad be removed before the arrival of Christ.”36
The promise of earthly perfection as stated in the manifestos was a claim perhaps even more problematic to Libavius than chiliasm, which was at least partly grounded in Scripture. Contradicting such claims, Libavius argued that “Christ has indicated to us signs of the world’s future destruction,” and “he has left behind nothing of your paradise-like happiness.”37 Hopeful expectations of earthly perfection were condemned in official Lutheran writings.38 Likewise for Libavius, it was only the final tribulations that could be expected: “The entire world is placed in wickedness, and the holy writings promise no beatitude to the militant Church, but they preach about the greatest evils.”39
Libavius explained that “the perfect restitution of everything is not expected in time, but after time.”40 Whereas the Rosicrucian manifestos had promised the return of original conditions to the world, and therefore the restoration of the state of Paradise,41 Libavius confirmed the Lutheran view that a restitution of paradise-like perfection was to take place when the righteous are allowed to enter the New Jerusalem. It could only be instigated by divine intervention and not by man or the Rosicrucians specifically, as the manifestos predicted. Commenting on Acts 3:21, Libavius stated:
36 Ibid., 21: “An vos Chiliastarum sententiam sequimini mille quidem annos fore aureum seculum, posteaque Sathanam liberatum seducturum. Quos? ’Gentes, Gog, Magog,’ Si ita est, vniuersalis non erit mundi reformatio, tantum paruus grex sanctorum restabit. Apoc 20. Imo hi, qui cum ’Christo’ regnaturi dicuntur annos mille, vers. 4. introducuntur decol- lati. Si vers. 5. Qui post Paradisum vestram sanctorum in terra erit ciuitas? Non autem desituros esse sanctos ante iudicium, indicat ’Paulus’ 1. Thess.4.17. Sed nec mali tollentur ante aduentum ’Christi’, Matth.24.30.& sequent. ’Millenarij’ non huius seculi vitam, sed alterius intellexerunt.”
37 Ibid., 5: “Saluator nobis indicauit signa mundi perituri. Matth. 24, et alibi. Vestrae felicitatis
Paradisiacae nulla reliquit qui tamen omnia a Patre audita exposuit Joh 15.15.”
38 Cf. above, section 1.3.
39 Libavius, Analysis Confessionis, 9: “Totus mundus in maligno positus est, et sacrae literae
nihil beatitudinis Ecclesiae militanti promittunt, sed de maximis malis concionantur.”
40 Ibid., 4: “Verum restitutio omnium perfecta, non in seculo expectanda est, sed post secu- lum.”
41 Cf. ibid., 4: “’Revocandus et mundus ad statum Paradisi ante lapsum [...].’ Pag 69. Bene obseruandum est, & singulis significandum, quod Deus certo & omnino devreuerit mundo ante interitum, qui paulo post continget, plane, ’talem veritatem, lumen, vitam, & gloriam conferre’, qualem primus homo Adam in Paradiso amisit.”
we know there will be a time of the restitution of everything: but through Christ returning from heaven to the Judgement, and this restitution will begin after the arrival of the visible Elijah or of John the Baptist [...].42
Interpreting John 16:20—“Your sorrow shall be turned into joy”—Libavius insisted that this joy would neither be man-made nor granted in the present world; and so he remarked: “In this life, then? Not at all: but in another, nota life before the [Last] Judgement which you dream up on account of Paracelsus, but a life which Christ grants to his elected after the Final Day.”43 The sins of the first humans had resulted in the Fall, and because of man’s sin God would not want the world freed from calamities, and so the Last Times will be characterised by punishment.44
Libavius further noted the Rosicrucians’ suggestion that the final age was to be accompanied by complete wisdom, which can be seen as equally unorthodox. While referring to biblical verses, he claimed that “[w]e believe that after the terrestrial time among the elect, there will be such a perfect restoration of the divine image as a sublime state of glory beyond our reckoning,” but not here on earth. Human beings may acquire the wisdom of the gospel, but no complete Adamic wisdom could be expected before the Last Days. The idea, voiced in the manifestos and by early Rosicrucian followers, that humans on earth may already be granted Adamic knowledge, was according to Libavius a dangerous illusion.45 So he argued that “the world cannot receive the spirit
42 Ibid., 4: “Videte fratres de Rosea Cruce, qui cum Verbo Dei vestra explicatio possit con- sistere. Scimus Act.3.v.2i. fore tempus dnoKaTasrise^c ndvTUV seu restitutionis omnium: sed Christo a coelo redeunte ad iudicium et eam restitutionem inchoari ab aduentu secundum apparentis Eliae seu Iohannis Baptistae, Matt. 17.11 consummari aditu gloriae, quod & tempus refrigerii iam manifestatis filiis Dei in gloria coelesti. Actor.3.20. & Matth.19.28 dicitur.” Cf. Confessio, 53-54: “Deum mundo haud longe post interituro, reddendam veri- tatem, Lucem et dignitatem decrevisse [...].”
43 Libavius, Analysis Confessionis, 9: “Joh.16.v.20 ’Amen, Amen, dico vobis: Plorabitis et fle- bitis vos: mundus autem gaudebit: vos contristabimini. Sed tristitia vestra vertetur in gaudium, etc’. Num in hac vita? Minime: sed in altera, non quam vos ante iudicium ex Paracelso somniatis, sed quam Christus post vltimum diem suis electis conferet.”
44 Ibid., 12: “Nunquam post lapsum Adami voluit Deus mundum ab infinitis calamitatibus liberari. Ideo enim maledicto et vanitati subiectus est, quia peccato est pollutus. Praeser- tim autem vltima tempora ob malitiae excessum poenis subiacent, iisque non paruis. Est enim immutabilis iustitia Dei, et lex Ge.2 et 3, promulgata.” Cf. ibid., 20: “Si tempora respicimus, iam a Christo fuerunt mala, estque in vaticiniis circa finem mundi pessima fore.”
45 Ibid., 5: “Post seculum in Electis tam reparationem diuinae imaginis perfectam, quam vltra cogitationes nostras sublimem gloriam fore credimus Coloss.3.v.10. Es.64.4. 1.Cor.2.9 Non si Adam sapiens fuit in Paradiso, homines tales ante extremum diem eo modo sunt reuersuri.
of truth: but the entire world is in wickedness.”46 Because of this, what was expressed in the manifestos could not be divine wisdom at all, and the brethren were nothing but enchanters who proposed an impossible method to acquire equally impossible wisdom.47 For Libavius, none of the Rosicrucian promises of earthly perfection were credible, because none had their origin in Scripture, and none agreed with official Lutheran doctrines. Libavius, itis clear, made sure to undermine the Rosicrucian general reformation on religious grounds.
Prophecy and Paracelsus
Libavius’ criticism of the Rosicrucians’ call for a general reformation also contained a critique of Paracelsianism, as Libavius suspected that the inspiration for the Rosicrucian reformation and their apocalyptic views came from Paracelsian sources. Thus also his rejection of the Paracelsian impetus of the manifestos was, at least in part, informed by religious objections. His Analysis was appended to the lengthy Consideration of the New Philosophy (1615), in which he discussed and refuted Paracelsian philosophy.48 From the opening page of the Analysis onwards, Libavius characterised the reformation plans put forward in the manifestos as “Paracelsian stupidities.”49 He drew attention to Paracelsus having predicted “from the stars a revolution, a reformation, a Golden Age, and a new paradise and other things, with the blossom of his doctrine, to take place around the year 58 (or according to others in 1558, or else 1638)”—all predictions that were also put forward in the Rosicrucian mani- festos.50 If the brethren’s source was not the Bible, it must be Paracelsianism,
Libenter damus sapientiam Euangelicam esse potiorem illa prima, si continuata fuerit vsque ad perfectionem: at haec non est illa vestrae reformationis.” Colossians 3 refers to the time after Christ’s coming when one should “put on the new man” (Colossians 3:10).
46 Libavius, Analysis Confessionis, 7: “[...] in mundo, qua est mundus, nihil nisi cadecum est.
Supra: Mundus spiritum veritatis non potest accipere: sed totus est in maligno.” The passage is reminiscent of 1 John 5:19: “And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.”
47 Libavius, Analysis Confessionis, 7: “Modum in fama ridiculum, et impossibilem proponitis, nisi putatis vos posse totum mundum incantamentis fascinare [•].”
48 Libavius, Examen philosophiae novae (1615). On Libavius about the Rosicrucian brethren as Paracelsians, see: Moran, Andreas Libavius, 239-246.
49 Libavius, Analysis Confessionis, 2, 5.
50 Ibid., 25: “[Paracelsus] ex astris reuolutionem, reformationem, aureum seculum, Paradisum nouam, et alia cum sua doctrinae flore circa annum 58. (aliquibus 1558, alias 1638) praedicere voluit, vti et ’Leonem a Septentrione’ commentus est cum alliis nonnullis [•]. Videntur fratres sua ex ’Paracelso’ non ex Dei voluntate hausisse. Vbi enim est Rosea crux in Euangelio? De ’spinosa Christi legimus, non de rosea’ omnium bonarum abundante.” According to Libavius, the predictions for the years 1658, 1558, 1638 were made by Johannes
a movement to which Libavius was already vehemently opposed. He suspected the Rosicrucians of distorting the Bible by reading it through a Paracelsian lens. When the brethren revealed their wish to correct the Church,51 Libavius believed that their correction was inspired by Paracelsus; and should they indeed “interpret the Scriptures in a Paracelsian manner,” their so-called “better and more perfect science” was in fact “more corrupt.”52
This was the case, for example, with the announcement of the coming of a lion. For Libavius, this was an idea as apocalyptic as it was heterodox. The figure of the lion, he insisted, had no origin in Scripture. Daniel 2 presented a dream about a statue made of four metals which were to represent four kingdoms until the end of the world, of which the first one was the kingdom of Babylon. None of them was ruled by a lion, and all would be shattered.53 Isaiah 41 furthermore spoke about a rising ruler from the north, but not about a lion. And so Libavius concluded that the Rosicrucian conception of a lion who would rule a future age did not follow from “the right principles” or from, again, the Bible, but it originated from “dreams” of “Anabaptists and stupid Paracelsians.”54 In response to the Rosicrucians’ reference to the wonders of the sixth age, Libavius argued that Daniel speaks of only four kingdoms and not of six, that the kingdom of the elect will be in eternity, and that “[t]he God of Daniel knew nothing about your Golden Age and about your king or lion.”55 Without a biblical basis, the
Wolf (1537-?), a religious reformer who wrote a work entitled Lectionum memorabilium et reconditarum centenarii xvi, which included prophetic and astrological works, including one by Paracelsus.
51 Fama, 98-99.
52 Libavius, Analysis Confessionis, 6: “Quo modo in doctrina et moribus fratres Ecclesiam per
totum mundum dispertam poterunt corrigere? [...] Vos ne meliorem & perfectiorem sci- entiam dabatis? Imo, si scripturas more Paracelsico exponetis, corruptiorem.”
53 Daniel 2:31-45.
54 Libavius, Analysis Confessionis, 25: “Nos opinamur, id quod de Leone ab Oriente & Septent-
rione Cabalistae & Magi garriunt, non sumtum esse ex principiis propriis, seu ex Esaiae capite quadragesimo primo, verso vegesimo quinto: ’Suscitabo a Septentrione, & Veniet ab ortu solis. Is praedicabit in nomine meo, & ibit super Principes quasi super iurum, & sicut figulus conculcat limum’ [...]. Sed Anabaptistae & stolidi Paracelsistae ad sua somnia liberaliter trahunt.” Isaiah 41:25: “I have raised one up from the north, and he shall come: from the rising of the sun shall he call upon my name: and he shall come upon princes as upon morter, and as the potter treadeth clay.”
55 Libavius, Analysis Confessionis, 10: “Itaque pag. 59. et 63. occupatis: ’Quod secreta nostra
offerimus, id varias cogitationes excitabit’ apud hos, quibus miranda sext aetatis non- dum sunt nota: vel qui ob mundanum cursum, seu morem futura (in hoc tamen seculo) praesentibus paria aestimant, quique variis incommodatibus temporum suorum impedi- untur, vt non aliter in mundo viuant, quam coeci [sic]. Haec est vestra prolepsis [...]. Nos inspeximus Danielis statuam, et inuenimus non sex, sed quatuor regna secularia tantum,
Rosicrucian prophecy of a lion to rule a future period was nothing but a fiction. Evidently, because there could not be a future period, there could not be a future king, either.
Libavius thought that the origins of the lion figure could instead be found in the prophecy of “the lion from the north,”56 which had been published under Paracelsus’ name. He referred to the passage contained in that text concerning the treasures “protected by a certain lion, who will be the future king, and bring about a kingdom, and he will stabilise it with the treasures.” Libavius remarked that this Paracelsian prophecy had also been taken up by Haslmayr.57 According to Libavius, the Rosicrucians must have had recourse to this prophecy, as he believed was evident from the very first response to the manifestos. By repudiating the apocalyptic figure that was to be responsible for its inception, Libavius also undermined, albeit indirectly, the Rosicrucians’ dreamt-of political empire.
Libavius even problematised the fact that the Rosicrucian lion would “occupy and convert the treasures of the society to use against the papists,” in his fight against the Antichrist.58 Noting that in some biblical passages the Antichrist was characterised by an abundance of wealth and treasures, Libavius cited Daniel 11:43, which states about the King of the North that he “will have power over the treasures of gold and silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.”59 For most Protestants, this description of the Antichrist represented the pope and papacy, and the notion of a papal Antichrist is one of the very few instances where the Rosicrucians agreed with an official Lutheran position. Libavius, however, did not identify this Antichrist, or at least not solely, with the papacy. He implied that the Rosicrucian lion—which in his view was identical with the Paracelsian Lion of the North—was a representation of the biblical King of the North and thus of the Antichrist. He suspected the Paracelsians and Rosicrucians not only
quorum diebus Deus regnum Ecclesiasticum Electorum, quod erit aeternum, et non de hoc mundo, exuscitaturus sit. Deus Danielis de vestro aureo seculo et Rege, seu Leone nihil nouit.”
56 Ibid., 25, cf. above, n. 50.
57 Ibid., 25: “Ad thesauros quod spectat, eos aliquoties liberalissime omnibus offerunt, & alicubi ’imperatori Romano’ [...]. At iam seruantur cuidam ’Leoni, qui rex sit futures, regnum excitaturus, idque Thesauris stabiliturus. Paracelsi’ id somnium est, quod & Hasel- meierus admiratur.” On Haslmayr, see above, section 4.1.
58 Libavius, Analysis Confessions, 2: “[...] quo tempore Leo quidam Thesauros societatis sit occupaturus et conuersurus in usum contra Pontificios etc.”
59 See: Daniel 11.43. Cf. Libavius, Analysis Confessionis, 19: “In vaticinio ’Danielis’, quod ad Antichristum accommodant c.11.v.43, scriptum extat: ’dominabitur thesaurorum auri et argenti, et in omnibus preciosis Aegypti’.”
of falsely claiming to fight the Antichrist, but, more importantly still, he suspected them of being themselves the manifestation of that abominable figure that was to come at the end of time: They had boasted of having treasures originating from Egypt, which would one day be possessed by the lion:
Paracelsus also speaks of treasures of Egypt: and you [Rosicrucians] whisper about treasures. If the valuables of Egypt are ascribed to the Antichrist, watch out that you do not attract the Antichristian suspicion and opinion by that, as if your College were the Antichrist’s [...].60
Libavius possibly drew on On the Tincture of the Natural Philosophers, which was at the time attributed to Paracelsus and which described treasures that were known to the wise of Egypt. Its author claimed to possess these treasures, which could be used, he explained, for either the renovation of the body (medicine) or for the transmutation of metals and the making of gold (alchemy).61 Because the Rosicrucians had these treasures in their possession, they revealed themselves to be one with the Antichrist. By connecting this pseudoParacelsian treasure with the Prophecy of Daniel and the figure of the Antichrist, Libavius suggested that the Rosicrucians aroused the suspicion that they were in league with the Antichrist himself: “Followers of the Antichrist investigate the treasures of the world with the eyes of eagles, and pull them by claws of crows: the fraternity offers treasures for free [...].”62 Just as many Protestants believed that the pope would be punished for his luxury, so Libavius predicted that the Antichristian brethren would be “tortured in hell” for their extravagant lifestyle hinted at by their claims.63 To Libavius, their religious reformation, characterised by their fight against the Antichrist, was not merely ridiculous but dangerous.
60 Libavius, Analysis Confessionis, 19: “Paracelsus item in ore habet ’Aegypti thesauros’: Et vos
spiratis thesauros. Si Aegypti preciosa Antichristo addicuntur, videte ne inde suspicionem et opinionem Antichristicam trahatis, quasi vestrum Collegium sit Antichristi [.].”
61 Pseudo-Paracelsus, De tinctura physicorum, i, 14; 397: “Weiter dieweil wir nun disen schaz
der Egypter in der hant haben, so wollen wir forthin sehen, wie wir uns den zu nuz machen und bringen sollen. Also fallet uns iezt aus disem spagirischen mysterio zweierlei nuz fur, der eine, wie sie auf die renovation corporis moge gewendet werden, der ander, wie sie auf die transmutationem metallorum sol gebraucht werden.”
62 Libavius, Analysis Confessionis, 19: “Enimuero sattellites Antichristi thesauros mundi aquilinis oculis inuestigant, et vnguibus coruinis attrahunt: Fraternitas offert thesauros gratis [.].”
63 Ibid., 13-14: “Lautitias vestras et aurei seculi somnia non possumus admittere, nisi in sec- ulo epulari cum diuite. Luc. 16. Vultis et postea in inferno cruciari, id quod multi Canonici et Monachi, pingues ventres experientur.”
These Antichristian characteristics, Libavius noted, were at odds with the brethren’s condemnation of the pope and Mohammed, and with their affirmation of the high esteem in which they held the Bible. In both instances, they had given the impression of assuring their readers that they were neither heretics nor rebels,64 thereby suggesting they adhered to the Lutheran confession, or at least a Protestant confession. Given their numerous views contradicting Lutheranism, Libavius dismissed the possibility that they could be taken for orthodox Lutherans; rather, their pronouncements seemed to represent a disguised version of the worldview espoused by the Anabaptists, members of that religious group detested by Lutherans and Calvinists alike.65 The Anabaptists had also condemned the pope, but their actions had been radical. Libavius referred to the violent Munster Rebellion of 1534-1535, which was led byJohn of Leiden (ca. 1509-1536). During the Rebellion, Anabaptist peasants attempted to establish their community within Munster’s city walls. Adherents of other confessions were forced to leave the city while their buildings were occupied or destroyed. The movement was radicalised when John of Leiden proclaimed himself King of Munster and successor of David, and he ruled the Anabaptists in Munster for a year under the pretence of divine inspiration while suppressing opposing voices.66
For Libavius, the Rosicrucian reformation and plans for change reeked of such radicalism, because “[e]ven marks of Anabaptism are in your Confession concerning that fictitious reformation, according to which, once the sinners have been destroyed, everyone will be like Adam in Paradise.”67 The Rosicrucian
64 Ibid., 8: “p. 55 ’non possumus suspecti esse haereseos, aut seditionis’. Cur? Quia damnamus
Papam et blasphemias Mahometis. Imperatori vero Romano sponte offerimus preces nostras, arcana et magnos auri thesauros.” Cf. ibid, 13: “’Laudamus commendationem Bibliorum’.” Libavius refers to: Confessio, 44: “[...] Orientis simul et Occidentis (Mahometen et Papam intellige) contra Jesum nostrum blasphemias detestamur [...]”; Confessio, 5758: “Illud itaque omittendum nobis minime est, ut dum aquilinae aliquot pennae nostris rebus moram tantillam ferunt, ad sacrorum Bibliorum unam, primam, assiduam, et per- petuam Lectionem adhortemur; quae si cui admodum placebunt, is multum se ad Fra- ternitatem nostram impetrandam profecisse sciat. Sicut ea Legum nostrarum summa: ne qua littera esset in tanto Mundi miraculo, quae memoriae non mandaretur: ita proximi ii, et maxime similes nobis, qui una Biblia suae vitae Regulam, suorum studiorum summam, Mundique universi compendium faciunt [.].” Cf. above, pp. 35-36, 50.
65 In his Well-intentioned Considerations, instead, Libavius considered the manifestos so elu
sive that he argued that it was unclear to which sect or confession they belonged: Libavius, Wohlmeinendes Bedencken, 64-66. Shackelford argues that Libavius understood Rosicru- cianism as a Calvinist outburst, but evidence for this suggestion is lacking: A Philosophical Path, 337-338.
66 Stupperich, “Bockelson,” in Neue deutsche Biographie, vol. 2, 344-345.
67 Libavius, Analysis Confessionis, 8: “At inquam argumentum ignorat Elenchum. Neque
reformation was as radical as the Anabaptists’ uprising in Munster, aimed at the establishment of paradise on earth. Like John of Leiden, they pretended to be divinely inspired, but for Libavius they made claims that revealed the opposite.
Academic Reform and Paracelsian Magic
Besides these apocalyptic objections to the general reformation, Libavius worried about the Rosicrucians’ intentions for academies, arts, and sciences, which he believed were equally radical. As an academically taught teacher and physician, he associated himself with those institutions he believed the authors of the manifestos had wished to abolish or change, and he was determined to defend academic culture and practice against their criticism. As a rector in Coburg, for example, he upheld the teaching of grammar, rhetoric, and Aristotelian dialectic.68 Considering the Rosicrucians’ call to reform the arts and the Church,69 he acknowledged that the contemporary sciences were imperfect, but how could they be otherwise when perfection was reserved for the New Jerusalem?70 The problem, for Libavius, was that the Rosicrucians wanted to establish a new truth by destroying the old one.71 He rejected the alleged need for reform of the academies, and questioned the suggestion that the foundations of knowledge should disappear:
enim libet a suspicione haeresis est, qui Papam et Mohameten damnat, vt Antitrinit- arii, Anabaptistae, Praedestinatiani, etc. Quin Anabaptismi vestigia sunt in confessione vestra de fictitia illa reformatione, qua deletis improbis omnes sint futuri, vt Adam in Paradiso. Ita alibi Thesauros vestros iustam causam foventi ad debellandos adversarios pro- mittitis. Oblitine sumus belli Enthusiastici, & Anabaptistici in Westphalia, Rege quodam Leidensi?”
68 Moran, “Medicine, Alchemy, and the Control of Language,” 137.
69 Libavius, Analysis Confessionis, 6: “Societas est adeunda. Quia proponit 1. ’defectus’ nostrarum artium (quae hactenus in scholis viguerunt) 2. ’remedium: 3 certa indicia’ sequen- tium seculorum. 4. ’argumenta quibus sequentia cum praecedentibus debeant concordari. 5. Ecclesiae defectus. 6. Philosophiae moralis,’ (Ethice, Politicae, Oeconomicae) correc- tionem. 7 ’res nouas’, que antiquae Philosophiae (quae imperfecta, morbida, fereque iam in agone est, de quo nullum dubium est societati) minime congruunt: 8. ’noua axiomata per quae possunt saluari, vel omnia dubia explanari’.” Cf. Confessio, 47.
70 Libavius, Analysis Confessionis, 6: “Agnoscamus tamen defectum. Ratio est, quia multa nos
latent, differendaque sunt in seculum aetemitatis [...] Hae peccato sunt obscuratae, & instrumenta nostra secularia non possunt ferre perfectionem absolutam.”
71 Ibid., 12: “Obiicis: Veritas noua non potest locum habere, nisi prius destructa (veritate) antiqua. Neque enim nouo permutari in eodem loco domicilium potest, nisi vetere ruinoso sublato.”
Who will finally preach by argument in so many churches and schools? What will be the benefit of the theological, judicial, and other interpretations erected on the fundaments of our arts and strongly opposed to heretical things and other errors? Will not every attempt undertaken and obtained hitherto in the most weighty controversies be destroyed?72
In his assessment, the alternative the Rosicrucian brethren offered remained vague, and Libavius expected it would be destructive to the hard-won consensus on difficult questions. He rejected both the Rosicrucian promise of perfect earthly studies as well as their vague proposals of reform: “If the old philosophy should be destroyed, what kind will be the new one, lest we are deceived by an empty name?”73 In his view, the brethren had no arguments as to why the old philosophy should be abolished, and he demanded: “if our philosophy and theology is bad, demonstrate this: if not, why the change?”74 The proposed reformation of both these fields must have seemed offensive to this guardian of the academic establishments. Traditional truths, he insisted, needed no perfection: in theology, the truth is contained in the Gospel, and the Rosicrucian texts provided no additional theological truths.75 As for philosophy, he acknowledged that it had been prone to error in the past, but from “the light of the divine truth” its false steps have already been revealed.76 A renovation neither of theology nor of philosophy was necessary.
What was worrisome to our academic spokesman was the Rosicrucian alternative to established arts and sciences, which was, Libavius believed, Paracelsian magic. Having already dismissed, in the Consideration of the New Philosophy, the new philosophy of Paracelsus and his followers, with its Hermetic and occult tendencies, Libavius criticised the “Rosicrucian sect” for similar reasons. He concluded that one did not need “magical Paracelsians and those
72 Ibid., 6: “Deinde quis persuadebit tot Ecclesiis et scholis? Quid proderunt interpreta- menta Theologica, Iuridica, et alia ex fundamentis artium nostrarum extructa, et haereti- cis, aliisque erroribus fortiter opposita? An non omnis conatus hactenus in controuersiis grauissimis adhibitus, et obtentus pessumibit?”
73 Ibid., 6: “Si vetus philosophia deleri debet, qualis erit noua, ne nomine circumducamur nudo?”
74 Ibid., 13: “Ita vos fratres, si Philosophia et Theologia nostra mala est, demonstrate hoc: Si non, quorsum mutatio?”
75 Ibid., 13: “Quod ergo argumentum attinet, societas non est adeunda arcis nouae veritatis caussa, quia antiquius verius. Si veritatem iam habemus, ad noua declinare fas non est [...]. Est ergo iam arx veritatis Canonicae Scripturarum authenticarum septis circundata: nec est nisi ’vnum de vno’ verum [...]. In Theologicis igitur veritas a vobis nulla potest extrui.”
76 Ibid., 13; cf. below, n. 77. See also: Libavius, Exercitatio Paracelsica nova, 289-290.
phantasiasts, who draw up stories about the living or vital philosophy.”77 As we have seen in Chapter Two, Paracelsus believed that the world consisted of, and was animated by, life forces, an immaterial reality immanent in the material visibility. In the works of several later Paracelsians, such as Petrus Severinus, this idea mingled with corpuscularism, namely with the worldview constituted when the original notion of atoms became incorporated into the concept of the living semina. This notion supported the understanding of an inner vitality in nature, which was represented in a vital philosophy.78 Libavius also identified atoms as living semina,79 but when attacking the Rosicrucians he believed them to have endorsed Paracelsian fables about the vital philosophy, which he claimed offended God and were contaminated by magic. Libavius had already attacked the Paracelsian interpretation of the vital philosophy in his Consideration, when refuting the philosophy of the Paracelsians Severinus and Hart- mann.80 He now related the proclaimed Rosicrucian reformation of the arts and sciences to Paracelsian novelties, and wished to shield university education from such fanatical ideas:
We already smell the breath of detestable magic: because from which other source would either your supplement or correction [to the sciences] flow than from the magic, Cabala, and similar absurdities of Paracelsus? So the remedy is suspect.81
According to the Fama, Christian Rosencreutz had been taught Cabala in Fez, where he had learned about the secrets of nature. When the authors of the manifestos claimed to study the secrets of the world, Libavius explained, they in fact professed “the science of these secrets through magic, Cabala, and
77 Libavius, Analysis Confessionis, 13: “Philosophia fuit erronea. At haec lumine veritatis diuinae, et experientia iam ita est illustrata, vt qui aliam vobis velit obtrudere, eum pro falsario habeamus, sicut magos Paracelsicos, et Phantastas illos, qui de viuente, seu vitali Philosophia fabulas conscribunt.” On Libavius’ criticism of Paracelsus and Paracelsians, see, for example: Moran, Andreas Libavius.
78 Shackelford, “Transplantation and Corpuscular Identity in Paracelsian Vital Philosophy.” On semina, see: Hirai, Le concept du semence; Moreau, “Elements, atomes, et physiologie,” 123-178.
79 Newman, Atoms and Alchemy, ch. 3.
80 Libavius, Examen philosophiae novae, 88 ff.
81 Idem, Analysis Confessionis, 6: “Societas est adeunda. Quia proponit 1. defectus nostrarum artium (quae hactenus in scholis viguerunt). 2. remedium. [...] nos iam olfacimus Magiae detestandae halitum: Nam ex quo alio fonte scaturiet vestrum seu supplementum, seu correctio, quam ex Magia, Cabala, et similibus Paracelsi ineptiis? Itaque remedium est suspectum.”
similar Paracelsian arts,” which cannot make anything “without the help of spirits and without imposters.”82
In this context, Libavius was particularly taken aback by Haslmayr’s Answer, published together with the Fama and Confessio, wherein he “has ordered you to come, and to change the entire philosophy and to repair the defects of theology, and to shape the state after the form of the magi in Damcar”83—that is, to reform the three realms of religion, politics, and knowledge. Haslmayr had associated the Rosicrucians with Paracelsian thought, but he had not referred to Damcar. But since Rosencreutz had wanted to establish his society in imitation of those he had encountered during his sojourns in the Arab world, Libavius linked the Rosicrucians’ magic to their presumed Muslim sympathies. They may have condemned Mohammed, he observed, but in fact their magic was heretical and dangerous not only for its Anabaptist and Paracelsian characteristics, but also for what he believed were Islamic features: “Oh those happy and fortunate, who have not entered into the society of the Rose Cross, because it is entirely magical and impure, and it smells of peculiar Anabaptist folks because of Paracelsus, the impious Arabs, and the cursed [Islamic] Mauritani- ans.”84
According to Libavius, the Rosicrucian brethren had suggested that their wisdom came from God, but in his view the magic they professed was the same as that of the Arabs and Paracelsians, and was diabolical.85 For magic, he explained, could only come about through communication with the devil, as was confirmed by Paracelsians and “magicians” from the past.86 Whereas
82 Ibid., 8: “Ab omni enim aeuo compertum est, nihil vanius esse magia, et qui profitentur scientiam arcanorum istorum per Magiam, Cabalam, et similes artes Paracelsicas, Teche- licas, Artefianas, etc. eos ’sine spirituum auxilio et imposturis’ nihil potuisse.”
83 Ibid., 22: “[...] Haselmejerus iussit vos venire, vosque ipse totam Philosophiam immutare Theologiae defectus sarcire, vt Politias ad ’Magorum in Damear’ [sic] formam componere desideratis.”
84 Ibid., 22: “O felices et beatos eos, qui non ingrefii sunt societatem de Cruce Rosea, quia tota est magica, et impura, sapitque Anabaptisticum singulare genus ex Paracelso, Arabibus impiis, et Mauritanis execratis.” Elsewhere Libavius claimed that Christian Rosencreutz had travelled to Mauritania: Libavius, Wohlmeinendes Bedencken, 50.
85 Libavius, Analysis Confessionis, 8: “Probare debet societas, Deum reuera offerte ista secreta [.]. Suspitio itaque est, nomen Dei tantum esse praetextum professioni magicae ex Arabia et Mauritania, vel Paracelso haustae.”
86 Ibid., 8: “Nimirum hic est ille praetextus Diabolicus, quo Paracelsus, Crollius, Tritemius, Scotus, Agrippa, Simoniani, Basilidiani, Menandirini, etc. haeretici: Zoroaster, Osthanes, Tiridates, Apollonius, Tyanaeus, Zyto Bohemus, Actius, Nauius, Numa, et similes exec- rabiles magi suam abominabilem artem palliant, licet explodendi, ridendique omnes, cum nihil mirabilium sine Diabolorum commercio vnquam praestiterint, et inanibus ver
academies were illuminated by the divine truth, Paracelsians and Rosicrucians were magicians who had been seduced by Satan and who wanted to contaminate universities. Their supposed remedy to the sciences could not be trusted, unless they use Scripture rather than untrustworthy documents “from the extasies of enthusiasts, or from the stupid prophecies of Paracelsus, fanatic astrology, overcome by visions, etc.”87 Without the evidence of a foundation in Scripture, Libavius dismissed the Rosicrucian reformation of philosophy and scientia.
The reformation announced in the manifestos included also the reform of medicine, so that Libavius made sure to attack the proposed reform of this art as well, which he believed to be equally magical. As an alchemist, he recognised the use of alchemy in Paracelsian recipes, and his criticism of Paracelsus and Paracelsianism was never directed against alchemical medicine or spagyria as such. In that sense, he moved between the Hippocratic-Galenic tradition and the new Paracelsian medicine.88 What he considered problematic and diabolical was the use of “superstitious” alchemy: the Paracelsians’ art of making the philosophers’ stone and a universal medicine.89 Some Paracelsians, he wrote, searched for the “philosophical stone” and for the universal medicine, while others took their medicine from chiromancy (palm reading).90 These were the types of alchemy that were propagated in pseudo-Paracelsian writings like the Apocalypse of Hermes, On the Tincture of the Natural Philosophers,
borum ampullis linant chartas, quibus Sathanas seducit Paracelsistas praestigiosa vanilo- quentia circumductos.”
87 Ibid., 11: “Quod autem Dei defensionem et voluntatem praetenditis, temere est. Non enim inuenitis fidem, nisi documenta fidelia offeratis, non ex raptibus Enthusiasticis, Paracelsi fatuis Prophetiis, astrologia fanatica, visionibus victis, etc., sed Verbo Dei, quod plane con- trarium habetis.”
88 In his Pro defensione syntagmatis chymici contra reprehensiones Henningi Scheunemanni, Libavius wrote, for example: “I also count Paracelsian recipes among the ones in my Alchemia, for I am not so hostile to Paracelsus as to say that there is nothing good in his writings. But I do not thereby want to be called a Paracelsian. Do you ask why? Because that word signifies a certain disposition and the entire profession of a certain faction,” cited in: Moran, Andreas Libavius, 151.
89 On Libavius’ battle against these types of alchemy, and his ambiguous stance towards the art of making gold, see: Moran, Andreas Libavius, 31-33,70-71,178, 248n67.
90 Libavius, Analysis Confessionis, 8: “Per totas descriptionem istarum artim Diabolicarum, licet Paracelsici eas pro naturalibus et diuinis proponant. Quidam lapidem Philosophicum et vniuersalem medicinam quaesiuerunt, et adhuc quaerunt: alii in mistis inuestigant essentias, et medicinas eliciunt ope cuiusdam chiromantie, quae signaturas rerum doceat, et anatomias.”
and the Manual, while chiromancy was described in the spurious On the Nature of Things.91
Libavius may have had such pseudo-Paracelsian tracts in mind when rebutting the manifestos. Like the authors of these writings, the brethren claimed to have the universal medicine in their possession. With such a cure, Libavius remarked, they could abolish Galenic medicine, in fact all medicine, and make use of this “single axiom” only.92 He mockingly suggested that all those people suffering from poverty and diseases or desiring to acquire long life could find respite in the fraternity:93 “Whoever does not want to fear hunger, poverty, diseases and old age, bring yourself to the society of the Rose Cross.”94 The Rosicrucian reform of medicine was deceptive: universal medicines were not to be trusted, and Paracelsians and Rosicrucians alike merely deceived their readers with foolish promises; so Libavius further vented his disdain: “But you have the renovating panacea and many magical antidotes. So you will pass away not as old men, but as youngsters of many years, [ just] like your Paracelsus and other Paracelsians [...].”95 For Libavius, the irony lay in the well-known fact that Paracelsus had not reached old age, but had died prematurely, presumably as a result of quicksilver poisoning.96 He jokingly suggested that the Rosicrucian brethren wished to follow Paracelsus’ example: their universal medicine was in fact a means to a premature death, and so indeed they would not suffer from old age. It was evident to Libavius that Paracelsians had falsely ascribed magical powers to Paracelsus, and the Rosicrucian promises were equally
91 Pseudo-Paracelsus, De natura rerum, i, 1; 320 ff. Cf. Chapter 2. Two relevant authentic works
by Paracelsus include: Paracelsus, Zweifruhe Ausarbeitungen uber das Podagra, i, 11; 384 ft; idem, Astronomia Magna, i, 12; 4-444.
92 Libavius, Analysis Confessionis, 13: “Arg iix. ’si in vna veritate est acquiescendum eaque
compendiose inuenitur apud societatem haec est adeunda illud est. Et hoc ergo’. Ratio connexionis est: Si enim non est adeunda societas pro veritate compendio discenda, per multas ambages erit ad eam tendendum. Nam alias per longos circuitus, et perplexitates quaeri solet [.]. Responderi potest, non probari id quod probandum erat, nempe veri- tatem illam vnam sine ambagibus apud societatem inueniri, et alibi non tam explanare, et summatim disci posse. Vestro dicere non sumus contenti [.]. et vos si ’Panaceam’, qua gloriamini, habetis, potestis totam Medicinam abrogare, et vnico axiomate omnem vim eius complecti.”
93 Ibid., 13-15, arguments ix-xii.
94 Ibid., 13: “Qui non vult famem, egestatem, morbus, & senectutem timere, conferat se ad societatem de Rosea Cruce.”
95 Ibid., 14: “Sed vos Panaceam renouatoriam et magica plurima alexicaca habetis. Itaque non senes, sed iuuenes multorum annorum deceditis, vt Paracelsus vester et alii Paracelsistae [.].”
96 On Paracelsus’ death, see: Harrer, “Zur Todeskrankheit des Paracelsus.”
unbelievable.97 Paracelsians and Rosicrucians pretended to practise science, be physicians, and have wisdom, but instead their science was magic and they themselves were unable to restore health to diseased bodies.
It comes as little surprise that Libavius dismissed the panacea also on religious grounds. Another reason for Libavius’ problem with the promised panacea and its alleged promise of eternal and healthy lives could be found in the Holy Scriptures. On the matter of eternal youth, the Bible taught that even the old Patriarchs were mortal. Abraham and Sara, Libavius explained, were old and affected by their age, just like Isaac (Genesis 18:11-12; Genesis 2y:i).98 Given that the Rosicrucians could never possess a magic that made them less mortal than the Patriarchs, “[i]t follows from this that you cannot be immune from diseases and old age, irrespective of whether you have the stone, or tinctures, or seals and other constellations.”99 After all, restoring bodies to original perfection and paradisiacal conditions, free from diseases and the poison of death, would imply that perfection was possible before the end of the world, thanks to magical means and without divine intervention—a conception Libavius, like all mainstream Lutherans, condemned.
In sum, for Libavius, the Rosicrucians’ general reformation could be refuted in many ways, and for three reasons in particular: its millenarian imagery, its attempt to alter academic education, and its Paracelsian inspiration. The latter objection is unsurprising, given Libavius’ many attacks on Paracelsus and his followers; but his dismissal of the Rosicrucian reformation on confessional grounds is salient. His views were akin to those of orthodox Lutherans, even though his response was written at a time, the 1610s, when several Lutherans had already come to accept a so-called “millenarian” worldview.100
Libavius presented himself not just as a spokesman for institutional learning and an opponent of Paracelsianism, for which he is well known, but also as the mouthpiece of orthodox Lutheranism, horrified as he was by apocalyptic
97 Libavius, Analysis Confessionis, 13: “Paracelsus sine morbo non decessit, qui tamen in manuali, & alibi grandia a se praestita per tincturam scribit. Magicis sigillis, Gamaheis, characteribus, & similibus crepundiis eam vim asscribunt Paracelsici, sed falso. Si viueretis in insulis fortunatis, vbi nulla est corruptio, crederem.”
98 Ibid., 14.
99 Ibid., 14: “Sequitur ex his, vos non posse immunitatem a morbis, et senectute habere, siue lapides habeatis siue tincturas, siue sigilla et alia constellata.” In margins: “Quidam lapidem habuerunt, sed nullos nec suos nec aliorum morbos sustulerunt, nedum diu vi lapidis vixerint.” Libavius refers to Genesis 47:9, Psalms 90:7, Genesis 18:11-12, Genesis 27:1, Deuteronomy 30:20.
100 On this, see especially: Penman, “Repulsive Blasphemies”; idem, “Climbing Jacob’s Ladder”; idem, “Between Utopia and New Jerusalem”; idem, Hope and Heresy.
promises of future earthly perfection and further reform. These three aspects— the so-called millenarian views, the call for reform, and the Paracelsian inspiration—served as grand themes under which Libavius discussed or touched upon many elements related to the Rosicrucian call for a general reformation: the reform of religion, politics, and knowledge, the Antichrist, the lion of the North, the hopeful messengers in Serpentarius and Cygnus, the notion of perfect wisdom before the end of the world, the optimistic conception of time, and the reform of medicine. Each of these elements he discussed, ridiculed, and sought to discredit. In this context, he dismissively referred to Haslmayr twice, whose Answer had by this time spread widely, but who had promoted almost none of these themes. Haslmayr had not argued in favour of a new earthly period or another earthly reformation, but his was the only name that was publicly associated with the Fama and Confessio. Haslmayr was also a proclaimed Paracelsian, a Catholic, and held apocalyptic views—which must have been reasons enough for Libavius to reject him.
Fludd: Academic Reform and Magical Aspirations
The year after the publication of Libavius’Analysis, Robert Fludd felt compelled to defend the brotherhood against what he considered unwarranted criticism. Fludd had matriculated in medicine at Oxford and entered the College of Physicians in London in the early 1600s, after many failed attempts resulting from his hesitant acceptance of Galenism.101 He was a friend of the physician William Harvey (1578-1657), whose theories on the circulation of blood he supported,^ and he was involved in a famous dispute with Kepler, which included various cosmological matters.103 He was also alleged to have been a friend of Michael Maier, but this suggestion has recently been challenged.104 Although Fludd, through his profession, was acquainted with academics, his writings were far from scholarly. He was a Hermetic philosopher and is known for his Hermetic and medical ideas, astrological aspirations, and magical theories. This
101 Fludd, Apologia Compendiaria, 22; Debus, “Fludd, Robert,” in Dictionary of Scientific Biography, vol. v, 47.
102 Huffman, Robert Fludd, 20.
103 On Fludd’s controversy with Kepler, see: Yates, Giordano Bruno, ch. 22; Anman, “The Musical Theory and Philosophy of Robert Fludd”; Schmidt-Biggemann, “Robert Fludds Streit mit Johannes Kepler”; Luthy, “What Does a Diagram Prove that Other Images do Not? Images and Imagination in the Kepler-Fludd Controversy.” On Fludd’s controversy with Mersenne and Gassendi, see for example: Schick, Das altere Rozenkreuzertum, 265270; Hutin, Robert Fludd, 52.
104 For literature suggesting that Fludd and Maier were friends, and for literature casting doubt on this thesis, see: Tilton, Quest for the Phoenix, 27n109.
figure 13 Robert Fludd, Utriusque cosmi historia, Wellcome Collection
worldview was given its fullest expression in The Metaphysical, Physical, and Technical History of the Two Worlds, Namely the Greater and the Lesser (16171621).105
Fludd’s reputation was largely due to his work as a defender of the Rosicrucians. His first defence of the Rosicrucians appeared in A Short Apology (1616), in which he explicitly referenced and refuted Libavius’ attack. In this text, he explained his desire to become a Rosicrucian, a role for which he thought himself well suited, being a nobleman and physician.106 He, like many other Rosicrucian enthusiasts, read the manifestos as messengers of hope. Each of those aspects that Libavius most refuted, Fludd promoted emphatically. He relished in the promises of improvement and thought to perceive evidence enough for the need of it. And whereas Libavius set down his objections struc-
105 Fludd, Utriusque cosmi, maioris scilicet et minoris, metaphysica, physica, atque technica his- toria (1617-1621).
106 Idem, Apologia Compendiaria, 22: “Quis ego, paucis accipite, qui nempe comitibus vestri ordinis ultimum me libentissime facerem, quo aures humanas bibulas digniori et certiori vestrae laudis susurrro [sic] permulcerem, nomine ut supra seu Flud, natu satis nobilis, sed minimus: gradu Med.D. sede Londinensis.”
turally by means of an array of careful arguments, Fludd seized the opportunity to refute them all at once. The Fama, he wrote, had “passed through almost all provinces of Europe and reached our ears at last.” “Thus,” he asked, “why is the monastery of their order not sought out diligently,” and “why are [the manifestos] to be rejected so easily?”107 He was quick to dismiss the attempt of Libavius to critically examine the fraternity and its mission statements. For Fludd, Libavius’ Analysis represented nothing but the “bitterness and envy of a pen.”108 So he took upon himself the tasks of investigating the fraternity and of defending it against the “groundless accusations of D. Libavius and others,”109 to cleanse the society from the dirt that had been thrown at it, and to reveal the society’s true splendour. Fludd’s project was twofold: on the one hand, he needed to refute Libavius’ criticism; on the other hand, he aimed to communicate the true intentions and merits of the society.
When Fludd responded to Libavius, he was not doing so as an academic physician. As a physician, he used Paracelsian recipes and cures, but his basic objection to Libavius concerned apocalypticism. Like Libavius, he had recourse to the Bible, and he used biblical passages—sometimes the same passages as Libavius had—but, conversely, to the advantage of the Rosicrucians. He was well aware of Libavius’ reference to 1 Thessalonians 5, which suggested that one should test all prophecies and maintain the good ones.110 Fludd also used that passage to explain the need to investigate the Rosicrucian manifestos. But he did not start by discussing the Rosicrucian general reformation, which had informed the main thrust of Libavius’ attack. Instead, he aimed to show the divine origin and nature of the manifestos, and in doing so he touched upon the Rosicrucians’ reform plans and the elements related to it.
When contesting Libavius’ criticism, Fludd set out to logically demonstrate the origin of the Rosicrucians’ revelations: were they indeed, as Libavius had
107 Ibid., 6-7: “Fama Societatis de Rosea Cruce omnes fere Europae provincias peragravit et tandem ad aures pervenit nostras, admirabilem ipsius scientiam in arcanis tam divinis quam naturalibus e buccinando. Cur igitur non est huius ordinis coenobium diligenter inquirendum, et inquisitione inventum tandem adeundum cum liberaliter, sua sponte, nulla adhibita vi et gratuito se nobis oblaturum scriptis et sermonibus divulgatum sit. Aut cur ita leviter reijcienda sunt [...]?”
108 Ibid., 7: “Cui certe dubio respondere videtur D. Libavius in sua Analysi confessionis fra- ternitatis de Rosea Cruce: in qua plus amaritudinis et calami malevolentiae (scripta eius diligenti intuitu perpendendo) deprehendemus quam radicalis rei inquisitionis.”
109 Ibid., 7: “Hinc igitur est quod in fraternitatis causam descendam, eamque tam telis ipsius proprijs quam ex pharetra aliena depromtis contra calumniosas hasce D. Libavij et alio- rum aspersiones defendere animo proposuerim.” Itis unclear who Fludd had in mind here as other attackers on the Rosicrucians.
110 Ibid., 6. Cf. Libavius, Analysis Confessionis, 3. 1 Thessalonians 5:20-22: “Despise not proph- esyings. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Abstain from the appearance of evil.”
argued, the result of communication with the devil, or did they have divine origins? The first step in challenging Libavius’ accusations was to thoroughly investigate the matter at hand:
Let us therefore investigate and examine with concern the actions of these brethren and consider their practices and conditions with a sharp and earnest mind, and having reflected upon all things carefully, let us detect with the right mind and before the eyes of the intellect, and let us investigate whether the brethren here are from God or from the devil.111
Fludd examined the ways and extent to which the Rosicrucians were divinely inspired. He began by explaining how God, and more specifically the Holy Spirit, “is known from [His] gifts.”112 Already in the Bible, the Holy Spirit was characterised as the harbinger of gifts. According to 1 Corinthians 12:7, the gifts of the Holy Spirit should be used to the advantage of the common good.113 Appealing to these examples, Fludd explained how Moses and Aaron had received the Holy Spirit to “educate the people of God.”114 He presumably drew on 1 Corinthians 12 when he listed the many gifts that could be seen as signs and testimonies of the presence of the Holy Spirit:115
Therefore those who speak the truth, prophesy, see true visions, dream dreams, speak in new language, interpret Scripture, cast out demons, fully help and heal the sick, observe the divine teaching, do not resist the word
111 Fludd, Apologia Compendiaria, 12-13: “Inquiramus igitur et cum solicitudine perpenda- mus fratrum horum actiones, eorumque mores et conditiones acri et intento animo intueamur, omnibusque sedulo ponderatis, mente iusta comprehendamus et ante oculos intellectus, An fratres hi sint a Deo, aut a Diabolo, proponamus.”
112 Ibid., 13: “Invenimus, quod spiritus sanctus ex donis congnoscatur.”
113 1Corinthians 12:7: “But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal” (kjv); “Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good” (niv).
114 Fludd, Apologia Compendiaria, 13: “Legitur quod in unoquoque elucescant dona spiri- tus sancti ad communem utilitatem. 1 Corint. 12. Sic Moyses, Aron, et alij Patriarchae et Prophetae spiritum sanctum, non sui ipsius causa acceperunt, sed ut populum Dei docer- ent [...].”
115 Ibid., 13-14: “Sed ulterius adhuc inquirendum profendiusque speculandum, an cum cae- teris spiritus donis conveniant operationes et gesta eorum et primum quae sunt signa et testimonia ex quibus spiritus sancti praesentia in hominibus arguitur, propenso animo ruminemus: deinde vestigia eorum in confessione sua premamus et consequamur, pen- itusque introspiciamus quot testimorum [sic, supra: “testimoniorum”] praedictorum im- pressiones in ea investigantur.”
of God, work from the fruit of the Spirit, such as love, joy, peace, charity, generosity, humanity, goodness, mildness, moderation, purity: and do not pursue the works of the flesh, such as fornication, impurity, shamelessness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, murder, greediness, wrath, discord, and other such things—those are without doubt filled by God and His sacred Spirit, since these are those infallible indications about which we were instructed from the Holy Scriptures to recognise humans illuminated by the Holy Spirit, and to distinguish them from those of another kind.116
Having established which are the gifts of the Holy Spirit, the next logical step for Fludd was to “examine whether these gifts can be found in the fraternity or not.”117 Such a search, he believed, was easily carried out, because in similarity to Moses and Aaron the brethren wrote their prophecies to the advantage of all: “It is thus an important sign of the fruit of the Holy Spirit in the brethren that they also have set out in public their prophecies and sciences for the common good.”118 Further testimonies of the Holy Spirit’s presence within the fraternity included their speaking of the truth, their sincere lifestyle, and their observation of the divine teachings not from their own judgement but “from the Holy Spirit and the advice of God.”119 For Fludd, the brethren were demonstrably pious men, living apostolic lives and having received divine illumination. They were not inspired by the devil but by the Holy Spirit.
Fludd argued that such immediate illumination was possible for everyone, and was in fact consistent with certain passages in Scripture. He referred to
116 Ibid., 14: “Quicunque ergo veritatem loquuntur, vaticinantur, veras visiones vident somnia somniant, novis linguis loquuntur, Scripturam interpretantur, daemonia eijciunt, aegros perfecte curant et sanant, praecepta divina observant, verbo Dei non resistunt, fructus spiritus operantur, ut sunt Dilectio, Gaudium, Pax, Charitas, Liberalitas, Humanitas, Bonitas, Mansuetudo, Temperantia, Castitas: & opera carnis non exequuntur, qualia sunt Scort- atio, Impuritas, Impudentia, Idololatria, Veneficium, Inimicitia, Homicidium, Gula, Ira, Discordia, et id genus alia, hi procul dubio aDeo sunt et spiritu ejus sacrosancto pleni, quo- niam haec sunt indicia illa infallibilia quibus a sacris scripturis docemur homines spiri- tu sancto illuminatos cognoscere et ab illis alterius farinae distinguere.” See 1 Corinthians 12.
117 Fludd, Apologia Compendiaria, 13: “Examinemus igitur, an haec dona in fraternitate reperi- antur, necne.”
118 Ibid., 13: “Est igitur indicium fruitionis spiritus sancti in fratribus non exiguum quod in publicum etiam suas prophetias et scientias ad commune beneficium proposuerunt.”
119 Ibid., 15: “Videamus nunc fratrum confessionem, ex qua tandem diligenti examine de gradu in gradum facto, colligimus quod [...] veritatem loquantur [...], quoniam vitam syncere agunt: praecepta divina observent, quae scribunt se non impulsu sui arbitrij, sed spiritu sancto et Dei monitis hoc fecisse.”
Joel 2:28: “And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions.” For Fludd, divine inspiration did not need to be mediated by Scripture, and so he encouraged his readers to follow the example of the Rosicrucians and strive for spiritual gifts.120
Fludd subsequently addressed the accusation, made by Libavius, that the fraternity was using devilish magic, and that its brethren were suspect of sedition and diabolical delusions.121 Such accusations did not sit well with the Hermetic philosopher, Fludd, who invariably propagated the use of magic. He argued that Libavius tried to besmear the brethren with the charge of heresy without having properly examined the matter at hand.122 According to Fludd, the Rosicrucians were indeed occupied with magic, but this was laudable. In the manifestos magic was not explicitly addressed; much less could it be seen as a central element of their general reformation. They did speak of the microcosm-macrocosm analogy, the Book of Nature, and their own possession of the Adamic tongue to express divine secrets—but these philosophical elements were not specified as being magical. For Fludd, however, they provided sufficient evidence of their magical knowledge.
Fludd explained that there were two types of magic: the first originated from the Holy Spirit, and was a natural type of magic; the other came about through association with the devil and was called diabolical magic. This difference relates to the Renaissance distinction between natural magic and diabolical magic, the latter sometimes called ceremonial magic. Natural magic was considered acceptable and was related to natural philosophy, but diabolical magic was to be rejected. Natural magic was believed to come about by natural
120 Ibid., 11-12: “Exhortamur etiam amorem sequi et dona spiritualia appetere ut inde vati- cinemur. 1 Corinth. 14. Non, inquam, spernendae fratrum propositiones, cum sit possibile quod vera spiritus sancti eluminatio et plena cognitionis satietas a Deo etiam in singu- los hujus seculi homines concinne distribuatur, secundum illud prophetae Ioel 2. Deus per os Prophetarum suorum promisit, quod velit de suo spiritu effundere super omnem carnem, et filij et filiae hominum prophetabunt, et juvenes visiones videbunt, et senes somnia habebunt. Similiter pollicitus est se illis omnibus, qui eo nomine ipsum invoca- turi sunt, daturum Spiritum S. qui sit ipsos edocturus omnem veritatem. Luc. 12 Joh. 14. 15. Et alibi, Docebuntur omnes a Deo.”
121 Ibid., 7: “Nam uno loco fratres in seditionis suspicionem [Libavius] adduxit. Alibi eorum promissa perfici et patrari non posse contendit sine Magia detestanda aut praestigiis Diabolicis.”
122 Ibid., 7: “Deinde haeresi ipsos commaculare studet, veritatem fortassis mendacio contami-
nando, cum pro extrema iniustitita haberi soleat in re aliqua accusare alterum eumve criminis aut sceleris condemnare, tanquam effectibus, priusquam causa accurate explore- tur et debito modo examinetur.”
forces, while diabolical magic was performed by means of powers from the devil.123 Fludd reproached Libavius for having failed to distinguish between these two types of magic; Libavius had regarded all magic, especially that of the Paracelsians and Rosicrucians, as diabolical.124 But, according to Fludd, with their Confessio the brethren had “removed any imagination of deception,” and “therefore the suspicion of any diabolical art is to be removed from them by far, and to be despatched by humans to the furthest reaches of oblivion.”125 Instead of being practitioners of devilish magic, he claimed, the members of the fraternity practiced magic that was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Possibly still under the inspiration of 1 Corinthians 12, Fludd claimed that they were dedicated to the “true philosophy,” and performed their magic “by the admonition of the Holy Spirit, who is wont to teach everything not by deception, but by the very pure truth itself.”126 In his response to Libavius, Fludd concluded that the Rosicrucians’ philosophy, as the alternative to established learning, was sound, and that their reformation was justified.
Fludd’s discussion of magic had its origins in his own worldview, which is expressed in his book on the two worlds.127 He associated the Rosicrucians with Hermeticism and Renaissance magic, the traditions with which he himself had a close affinity.128 By arguing that the brethren had received their gifts and magic from the Holy Spirit, from which they taught about divine secrets,129
123 The distinction is complex and differed per philosopher. Ficino, Pico, Pomponazzi, and Agrippa, for example, distinguished natural magic from diabolic or black magic. On this difference, see, for example: Thorndike, History of Magic and Experimental Science, 8 vols.; Copenhaver, “Natural Philosophy: Astrology and Magic”; idem, Magic in Western Culture, 272-330; Zambelli, White Magic, Black Magic in the European Renaissance.
124 On this, see: Moran, Andreas Libavius, 244.
125 Fludd, Apologia Compendiaria, 8-9: “Quae quidem confessione (ni fallor) se de hoc cri- mine purgaverunt, omnemque seditionis imaginationem sustulerunt. Alibi etiam in con- fessione invenimus, quod Christum pure et syncere amplectantur, vitamque Christianam agant: unde omnis artis Diabolicae suspitio ab ijs procul est amovenda, inque ultimas obli- vionis oras ab hominibus releganda.” Cf. ibid., 9: “Nam qui Christum vere et syncere vene- rantur, majora virtute ejus sacrosancta complere et ad exitum faeliciter perducere pos- sunt, quam praestigiosis et vanis Diaboli illusionibus, a quibus fratres hos liberos omnino esse colligimus.”
126 Ibid., 9: “[...] quoniam in uno suae confessionis loco se verae philosophiae addictos esse narrant [...] et in alio, hanc ipsorum motionem non processisse impulsu sui liberi arbit- rij, sed admonitione Spiritus sancti, cuius est, omnia non fallacijs, sed pura et ipsissima veritate docere.”
127 Fludd, Utriusque cosmi, maioris scilicet et minoris, metaphysica, physica, atque technica his- toria.
128 Cf. Copenhaver, Magic in Western Culture.
129 Cf. Fludd, Apologia Compendiaria, 14.
Fludd implied that their philosophy was pious. Not unlike Maier, but opposing Libavius, he made it clear that their reformation and contribution consisted in bringing back an ancient pious philosophy. He explained that ancient philosophers had taught us that “Moses the high priest of divine philosophy has reached the border of happiness,”130 and that biblical prophets and ancient philosophers like Hermes Trismegistus had possessed an equally divine philosophy:
Bezalel, Joshua, David, Solomon, and all prophets approached his [Moses’] virtue: several of the old philosophers imitated their wisdom, among whom Mercurius Trismegistus is seen to claim the first place for himself, whose sacred sermons give us a lively picture of his wonderful knowledge of what is above and below, and of his science in the Emerald Tablet.131
Fludd associated Mosaic, pious philosophy with the Hermetic tradition, and suggested that it was now revealed once more in the Rosicrucian manifestos. Fludd consistently tried to base his own philosophy on the Mosaic books.132 He explained that Moses, the father of divine philosophy, “when he hada conversation with God, he obtained the key of both studies (namely supernatural and natural) by the divine help of the Holy Spirit and by illumination.”133 Moses could engage in dialogue with God without mediation, thanks to which he could learn about the divine and the natural worlds. Because the brethren were also inspired by the Holy Spirit, such abilities were now present in the Rosicrucian fraternity, and its members possessed the key to understanding the secrets of the worlds above and below, in keeping with the Emerald Tablet.
130 See n. 133 below.
131 Fludd, Apologia Compendiaria, 4-5: “Hums [Moses’s] virtuti accesserunt Bezaleel, losua, David, Salomon & omnes prophetae: quorum etiam sapientiam imitati sunt nonnulli philosophorum veterum, inter quos primum videtur Mercurius Trismegistus locum sibi assumere atque vendicare, cuius mirabilem superiorum & inferiorum cognitionem viva- citer nobis depinxerunt Sermones eius sacri, eiusque in tabulis Smaragdinis scientia.”
132 Debus, “Fludd, Robert,” in Dictionary of Scientific Biography, vol. v, 47.
133 Fludd, Apologia Compendiaria, 3-4: “Quod tamen sit certa quaedam & indubitata faelici-
tatis humanae sedes in hoc mundo, & a nonnullis longa peregrinatione & debita inquisi- tione fauste investigata, testatur veterum saptentia [sic], qua docemur Moysen divinae philosophiae antistitem beatitudinis oram attigisse, quippe qui cum Deo sermonem habuerit, & utriusque cognitionis clavem (supernaturalis nempe & naturalis) divina sac- rosancti spiritus assistentia & illuminatione adeptus sit.”
Such a return of original pious wisdom, Fludd explained, occurred on the eve of a new age. He claimed, contradicting Libavius, that there would be a new period on earth, free from misery, just as the Rosicrucians taught:
We conclude that the brethren prophesy about future things, about the epoch and renovation of the world: they are seen to declare the nature of all things in a new language and through secret writings; they speak the truth, because they say that in our age every falsity will end.134
In response to several of Libavius’ specific objections, Fludd offered swift rebuttals: the Rosicrucians’ prophecies agreed with Scripture, a new era was at hand, and the brethren possessed such original knowledge and qualities that they could foresee the future, probe beyond appearances, and express, like Adam in Paradise, the true nature of things. As they also announced the end of all falsity, Fludd understood them to be affirming all of the heterodox notions which Libavius had contested. Although Fludd did not explicitly refer to Libavius’ denial of the possibility of earthly perfection, the fact that the new epoch will see true knowledge resurface—while it will also inaugurate the end of all deception—meant that perfection was possible before the end.
Fludd had previously judged that the new language with which the Rosicrucians could express nature’s true reality was a gift from the Holy Spirit.135 As they could speak about what was beyond the surface of the world, they were in the vicinity of the clavis universalis. They possessed a new language rather than the Adamic or Enochian tongue, but it had qualities similar to those of Adam and Enoch—a conception that was particularly close to the notions expressed in the Confessio.136
All of this implied that the world would not descend into perdition, as Libavius had claimed, but that it would witness a time and place of happiness that was announced in ancient times: “[t]hat however [there] is some certain and undoubted place for human happiness in this world, investigated by many through long travel and due examination, the wisdom of the ancients testifies [^].”137 It was for these and similar views, that Fludd was compelled to defend
134 Ibid., 15: “[...] colligimus quod fratres de rebus futuris, mundi periodo et renovatione vati- cinentur: nova lingua & scripturis arcanis naturam omnium rerum declarare videantur; veritatem loquantur, eo quod nostro, inquiunt, seculo desinet omnis falsitas.”
135 Ibid., 14. Cf. above, n. 116.
136 Confessio ,56-57.
137 Fludd, Apologia Compendiaria, 3-4: “Quod tamen sit certa quaedam & indubitata faelici-
himself before the English King James i, and to demonstrate that he was a faithful Anglican.138
New signs sent by God to the skies and inscribed in nature announced the imminent changes that were to take place on earth according to His plan. Fludd explained that “[t]he will of God and His ordinations can be clarified by the characters of the great Book of Nature and by the signs of the new stars without any help of the devil.”139 He suggested that one should not merely read Scripture, but also turn to the Book of Nature to learn about God.140 Theology was complemented by natural philosophy as creation, too, taught humans about the Creator. Both books, natural and scriptural, as well as the stars appearing in the heavens, could be studied to acquire insights into divinity.
In their Confessio, the Rosicrucians had claimed that their programme agreed with God’s plan, which implied that they had access to knowledge of God, His will, and His plan, although this was not revealed to them through Scripture. Libavius later pointed out that the Rosicrucians believed that they had access to the divine will through such signs, and he had refuted such claims.141 This notion of being able to learn about God through nature was at odds with Lutheran orthodoxy and with the principle of sola scriptura, that is, with the idea that revelation can occur only through the incarnated Word (Christ) or the written Word (Scripture). More specifically, in some of his works Luther maintained that general or natural revelation—revelation about God through nature—is ultimately not sufficient, and he accepted solely revelation through Christ or Scripture (specific revelation).142 The idea that specifically
tatis humanae sedes in hoc mundo, & a nonnullis longa peregrinatione & debita inquisi- tione fauste investigata, testatur veterum saptentia [sic] [...].”
138 Fludd clarified his faithfulness in his “Declaratio Brevis,” which he sent to King James i; see: Fludd, Declaratio Brevis, edited in: Huffman and Seelinger, “Robert Fludd’s ’Declara- tio Brevis’ to James i,” 69-92; and in: Huffman, Robert Fludd, 82-99.
139 Fludd, Apologia Compendiaria, 20: “Ultimo loco declaravimus. Quod voluntas Dei ejusque ordinationes, characteribus magni libri Naturae et signaculis novarum stellarum sine ullo Diaboli auxilio declarari possint.” Fludd also added a long discussion of the devil and his works. These works, he claimed, might sometimes seem good, but always end in destruction and terror; see: ibid., 16-18.
140 Cf. ibid., 20: “Scripturae divinae species luculenter satis explicantur. Characteres et literae ejusdem Scripturae insipiciuntur, et duplici impressione formari observantur, videlicet aut verbo Fiat, in creatione, aut sacrosancto Dei digito post creationem, quomodo insculp- tus est liber revelationis Maiestatis divinae, legesque Mosaicae in folijs lapideis.”
141 Libavius, Analysis Confessionis, 3.
142 Cf. Luther, Disputatio Heidelbergae habita, wa 1, 361-362, theses 19-20. On this notion, and on God revealing himself only indirectly through Christ, see: Bradbury, Cross Theology, 6263.
the will of God can be learned from nature, as Fludd and the brethren implied, is contrary to Luther’s distinction between Deus absconditus (the hidden God), and Deus revelatus (the revealed God). According to Luther, humans cannot have knowledge about divinity, certainly not from sources other than Scripture. In his On the Bondage of the Will (1525), a text on free will that was written against Erasmus, Luther explained that the will of God is “above us” (supernatural) and therefore unknown to us. Humans can have limited access to His will through Scripture, as He revealed Himself only through His Word, but they could neither acquire true and complete knowledge about His will nor learn about God’s will through other means, because He would remain hidden to them (Deus absconditus).143 This doctrine of man’s incapacity to know God was also formulated in the Lutheran Book of Concord.144
Viewed in this light, Fludd supported Rosicrucian notions that contradicted Libavius’ orthodox Lutheranism: humans could learn about God’s will not only through Scripture, but also through the study of nature. According to Fludd, natural philosophy and theology are intimately related: in both, students had to be illuminated by the Holy Spirit and both subjects will teach them about God. Fludd thus rejected the principles on the basis of which Libavius had dismissed the manifestos. But it was not only in Lutheranism that Adam’s Fall was seen as having resulted in man’s sinful nature; this was the case also according to the Anglican 42 Articles of religion (1553). According to this confessional text, also Pelagian notions as well as expectations of earthly perfection were to be condemned, and another earthly age was not to take place—which indicates the extent to which Fludd deviated also from his own confession.145
Another aspect of the Rosicrucian reformation that was refuted by Libavius was the reformation of all arts. Fludd agreed with the Rosicrucian judgement
143 Luther, De servo arbitrio, wa 18, 684-688, for example p. 686: “Satis est, nosse tantum, quo sit quaedam in Deo voluntas imperscrutabilis. Quod vero. Cur et quatenus illa velit, hoc prorsus non licet quaerere, optare, curare aut tangere, sed tantum timere et adorare”; ibid., 680: “Nos dicimus, ut iam antea diximus, de secreta illa voluntate maiestatis non esse disputandum et temeritatem humanam, quae perpetua perversitate, relictis neces- sariis, illam semper impetit et tentat, ese avocandam et retrahendam, ne occupet sese scrutandis illis secretis maiestatis, quae impossibile est attingere, ut quae habitet lucem inaccessibilem, teste Paulo.” See also the English translation of On the Bondage of the Will in: Rupp and Watson, Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation, esp. 200-208.
144 Munster (ed.), Book of Concord, “Apologie der Konfession,” in Die Bekenntnisschriften der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirche (1952), 150: “Voluimus enim significare, quod peccatum originis hos quoque morbos contineat: ignorationem Dei, contemptum Dei, vacare metu Dei et fiducia erga Deum, non posse diligere Deum. Haec sunt praecipua vitia naturae humanae, pugnantia proprie cum prima tabula Decalogi.”
145 Dingel (ed.), “Anglikanische Artikel,” (Forty-Two Articles), Die Bekenntnisschriften der reformierten Kirche (2010), articles ix, x, xli. Pelagianism was also refuted in the later 39 articles of faith (1563), articles ix and x.
that there was a clear need for such a reform, and he compared the healing of people to the healing of the arts. The brethren, according to the English physician, “cure the sick perfectly, because they propose means to humans, by which they can cure diseases.” This, as we have just seen, was described by Fludd as a sign of their inspiration by the Holy Spirit.146 In the same manner, he argued while opposing Libavius, the brethren rightly undertook to cure the state of the arts.147 There could be found, according to Fludd, “a very great defect in all the arts that have flourished thus far in the schools.” Among the arts to be cured or reformed, Fludd counted the defects of
natural philosophy, medicine, and alchemy, mathematics namely arithmetic, music, geometry, optics, and astrology, of morals and regarding the government of people like ethics, economy, politics, law, and in the final place there is the impediment of the theologians.148
Just like the manifestos themselves, Fludd described the Rosicrucian reformation not merely as the result of divine revelation granted to humans, but as a human effort. Libavius had denied that any improvement on earth could be effected by humans, but for Fludd the reformation meant the complete overhaul of traditional sciences. In him we find a figure not only promoting what Libavius detested (that is, Rosicrucian magic and philosophy in a new age), but also implicitly undermining Libavius’ Lutheran orthodoxy, and rebuking Libavius’ defence of the traditional university practice. In Fludd’s opinion, the old sciences were inadequate because their remedy and reformation were not possible “without the uncreated chief doctor, that is, the Holy Spirit, and His servants.”149 These arts were to be reformed so that they could be performed from divine inspiration, after the example of the brethren. Libavius would
146 Fludd, Apologia Compendiaria, 15: “[...] egros perfecte curent, nam media hominibus pro- ponunt, quibus morbi sanari possunt.” Cf. ibid., 14.
147 Ibid., 10: “At iam omnibus suspicionis latebris a D. Libavio peragratis, in illam etiam tandem haeresin fratres incidisse animadvertit, eo quod artium defectus reformare earum- que languores medicare et corrigere polliciti sunt.”
148 Ibid., 20-21: “Demonstravimus: Quod maximus sit defectus in omnibus fere artibus, quae hactenus in scholis viguerunt [.]. Defectus artium Physicarum videlicet Philosophiae naturalis, Medicinae, et Alchimiae: Mathematicarum nempe Arithmeticae, Musicae, Geo- metriae, Optices & Astrologiae: Moralium et circa disciplinam gentium ut Ethices, Oeconomiae, Politiae, Iurisprudentiae, & ultimo loco Theologorum impedimenta.”
149 Ibid., 21: “Artium deficientium et tabe languescentium remedium correctionem refor- mationem quae non perficiuntur sine doctore principe increato spiritu nempe sancta, et ejus ministris, videlicet angelo bono, luce admirabili, Vrim & Thumim, Epod dicta, aut sapiente seu propheta veridico.”
certainly have taken offence at these claims: he neither saw the Rosicrucian brethren as capable of curing diseases, nor did he consider the traditional arts to be in such a poor state as to require any kind of significant reform.
Of the arts to be reformed, Fludd took as his example theology, which in his view was in particularly poor shape. Theology was the “most outstanding of the arts,” as indeed it had been in the medieval curriculum. But according to Fludd, scholars at universities only quarrelled over theological matters so that there was constant discord, “when one school of theologians would interpret [the meaning of the Bible] in this sense, another school in another sense,” by which practice, he concluded, the biblical texts were corrupted. Just as Libavius had accused the brethren of teachings contrary to God and Scripture, Fludd in turn reproached academic scholars for pursuing a study of theology that, like all other sciences and arts, was not in accordance with either God or the Holy Spirit. This corrupted teaching could be carried out, Fludd remarked, without any suspicion of heresy, even though “it is the habit and custom of the Romans and papists to accuse those gravely of heresy, who do not adhere steadily to their religion.”150 Again we find the term “heresy” applied to established education, to scholars persisting in academic errors.151 In Fludd’s view, impostors, university teachers, and Peripatetics alike would have no place in the new age after the Rosicrucian reformation.
While explaining his interpretation of the Rosicrucian manifestos, Fludd discussed many elements that were central to the Rosicrucian call for a reform, such as the ending of all falsity before the end of the world, the expectation of a new age, the claim of having insight into the true essences of nature, and the reform of universities. All of these were elements that had been dismissed by Libavius, but which in Fludd’s response were used to explain that the brethren were pious men instructed by the Holy Spirit, that everything they said accorded with Scripture, and that their reform was not merely desirable but necessary.
While Libavius had rejected the Rosicrucians’ medicine, in his Short Apology Fludd did not explicitly discuss this art, but he described the reform of the arts by medical analogy.152 Although the refutation of Paracelsianism took up such
150 Ibid., 10-11: “Et tamen videmus in scientiarum praestantissima Theologia sacrorum Bibliorum contextum in controversiam assidue vocari, cum una theologorum schola illum in hunc sensum, altera in alium interpretetur, et quaelibet quoslibet scripturarum locos difficilores suo more exponere et torquere solita sit, hocque sine ulla haeresis suspicione, quamvis Romanorum et Papistarum sit mos atque consuetudo, haeresis eos gravissime accusare, qui suae religioni constanter non adherent.”
151 Cf. above, pp. 76-77, 134.
152 Fludd, Apologia Compendiaria, 22.
a large portion of Libavius’ Analysis, Fludd seemed not to consider it necessary to discuss this matter, and the name of Paracelsus is not mentioned in his text. Instead, Fludd primarily understood the Rosicrucians as harbingers of (returned) divine wisdom and magic.153 For Libavius, much of what is found in the manifestos was a new, heretical approach, linked to Paracelsus; for Fludd, it was the revival of a sacrosanct prisca philosophia that was finally being revived after centuries of pagan philosophy. When interpreting the manifestos, Fludd placed them in relation to traditions that have come to be known as Mosaic physics, the clavis universalis, and the philosophia perennis.
This is best understood in the context of Fludd’s having to defend himself against suspicions of religious heterodoxy. In his Brief Declaration, submitted to King James i, Fludd explained that his Apologetic Tract, written in defence of the Rosicrucians, should not be interpreted as “religious innovation” or “heresy,” because he, Fludd, remained a faithful Anglican. It therefore seems that keeping the contents of the Rosicrucian manifestos separate from the novelties of the Paracelsians was a quite deliberate strategy on his part, intended to remove any suspicion of heresy. He informed his King that in his Apology against Libavius’ attack he had merely desired to revive the arts on the basis of ancient wisdom, and that he did not intend to deviate from orthodoxy. Like Anglicans, he continued, the Rosicrucian brethren self-identified as members of a reformed religion. His explanation to his King is in this regard consistent with his reply to Libavius: what he particularly appreciated about the Rosicrucians were their gifts of an original, true philosophy and ancient wisdom.154
5.2 The Rosicrucian Manifestos Debated: Grick and Mogling
A few years after the written discussion between Libavius and Fludd, two other authors took up their quills and examined the Rosicrucian case: Friedrich Grick (dates unknown) and Daniel Mogling. We have already been introduced to Mogling. Like him, Grick came from an academic background. He worked as a tutor at the Lutheran gymnasium in Altdorf near Nurnberg and claimed to be versed in law, theology, history, politics, medicine, and philosophy, to speak eleven languages and to understand fifteen.155 He was keen on presenting himself as a well-taught scholar, versed in the studies of the ancients. This is how
153 For Fludd on ancient wisdom, see: Fludd, Declaratio Brevis, in: Huffman, RobertFludd, 82
99.
154 Fludd, Declaratio Brevis, in: Huffman, Robert Fludd, 83-84.
155 Grick [Menapius], Copia der dritten Missiv, C6v-C7r.
he portrayed himself in numerous writings, of which many were on the topic of Rosicrucianism published under two pseudonyms, Menapius and Irenaeus Agnostus. That the author behind these pseudonyms was Grick was already suggested by Widemann when he reiterated the conclusions of aJ. Oswald from Montbeliard. In his Sylva scientiarum (Collection of the Sciences), Widemann expressed the following remark: “Menapius, usually named Friderich Grickh, is Irenaeus Agnostus. A malicious, treacherous, evil man.”156 As Grick had criticised the manifestos in several of his texts, this brief description speaks to the author’s own sentiments in favour of Rosicrucianism.
The two opponents, Mogling and Grick, discussed the Rosicrucian case in several of their writings. In relation to his pamphlet discussion with Mogling, especially relevant is Grick’s Supply of Letters written under the pseudonym Menapius, which included three letters in which he analysed and attacked the Rosicrucian brethren and their studies. The first is dated 3 June 1617, which was followed by a second letter of 15 July 1617, and a third letter that is undated.157 These letters were appended to his Fortress of Science, which was written under the pseudonym Irenaeus Agnostus and dated 13 August 1617. In the Fortress, Grick presented himself as a brother of the Rose Cross, but the text was an obvious parody of the Rosicrucian society. The difference in pseudonym is important, because it seems that Grick’s critical writings are published under the pseudonym Menapius, and the seemingly optimistic texts are published under the pseudonym Agnostus.158
The following year, 1618, Mogling published his Flourishing Rose under the pseudonym Florentinus de Valentia as a reply to the three letters of Grick’s Sup- ply.159 Mogling, too, was aware of the true identity of Menapius, as he addressed his responses to “F.G. Menapius” and referred to “Fredericus G,” clearly
156 Widemann, Sylva scientiarum, 723: “Menapius, sonsten Friderick Grickh genanndtt, ist Irenaeus Agnostus. Ein arglistiger ausgestochener boser Mensch,” cited in: Gilly, Johann Valentin Andreae, 51.
157 Grick [Menapius], Copia literarum, copia der andern Missiv, Copia der dritten Missiv (1617). To distinguish these three texts from the Fortalitium scientiae, these letters will be referred to separately.
158 Grick [Agnostus], Fortalitium scientiae, Aviiir. In effect, Grick, as Agnostus, claimed to be the notary of the Rosicrucians in numerous of his writings, while often at the same time implicitly mocking them and hinting that the fraternity was a sham. Grick’s numerous tracts, and his seemingly twofold attitude towards the Rosicrucians in particular, are highly interesting and still require careful analysis.
159 Mogling [Florentinus de Valentia], Rosa Florescens contra F.G. Menapii calumnias. Das ist: Kurtzer Bericht und Widerantwort/ auff die sub dato 2 Iunii 1617 ex agro Norico in Latein/ und dan folgendes 15 Julii obgedachtes Jahr Teutsch publicirte unbedachte calum- nias, F.G. Menapii, Wider die Rosencreutzische Societet.
signifying Friedrich Grick Menapius. To analyse this discussion, again particular attention will be paid to the writings where there is a clear dialogic link between a commentary and a response.
Grick: Protecting State and Learning
Grick, writing as Menapius, presented himself as an anti-Rosicrucian scholar, and in his Supply of Letters he fulminated against the Rosicrucian manifestos. Like Libavius, he did not primarily dispute the existence of the fraternity; his criticism was directed rather against the contents of the manifestos, and notably the promises of change. Before addressing the topic of the general reformation specifically, he made his sentiments about the Rosicrucian fraternity explicit from the start, in remarkably unsparing words. He suggested that the brethren were merely “a bunch of idle men,” who with their “fantastical writings” were “abusing the work of printers.” He compared them with “Thessalonian nigromantics,” “Chaldean deceivers,” and “other incarnated dev- ils.”160 He mistrusted the brethren’s promises, condemned their “monstrous crimes,”161 and concluded that “in any case I am unable to make any positive pronouncement about you.”162 Unlike many of his contemporaries, he explained, he decided not to be fooled by the Rosicrucians’ optimism. The brethren pretended to be virtuous and trustworthy, but “if you are virtuous and honest men, why have you so far given cause for suspicion about you to good and learned men?”163 The brethren were vain and deceptive, and as a corrective Grick declared himself willing to instruct them in the fifteen languages he claimed to understand and the eleven he professed to speak.164 But what had given rise to such a fierce judgement and suspicion?
160 Grick [Menapius], Copia literarum, B3V: “[...] si non manipulus otiosorum hominum estis, qui [...] Typographorum opera abutentes, nequitia simpliciores ludificandi, et naso suspendendi phantasticis vestris scriptis veteratorie laboratis: certe vel recens exortum genus stellionum, ac verberorum, vel nigromanticos Thessalos, et Chaldaeos oculorum praestictores, vel aliquos incarnatos Diabolos, qui impossibilia humano ingenio praestare dolose sat agitis, vos esse oportet.”
161 Ibid., B3r: “Eiusmodi invidiae aculeos, si ullus unquam, certe jam me sentire necesse est, cum me vobis opponam, qui non contemptam solum, ac imperitam multitudinem, sed etiam non paucos ex majorum maleficiis vestris dudum effascinastis.”
162 Ibid., B3v: “[.] de vobis utique laudabiliter statuere non possum.”
163 Ibid., B3v: “[.] vos si probi, et honesti viri estis, quare bonis, et doctis viris male de vobis suspicandi causam hactenus reliquistis?”
164 Ibid., C7r: “In den sprachen aber/ derer ich funffzehen stehe/ und eilff wol practiciren, und reden kan/ wolte ich euch noch zurathen geben. Derwegen seind ewere imaginationes grofi/ aber vergeblich/ und ein betrug [...].”
Central to Grick’s mistrust was the primary impetus behind the manifestos: the Rosicrucians’ call for reform. He began by swiftly debunking the mil- lenarian imagery that had accompanied it. Like Libavius, he mistrusted the Rosicrucians’ hopeful expectations about a new earthly age: “How do you know that before the world’s ending everything must come to perfection like that at the time when our first parents were still in a state of integrity?”165 He pointed out that the teachings of the Bible told otherwise: Isaiah teaches that the Final Days are imminent, and that they will bring fear, destruction, death by fire, and the Lord’s wrath.166 According to Grick, the end of the world will be ushered in by destruction, and it would not be preceded by an age of perfection, contrary to what the Rosicrucians claimed.
But Grick’s Supply was not overly preoccupied with religious incongruities or the millenarian imagery of the Rosicrucian manifestos, nor did he compare the manifestos to biblical passages at any length. He studied extensively the Rosicrucians’ plans for reform in relation to something Libavius had neglected, namely the state of affairs within society and the situation in which the empire found itself. The manifestos had mentioned that a new empire would be established in the future age. Grick took this claim as an announcement of societal reform to be effected by the Rosicrucians. In Grick’s view, political reform was a necessary measure, as the empire was in dire need of it. He observed the world to be in a terrible state, with misery and poverty abounding:
Cities of the empire, with few exceptions, look like only carcasses of these cities that flourished when the state was in a better shape [...]. Farmers and citizens groan everywhere under heavy burdens.167
Grick’s observation about the decline of once flourishing cities was made shortly before the outbreak of the Thirty Years’ War in 1618, when religious tensions had already become increasingly virulent, people lived in dire poverty, and the plague circulated in Europe. The Rosicrucians, he observed, had promised to relieve the world from its hardship and the citizens and peasants from their misery. According to him, the brethren had given the impression that they
165 Ibid., C5v-C6r: “Als habe ich mich durch meine curiositet, und furwiz dahin bewegen lassen/ an euch eine frag zuthun/ nemlich/ woher ihr wisset/ dafi vor der Welt end alles zu einer solchen perfection, gleich wie es zur zeit/ da unsere erste Eltern noch in statu integritatis gewesen/ kommen musse?”
166 Ibid., C6r. See, for example, Isaiah 23 and 24.
167 Grick [Menapius], Copia literarum, B4v: “Urbes Imperii, praeter paucas, videntur tantum esse cadavera earum urbium, quae Republica melius constituta floruerunt [.]. Agricolae vero, & cives ubique sub gravissimis oneribus gemunt.”
would help those in need and distress—a promise he would have applauded had he not believed that these were objectives the Rosicrucians were doing nothing to secure. According to Grick, there was no evidence to show that the Rosicrucians were actually involved anywhere in alleviating suffering:
But if you truly are those highest and admirable masters of the arts, as you love to be called, and gracious heroes and apostolic grandees of the sublunary nature [...], in this general state of the world, which because of the perturbation of all things is tired and sick, why do you not do something about it, and rush forward with your most novel and unexpected assist- ance?168
It was precisely the promise of improvement and evidence of the lack of it that Grick considered the highest deception and which had provoked his suspicion. While the world was in need, the Rosicrucians stood idly by. He called the Rosicrucians “impostors” for keeping their names private and conceiling themselves from those who needed them: “Why did you shrink away from civil society through so many centuries? Why, I repeat, if you are not impostors, had it benefited you to have shunned the eyes and ears of humans through such a long course of time? Why?”169 Grick reminded his readers that the Rosicrucians claimed that their society had already existed for many decades: Christian Ros- encreutz had founded it in the early fifteenth century, and when he died at the age of 106 the brethren had remained hidden for at least another one hundred and twenty years. All this time, Grick pointed out, they had neither revealed themselves nor given their aid to the world, even though the world was fester- ing.170
Grick complained that even after they had gone public, and had promised their support publicly, they merely wandered anonymously from place to place.171 They bragged about their evangelical virtues while demonstrating none:
168 Ibid., B4r-B4V: “At vero si summi illi et admirabiles artium Antitistes [sic], ut appellari gaudetis, atque gratiosi Heroes, Naturae sublunaris Megistanes Apostolici estis [...], cur non in hac omnium rerum perturbatione fessis, & exulceratis communibus mundi rebus aliquid opis fertis, vestroque novissimo, et insperato auxilio, et adjumento occurritis?”
169 Ibid., B5r: “Impostorum est, ut patriam, non nomina profiteri. Nam hominum lucifugarum, nulliusque Reipublicae civium nota est, se abnegare, et natale solum abscondere [.]. Cur enim a civili societate per tot saecula abhorruistis? Quid, inquam, si impostores non estis, vobis profuit, per tantum temporis curriculum oculos, auresque hominum vitasse? Quid?”
170 Ibid., B5v.
171 Ibid., B4v-B5r; cf. Fama ,106.
But who possesses evangelical perfection, about which you boast (like those who have transgressed into the heresy of the Anabaptists), liberates the oppressed from destruction and restores the sick, helps those who are lost, lifts up the poor, raises those who have fallen. But so far you have attended no one in any such condition: you have given refuge to no one, you have brought aid to no one, you extended relief to no one, but you brought danger to many.172
The brethren, in Grick’s view, were just as heretical as the Anabaptists. He probably had in mind Anabaptist communities such as those in Munster, Augsburg, and Strasbourg. Since such communities attracted poor peasants, and the Anabaptists recommended poverty as a virtue, the conditions within them were hazardous and brought solace to none. Like the Anabaptists, Grick argued, the Rosicrucians promised reform but brought about the opposite.
Apart from their misguided proclamations promising to reform the state, Grick argued that the Rosicrucians’ intention to reform the arts and sciences was equally to be rejected, albeit for different reasons. Like Libavius, he considered the Rosicrucians’ plans for change in the academies and their replacement of traditional sciences by their own thought to be not merely deceptive but even destructive. He aimed to prove that the Rosicrucian reformation of established learning was undesirable for the two reasons Libavius had also mentioned: the good state of the current arts and the poor alternative of the brethren. More so even than Libavius, Grick emphasised the superiority of the arts and of the contributions of past scientists and artists. Why, he asked, would one abandon the contemporary arts?173 Were academies and schools not better off precisely “because they were not guided by your council and authority, namely by rotten and foolish tittle-tattle and tasteless madness?”174
172 Grick [Menapius], Copia literarum, B4v: “Atqui Evangelicae perfectionis est, de qua vos gloriamini, ut ii, qui in Anabaptistarum haeresin praevaricati sunt, vindicare oppressos ab interitu, languidos recreare, perditis suqvenire [sic], levare pauperes, jacentes erigere. At vos nemini hactenus in casu adfuistis: nemini refugium subministrastis: nemini sup- petias tulistis: nemini subsidium porrexistis: nonnullius periculum concurristis.”
173 Ibid., B5v-B6h “Vani profecto est illud narrare: stulti credere. Etenim si non vappa [sic] non flagriones compitalitii estis, dicite mihi, quid vel Architectonicae, nostro aevo desit, vel Manganariae, Mechanopaeoticae, Scansoriae, Tractoriae, Organopaeoticae, Thaumanturgicae, Sphaeropae, Automatopaeoticae, Arithmeticae, Geometriae, Navilcu- lariae, Statuariae, Fusoriae, Caelaturae?”
174 Ibid., B5r—B5V: “An scholae et Academiae faustis auspiciis Sapientissimorum Principum, ac Gubernatorum introductae et apertae, illustrique munificentia, et liberalitate eorum auctae, et amplificatae hucusque non extiterunt scholae et Academiae, ex quibus tan- quam fontibus ora sua rigarunt, virtutisque suae fundamenta hauserunt plerique ex iis,
The contemporary sciences and arts, Grick believed, needed no radical change, and to suggest otherwise was pure deception. Universities and schools, he estimated, were already thriving at a high level of excellence:
Tell me, what do you wish to teach [ Johannes] Reuchlin in Hebrew, [Guillaume] Bude in Greek, [Desiderius] Erasmus in Latin, [Pierre de] Ron- sard in his vernacular language, [ Justus] Lipsius in history, [Giovanni della] Casa [the author of the Galateo] in the elegance of polite behaviour, Hippolytus a Collibus [i.e., Johann Werner Gebhard] in politics, [Marquardus] Freherus in antiquity, [Nicolaus] Vigelius in Justian civil law, [Andreas] Gailius in matters of the Imperial Chamber, [ Julius] Caesar Scaliger in physics, [ Jacob] Scheck in logics, [Peter] Fonseca in metaphysics, [Antoine] Muret in oratory, [Iacobo] Sannazari in poetics, [Nicodemus] Frischlin in grammar, Tycho Brahe in mathematics, Orlando [de Lasses] in music, [Albrecht] Durer in painting, Salvador in athletics,175 [Domenico] Fontana in construction?176
Did the brethren truly propose to abandon these wonderful sciences and arts and neglect all advancements and achievements made by these scholars and artists? Grick did not mention great recent authors in chemistry and medicine, domains that were crucial to the Rosicrucian followers, but which Grick presumably deemed inferior to these ancient and humanist arts. The brethren, he claimed, aimed to neglect and destroy scientific contributions of the ancients and humanists rather than continuing their accomplishments. But these people had only been able to scratch the surface of the knowledge of nature: “everyone states, and truth confirms it, that the knowledge of natural things has been surveyed by mortals only in a very small portion.” This should not imply
qui in Germania, et vicinis gentibus cum laude praeterito, ac praesenti tempore prae- fuerunt, ac praesunt Ecclesiis, et Reipublicae partim negotiis, et occupationibus distinen- tur, partim gravissimorum munerum procuratione superiori aetate districti fuerunt, quia vestro consilio, et authoritate non regebantur, putidis videlicet, et stultis blateramentis, ac deliriis insulfissimis?”
175 This may be Petrus Fabrus Sanlorianus, the author of the Agonisticon.
176 Grick [Menapius], Copia literarum, B6r: “Dicite mihi, quid Reuchlinum in Hebraica, Budaeum in Graeca, Erasmum in Latina, Ronsardum in vernacula sua linguae, Lipsium in Historia, Casam in morum elegantia, Hippolitum a Collibus in politica, Freherum in Antiquitate, Vigelium in Jure civili Justinianeo, Gailium in practica Camerae Imper- ialis, Caesarem Scaligerum in Physica, Schekium in Logica, Fonsecam in Metaphysica, Muretum in Oratoria, Sannazarium in Poetica, Frischlinum in Grammatica, Tychonem Brahe in Mathesi, Orlandum in Musica, Durerum in Pictura, Salvadorem in Athletica, Dominicum Fontana in Fabrica docere voluissetis?”
that they should be destroyed. Quite to the contrary, Grick argued, we should build upon them, and “therefore it is all the less opportune that you eagerly strive and endeavour to knock from our hands the discoveries of the ancients and force upon us your opinions that are so averse to nature herself.”177 Much was still to be discovered in nature, but in Grick’s view the way forward was not the destruction of past investigations and their replacement with something entirely unnatural.
Grick’s second reason for dismissing the Rosicrucian reformation of the sciences was their alternative which, like Libavius, he believed was based on magic. With such an unnatural substitute, the brethren could not but arouse the suspicion of good scholars. In his second letter, the Copia der andern Missiv, Grick emphasised that the purity of the academies and schools was at risk because of the Rosicrucian fables, stories, and fantasies; as an example whereof he gave a mocking description of the fraternity’s habitat, which he believed was a castle. Grick described the castle as invisible and surrounded by water. It was enchanted and entirely shrouded by clouds, through which no one could pen- etrate.178 Only when one passed through high gates, having surrendered one’s garment to a young woman, did the clouds vanish and the castle appear.179 But how could the sciences and arts possibly benefit from such fables: “I cannot see whether now through such and similar fantastical chimaeras and dreams churches and schools are built: But I pray to God for all high authority, that they will find guidance and mercy, to maintain and protect the truth from all devilish sham and tricks.”180 Grick, like Libavius, desired to protect established education as well as scientific developments from a fraternity that he believed to be not only unorthodox but outright dangerous in its intellectual ambitions. In his view, only madmen would dismiss everything that had been practiced so far, while boasting to know everything better. Such was, he claimed, the very business of impostors.181
177 Ibid., B6r-B6v: “Omnes fatentur, et veritas suffragatur, naturalium rerum scientiam ex minima sua parte mortalibus perspectam esse. Itaque eo minus ferendum est, vos et ut veterum inventa nobis ex manibus excutiatis, et vestras ab ipsa natura abhorrentes opiniones obtrudatis, cupidissime contendere, atque moliri.”
178 Ibid., C3v.
179 Ibid., Ciiiv-Ciiiiv. This specific castle did not have its origin in Eglin, who described the Rosicrucian home differently.
180 Ibid., Ciiiiv: “Ob nun durch solche/ und dergleichen fantastische chimaeras, und traum- thadungen/ Kirchen und Schulen erbauwet werden/ kan ich nicht sehen: Aber ich bitte Gott fur alle hohe Obrigkeit/ dafi sie Raht unnd gnade erfinden/ die warheit fur allem Teuffels betrug und list zu handthaben unnd zubeschirmen.”
181 Ibid., B5V: “[...] nullamque artem, et disciplinam esse, divinam, naturalem, artificialem,
The Rosicrucians’ profession, Grick explained, had little to do with science, but rather with bad magic: “It is typical of bad magicians, to explain all things through enigmas and through certain ceremonies”—hinting at the term “ceremonial magic” that came about by devilish influences.182 When attributing such magic to the Rosicrucians, Grick took them for deceiving revolutionaries rather than honest reformers. He asked the Rosicrucians: “If the things you do are honourable and useful to common life, why do you not communicate them to everyone, without uncertainties and wrappings?”183 In Grick’s view, because the Rosicrucians merely told fabricated stories rather than build their views on philosophy, they were bad magicians.184 University-based teaching could not be dismissed because it at least had its basis in philosophy and its tradition.
The Rosicrucians had described neither ceremonies nor their activities as magical, nor had they provided a depiction of their castle. Like Libavius, Grick considered the brethren to be involved with diabolical magic, but unlike Libavius, in support of this view he offered only dubious fables originating from unnamed sources. In the Supply of Letters, he assembled a number of stories that he considered to be as magical and imaginary as the Rosicrucian one. One of these discussed Albertus Magnus; another told about a young man from Sicily who took a swim; and a third concerned the father of Cardano.185 A fourth story featured Paracelsus, whom Grick compared to “the drain of Satan.” Paracelsus, he informed his reader, had taught in a public lecture in Basel that the relationship of the Christians to God was unperturbed, that besides the worship of God one could also engage with daemons, and that he taught about “the magical exorcism of diseases.”186 Grick claimed that these were practices that could only be performed by inspiration from the devil rather than by divine
et humanam [...], quae non vestra reformatione indigeant?”; ibid., B5^ “Impostorum est, affirmare contra omnes omnium disciplinarum et artium Magistros, nullam scientiam hactenus recte esse traditam, nec tamen melius quid proffere, et errantes in viam regiam reducere.”
182 Ibid., B7r: “Cacomagorum est, omnia aenigmatice proponere, & sub certis quibusdam ceremoniis.”
183 Ibid., B7r: “Nam si honesta sunt, quae agitis, et communi vitae utilia, cur non omnibus absque ambagibus, & involucris communicatis?”
184 Ibid., B7r: “Qui faciunt, & exhibent, quae in nulla philosophia fundamentum habent, Gacomagi sunt.”
185 Grick [Menapius], Copia literarum, B8v-C3r.
186 Ibid., B7v—B8r: “Et mancipium istud quidem, atque cloaca Sathanae, Paracelsus, cum Basileae publice, in nescio cijus authoris praelectione, seu explicatione, profiteretur, atque doceret, Christano homini illaesa euCTE^eia, citraque debiti erga Deum cultus maculam, Daemonis, tanquam latronis, ope, opera, & consilio uti divinitus permissus esse, de incantationibus quoque, & exorcismis morborum magicit [sic; magicis] agere caepit.”
inspiration, and he suspected Paracelsus of being in league with the devil. He argued that Paracelsus worked according to the motto: “If God does not want to help, the devil will help,” suggesting that God did not want to be involved in such chimeras, but that the devil was eager to support Paracelsus, and by implication also the Rosicrucians’ magical tricks.187
According to Grick, the Rosicrucian manifestos were similar to such invented fables: they were inspired by magic, devilish, and were therefore to be dismissed. He did not however provide a detailed explanation—quite like his mocking texts under the pseudonym Agnostus—but rejected the manifestos only by association. Grick perhaps associated the manifestos with the Ars Notoria, or the Notory Art of Solomon. The Ars Notoria is a grimoire consisting of a collection of orations and prayers, and is intended to help in eloquence, learning, and remembering through the help of angels. It includes instructions on how to pronounce magical words and to perform magical ceremonies. Its oldest edition originates from the thirteenth century, but several editions followed in the early modern period, including one that was edited by Agrippa von Nettesheim.188 Grick later referred to this text in his seemingly optimistic Fortress of Science—to which the Supply of Letters was appended—where he associated King Solomon of the Ars Notoria with the Rosicrucian fraternity.189
The Rosicrucian manifestos, according to Grick, posed a clear threat not only to society at large but also to the intellectual community in particular. The Rosicrucian reform plans had roused him to compose his harsh criticism of the manifestos. Unlike Libavius, he did not respond to the Rosicrucian general reformation from the standpoint of an orthodox Lutheran, but rather as a citizen and an academic. Religiously, he believed they were radicals, mingling heresy with false hopes about a future perfect age. Politically and socially, the Rosicrucians’ reformation was partly intangible and partly deceptive, because they never fully revealed themselves and extended help to none. Academically, Grick worried about dubious alternatives that challenged the academic establishment, but only by associating the manifestos with magical fantasies.
Mogling: Academic Reform and Theosophy
Grick’s withering public judgement on the Rosicrucians was soon met with a response from Mogling, whose Flourishing Rose (1618) presented his arguments against Grick’s scathing letters and “inconsiderate slanders.”190 He explicitly
187 Ibid., B8r: “Will GOtt nicht helffen, so helffe der Teuffel.”
188 See, for example, the English translation by Turner, Ars Notoria (1657).
189 Grick [Agnostus], Fortalitium Scientiae, Aviiir.
190 Mogling [Florentinus de Valentia], Rosa Florescens.
referred to the author of the first two letters as “Fredericus G.,” or Menapius, and also mentioned another German text by Grick, although not by name, which in contents corresponded to the third letter of Grick’s Supply.191 Mogling was faced with a similar problem as that which had previously confronted Fludd: on the one hand, he had to demonstrate the falsity of his opponent’s claims; on the other hand, he needed to explain the true aim and merit of the Rosicrucian brethren and their manifestos. The obvious contempt in the tone of Grick’s letters about the Rosicrucians had captured the attention of the theosopher. To devalue his opponent’s examination, he began in a similar manner as Grick himself had done, namely by attacking him ad hominem. He addressed Grick’s scornful abuses, asking whether “this should be the judgement of a Christian and a learned man—who could recognise it as such?”192 The speed with which Grick issued his letters “with such baseless slander,” was discreditable, whereas “good honourable people,” Mogling continued, “would not be so swiftly taken by wrath, and would wait with patience and hope for the time” that the Rosicrucians revealed themselves.193
Mogling addressed Grick’s arguments against the Rosicrucian reformation of society and science. Perhaps the most difficult argument for Mogling to defend against was Grick’s accusation that, in the midst of the “turbulent state of the empire,” the Rosicrucians seemingly failed to support their fellow citizens.194 This was obviously a problematic issue for Mogling: on the eve of the Thirty Years’ War, the country was clearly in despair, without any evidence of discernable help coming from the fraternity. According to Mogling, however, the brethren did help and support those in need, since “they help daily with teaching and admonishing both in writing as in person and orally to the innocent godloving.”195 Despite Grick’s insinuations, the brethren offered their knowledge to the people.
191 Ibid., Aiir-Aiiv.
192 Ibid., Aiiiir-Aiiiiv: “Difi soil eines Christen und gelehrten Manns judicium sein/ wer kans darvor erkennen?”
193 Ibid., Aiiiiv: “In deiner ersten Epistel woltestu hoch angesehen und gelehrt sein. Jetzt da die Fratres nicht fluck sich eroffnen/ kombstu mit solchem fundament und grundlosen calumniis ganz colerisch auffgezogen/ vermeinest alles uber einen hauffen zuwerffen/ das beste ist/ das viel gute Ehrlicher Leut sich den zorn sojehe nit lassen ubernemmen/ und in gedult und hoffnung der zeit erwarten.”
194 Ibid., Avv: “Es fragt Menapius, gleich wie alle unzeitige Richter/ warumb die Fratres, weil sieje turbulentum Imperii statum vor augen sehen/ Christlichen potentaten/ auch armen betrangten Leuten nicht personlich zu hulff kommen.” Cf. Grick [Menapius], Copia literarum, B4v.
195 Mogling [Florentinus de Valentia], Rosa Florescens,Avir:“[.“] Sie hilfft taglich mit lehren
The problem was, Mogling explained, that the majority of humans did not want to be helped, thereby shifting the problem from the Rosicrucians to society: “People are too impious, and they neither want to be directed nor guided.”196 Mogling did not really address Grick’s reproach regarding the Rosicrucians’ lack of practical help, but reversed the issue and instead blamed the majority for not being receptive to the Rosicrucians’ support. According to him, times were hard and dangerous, people impious, and they were liable to use their capabilities to cause harm rather than good.197 It was from this enmity of the masses that the brethren hid themselves and concealed their names, helping only anonymously and in the background. Moreover, Mogling maintained, Grick was in no position to berate the Rosicrucians for their caution, as he himself had also used a pseudonym behind which he was hid- ing.198
Mogling expatiated at greater length on the subject of the Rosicrucians’ intellectual contributions and their reformation of the arts and sciences. The reform of the arts was an element of the Rosicrucian reformation that was discussed at length by all four authors, Libavius, Fludd, Grick, and Mogling. Grick, Mogling recalled, had concluded that many arts were perfect and needed no reformation.199 But was this really true?
und vermanen so wol Schrifftlich als bey treuherzigen Gottliebenden beywesentlich und mundlich [...].”
196 Ibid., Avir “[...] das man aber mit einem offnen auffzug jederman soll vor augen ziehen und gleichsam ein Jahrmarck daraufi machen/ ist nog der zeit unrahtsam/die Leut sein zu Gottlofi/ wollen sich weder weisen noch leyden lassen [...].”
197 Ibid., Avir: “[.] was jedem in seinem kram daugte/ das nemb er/ und braucht er eben so bald zu unzucht/ schad/ lastern/ und Weltlichen wollusten/ als zur Ehr Gottes.”
198 Ibid., Avir: “Das die Bruder hin unnd wider Reisen/ macht sie darumb nit zu betriegern und Landverrahtern/ sintemal all ihr pereginationes dem nechsten zu nuz und gut angesehen/ und schadt gar nicht/ ob sie ihr Namen unnd Vatterland nit jedem bekandt machen/ in erachtung es noch gefehrlich/ unnd hat sich Menapius eben solches Salviergriffs (dessen er sie beschultiget) auch gebraucht: De zween Buchstaben f.g. bedeuten zwar seinen Tauff-und Zunamen/ wenn und wannen her er aber sey/ bedunckt ihn offentlich zu setzen (wie billig) unrahtsam.”
199 Ibid., Aviir: “Er vermeint zu viel geredt sein/ das sie sprechen/ die reformation sey hoch von noten/ und bringt zum Exemple herfur Manganariam, Mechanopaeoticam, Scansoriam, Fractoriam, Organop^oticam, Thaumauturgicam, Sphaeropoeam, Automatopaeoticam, Arithmeticam, Geometriam, Naviculariam, Statuarim, Fusoriam, Caelaturam, etc. welche er alle vermeint gar perfet und in hochssten sein.” Cf. Grick [Menapius], Copia literarum, B6r.
Where are the great works, the artistic [kunstliche] attempts of Archimedes; who can be found among the hundreds who could produce the same, if he already believes to know the art? Who can prepare for me such a heaven, or give me its measure and melody, about which the poet Claudianus speaks?200 [...] Who has mastered in architecture the art of copying the Collossus of Rhodes? Where is the wooden flying dove of Archytas? Where is the [mechanical] head of Roger Bacon and of Albert the Great? Where is the mathematics of Boethius? Where are the artistic mirrors and the optical masterworks? I will keep silent about the fire burning ceaselessly, about perpetual movement, and the like.201
There may be good scholars about, but the ancients and humanists mentioned by Grick had not brought forward anything as excellent as had these successful masters of the past. The head of Roger Bacon refers to his brazen head, a mechanical head he allegedly had created. The artistic mirrors are mirrors used for optical purposes in catoptrics, which was also studied by Roger Bacon. A work about the perpetuum mobile is attributed to Mogling himself.202 Even among the outstanding figures mentioned by Grick, none were capable of performing or even understanding the contributions of these artisans and inventors of the past.
Grick and Mogling had different notions of “arts.” Grick referred primarily to academic and humanist sciences, whereas Mogling had automata and mechanical technologies in mind that were neglected by Grick. Both, however, kept silent about alchemy and medicine. Mogling agreed with Grick that there was still much that was to be discovered, but argued that much was also lost, and this was why the Rosicrucians aimed to reform the arts in the first place. In this context, he referred to Fludd’s defence of the Rosicrucians against Libavius and his support of their reform of the arts:
200 Mogling cited: “Jupiter in parvo cum cerneret aethera vitro, Risit, & ad superos talia dicta dedit. Huccine mortalis progressa potentia curae? Jam meus in fragili luditur orbe labor,” which concerns the sphere of Archimedes that could represent the movements of the heavenly bodies.
201 Mogling [Florentinus de Valentia], Rosa Florescens, Aviir—Aviiv: “Wo bleiben die grossen werck/ die kunstliche conatus Archimedis, wer ist unter hunderten/ der d’gleichen darff ins werck richten/ ob er schon vermeint er wisse die kunst. Wer kan mir ein solchen Himmel zurichten/ oder die ration unnd weifi geben/ davond Claudianus poeta schreibt [...]. Wer ist in Architectura so kunstlich/ der den Colossum zu Rhodis nach machte? Wo bleibt die holzin fliegende Taub Architae? Wo das haupt Rogeri Baconis & Alberti Magni? Wo die Mathematica Boetii? Wo die kunstliche Spiegel und Optica artificia? Will alhie geschwei- gen Ignem indefinenter ardentem, motum perennem und dergleichen [.].”
202 Mogling [Valerius Saledinus], Perpetuum mobile, das ist, immerwehrende Bewegung (1625).
What can be found in arithmetics? Is not in algebra still much hidden? Who knows today how to number in a Pythagorean manner until the knowledge of God? Who knows the right use of rhythmomachy?203 Who knows the use and composition of the Pythagorean wheels, about which so far so many books full of sophistical deception have been written under the name of “Nomandy” and others, as Robert Fludd testifies in his Apology against Libavius.204
Because all such inventions were lost did the Rosicrucians aim to improve the arts and sciences. In relation to this, Mogling drew on the ancient musica universalis, expressed by Pythagoras, discussed by Boethius to whom he had earlier referred, and recently popularised by Fludd. Fludd is well known for having understood the macrocosm as a universe in harmony, with musical consonances and (mystical) mathematical relations set in place by God. The Rosicrucians had implicitly referred to this when arguing that the microcosm was in the same tone and melody as the macrocosm.205 Mogling, too, believed that there was a musical harmony between all creatures in the universe, from which followed the sympathy and antipathy between them, and that this harmony could be studied.206
To the claim by Grick that the Rosicrucians “despise and destroy all universities, academies, learned doctors, and teachers,” Mogling replied that their writings proved the very opposite.207 They refuted only worn-out doctrines
203 Rhythmomachy, or Rithmomachia, was an early European mathematical board game, which supposedly was used to teach Boethian mathematics. On this game, see: Moyer, Fulke and Lever, The Philosophers’ Game.
204 Mogling [Florentinus de Valentia], Rosa Florescens, Aviiv: “Was ist in Arithmeticis? Ist nit in Algebra noch vil verborgen? Wer weifi jetzund die weifi auff Pytagorisch bifi zur erkentnufi Gottes zu numerirn? Wer weifi den rechten Usum Rythmomachiae? Wer weifi den Usum & compositionem Pythagoricae rotae, davon doch so viel Sophistisches betrugs volliger Bucher bifihero geschrieben sub Nomandiae & aliis titulis, teste R. de fluctibus in Apolog. contra Libavium.”
205 See above, p. 145.
206 Mogling [Florentinus de Valentia], RosaFlorescens, Aviiv-Aiiir: “In Musica weifi man wol viel lieblicher melodey/ wo bleibt aber unter defi die rechte waare uhralte von Gott der Natur und allen dingen eingepflantzte hoch und wunderbahre consonanz unnd Musica- lische Harmoni aller Creaturn/ daraufi der Syn. & Antipathia erlernt unnd viel unglaubiger sachen mogen verrichtet werden.” On the musica universalis, see: Proust, “The Harmony of the Spheres from Pythagoras to Voyager,” 358-367. On Fludd and musical harmony, see: Godwin, The Harmony of the Spheres.
207 Mogling [Florentinus de Valentia], Rosa Florescens, Aviv-Aviir: “Das Menapius ferner schleust/ die Bruderschafft vom Rosen Creutz veracht und vernichtige alle Vniversiteten, Academias, gelehrte Doctores und Magistros, weil sie gesagt/ das alle Kunstler hochlich
and wanted their reformation, not their abolition. His criticism of the traditional sciences in fact mirrored Fludd’s: Mogling claimed also that the impressive recent inventions in the arts and sciences were not found at universities, where scholars were too busy repeating what had been studied before, discussing medieval quaestiones, and disputing each others’ philosophies. Scholars, he observed, debated “from doubtful questions an entire day purely on logical grounds, without regard of the things themselves, in the end they know more of the same than before.”208 For Mogling, Grick belonged to those stubborn scholars who were proud of their practice of disputation and of their eloquence with languages:
That [Grick] conceives that it all is settled with Latin, French, Italian, Spanish, English, Bohemian, Hungarian, Polish, High and Low German, Greek or similarly different languages, as also with useless contentious disputations in the sciences and arts, and that this would be sufficient is a vain imagination, and a deception that has taken root long ago in the majority.209
Such displays of eloquence would neither improve nor perfect the arts, nor bring about knowledge of things yet to be discovered. It was for this reason that the brethren’s aims were so far removed from the academic playground of scholastic eloquence: “The fraternity itself acknowledges that it attaches greater respect to the realities of nature, than to the daintiness of many tongues,” which were “nothing more than merely tokens and shadows of things.”210 The contemporary sciences were anything but perfect, with much still to be done in astronomy, astrology, physics, ethics, and politics; and many
laboriren und bifi anno 1615. im verborgen gelegen/ ist zu jehe geurtheilt/ unnd wird sich in ihren schrifften das widerspiel erweissen.”
208 Ibid., Aiiir: “wir aber nehmens weinig in acht/ und ist der Gelehrten groste kunst/ von zweyfligen quaestionibus ein ganzen tag sein pure pute Logice ohne betrachtung der sachen selber zu discurirn, quo finito, item plerumque norunt, quod ante.”
209 Ibid., Aiiir: “Das er gedenckt es sey mit Lateinischer/ Franzosischer/ Italienischer/ Span- nischer/ Englischer/ Bomischer/ Ungerischer/ Polnischer/ hoch und nider Teutscher/ Grichischer/ oder dergleichen unterschiedlichen sprachen/ wie dann auch mit unnoti- gen zanckischen disputirn in scientiis & artibus verricht/ und sey den sache gnug gethan/ ist ein eitele imagination, und lange zeit hero bey mehrertheils eingewurzelter betrug.”
210 Ibid., Aiiir: “Die Fraternitet bekennt selber/ das sie ihnen die Realia naturae mehr und hoher lassen angelegen sein/ als zierlichkeit vilerhand zungen und billich/ sintemal sel- bige mehrers nit als blosse notitiae & umbrae rerum.”
of the cures prescribed in medicine did not work.211 It was this state of affairs that prompted Mogling to ask:
Do we not need a reparation, then? Should not the dilapidated temple of Pallas be rebuilt? ’No,’ says Menapius, ’not through such unnatural means.’ Whence does he know this? Who has told him that the promises of the brethren are against God and nature, while even he himself acknowledges that there is still much hidden in nature?212
In Mogling’s eyes, the Rosicrucian reformation entailed a study of the natural world. Instead of perpetuating the universities’ stale practices, the Rosicrucians investigated nature directly. They aimed to restore the once thriving studies and to complement these by new investigations. New things were being discovered every day, according to Mogling, which were neglected in academia but by which the old sciences could be improved.213 Academics wanted to be “erudite heads,” but according to Mogling they should be investigating matters by their hands and eyes.214 He raised the status of manual skills as opposed to Grick’s humanist inclinations. Like Fludd, he wished to complement the Book of Scripture by the Book of Nature. Paracelsus had shown the way, replacing scholarly writings by the study of nature itself. For this, Grick had called him a “sewer of Satan,” but in Mogling’s estimation his was instead an example worth following, as he taught that the highest wisdom was found in nature.215
211 Ibid., Aviiiv-Br.
212 Ibid., Aviiiv—Br: “Soll dann nicht einer reparation betreffen? Solt nicht das ein gefallne Templum Palladis wider erbaut werden? Nein spricht Menapius, durch solche wider Naturliche mittel nicht. Woher weifi er das? Wer hat ihm gesagt/ das die promissiones Fratrum Gott unnd der Natur zu wider/ da er doch selbst bekennet/ es sey in der Natur noch viel verborgen.”
213 Ibid., Aviiiv: “Wir sehen taglich/ kommen neue ding herfur/ daran man zuvor nie gedacht/ oder werden doch die alten verbessert.”
214 Ibid., Aiiir—Aiiiv: “Sie sehen auff die Terminos und lassen die res, nehmen den schatten fur die Wandt/ wollen dennoch physici, Naturkundiger und hochgelehrte kopff sein wann man aber solte zu werck schreitten unnd die sachen mit der hand/ also zu reden/ angreif- fen & ad oculum demonstriren [...].”
215 Ibid., Biiir: “Paracelsus in Secreto Magico schreibt/ die Heydnische Scripta, so den grund oder Richtscheid der natur nicht vermogen/ sollen zu nichts geachtet/ sondern Vulcano- befohlen werden/ und dagegen das hochste Buch Sapientia, welches von dem einigen Geist Gottes aufigehet/ aufi dem centro der Natur gesucht werden [...]. Difi ist die meynung Theophrasti, der von Menapio vermessener weifi mancipium et cloaca satha- nae genent wird/ da doch seine eigene Schrifften das contrarium e diametro beweisen unnd darthun.”
But the Rosicrucians did not merely turn from paper books to the Book of Nature. The study of the Book of Nature was intimately related to divine matters. For Paracelsus, Mogling explained, the study of this book had been inspired by God.216 Likewise, the Rosicrucians studied “the eternal sole true book of life, in which are hidden all art, science, and things [which seem] impossible to human reason. Because what is the physics, which does not take its footing from Scripture? Nothing.”217
In parallel with the improvement of manual arts at the expense of scholastic practices, Mogling claimed that the Rosicrucians’ second substitute to academic education was theosophy. In Flourishing Rose he returned once again to the issue of ergon and parergon, but the connection between the ergon and general reform is more clearly drawn here than it had been in the Mirror or the Pandora, the two tracts described in the previous chapter—presumably because the Flourishing Rose was a direct response to Grick, who challenged precisely this reform. Whereas in the other two texts, Mogling had first and foremost explained the distinction between ergon and parergon, in his Flourishing Rose he clarified the way in which the Rosicrucian ergon contributed to the improvement of the sciences: the study of the Supreme Being was the Rosicrucian alternative to established sciences and could educate people in all matters. He linked the study of nature with theosophy:
Who understands the great Book of Nature with its signs and characters impressed by God, considers the universal spirit of the world, contemplates the origin and continuation of all creatures in eager fear of God, considers his own ability, like all wisdom, nay God Himself in him, will certainly find such things as Menapius deems impossible.218
216 Ibid., Bint Biiiir. Cf. above, pp. 143-144.
217 Ibid., Biiv—Biiir: “[Die fratres] sehen mit den augen defi verstandts pure patientes, in das Ewige Einige Waare Buch des Lebens/ darin alle kunst/ wissenschafft und vor Mensch- licher vernunfft unmogliche sachen verborgen. Dann was ist die Physica, die nit aufi der Schrifft ihrer fufi nimbt? Nichts.” This may remind us of Weigel’s distinction between “fleish,” “vernunfft,” and “verstand,” which he connected to three sets of eyes; see: Weigel, Gnothi seauton, 24.
218 Mogling [Florentinus de Valentia], Rosa Florescens, Bv: “Wer Magnum librum Naturae mit seinen von Gott imprimirten signaculis unnd Characteribus verstehet/ den Spiritum Mundi Universalem zugemut fuhret/ den ursprung unnd continuation aller Creaturn in eyfferiger furcht Gottes contemplirt, sein eigen vermogen/ wie alle Weifiheit/ ja Gott selbst in ihm betracht/ wird gewifi finden solches/ das Menapius vor unmoglich acht.”
Perfection of knowledge was what Menapius (Grick) had deemed unobtainable, but this perfection had, Mogling argued, now become possible thanks to the brethren. Humans could understand the world’s origin and that of all its creatures, therefore being able to see into the invisible reality of the world, according to the theosophical notion that the divine could be understood through a study of nature. But God could also be studied in the microcosm, as Mogling had explained earlier;219 and conversely, “[t]he human being can have and understand everything through God, who lives within him.” Humans did not require the books of scholars; paper books were mere memorials through which humans may remember what is within them.220 Besides the Book of Nature, there was a need for a new, different book, to teach humans everything scholarly writings could not. This was the book that resided within humans, although few were capable of reading it.221 Mogling called it the “Book of Life, which is inscribed with the finger of God in all human hearts.”222 The Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature were complemented by the Book within, and in any of these three types of books God could be studied.
To study the Book of Life “is the ergon of the brethren,” “the highest science, which they call pansophia.”223 Mogling explained that this Book of Life
is the life of all human beings, and it is the light of humans, which it kindles in the darkness, it is the Word of God [...]. The Word is God’s
219 See above, p. 280 ff.
220 Mogling [Florentinus de Valentia], Rosa Florescens, Bviiir: “Alles kan der Mensch/ vermit- telst Gott/ der in ihm wohnt haben und verstehen/ von unnd aufi sich selbst die Buchen (wie eine gelehret Mann schreibt) seind nichts anders als memorial, oder Zeugschrifften/ dadurch wir erinnert und uberzeugt werden/ dessen das in uns ist [.].”
221 Ibid., Bviiiv-Cr: “Alle Bucher der Welt kanstu lernen ohn sonderbahre muhe aufi einem einigen Buch/ und difi Buch ist in dir/ und in allen Menschen inn grossen und kleinen/ in jungen unnd alten/ inn gelehrten und ungelehrten/ Aber gar wenig/ ja freylich gar wenig konnen dasselbige lesen.”
222 Ibid., Cr: “Ja viel hochgelehrte durffens in ihnen verlaugnen/ kleben also am todten Buch- staben/ der da ausser ihnen ist/ und verlassen das Buch defi lebens/ das doch mit dem finger Gottes eingeschrieben ist/ in aller Menschen hertzen.”
223 Ibid., Ct-Ciir: “Und dieses ist das Ergon Fratrum, das vorwerck Regnum Dei unnd die hochste wissenschafft/ von ihnen genand Pansophia.” Cf. Mogling [Florentinus de Valen- tia], Rosa Florescens, Cv: “Difi ist das Buch defi lebens/ der Geist die weifiheit/ ja Gott und sein Reich selber in Menschen/ dannenhero Lucae 17: Das Reich gottes kompt nicht mit eusserlichen gebarden/ denn sehet/ das Reich ist innwendig in euch Item 1 Corinth. 4. Das Reich Gotes siehet nicht in worten/ sondern in der Krafft.”
wisdom within humans, it is God’s image in humans, it is God’s spirit or finger in humans, it is God’s seed or law, [it is] Christ, God’s kingdom and all in all.224
With these notions, Mogling clearly drew on Valentin Weigel, and particularly on the final chapters of Weigel’s The Golden Grasp (1578). In that work, Weigel had explained that humans have two sets of eyes, and accordingly two types of knowledge. One type of knowledge is natural and comes from the external world, the other type is supernatural and comes from God, who resides within humans. Like Mogling, Weigel also argued that paper books were merely written testimonials of what was contained already within human beings.225 He called the inner book the Book of Life, and Mogling’s passage about the Book of Life was verbatim the same as a passage from Weigel’s text: The Book of Life
is the life of all human beings, and it is the light of humans, which it kindles in the darkness, it is the Word of God [...]. The Word is God’s wisdom within humans, itis God’s image in humans, itis God’s spirit or finger in humans, itis God’s seed, God’s law, [it is] Christ, God’s kingdom [.].226
For Mogling, continuing in Weigel’s footsteps, this internal divine book was the “treasure of the new birth,” which he claimed, echoing Weigel, was “sweeter than honey and virgin honey.”227 Mogling advised Grick to study this book, which would bring him more wisdom than reading paper books and understanding many languages.228
224 Ibid., Ciir: “Es ist das leben aller Menschen/ unnd ist das liecht der Menschen/ welches sie erleuchtet inn der finsternufi/ es ist Gottes wort [...]. Das wort ist die Weifiheit Gottes in Menschen/ es ist die Bildnufi Gottes im Menschen/ es ist die Geist oder finger Gottes im Menschen/ est ist der Sam oder Gesetz Gottes/ Christus/ Gottes Reich und alles in allem.”
225 Weigel, Der Guldene Griff, ch. xvi.
226 Ibid., Der Guldene Griff. K4t “[...] Es ist das Leben aller Menschen, und ist das Liecht der Menschen, welchs sei erleuchtet in der Finsternis/ es ist Gottes Wort [.]. Das Wort ist die Weifiheit Gottes im Menschen/ est ist die Bildnifi Gottes im Menschen/ es ist der Geist oder Finger GOTtes in Menschen/ es ist der Same Gottes/ das Gesetz Gottes, Christus Gottes Reich.” Weigel explained that he drew on Wisdom 7 and 8.
227 Mogling [Florentinus de Valentia], Rosa Florescens, Ciiv: “Also auch verhindert ein kurtze schnode lust der Welt/ den ewigen unendlichen Schatz der neuen geburt/ die da susser denn Honig und Honigsaim.” Cf. Weigel, Der Guldene Griff , Liir-Liiv: “Also auch verhindert eine kurtze Schnode Lust der Welt/ den Ewigen vnendtlichen Schatz der Newengeburt/ die da susser dann Honig vnd Honigsaum.” Cf. also ibid., ch. xv.
228 Mogling [Florentinus de Valentia], Rosa Florescens, Ciiir: “Betrachst lieber Bruder Menapi, ob deiner Frag und instans hiemit ein genugen geschehen. Ich weifi/ und wil dir
Knowledge of the Book of Life was linked with the new birth, the birth of Christ within humans. To be born again, according to John 3, means to be born in the spirit and to be able to enter God’s eternal kingdom. Humans, for Mogling, can internally be reborn in Christ and enter God’s realm within, from which they may acquire complete knowledge in this life. This was what the Rosicrucians had in mind, because “[t]he brethren urge [others] first to search for the kingdom of God, and they desire the new birth in Christ.”229 Complete wisdom was Christian wisdom, the study of nature a Christian endeavour, and “to know God and all creatures, is the highest perfection of a human.”230
Mogling’s views also had apocalyptic connotations. He linked the new birth and the kingdom of God to earthly perfection, which was to be acquired before the end. Because understanding the chronology of worldly matters implied insight into divine secrets, Mogling once again turned to Scripture. The Rosicrucians had not done so, but Grick, when attacking them for their promise of future earthly perfection, had. Mogling now also pointedly referred to the Bible in order to carefully argue against Grick’s views. Grick, Mogling recalled, had asked how the brethren knew that everything will come to perfection before the end of the world. To prove the opposite, Grick had referred to Isaiah, who foretold that the end of the world would be characterised by destruction and distress.231 Mogling seems not to have wanted to be so heretical as to contradict Scripture, and argued that this passage was not at odds with Rosicrucian promises of perfect knowledge on earth. According to him, Grick attributed claims to the Rosicrucians that did not have their origin in the manifestos.232 He granted that Isaiah prophesied about future destruction, and that the Fama stated that
vergwisen/ heiligestu Gott nur etlicher solcher Sabbath/ unnd list inn diesen Buch mit den augen defi Geistlichen verstandes/ du wirst mehr/ sowol inn Gottlich als Creatur- lichen sachen aufirichten/ auch weiser unnd gelehrter seyn/ als wann du aller Philoso- phorum, Poetarum, Oratorum, oder Grammaticorum schriffen gelesen/ ja viel hundert Sprachen konnest die so vorschublich nicht seyn/ als ein einiger solcher Sabbath/ so er von rechtem Herzen/ unnd nicht aufi heucheley gehalten wird [...] Thust du das/ so bistu Gott angenem/ dem Nechsten nutzlich/ und ein waaren RosenCreutzer/ (die du doch so unschultig furTeuffle achtest) [...].”
229 Ibid., Biiv: “[...] da sie das quaerite primo regnum dei, urgiren, und die widergeburt in Christo begeren [...].”
230 Ibid., Ciir: “Gott und alle Creaturn erkennen/ ist summa hominis perfectio.”
231 Ibid., Bviv—Bviir. Here Mogling cites Grick verbatim; see: Grick [Menapius], Copia literarum, C6r.
232 Mogling [Florentinus de Valentia], Rosa Florescens, Bviir: “Auff solche instantiam kurzlich zu antworten. Mocht ich wol wissen/ wannenhero Menapius diese quaestion formirt, sin- temal kein RosenCreutzer niemals solchs gesagt/ und hat author entweder ihre-
before the end of the world God will grant to the world the return of the truth, light, and dignity that Adam had lost.233 But this perfection, he explained, will not be granted to all, but only to some people in the world.234 This means that both this truth and light as well as the destruction prophesied by Isaiah may be expected: “The world is too bad, and bad and good will be found until the end, thus the saying of Isaiah remains intact. Thus God’s terrifying unforeseen future remains, although for some Godfearing people the treasures of wisdom will be uncovered.”235 Mogling’s solution to the by now familiar issue of the possible return of perfection to earth was unique: there will be both good and bad until the Final Day, because some few will be allowed to reach perfection in this life. He referred to Joel 2:28-32, which had also been invoked by Fludd, to confirm his reading of Isaiah. Joel prophesied the illumination of some, and of terrible signs on earth.236 For the future, Mogling argued, we may indeed expect disasters, but some will be granted complete illumination: “Here you see explicitly, good-hearted reader, how both, one being the prevention of the other, may be true at once, namely the terrifying wonders and the illumination of the faithful.”237
meinung nicht recht verstanden/ oder den sensum aufi mifigunst corrumpirt, wer hat jemals gedacht/ das wir in diesem leben alle werden gleich werden?”
233 Ibid., Bviir-Bviiv: “Author Famae schreibt: Gott hat gewifi beschlossen/ der Welt vor ihrem untergang welcher bald hernacht folgen soll/ noch eben solche warheit/ liecht und herr- lichkeit/ widerfahren zulassen unnd zugeben/ wie der erst Mensch Adam im Paradifi verscherzt unnd verloren hat?”
234 Ibid., Bviiv: “Der Welt/ spricht er [author Famae]/ nicht aber allen Menschen/ sintemal in einem andern er die Geldbegirigen excludirt.”
235 Ibid., Bviiv: “Die Welt ist zu arg/ unnd werden bofi unnd gut bifi ans end erfunden/ geht auch darumb dem spruch Esaie nichts ab. Dann Gottes erschrockliche unversehene Zukunfft bleibt/ ob gleich etlichen Gottsfurchtigen Menschen die schatz der Weifiheit entdeckt.”
236 Ibid., Bviiv-Bviiir. Joel 2:28-32: “And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions. And also upon the servants and upon the handsmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit. And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord come. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call.”
237 Mogling [Florentinus de Valentia], Rosa Florescens, Bviiiv: “Hie sihestu aufidrucklich guthertziger Leser/ wie beedes/ eins eine verhinderung defi andern/ die erschrockliche wunder unnd erleuchtigung der glaubigen moge beysammen sein.”
Perfect knowledge was still possible, but internally, while the external world was in distress, because human beings have the entire world within them:
And why should it not be possible that human beings arrive at such perfection still in this life, given that all arts, science, all creatures, heaven and earth, the entire world, yes God Himself is hidden within him? The human being can, by means of God, Who resides within him, have and understand everything.238
Mogling’s belief in such future perfection was intimately related to the notion of Christ’s atoning death:
[Adam’s] sin has been atoned by Christ. If we now want to follow our Saviour, not oppose ourselves to God [...], and surrender ourselves to God the Lord entirely and completely as a pure home and habitation, He will certainly without restraint exercise His marvels in us, and He will remain in us, we in Him.239
The manifestos had not made an explicit link between the Redeemer and the human possibility of inner perfection, but Andreae was later to establish a similar connection between the possibility of inner perfection and Christ’s crucifixion in his Christianopolis.240 This link enabled Mogling to maintain that only the pious and pure will acquire this beatific state on earth and enjoy God’s presence and the state of Adam in Paradise within.241 By arguing in this way, he was doctrinally closer to Arndt and to the later Andreae than to the Rosicrucian manifestos. His solution resided in the notion that those gran-
238 Ibid., Bviiir: “Und warumb solts nicht moglich sein/ den Menschen zu solcher perfection noch in diesem leben zugelangen/ weil alle Kunst/ Wissenschafft/ alle Creaturn/ Himmel und Erden die ganze Welt/ ja Gott selbst in ihme verborgen? Alles kan der Mensch/ ver- mittelst Gott/ der in ihm wohnt haben und verstehen.”
239 Ibid., Ciiiv: “Adam hat seine Weifiheit anderst nicht verlohrn/ als durch sein eigen wil- len. Nun ist sein Schuld gebust durch Christum/ wann wir nun unserm Erloser wollen nachfolgen/ uns Gott nicht widersetzen [.] unnd uns Gott dem Herrn ganz unnd gar zu einer reinen wohnung und habitaculo ergeben/ wird er gewifi ohne verhinderung seine Wunderwerck inn uns uben/ Er in uns/ wir in ihm in Ewigkeit verbleiben.”
240 See above, p. 203.
241 Mogling [Florentinus de Valentia], Rosa Florescens, Ciiiv: “Und difi ist der Bruderschafft kurze beschriebene meynung/ bifi zu anderer zeit/ nicht das alle Menschen sollen gleich werden/ dann der mehrertheil zu verstockt unnd Gottlofi/ sondern das die glaubige/ die Gott ein reinen Sabbath halten/ werden sein wie Adam im Paradifi/ denn eben difi reine gewissen unnd ruhe in Christo ist das Paradeifi.”
ted such an internal “paradise” will learn, “in accordance with the Rosicrucian promise,” in one book all arts of the world, and “know completely everything that is in the macrocosm and microcosm.”242
Grick was concerned with earthly affairs rather than with paradisiacal inner perfection. As for Mogling, he did not neglect earthly problems, but saw them as solvable through manual arts and theosophical studies. The lack of visible reform of society by the brethren was central to Grick’s attack, but Mogling swiftly dismissed his objections, focusing on the reform of knowledge instead. In Mogling’s view, Grick belonged to that type of university scholar that had for long defined the course of academic learning, but had failed to contribute anything substantial. He saw the development of knowledge in a way substantially different from Grick: the latter inserted himself into the tradition of the humanists, whereas Mogling followed so-called Paracelsian novatores and artisans in their study of the natural world. That he also counted theosophy among the studies of the Rosicrucians was, at least in part, because he believed it could prepare one for the future life: society was not just to be transformed, while man himself could also live internally in paradise and acquire perfect wisdom. In his interpretation of the Rosicrucian manifestos, by drawing on Weigel Mogling placed these texts in the tradition of Weigelianism. Perhaps in an attempt to avoid charges of Pelagianism, he considered the enjoyment of paradise within only possible for the faithful few, but those few would have complete wisdom and arrive at perfection still in this life.
5.3 Concluding Remarks and Further Challenges: Official Investigations
The cases discussed in Chapter Four were concerned with the proposed alternative of the Rosicrucians to established studies more so than with their call for reform. The scholars discussed in this chapter, in turn, directly referred to the Rosicrucian general reformation. It is striking that while the Rosicrucian manifestos discussed religious, political, and scientific change, the debates analysed in this chapter revealed concerns for exactly these fields. All four authors addressed the Rosicrucian intention to reform the academies as well
242 Ibid., Ciiiir: “Furwar wer in diesem Paradifi ist/ der wird/ laut Rosencreuzischer promission [...] in einem Buch alle Kunst der Welt feliciter erlernen [...], alles was in Macro- &Microcosmo vollig erkennen [...].”
as the announcement of a future perfection. Evidently, the scholars contra the Rosicrucians rejected both notions, whereas the authors defending them argued in favour of them. Other elements of the call for general reformation were addressed in various ways and to various degrees. Libavius attacked the Rosicrucian reformative project from a Lutheran and academic perspective; Grick not only as an academic but also as a citizen, when discussing societal or political reform. He relished the idea of the improvement of cities that were now in a state of decay and the support of people who were suffering, but he was taken aback by the lack of support coming from the Rosicrucians. According to Libavius, the Rosicrucians distorted the Bible; according to Libavius and Grick, they misled the people and planned to corrupt the sciences and arts; and both Libavius and Grick rejected the Rosicrucian alternative, which to them represented magical Paracelsian fantasies.
In his response, Fludd undermined Libavius’ Lutheranism as well as his defence of academic practices; whereas Mogling coupled the reformation of society and the arts with the reform of humans and the divine, and situated the divine in the internal human being. Mogling and Fludd further believed that the brethren had access to God through nature. As we have seen in the previous chapter, because the Rosicrucians had not clearly formulated their alternative to established learning, this alternative was subject to a variety of interpretations, in correspondence to the different worldviews of their readers. This is also where Fludd and Mogling parted ways: Fludd viewed the Rosicrucians as restoring ancient and divine magic, whereas Mogling believed them to complement technological arts by theosophical studies conducted through God and the Book of Life within themselves—that reform was required seemed evident to both, but they differed over the ways in which the reforms should develop.
Similar tensions emerged in many of the early investigations conducted at courts and universities into authors suspected of Rosicrucianism. The Rosicrucian furore had quickly spread throughout Europe, and Rosicrucianism found advocates amongst individuals with often fairly disparate beliefs. Some authors mixed Rosicrucian ideas with other traditions, so that soon the heterodox movement became even more difficult to comprehend by traditional academics, rulers, and orthodox theologians. Institutions were at a loss as to how to interpret this phenomenon, and they investigated members suspected of Rosicrucianism in order to assess the danger they posed to religion, politics, and knowledge. Some of these investigations have been discussed in the available literature, but they deserve some attention here because they provide a good characterisation of the reasons not only of individuals but also of institutions for their condemnation of figures with Rosicrucian sympathies.
In some cases, investigators were doing their utmost to protect academic conventions. 1619 witnessed the prosecution of two heterodox Weigelian thinkers at the Calvinist University of Marburg, which was under the supervision of the Calvinist Landgrave Moritz von Hesse-Kassel (1572-1632). There, Philipp Homagius (whose father-in-law, Wilhelm Wessel, was the printer of the Fama and Confessio in Kassel) and Georg Zimmermann were investigated for their heterodox ideas and suspected of Rosicrucianism.243 In December 1619, Homagius and Zimmermann had thrown academic writings out the window of the Calvinist university, among which were works by Virgil and Cicero, as well as Greek and Latin lexicons. This radical action was seen as an affront to established learning, prompting the university theologians to investigate the two scholars. When questioned, they argued that universities and their programmes should be changed, and that the study of Aristotle and languages should be replaced by “modern institutions.”244 Landgrave Moritz was warned about the two scholars, their books were investigated, and they were suspected of Weigelian enthusiasm.245 When interrogated at the order of Moritz, they were questioned about the writings of Paracelsus and Weigel, but notably also about the Rosicrucians—Paracelsianism, Weigelianism, and Rosicrucianism seemed equally heterodox, and the investigators believed that their proposed reform of education must have been informed by these divergent yet overlapping movements. In response, both Homagius and Zimmermann praised the fraternity and its brethren.246 Under interrogation, Homagius was asked about his intentions, whether Rosicrucians had assembled in Marburg, and to whom the Rosicrucian lion referred. This last question is interesting, because by this time, December 1619, at the inception of the Thirty Years’ War, the Protestant Prince Frederick v of the Palatinate had just been crowned King of Bohemia and was portrayed by some as the Lion of the North.
The otherwise little-known Johannes Casar, who had been associated with Homagius, was also questioned about the fraternity, his opinion of it, and his acquaintance with its members. He was further asked about his views concerning the announced Rosicrucian reformation and how that reformation was to be understood: spiritually or secularly.247
243 Hochhuth, “Mittheilungen” (1862), 86-159; Moran, “Paracelsus, Religion and Dissent: The Case of Phillip Homagius and Georg Zimmermann,” 65-79.
244 Hochhuth, “Mittheilungen” (1862), 87-92.
245 Ibid., 102.
246 Ibid., 117, 120; Moran, “Paracelsus, Religion, and Dissent,” 69.
247 Moran, “Paracelsus, Religion, and Dissent,” 73-74.
It is unclear whether the defenestration of these academic writings by the two rebellious Marburg academics was motivated by Rosicrucian sympathies, but the investigators immediately saw in this act an association with intangible, heterodox movements like Rosicrucianism. What began as an attempt to reform the university, which by itself was not specifically Rosicrucian, was quickly interpreted as being related to Rosicrucian reform sympathies.
The Marburg investigators, like Libavius, were also worried about questions of religious orthodoxy. They interrogated Homagius and Zimmermann on the sacraments, rebirth, free will, law, predestination, Mary, and their millenarian views—all topics on which Calvinism had established views.248 The manifestos had not discussed any of these themes apart from millenarian views, but the investigators interrogated Homagius and Zimmermann on matters that could determine their alignment with any confession. Landgrave Moritz was clearly worried about the influence of these men, and believed that they could exercise a corrupting influence over many pious hearts.249 His involvement in the matter is striking, given the fact that the Fama could only have been published in his territory with his explicit consent.250 Under interrogation, Zimmermann recanted his reformative views on university practice but, according to the Marburg report, Homagius answered his interrogators by praising Rosicrucianism and linking it to Paracelsian and Weigelian notions. Thus, in answers to questions about religious orthodoxy, topics unrelated to Rosicrucianism came to be associated with the movement. Homagius was tortured and sentenced to lifelong imprisonment in Konigsberg (Biebertal) by order of Moritz, but was helped to escape to Giessen by professors of that city who took pity on his situ- ation.251 The Marburg episode, in any case, shows how Rosicrucianism came to be linked to views antithetical to Calvinist academic and religious life.
After having fled to Giessen, Homagius became subject of another investigation, this time under the name of “Johannes Homagius.” The investigation in Giessen shows that also Lutheran theologians felt threatened for religious reasons by subversive groups like the Rosicrucians. Theologians of the Lutheran university of Giessen investigated Homagius and the physician Heinrich Nolle (Nollius). No sooner had they begun their investigation than Homagius
248 Hochhuth, “Mittheilungen” (1862), 102,114-115,118-119; Moran, “Paracelsus, Religion, and Dissent,” 68.
249 Hochhuth, “Mittheilungen” (1862), 123.
250 Gilly, “Theophrastia Sancta,” 182 esp. n. 71; idem, “Die Rosenkreuzer,” 23-24; Tilton, “The Rosicrucian Manifestos and Early Rosicrucianism,” 138.
251 Klenk, “Ein sogenannter Inquisitionsprocefi in Giefien anno 1623,” 45-47.
fled the city for safer havens.252 Nolle, his thought associated with that of Hermeticism and Paracelsianism, had written a Mirror of the Philosophical Parergon, published in Giessen, 1623, which was what prompted the orthodox members of the university of Giessen to investigate him.253 The text was an alchemical-allegorical story, inspired by the Chemical Wedding, in which Nolle acclaimed Hermes and Paracelsus as his authorities. He also openly and repeatedly expressed his hope for the Rosicrucians’ general reformation of the sciences.254 The investigators of the Faculty of Theology considered Nolle’s Mirror to be dangerous because it underminded the true faith,255 and their report listed several points of the Mirror that they considered suspicious specifically for religious and, by implication, confessional reasons.256
The Lutheran theologians communicated their findings to the Lutheran Landgrave Ludwig v of Hesse-Darmstadt (1577-1626). Ludwig decreed that Homagius and Nolle were to be “put in prison, so that no one could come to them, not even writings could be delivered to them,”257 and he ordered that Nolle’s Mirror in all its editions be confiscated and that its printer be inter- rogated.258 He further deemed Nolle to belong to a “certain sect,” presumably the Rosicrucian society, and ordered an investigation into whether its members held meetings, where, when, and how often these meetings took place, and about what they communicated. All persons involved should be prohibited from any further spoken or written communication.259
252 Ibid., 45-47.
253 On Nolle, see for example: Hochhuth, “Mittheilungen aus der Protestantischen Secten- Geschichte in der hessischen Kirche. Vierte Abtheilung: Die Weigelianer und Rosen- kreuzer. Grunius und Nollius”; Gilly, “Das Bekenntnis zur Gnosis von Paracelsus bis auf die Schuler Jacob Bohmes”; Meier-Oeser, “Henricus Nollius (ca. 1583-1626). Aristoteli- sche Metaphysik und hermetische Naturphilosophie im fruhen 17. Jahrhundert.” On Nolle’s ideas, see: Hochhuth, “Mittheilungen” (1863), 192-215; Gilly, “Das Bekenntnis zur Gnosis,” 422-423; Meier-Oeser, “Henricus Nollius.”
254 Nolle, Parergi philosophici speculum; Kuhlmann and Telle, cp, nr. 170, 1244.
255 Hochhuth, “Mittheilungen” (1863), 118; Klenk, “Ein sogenannter Inquisitionsprocefi in Giefien anno 1623,” 49-52.
256 Kuhlmann and Telle, cp, nr. 170, 1249.
257 Report of Ludwig von Hesse-Darmstadt, 12 January 1623: “Und weil gute Aufsicht und exemplarischer Procefi in diesen argerlichen Dingen nothig, sollt ihr Beide, homagium und Nollium unserem Hauptmann liefern, dafi er sie an sichere Orte und eine Jeden absonderlich in’s gefangnifi lege, dafi Niemand zu ihnen kommen, auch kein Schreiben beigestofien werde,” cited in: Kuhlmann and Telle, cp, nr. 170, 1246.
258 Kuhlmann and Telle, cp, nr. 170, 1245.
259 Report of Ludwig von Hesse-Darmstadt, 12 January, 1623, cited in: Kuhlmann and Telle, cp, nr. 170, 1247-1248.
Unlike the Marburg investigators, Ludwig did not refer to the Rosicrucians by name, but the suspected existence of a new heterodoxy was causing much disquiet in Giessen. Clearly, Ludwig, like Moritz, feared that unorthodox ideas would spread widely, corrupting others. Nolle must have understood what Ludwig implied, because under questioning he defended himself from any suspicion of Rosicrucianism. Also the faculties of philosophy and law, defending Nolle, distanced themselves from heretics, Rosicrucians, and Weigelians alike, which suggests that they felt that the revelation of involvement with any of these sects was the real purpose for these investigations.260 Ultimately, Nolle was indicted for his Rosicrucianism and Weigelian enthusiasm (“Schwarm- erei”), as well as for meeting like-minded people.261
Similar yet more explicit fears of Rosicrucianism existed in the Dutch provinces. In June 1625, the courts of Holland, Zeeland, and Friesland sent a letter to the city council of Haarlem that warned about “some persons who were named brothers of the Rose Cross who had taken their home in the city of Paris in France, [and who] have now also come to these provinces [_].”262 The reference to Paris was perhaps to the city’s 1623 episode that also involved Descartes. The letter by the courts explained that the “sect” already held “meetings” “by night and at outrageous hours” “here in this land and, among other places, also within Haarlem [...].”263 Earlier, the Court of Holland had sent several unnamed works to Calvinist theologians in Leiden for investigation into the “Rosicrucian sect” and its “origin” and “teachings.”264 As was mentioned in the Introduction,
260 Hochhuth, “Mittheilungen” (1863), 223-227.
261 Kuhlmann and Telle, cp, nr. 170,1244; Meier-Oeser, “Henricus Nollius,” 175.
262 Letter from the president and councils of Holland, Zeeland, and Friesland to the city coun
cil of Haarlem, dated 19 June 1625: “Also wij eenen tijt geleden verstaen hebben ende bericht zyn, dat sekere personen die hen noemen Broeders van den Roosen Cruce haer woonplaetse genomen hebben binnen de Stadt van Parijs in Vranckryck nu oock gecom- men souden zyn in dese Provincien [.],” cited in: Bredius, Johannes Torrentius, 17. On the Paris episode, see: Kahn, “The Rosicrucian Hoax in France,” 235-344.
263 Letter from the president and councils of Holland, Zeeland, and Friesland to the city coun
cil of Haarlem, dated 19 June 1625: “Ende wy, verstaen dat dickwijls, oock by nacht en ontyden die van de voorsz. seckte haer vergaderingen houden op verscheidenen plaetsen hier te lande ende onder anderen mede binnen Haerlem [.],” cited in: Bredius, Johannes Torrentius, 18.
264 Ibid.: “[.] gelyck wy oock becommen hebben verscheidene boucken ende geschriften inhoudende den oorspronck, t’gevoelen ende handel van die van de voorsz. secte den Roose Cruce, deweleke wij door een Commissaris daertoe gedeputeert hebben gedaen communiceren de Heeren Professoren in de Theologie tot Leijden ten ynde zijluiden naer behoorlycke examinatie ons daerop zouden dienen van haren advyse,” cited in: Bredius, Johannes Torrentius, 18.
on the basis of these works the theologians concluded that the Rosicrucian “sect” was an
error in doctrine [...], possessed, superstitious and magical; in her philosophy she is a fabrication of an erratic mind and a monstrous spirit, vain, useless, and filled with deceit; lastly rebellious towards the state [.].265
These theologians believed that Rosicrucianism posed a threat not only to their confession, but also to philosophy and to political stability more broadly. They further claimed that the Fama’s depiction of Christian Rosencreutz and the healthy and long life of the brethren was “against the law of illness and death, both imposed by God to all humanity for its sinfulness, and all those things are unusual, unheard of, and beyond the boundaries of human nature”—that is, against their Calvinist confessional views.266 After all, Adam’s sin had made humans mortal, and now Rosencreutz and the brethren are depicted as defying God’s laws.
Details of the report by the Leiden professors were passed by the Court of Holland to the city council of Haarlem, warning them that one of Haarlem’s inhabitants, the famous Dutch painter Johannes Symonsz van der Beek, known as Johannes Torrentius (1589-1644), was seen “to be one of the principal men
265 ara Den Haag, Hof van Holland, nr. 4601,1625-1626: “Judicium Facultatis Theologicae in Academia Leydensi de Secta Fraternitatis Roseae-Crucis,” translated into Dutch and reproduced in: Snoek, De Rozenkruisers, 537-545, esp. p. 544, “dwaling in de leer [.], bezeten, bijgelovig, en magisch; in haar filosofie is ze een verzinsel van een labiel verstand en een gedrocht des geestes, ijdel, zinloos en vol van bedrog, tenslotte oproerig ten opzichte van de staat.” On the report, see: Snoek, De Rozenkruisers, 176-179. The report is signed by the following professors: Antonius Waleus, Acad. Pro t[em]p[or]e Rector, Johannes Polyander, Andreaes Rivetus, Antonius Thysius. Akerman mistakenly refers to “Catholic professors”: Akerman, Rose Cross, 175.
266 ara Den Haag, Hof van Holland, nr. 4601, 1625-1626: “Judicium Facultatis Theologicae in Academia Leydensi de Secta Fraternitatis Roseae-Crucis,” translated into Dutch and reproduced in: Snoek, De Rozenkruisers, 541: “Vandaar ook dat ze over de stichter van de gemeenschap in herinnering brengen dat hij 106 jaar oud zijn ziel aan God heeft gegeven, op natuurlijke wijze, niet gedwongen door ziekte, welke hij nooit in zijn lichaam had gevoeld, maar geroepen door de Heilige geest, en dat gedurende 120 jaar zijn lichaam mooi, herkenbaar, ongeschonden en volledig onaangetast is gebleven. p. 20, 21. en dat de lichamen van de andere vaders van de secte vrij van pijn en ziekte zijn geweest, hoewel die toestand het moment van het verscheiden niet kon overschrijden. p. 13 Al die zaken zijn strijdig met de onontkoombare wet van zowel ziekte als dood, beide opgelegd van Godswege aan de totale mensheid om haar zondigheid, en al die dingen zijn ongewoon, ongehoord en gaan de grenzen van de menselijke natuur te buiten.”
of this [Rosicrucian] sect.”267 The Court of Holland ordered Haarlem to protect its city from Rosicrucians, and to submit a report soon.268 In 1627, on the basis of the report by the Calvinist Leiden theologians and a letter from the Court of Holland, Torrentius was thoroughly interrogated, tortured, and eventually sentenced to death. His trial vividly indicates the perceived danger that Rosicrucianism was thought to pose to society.
Torrentius was an extraordinary painter. From the many works he painted, it seems that only one small drawing and one painting have survived, the “emblematic still life with flagon, glass, jug, and bridle.”269 This painting has become known as the “mysterious masterpiece.” It is on display at the Rijksmu- seum Amsterdam and still puzzles all experts, because they do not understand how the painting was made and which materials were used: no brush strokes can be detected on the painting, and even after careful chemical analysis it is unclear what sort of paint was used—all of which contributes to the enigma of Torrentius.270 His qualities as a painter had not escaped his contemporaries, either. The polymath Constantijn Huygens (1596-1687), for example, revered the painter, and named Torrentius’ still life paintings miraculous, although personally he considered Torrentius a cunning man.271
The interrogation of Torrentius began with questions about Rosicrucianism. Torrentius was asked whether he belonged to the Rosicrucian sect, which he denied. He was further questioned about the members and intention of the Rosicrucian fraternity.272 The investigators also questioned witnesses, of whom
267 ara Den Haag, fols. 249r-250v: “Ende met eenen off Uwer E. yet byzonders hebben in dat stuck jegens eenen Thorentius, die geseit wort wel eenen van de principaelsten ten wesen der voorsz. seckte,” cited in: Snoek, De Rosenkruizers in Nederland, 111. On Torrentius, see: Bredius, Johannes Torrentius, Snoek, De Rozenkruisers, 105-168, 255-262, 282-289; Cerutti, De Schilder en Vrijdenker Torrentius.
268 Snoek, De Rozenkruisers, 112.
269 Torrentius wrote in the album amicorum of Gerard Thibault d’ Anvers, in which he made a small drawing and a poem, and in that of Petrus Scriverius. A portrait of Torrentius can be found in the album amicorum of Joachim Morsius, see: Snoek, De Rozenkruisers, 154; Cerutti, De Schilder en Vrijdenker Torrentius, 114.
270 De Kroon, Mysterious Masterpiece (documentary, 2018).
271 Bredius, Johannes Torrentius, 4; Snoek, De Rozenkruisers, 132. The engraver Michel le Bron,
who had written a pamphlet supporting the Rosicrucians, also commended Torrentius’ skills as a painter; see: Bredius, Johannes Torrentius, 6.
272 The questions were: “Off hy die spreeckt vande Broederschap ofte Ordre vande Rosen- cruyse es; Indien jaa, wat d’selve ordre meebrengt ofte inhoudt; Ende wie in de Provincie van Hollandt syn medebroeders ende medesusters syn, hoe genaempt ende waer woon- achtig,” cited in: Snoek, De Rozenkruisers, 117. On this trial, see: Bredius, Johannes Torren- tius; Rehorst, Torrentius; Snoek, De Rozenkruisers, 105-168. Torrentius was visited in prison by famous painters, among whom Frans Hals: Bredius, Johannes Torrentius, 55-56.
one clarified that he had stayed in a hostel near Torrentius and a company of Rosicrucians, thereby linking Torrentius to the apparently dangerous sect. Upon such suspicions, the investigators tortured Torrentius’ close friend Chris- tiaen Coppens, a wealthy merchant at whose house Torrentius had stayed for a while, and interrogated him about the Rosicrucians and Torrentius’ connections to them—again revealing, as in Marburg and Giessen, the fear of subversive groups.273
The inquisitors soon turned to other matters which they considered equally suspicious. Torrentius was asked how he painted. He answered that he painted without brushes but with a “science” that created such a noise that it seemed as if a swarm of bees were flying over the painting274—not an answer that would have satisfied his interrogators. He was also questioned about religious matters: if he had wanted to form a (Rosicrucian) sect; whether he had argued that there was no God; what he thought about the Trinity and about Christ’s suffering; and whether he had made offerings to the devil or had toasted the devil’s health and wellbeing. Rosicrucianism seemed to represent an affront to confessionalism. Torrentius denied everything, but the city council’s fear for the public life and wellbeing were amply demonstrated.275
Torrentius’ views must have seemed so enigmatic and dangerous that he was brutally tortured during questioning. When he was asked “whether he had blasphemed against God,” he denied, which, according to a report of the time, incurred the following treatment:
[T]hey put so many irons to each of his big toes that four servants could hardly tie him to a cord on his hands to wind him up to a torture rack [...] pulling apart arms, legs, and loins while [hot] waffle irons were screwed to his shin bones by the executioner [.]. After having fainted he was taken from the torture rack and put in a chair, and when he regained his consciousness, a mayor asked him: ’so, old chap, how are things now?’ He answered: ’well, sir, only the body is a bit tortured.’276
273 Snoek, De Rozenkruisers, 157. Coppens was sentenced to five years solitary confinement and was banned from the city for seven more years for toasting the devil; see: ibid., 120.
274 On this, see: Bredius, Johannes Torrentius, 7.
275 Bredius, Johannes Torrentius, 19,34,42-43,46. Torrentius was also questioned on his visits to and behaviour towards women, accounts of which seem to have been subject to exaggerated misrepresentations; see: ibid., 21-24, 34-39.
276 City Library Rotterdam, Church of Remonstrants, cat. v. Hss. Nr. 197: “[.] wert wederom ingeroepen, ende sonder eenige vrage meer te doen wert geweijt men salt u wel doen bekennen, de dreijgement met de daet vergeselschapt, wert tumultuaire terstont niet tegenstaende sijn appel aent Hoff van Justitie, aende pleijt ende ter tortuere gebracht,
Torrentius’ torture was unusually cruel, yet he suffered without protest, so that even the executioners claimed to have felt compassion towards him.277 Ultimately, he became weak to the point of paralysis, and was unable to sign his own statement.278 Because the matter concerned blasphemy, torture seemed a means necessary and justified.279 The trial, however, was a sham: later interviews revealed that false statements against Torrentius had been created and supporting ones ignored.280 In 1628, Torrentius was sentenced to be burned at the stake on charges related to “blasphemy,” “impiety,” and “harmful heresy.”281 His presumed connection to the Rosicrucians was not mentioned in the verdict, despite the fact that this was what had prompted the investigation in the first place.282 This might be explained by the fact that, unlike blasphemy and heresy, Rosicucianism was not an offence or a crime. Torrentius’ sentence, like his loathsome torture, was a remarkable and extraordinary measure even in his own time and place, and it was later changed to twenty years in prison. He was released two years later, in 1630, thanks to the intervention of the English King Charles i (1600-1649), who was inspired by Torrentius’ prodigious skills as a painter.283 The city council of Haarlem ordered that Torrentius’ paintings
in dezer forme, men heeft hem soo veel ijsers aen elcke groote tee vast gemaeckt dat vier dienaers hem nauwelijcx met een coorde aende handen vast achter om over een latarolle hebben connen ophijsen, hebben hem soo een uijre lang laten hangen, armen beenen en lendenen, uit malcanderen gereckt, en middelertijt sijn hem wafelijsers (in de helle ges- meet of van helhonden gepractiseert en int werck gestelt) door de Beul op den schenen geschroeft, en soo dicht aengeset dat de Beul opt bevel van een (andere helsche Beul) die vast riep set aen set aen antwoorde, soo ick noch eens dichter aansette sullen de schinckels aen tween breken, [...]. [N]a flaeu geworden sijnde is hij afgenomen en in een stoel geset, en becomende soo vraechde hem een Burgemeester, ha Vogel hoe ist nu, hij antwoorde wel mijnheere alleenelijck het lichaem is wat germarteliseert en dat seijde hij met een groote sachtsinnicheijt na zijn ordinaris manieren,” cited in: Snoek, De Rozenkruisers, 118119.
277 City Library Rotterdam, Church of Remonstrants, cat. v. Hss. Nr. 197: “Beul en diefleijders getuijgen datse haer leve dagen noijt niemant soo gepijnicht maer oock niemant die ijs- selijcke pijne met sulcken patientie hebben sien doorstaen, al de woorden dien hij sprack waren bequaem en machtich om de conscientie te persen, als de ijsere schroeven sijn schenen deden, noijt een ongelaten woort quam uit sijnen monde, waer over beul en die- naers selfs hartelijcke compassie cregen,” cited in: Snoek, De Rozenkruisers, 118-119.
278 Bredius, Johannes Torrentius, 46-52.
279 Ibid., 45-46.
280 Ibid., 24-28, 39-40; Snoek, De Rozenkruisers, 114-115.
281 Bredius, Johannes Torrentius, 48-49. For the full report see: ibid.; Snoek, De Rozenkruisers,
121.
282 Snoek, De Rozenkruisers, 121.
283 Bredius, Johannes Torrentius, 49-64.
in Haarlem be burned, so that today the only known surviving painting is his “emblematic still-life.”
What is striking about all the cases mentioned here, is that the investigations and condemnations were initiated by Lutheran and Calvinist theologians, protecting, in the early years of the Thirty Years’ War, their confession. Rosicrucianism was elusive, the ideas of its proponents, at least according to their inquisitors, were closely related to Paracelsianism and Weigelianism, and the movement seemed dangerous to the establishment. It is noteworthy that, for example in the case of Moritz, alchemical and magical studies were accepted. Moritz was very much involved in the investigation into Homagius and Zimmermann, and while he had been a patron to reformers of natural- philosophical, medical, and alchemical studies, he was not so to unorthodox religious, Rosicrucian, and Weigelian endeavours, as is clear from the Marburg reports.284 In Giessen, Nolle was protected by professors of medicine, and Rosicrucianism was not first and foremost considered a danger in relation to medical, alchemical, and natural-philosophical ideas. Rather, it was especially its association with heterodox and radical religious views that was deemed suspicious. Even so, to the Marburg and Leiden theologians, Rosicrucianism also seemed to pose a threat to established learning and philosophy, for which reason they repudiated Rosicrucianism and the associated reformation also on academic grounds.
Equally remarkable is the fact that rulers were also involved in these investigations. In the case of Haslmayr, the Catholic Duke Maximilian iii felt that the first responder to the Fama was a threat to stability. The Calvinist Landgrave Moritz and the Lutheran Landgrave Ludwig, as well as the representatives of the Dutch provinces, clearly intended to safeguard their respective lands and confessions. The political rulers from all three confessions felt threatened by the Rosicrucian manifestos and their followers. In particular the efforts by the Dutch provinces to defend political stability from this new ’sect’ show the extent to which they considered the movement religiously, politically, and academically threatening.
The four authors discussed in this chapter, like the institutions mentioned, worried about the Rosicrucian reform plans and linked Rosicrucianism to other sects. Libavius and Grick associated it with Anabaptism; the investigators (and implicitly also Mogling) with Weigelianism; and Mogling, Libavius, Grick, as
284 On this, see also: Hochhuth, “Mittheilungen” (1862), 110-111,121-123; Gilly, “Theophrastia sancta,” 1821831173. This thesis runs against Moran’s suggestion: Moran, The Alchemical World of the German Court, 93,98-101,128-129, who argues that Moritz supported Rosicrucians.
well as the investigators also connected it to Paracelsianism. The individual criticisms of Libavius and Grick and the official warnings by investigators in Marburg, Giessen, and Leiden further indicate that Rosicrucianism was seen as a threat to Church, state, and knowledge—which was why Fludd and Mogling defended it.
Conclusion
This study of the Rosicrucian call for a general reformation has led us from apocalyptic expectations and millenarianism, by way of alchemy and medicine, via the philosophia perennis and related notions, through theosophy and pansophy, ultimately back to the reform of religion, politics, and knowledge. As formulated in the Introduction, the research question of this study concerned the controversial message of the manifestos, and specifically the origins of and response to the most central theme in these texts: the call for a general reformation. Historiography on the manifestos has largely focused on authorship in order to explain where the manifestos came from and how their notions should be interpreted. To understand the origin and meaning of the ideas conveyed in the manifestos, as well as the controversy they elicited, this study has focused instead directly on the call for reform, its origins, and the early response to it. Although the unconventional contents of the manifestos have not been overlooked in the scholarship, it was not their Hermetic or esoteric thrust but the subversive nature of the envisaged general reformation that constituted their main appeal and the main target of criticism in the early responses to the Rosicrucian manifestos. The call for a general reformation sprang up in a context that was already characterised by religious controversies and political unrest, it coincided with the assault on the established philosophical system and Galenic medicine, and it concurred with the birth of new conceptions of natural knowledge. The Rosicrucian authors demonstrated an acute awareness of the fact that the preeminent position of the religious, political, philosophical, medical, and scientific institutions was crumbling in the face of radical alternatives—and they embraced and promoted such changes.
With respect to the manifestos’ sources, we postponed the question of authorship and could therefore trace the elements related to the call for reform to earlier sources. This revealed that the manifestos cannot simply be interpreted as Lutheran texts, as has often been done because of the confessional background of their authors. The contents of the manifestos have in fact very little in common with Lutheran orthodoxy and eschatology, and with their pessimism regarding human nature and the terrestrial future. Nor can it be argued that the manifestos drew on eschatological texts concerned with the end of time, because they did not set forth an image of the End Times but conveyed a specific, optimistic interpretation of a new age. As a consequence, works by early modern authors with which the manifestos have been compared, but which were inherently eschatological and pessimistic about a future time on earth, are of little help in understanding the manifestos.
Instead, the manifestos are close to a Joachimite understanding of history and may have drawn on apocalyptic voices of late medieval and early modern reformers. Although relying on ideas that can also be traced back to biblical passages and confessional literature, such as the notion of the Antichrist, the authors of the manifestos aptly adapted and employed these notions in suggestive new ways.
Even though there are similarities with several medieval and radical reformers, the Rosicrucians surpassed both Luther’s religious Reformation and previous calls for a Reformatio mundi of Church and state by also announcing a reformation of philosophy and the sciences—the three areas of reform that proved to be important not only in the manifestos but also in their authors’ other works and in several of the responses provoked by them. In doing so, the Rosicrucians distanced themselves from Lutheran orthodoxy as well as from established learning and specifically from the Aristotelian-Galenic worldview, while at the same time relating to traditions such as the philosophia perennis, clavis universalis, and Mosaic physics. In part because the manifestos anticipated the restoration of perfect worldly conditions, tongues, and bodies, they promoted a cyclical worldview. They reinforced their optimism by announcing progress in the arts and sciences with reference to contemporary developments in medicine, astronomy, and the discoveries made in the New World. Thus while formulating their plan (reformation), they advocated a return to the so- called Golden Age and the instauration of prelapsarian conditions (revolution), which they combined with progress in natural philosophy (renovation)—the three terms with which we began our quest in Chapter One. The Rosicrucian manifestos Christianised the vision of a returned Golden Age, announced it by means of well-known apocalyptic and millenarian tropes and phenomena, and combined it with a notion of epistemic progress.
This approach to the Rosicrucians’ endeavour enabled us to view the Paracelsian impetus in a fresh light, since this impetus is also perfectly explicable within the framework of a general reformation. The Paracelsians’ medical and alchemical innovations (opposing academic authorities) as well as their religiously heterodox notions (contradicting religious authorities) were reflected in the Rosicrucian manifestos. Paracelsian physicians concerned themselves with apocalyptic questions and with the development of history, even though the Rosicrucian hope for a new age must rather be traced back to the works of Paracelsus’ followers than to the religious texts written by the famous physician himself. Paracelsus and early Paracelsians also provided the natural- philosophical contents from which the authors of the manifestos derived much of their inspiration, as is evident from the Fama’s references to Paracelsus and his Vocabulary, the Book of Nature, and the microcosm-macrocosm analogy.
The Paracelsians analysed their time and set out to cure and improve it, an ambition that is also manifest in the Rosicrucian manifestos: the brethren, portrayed as physicians and involved in apocalyptic alchemy, considered their times to be in urgent need of reform and worked towards the cure for the maladies of the world. It is precisely to Paracelsianism that one has to turn when interpreting the philosophy that according to the Rosicrucians was to triumph in the new age.
Having already elucidated several key elements of the manifestos in Chapters One and Two, we approached the question of the manifestos’ authorship not in order to reinterpret their contents, but instead to analyse the specific role that the theme of a general reformation played in other texts by these authors. Several key elements of the general reformation resurfaced in their works, with Hess providing the apocalyptic, millenarian, as well as medical imagery, and Andreae the reformation programme of religion, politics, and knowledge. From the perspective of the general reformation, and the elements it included, the similarities between the Rosicrucian manifestos and other works by their authors, Andreae and Hess, can be established. These elements therefore also reveal that not only Andreae, but also Hess played a central role in the composition of these texts.
These similarities with other texts attributed to Andreae and Hess also give the impression that the contents of the Rosicrucian manifestos, although sometimes presented in the secondary literature as a legend and often interpreted as a fable, were not the result of a mere play or joke. Although the manifestos lacked a clear programme, they were deliberately designed to convey a message of reform. Admittedly, Andreae later referred to his Chemical Wedding as a “ludibrium” and described the Fama and the entire Rosicrucian episode in similar terminology.1 That, however, does not diminish the importance that he and Hess must originally have attributed to the message they expressed in these texts. Firstly, Hess had been serious in his millenarian interpretation of his own time and in his quest to improve human health by means of iatrochymia rather than established medicine. Secondly, the ideas contained in the manifestos as part of the reformation of religion, politics, and knowledge returned time and again in Andreae’s later utopian stories. Lastly, the use of a fictitious genre may well have functioned as a vehicle to promote these ideas. It is in this respect useful to remember that reformers such as Bacon, Comenius, and Hartlib also
1 For the Fama as ludibrium, cf. “Letter by Andreae to Comenius,” 15 September 1629, cited in Dickson, The Tessera of Antilia, 163-164; see also: J.A. Comenius, Opera Omnia, vol. 26/1, 3839.
frequently presented their reform plans in fictitious stories. As Herbert Jau- mann has shown, Andreae preferred to formulate his judgements about the world in fictional writings to increase their impact and to be able to emphasise the absurdity of contemporary affairs.2 And, as Andreae himself explained in the preface to his Christian Mythology (1619), he preferred writing ludibria to serious treatises because he favoured laughter over prosecution.3 The danger of censorship and punishment may also explain why his own intention was presumably not to publish the Rosicrucian manifestos, certainly not under his own name: after all, even in manuscript form they quickly proved to be dangerous.
While having recourse to unconventional sources, Andreae and Hess mixed unrelated ideas in formulating their plans for reform. In doing so, they made use of ideas and events that were already in the minds of early seventeenthcentury readers and that could only provoke excitement in those eager for change, such as the identification of the pope with the Antichrist, the interpretation of the new stars in Serpentarius and Cygnus as promises of imminent improvement, the ruling lion which appealed to Protestant readers witnessing the ever-growing tensions between Protestant and Catholic alliances, and also the important position of the medical reformer Paracelsus in the Rosicrucian manifestos. Hess and Andreae combined these elements in their texts in a manner that made them an influential new voice in the early seventeenth century. Their combination of these themes, and their offer of membership in a brotherhood of innovators, promised novatores and dissident scholars liberation from institutions and traditions that often neglected to acknowledge and sometimes explicitly rejected divergent religious views and intellectual innovations. As a consequence, the early response was divided between authors antithetical to the ruling elite on the one hand, and scholars defending religious, philosophical, and academic conventions on the other.
Authors from various disciplinary backgrounds cherished the Rosicrucian material for a variety of reasons, but the themes related to the general reformation remained central in several of the debates that the texts provoked. Outside universities, among those inspired by Paracelsus, the Rosicrucian manifestos fell on fertile ground. Although the call for a general reform of religion, politics, and knowledge lost its prominence in the texts discussed in Chapter Four, the subversive nature of this call continued to be influential, and the manifestos’ reform plans seem to have been preconditional to the diverse readings of them. Authors had different remedies in mind when diagnosing the ills of
2 Jaumann, “Einleitung,” 52.
3 On this, see: Andreae, Mythologia Christiana, Liber i, ad lectorem; see also: Jaumann, “Einlei- tung,” 50-51.
their times, irrespective of whether they believed there would soon be another period on earth. As a result, the very notion of “general reformation” proved highly protean: since it could be understood as a particular reformation— e.g., of medicine, alchemy, theosophical studies, all sciences, the divine, or of man himself—there were as many interpretations of change as there were individuals promoting the manifestos. Haslmayr, although he steered clear of chiliastic visions, expected a final outpouring of what he believed was original Paracelsian knowledge; but his Answer generated little influence in the cases we reviewed. Maier showed himself a Lutheran, explicitly denying further reform; but he nonetheless expected a renewal of knowledge, especially in chemical and medical matters. The anonymous authors we examined envisaged the restoration of a perennial philosophy; while Julianus and Mogling called for changes in the world, the divine, and in man himself. All authors, in one way or another, provided their particular interpretation of the manifestos as the necessary panacea for the improvement of bodies, the betterment of the world, or the transition from this world to the next.
The concern to remedy the ills of their times can in part be explained by the profession of the early Rosicrucian apologists. Much like the Paracelsians, not only were the brethren themselves described as physicians, but Haslmayr, Maier, the author of the Preface to the Confessio, I.B.P., G.A.D., C.H.C., Julianus, Mogling, and Fludd all practiced medicine, associated the Rosicrucian reformation with the medical art, or both. Although they were not all Paracelsian physicians pur sang, medicine, perhaps only second to astronomy, was the science that in the decades preceding the 1610s had undergone the most drastic changes thanks to the contributions of Paracelsus and his followers, as well as due to the corrections made in anatomy by anatomists like Vesalius and Servetus. The Rosicrucian manifestos, explicitly referring to Paracelsus, appealed to novatores in medicine who embraced ideas deviating from tradition as well as the call for further reform.
Several of the early responders explicitly couched their alternatives to the perceived contemporary misery in the figurative language of medical metaphors. Halsmayr, G.A.D., and C.H.C. drew on Paracelsus’ medical innovations. The author of the Preface to the Confessio suggested that heavenly treasures of divine wisdom would work as a “medicine” for present times. G.A.D. claimed that long life, lost with the Fall, could be regained again by humans and that a secret treasure would “cure” all things. The university faculties and the arts, in particular medicine, C.H.C. argued, were “sick” and were in need of Rosicrucian (and Paracelsian) remedies. For Maier, “medicine” was the greatest gift of God, which was in the possession of the brethren, and which made them the apex of knowledge, the sanctuary of true piety, and the “pillar of the sick.” Mogling
explained that he would “cure” Aristotelian stupidities through “pills of truth,” and that a fusion with God would make humans “healthy” in their soul. Fludd, finally, claimed that the brethren provided a “remedy” for the sick state of the arts.
While these authors suggested that their texts contained knowledge that could cure the sickness of the world, they also analysed the illness and its cure in religious terms: man’s sinful flesh needed to be restored to its original splendour. For Fludd, the bad condition of theology reflected man’s fallen state and was in desperate need of repair. In fact, the diagnosis and amelioration of the times and the prophetic interpretations of history are central to the manifestos, their sources, and the responses to them.
That the manifestos were read in such a great variety of ways should come as no surprise, as it was precisely the lack of a clear and detailed reform programme and the diverse elements contained within these short texts that contributed to their popularity. At the same time, it is only because the manifestos announced imminent changes and proposed a general reformation, in which their readers were invited to participate, that readers responded to them so passionately, whether for or against.
Particularly striking is the case of Mogling, who drew on Weigel—implicitly but also clearly and sometimes verbatim—but also expressed views close to those of Andreae. Both Mogling and Andreae encouraged further reforms of the arts and sciences, and discussed theosophy as the study through which humans could acquire direct knowledge of God. They argued in favour of the possibility of an individual, human reformation, as they believed that humans could experience the New Jerusalem in spirit right here on earth and in this life. Humans, they both argued, could internally live as if in Paradise, because internally perfection could be restored thanks to the cleansing of sins through the crucifixion of Christ. These Tubingen scholars each invoked pietist virtues, with Mogling drawing on Thomas a Kempis and Andreae on Arndt. Although these similarities do not necessarily imply any causal relation between the two scholars, the fact that Andreae and Mogling were acquainted raises the possibility that Mogling may have intended to elaborate on Andreae’s reform plans.
According to the historian George H. Williams, the idea of reform that thrived during the Radical Reformation died out quickly after 1580—that is, after the views of the main confessions had been formulated in official writings—and both radical reformers as well as what he called “analogous groups” were soon either joined together in marginal sects or withdrew themselves from public life entirely.4 It should be noted that the radicalism of most
4 Williams, The Radical Reformation, xxxi, 848.
of the people whom Williams labelled “radical reformers” consisted neither in radical political actions nor in radical programmes of reform, but in their opposition to “magisterial” reformers such as Luther and Zwingli, who struck a conservative alliance with secular powers. Like the Rosicrucians, some radical reformers held Joachimite or related ideas, endorsing what Williams called a “generalized millennialism” and expecting a final outpouring of wisdom.5 But—contrary to William’s periodisation—the Rosicrucian manifestos, the ensuing furore, and the heterodox groups related to them demonstrate that even after 1580 there was still a yearning for immediate change in the form of a reformation of religious, political, and philosophical life, or of the human and the divine, and of a final instauration of natural and divine wisdom.6 Luther, when announcing imminent disasters to take place during the final tribulations, condemned people to silent suffering, since human efforts to combat them would be in vain.7 The Rosicrucian call for reform and the early positive response to it survived Luther’s pessimistic outlook by positing that the brethren themselves were agents of transformative change on the eve of a new period of terrestrial felicity or the eternal Sabbath—thus collectively continuing to hope for immediate earthly improvement or salvation, without imminent hardship.
While the general reform of religion, politics, and knowledge was not central to the earliest responses, it was central to early criticism of the manifestos. As has been shown in Chapter Five, the call for a general reformation triggered an angry response from early opponents. Although the Rosicrucian authors had intended to give the impression that their plans for change were not radical, the scholars and authorities reacting to their manifestos understood the brethren exactly as such, for a variety of reasons. Both Grick and Libavius objected to the Rosicrucians’ reform plans and did so for different reasons. Grick was fierce in his dismissal of the brethren’s societal reform, while also Libavius, himself a physician, rejected the possibility of curing the world, albeit for different reasons. Later, in the early stages of the Thirty Years’ War, Lutheran and Calvinist investigators tried to protect religious orthodoxy, political stability, and academic authority from both the Rosicrucian brethren and from scholars and artists who had been associated with them.
An obvious explanation for why the topic of a general reform is much more explicit in the denunciations of Rosicrucianism and is often passed over in
5 Ibid., 857-862.
6 Cf. also Dixon, “The Radicals,” 208.
7 Oberman, The Reformation, 30-33, 57-58; cf. Chapter 1.
more sympathetic texts, is that apologists took the call for reform as preconditional and focused on explaining the nature of the brethren’s alternative, resulting in the variety of interpretations. Their opponents, by contrast, rejected the call for further reform because it threatened their worldview and status within the existing society.
Those attacking the manifestos and their supporters did so, to a great extent, for confessional reasons. Libavius chose to speak as a confirmed Lutheran, and the first official investigations against Rosicrucian apologists concerned confessional matters. Even the investigation of Hess by the medical faculty of the University of Tubingen, which began with medical considerations, soon turned into an examination of religious issues, as his Paracelsianism came te be viewed as blasphemy. Opponents began to associate Rosicrucianism with subversive ’sects’ such as Paracelsianism (Grick, Libavius, and the early investigators), Anabaptism (Grick, Libavius), and Weigelianism (early investigators). These cases indicate that confession was an important reason for rejecting the Rosicrucians, and that Rosicrucianism was considered at best confessionally elusive and at worst dangerous. The controversy over Rosicrucianism was not one between Catholics and Protestants, but centred primarily on Protestant confessional issues.
The Rosicrucian manifestos as well as the movement that followed in their wake were in opposition to the process of “confessionalization.” Although obviously also influenced by religious motives, they completely neglected, and often undermined, confessional doctrines while proposing a universal notion of change. That the Rosicrucian reformation and the ideas related to it surpassed confessional issues and confession in general can be inferred from the contents of the manifestos themselves as well as from the views of those defending them. The proponents, though naturally originating from specific confessional backgrounds, lent their support to manifestos that were not in agreement with, and often in opposition to, either Lutheranism or Calvinism. The Rosicrucian furore took, to borrow an apt phrase from Hereward Tilton, a supra-confessional orientation.8
This is also indicated by the diverse religious backgrounds of those involved in the Rosicrucian controversy. Hess and Andreae originated from Lutheran Tubingen, but the manifestos were printed in Calvinist Kassel, and Andreae wanted the Reformed Duke August ii as the leader of his society. These Lutherans authored the manifestos that contradicted their own confession (which was presumably one of the reasons why Andreae felt the need to distance
8 Tilton, “The Rosicrucian Manifestos,” 129-130.
himself from them).9 Widemann argued against Papists, Lutherans, and Calvinists but was interested in the works of Schwenckfeld and Weigel.10 Haslmayr was a Catholic, and August von Anhalt a Calvinist.11 Maier and Libavius were Lutherans, Besold converted to Catholicism, while Mersenne (who argued against Fludd) was a Catholic monk, and Fludd belonged to the Anglican Church. The Catholic Haslmayr, moreover, not only submitted numerous letters to his Catholic governor Maximilian, but he asked the Reformed Prince August von Anhalt to take upon himself the role of the lion—which might reflect not only his strategy in the search for patronage but also his understanding of Rosicrucianism in a supra-confessional manner.
Because they moved beyond confession and the traditional meaning of “Reformation,” Andreae and Hess could propose a universal notion of reform that appealed to a widespread current of scholars eager for change. In doing so, they and their supporters not only deemed established scholars heretical, that is, persisting in error; they also trespassed on the borders of science and religion. The Rosicrucian reformation initially proposed and was perceived as a movement for universal reform. The manifestos, their authors as discussed in Chapter Three, and their proponents as considered in Chapters Four and Five all joined in this cause of universal change. Despite the efforts of orthodox Calvinists and Lutherans, the intention to bring about a general or universal reformation beyond the confessional context and even beyond the more general religious framework continued.
Prospects
This study has provided a first comprehensive analysis of the Rosicrucian proposal of a general reformation, its origins and context, and the early response it provoked. Naturally, it is not exhaustive, and it would be appropriate here to consider ways in which future research in this area might develop.
Firstly, the early Rosicrucian response requires further analysis. This book has only been able to discuss a select group of case studies, but the early response was explosive. Other apologies for the Rosicrucian manifestos should be studied in order to understand better the Rosicrucian furore, its diversity, its
9 This is contrary to: Wels, “Die Frommigkeit der Rosenkreuzer-Manifeste.”
10 Gilly, Adam Haslmayr, 110, 107.
11 Besides originally being a Calvinist, August von Anhalt considered all confessions to be churches of stone (Mauerkirchen), and detested them because he preferred, in proximity to Protestant Spirituals, internal churches; see: Gilly, Adam Haslmayr, 124-125.
relations with religious orthodoxy and established philosophy, and the evolution of the concept of general reformation. Likewise, the early rejection of Rosicrucianism needs further study to help attain a more comprehensive understanding of what had provoked authors to refute the manifestos and their early supporters.
Another direction future research might take relates to further reformation. The need for further reform after the Lutheran and Calvinist Reformation was widely felt in early modern Europe, and authors from various backgrounds and denominations aimed for a further reform in church, state, philosophy, and society.12 These plans for reform were very diverse, and the Rosicrucian call for general reformation represents only one of many options. It would be worthwhile to compare the Rosicrucian general reformation with various other notions of further reform, in pursuit of a more synoptic understanding of the diversity, supra-confessional scope, and encyclopaedic nature of the impetus toward further reformation.
Similarly, an elaborate study of the Rosicrucian position within the broader trend of universal reformation, and its relationship to and possible influences on later seventeenth-century reform programmes, remains a desideratum. The manifestos share similarities with the reform programmes of Bacon, Comenius, and Hartlib,13 but the precise nature and scope of these similarities need closer investigation. Partly because there was neither a clear programme nor a visible society in whose reform activities enthusiasts could participate, and partly because early modern dissenters seeking change were engulfed in a long and bloody conflict, the immediate practical impact of the Rosicrucian furore was limited. Especially after the crushing of the Bohemian Revolt and Reformed parties during the first decade of the Thirty Years’ War, the brethren’s optimistic and hopeful message lost its resonance on the continent. But calls for reform similar to the Rosicrucian one continued, particularly in England. The general reformation of the Rosicrucian manifestos needs to be situated in the broader context of universal reformation, as voiced by figures like Comenius and Hart- lib, who were aware of and referred to the Rosicrucian episode.
In this context, Francis Bacon (1561-1626) is of particular interest, given his desire for an “instauration of philosophy” and a reformation of learning.14
12 On further reformation, see especially: Hotson, Johann Heinrich Alsted; Penman, Hope and Heresy.
13 See, for example: Webster, Samuel Hartlib and the Advancement of Learning; Farrington, The Philosophy of Francis Bacon; Voigt, Das Geschichtsverstandnis desJ.A. Comenius; Rossi, Francis Bacon; Hotson, “Outsiders, Dissenters.”
14 Bacon, The Refutation of Philosophies, edited by Farrington, 104.
Bacon’s scientific programme was not just characterised by a turn from books to nature: it was also couched in a religious and apocalyptic language. The numerous similarities between the Rosicrucian reformation and Bacon’s reform programme merit closer attention. If it is deemed unlikely that Bacon was influenced by the Rosicrucian manifestos and the furore they triggered, this raises the question of how these similarities are to be explained.15 If Bacon did not draw on the manifestos themselves, was he drawing on some of the deeper currents on which the manifestos themselves had drawn? An affirmative answer to this question would relate the neglected, late medieval and early modern dissenting traditions studied in this book to some of the most important and canonical developments in the intellectual history of the seventeenth century.
What may be concluded here is that the manifestos’ origins were diverse, the texts themselves highly original, their success in channelling various early modern sentiments into a powerful message considerable, and their impact enormous. In the light of their authors’ call for a general reformation, it is not surprising to find Paracelsus mentioned as their champion. Employing the words of Bodenstein, the Rosicrucians expected that “the time of knowledge approaches.” While the legacy of Aristotelianism was the hope for a mega-theory within science,16 the combination of natural-philosophical views and Christian apocalyptic visions of reform produced the “mega-vision” of the Rosicrucian manifestos—the power of which remained undimmed for many years to come.
15 Cf. Feingold, “’And Knowledge Shall Be Increased’,” 365-371. That Bacon was not influenced by the Rosicrucian manifestos, is contrary to Yates’ exaggerated suggestions in: The Rosicrucian Enlightenment, chs. ix, xii-xiii.
16 Luthy, “What to Do with Seventeenth-Century Natural Philosophy? A Taxonomic Problem.”
Lyke de Vries - 978-90-04-24939-4
Downloaded from Brill.com05/24/2022 05:15:25PM via free access
Appendix: Theca gladii spiritus (1616), nrs. 175-202
Fama Fraternitatis r.c. Das ist/ Gerucht der Bruderschafft des Hochloblichen Ordens r.c. An alle Gelehrte und Heupter Europae Beneben derselben Lateinischen Confession, Welche vorhin in Druck noch nie ausgangen/nuhnmehr aber auf vielfaltiges nachfragen zusampt deren beygefugten Teutschen Version zu freundtlichen gefallen/ allen Sutzsamen gutherzigen Gemuhtern wolgemeint in Druck gegeben und communiciret (Kassel: Wilhelm Wessel, 1615), pp. 43-64.
Johann Valentin Andreae [Tobias Hess]. Theca gladii spiritus. Sententias quasdam breves, vereque philosophicas continens (Strasbourg: Lazarus Zetzner, 1616), pp. 31-34, sentences 175-202.
|
Confessio |
Theca |
Theca translation |
||
|
Jehova est, qui mundo labas- |
175. Iehova mundo labascente, |
175. While the world is totter- |
||
|
cente, et propemodum peri- |
& propemodum periodo abso- |
ing and almost at the end of a |
||
|
odo absoluta, ad principium |
luta, ad principium proper- |
period and rushes to its begin- |
||
|
properante Naturae ordinem |
ante; naturae ordinem invertit. |
nings, God returns the order of |
||
|
invertit. |
nature. |
|||
|
De philosophiae Emenda- |
176. Utcunque validam, |
176. However healthy she may |
||
|
tione (quantum nunc opus |
aegrotare tamen imo animam |
be, that yet the philosophy of |
||
|
est) explicavimus aegrotare |
agere Philosophiam nostri |
our time is ill and is indeed |
||
|
illam. Imo dum plerique |
temporis, indubitatum quam |
dying, is indubitable for most. |
||
|
nescio quam validam illam |
plurimis est. |
|||
|
fingunt propemodum animam |
||||
|
agere, nobis indibutatum est. |
||||
|
Est autem Philosophia nobis |
177. Philosophia nobis nulla |
177. Philosophy to us is noth- |
||
|
nulla, quam quae facultatum, |
est, quam quae facultatum sci- |
ing other than the head of all |
||
|
scientiarum, Artium caput, |
entiarum, artium caput; quae |
faculties, sciences, and arts, |
||
|
quae si nostrum spectemus |
si nostrum spectemus secu- |
and if we inspect our own age, |
||
|
seculum, Theologiae ac Medi- |
lum, Theologiae plurimum & |
[philosophy] has most of theo- |
||
|
cinae plurimum, Jurispruden- |
Medicinae, jurisprudentiae |
logy and medicine, but least |
||
|
tiae minimum habeat: quae |
minimum habet: quae cae- |
of law; it examines heaven and |
||
|
caelum atque terram exquisi- |
lum atque terram exquisitiori |
earth through a more careful |
||
|
tiori Anatomia scrutetur, aut |
anatomia scrutetur, aut |
anatomy, or, to put it briefly, |
||
Confessio |
Theca Theca translation |
|||
ut summatim dicamus, Unum hominem Microcosmum satis exprimat. |
ut summatim dicamus, unum it represents well enough a hominem Microcosmum satis single man as a microcosm. exprimat. |
|||
[...] aut ex mundi revolutione futura simul & praesentia metiuntur [.]. |
178. Ex mundi revolutione 178. From the revolution of the futura simul & praesentia ali- world we are able to estimate quo modo metiri quimus. in some way at once both the future and the present. |
|||
[.] sed cui seculi incommodis occupati, non secus in mundo ambulant, quam caeci, qui media luce nil nisi tactu dis- cernunt. |
179. Sui seculi incommodis 179. Those, who are occupied occupati, non secus in mundo by the inconveniences of their ambulant; quam caeci, qui age, do not walk in the world media luce, nil nisi tactu dis- in another way than like the cernunt. blind, who in bright daylight discern nothing except by touch. |
|||
|
[.] hoc injunxit Deus, ne quemvis eorum audirent: |
180. Suis hoc injunxit Deus, ne 180. God has imposed this quemvis audiant; eos nubibus on His people, that they do |
|||
& nubibus suis nos val- lavit, ne qua vis Servulis suis intendatur. |
suis vallavit, ne qua vis ipsis not hear anyone; He has sur- intendatur. rounded them by His clouds, so that no force is aimed at them.1 |
|||
|
Sane cuicunque Magnas illas Dei litteras, quas Mundi machinae inscripsit, & per Imperiorum vicissitudines alternatim repetit, intueri, legere, atque exinde se erudire concessum, ille quidem (etsi hoc temore inscius) jam nos- |
181. Magus dicitur, cuicunque 181. He, to whom it has been magnas Dei literas, quas granted to behold, read, and mundi machinae inscripsit, thereafter to comprehend the & per imperiorum vicissitud- great letters of God, which ines alternatim repetit, intueri, He inscribed on the machine legere, atque exinde se erudire of the world, and which He consessum est. repeats alternately according to the vicissitudes of the |
|||
1 In the Confessio, God is said to have protected humans by preventing them from hearing the unworthy and by surrounding them with clouds.
Confessio |
Theca Theca translation |
ter est; Atque uti scimus, non neglecturum nostram invit- ationem. |
empires, is said to be a magician. |
In fucatos & impostores vero, & qui aliud quam sapientiam sitiunt, illud pronuntiamus, nec prodi nos posse in perni- ciem nostram, nec cogi etiam contra Dei decretum. |
182. Boni malis prodi non 182. Good people cannot be possunt in suam perniciem; betrayed by bad people to nec ab alijs cogi, contra Dei their ruin; nor be forced by decretum. others against the decree of God. |
Illos vero manere gravem illam comminationem, qua famam nostram oneravimus; & tam impia consilia in ipsorum Capita redundatura: Nobis vero thesauros nostros in tactos relinquendos, usque dum surgat Leo, & eos sibi jure suo exigat, accipiat, & in sui Imperij stabilimentum con- serat. |
183. Impia consilia in autho- 183. Godless plans flow forth rum capita redundant atque and retreat into the minds resiliunt; Leoni vindici of their authors. To the lion, reponuntur vetera & nova the liberator, all old and new omnia. things will be restored. |
Sed ex Christi Salvatoris nos- tri mente, citius Lapides sese oblaturos testamur, quam divino Consilio sui desint Exfequutores. |
184. Divino consilio nunquam 184. The divine plan never desunt executores; cujus sem- lacks executors; of which per nuncij praemittuntur. messengers are always sent forward. |
|
De sua quidem voluntate jam praemisit nuncios Deus, Stellas in Serpentario atque Cygno exortas, quae magna profecto magni Consilii signacula illud docere possunt, quam junctis iis, quae humanum ingenium |
185. Deus cuncta ea, quae 185. God makes all those humanum ingenium adin- things that the human spirit venit, suae occultae scripturae has found serve His own inservire facit. occult writing. |
Confessio
Theca
Theca translation
adinvenit, suae occultae scrip- turae inservire faciat [...]. |
||
[...] ut Liber Naturae in omnium quidem oculis expan- sus adapertusque sit; pauci tamen vel legere omnino, vel intelligere possint. |
186. Liber Naturae in omnium oculis expansus; a paucis omnino legitur vel intelligitur. |
186. The Book of Nature is opened wide before the eyes of all, but it is read or understood only by few. |
Eiusmodi characteres, atque adeo Alphabetum suum sicut Deus sparsim SS. Bib- liis inseruit, ita in admirando Creationis opere Caelis, Terrae, Animalibus, manifeste impressit [.]. |
187. Eiusmodi characteres atque adeo Alphabetum suum sicut Deus sparsim SS. Bibliis inseruit, ita in admirando Cre- ationis opere Caelis, Terrae, Animalibus manifeste impres- sit. |
187. In the same manner that God inserted here and there characters of this kind and His very alphabet in the Holy Books, so He impressed them openly in the admirable works of creation on heaven, earth, and the animals. |
[.] ut, quo Mathematicus modo Ecclipses praevidet; eodem nos Ecclesiae obscur- ationes, earundemque dura- tiones praecognoscamus. |
188. Quo Mathematicus modo Ecclipses praevidet, eodem Ecclesiae obscurationes & dur- ationes praenoscuntur. |
188. In the way the mathematician can predict eclipses, in the same way the dark periods of the Church and their durations can be fore seen. |
A quibus literis nos omnino nostras Magicas mutuo sum- simus, & linguam nobis exinde novam collegimus; qua simul rerum natura exprimatur [.]. |
189. Literis & notis linguaque Magica, simul rerum natura exprimitur. |
189. The nature of things is simultaneously expressed by the letters, notes, and the magical language. |
|
[.] unde mirum non sit, si in reliquis linguis & hac latina minus delicati simus: quas scimus neutiquam Adami illam aut Enochi redolere: Sed |
190. Babylonis confusione con- taminatae, neutiquam illam Adami & Enochi redolent. |
190. Contaminated by the confusion of Babel they are not in the least redolent of Adam’s and Enoch’s language. |
(cont.)
Confessio Theca Theca translation
Babylonis confusione con-
taminatas esse.
Illud itaque omittendum nobis minime est, ut dum aquil- inae aliquot pennae nostris rebus moram tantillam fer- unt, ad sacrorum Bibliorum unam, primam, assiduam, & perpetuam Lectionem adhortemur.
Ita proximi ii, & maxime similes nobis, qui una Biblia suae vitae Regulam, suorum studiorum summam, Mun- dique universi compendium faciunt; a quibus non ut per- petuo ea crepent, sed ut ipsarum sensum omnibus Mundi seculis convenienter applicent, exigimus.
Illud potius nostrum sit, test- ari, a Mundi Origine non fuisse majus, admirabilius, salubrius homini datum, quam SS. Bibliorum opus: quod qui habet, felix est: qui legit felicior: qui ediscit, felicissimus: qui intelli- git & servat, Deo similimus.
191. Lectio frequens, assidua S. Bibliorum una, prima, ami- corum Dei amicos efficit Deique.
192. Biblia sint vitae regula, studiorum summa, mundique universi compendium: non ut ea perpetuo crepemus, sed ut ipsorum sensum omnibus mundi seculis convenienter applicemus.
193. Admirabilius, majus, & salubrius a mundi origine datum non est homini, quam S Bibliorum opus; quod qui habet felix est, qui legit feli- cior, qui ediscit felicissimus, qui intelligit Deo simillimus.
191. The frequent, assiduous, sole and foremost reading of the Holy Scripture makes (them) friends of God’s friends and of God (himself).
192. The Scriptures shall be the rule of life, the summa of studies, and the compendium of the entire world, not so that we constantly prattle about them, but so that we suitably apply their meaning to all ages of the world.
193. From the origin of the world, nothing more admirable, greater, and more beneficial has been given to humans than the work of the Holy Scriptures; he who has them is happy, he who reads them is more happy, he who learns them by heart is most happy, and he who understands them is most similar to God.
Confessio Theca Theca translation
Quae porro cum Impostorum detestatione contra metal- lorum Transformationem, & supremam Mundi medi- cinam a nobis dicta sunt, ea sic volumus intelligi, Nullo modo extenuari a nobis tam insigne Dei donum: sed cum non perpetuo Naturae cog- nitionem secum affetat; haec vero & illam & infinita alia Naturae miracula edoceat, aequum est, potiorem a nobis philosophicae cog- nitionis rationem haberi [...].
Aliter visum supremo Rectori, qui excellentiam confert humilibus; superbos obscurit- ate cruciat: Taciturnis Angelos confabulantes mittit; Garrulos in solitudinem detrudit.
In fine verio confessionis nostrae illud ferio incul- camus, abjiciendos esse, si non omnes, plerosque tamen Pseudochymicorum neguam l bellos [sic] [...].
[...] quibus vel SS. Triade ad futilia abuti lusus: vel monstrosis figuris atque aenig- matibus homines decipere
194. Metallorum transmu- tatio, non perpetuo naturae cognitionem secum adfert. Philosophia vero utrunque illam nimirum & infinita alia naturae miracula edocet; cujus hinc merito potior habenda est ratio.
194. The transmutation of metals does not perpetually bring forth with it knowledge of nature. But philosophy certainly teaches both this [transmutation of metals] and infinitely many other miracles of nature; because of which it is rightly better to have knowledge of it.
195. Summus Rector excel- lentiam confert humilibus, superbos obscuritate cruciat, taciturnis Angelos confab- ulatores mittit garrulos in solitudinem detrudit.
196. Pseudochymicorum libri nequam & pestilentes abji- ciendi.
195. The supreme Ruler bestows excellence upon the humble and tortures the proud through darkness; He sends angels to discourse with the silent, and thrusts the garrulous into solitude.
196. The worthless and infected books of pseudochemists are to be thrown away.
197. Credulorum curiositas, nugivendulis fumivoris lucrum est.
197. The curiosity of the credulous is the profit for the murky seller of nonsense.
Confessio
Theca
Theca translation
jocus: vel credulorum curios- itas lucrum est.
quos ideo hostis humanae felicitatis bono semini immis- cet, ut difficulius veritati fides habeatur, cum simplex ea sit, atque nuda: Mendacium speciosum & lacinijs ex divina humanaque sapientia ornatum.
Quid igitur animi estis, Mor- tales, postquam Christum sincere nos profiteri, Papam exegrari; Philosophiam sin- ceriorem amplecti; vitam homine dignam agere, & ad commune nobiscum consortium plures, eosque quibus eadem nobiscum a Deo Lux affulsit, invitare, vocare, orare, audivistis?
198. Veritas simplex est & nuda: Mendacium est contra speciosum, & lacinijs ex divina & humana sapientia ornatum: illi ut difficilius, huic & citius fides habeatur.
199. Obsequendum haud injuria & accedendum alac- riter ijs est; qui Christum sincere profitentur, Papam execrantur, philosophiam sin- ceriorem amplectuntur, vitam homine dignam agunt, & ad commune suum ipsorum consortium plures, eosque quibus eadem a Deo lux affulsit, invitant, vocant, orant.
198. The truth is simple and naked; the lie on the contrary is beautiful and decorated with garments from divine and human wisdom: so that faith is put in the truth with more difficulty, and sooner in the lie.
199. One should gratify without injustice, and eagerly seek out those who acknowledge Christ sincerely, execrate the Pope, embrace a purer philosophy, lead a life worthy of man, and [seek] who invite, call, and entreat toward their community more kindred spirits, and those on whom the very light of God shines.
Confessio Theca Theca translation
Vos vero, quibus curiositati saltem satisfacere decretum, vel auri fulgor inescat; vel (ut fortius dicamus) qui nunc boni tanta bonorum inex- pectata affluentia ad vitam delicatam, ociosam, luxuri- osam, pomposam provocare possetis, nolite vestris clam- oribus nostra sacra silentia interturbare [...].
[...] Sed cogitare etsi Medi- cina est, quae omnes pariter morbos depellit, illos tamen, quos Deus morbis exercere, castigare & punir evult, ad hanc occasionem non immitti [.].
[.] ita, etsi Mundum universum ditare erudire, & ab infinitis incommodis liberare possimus: nemini tamen, nisi id Deus annuat, innotescimus; tantumque abest, ut invito Deo quisquam bonis nostris fratur, ut vitam potius quaerendo perditurus, quam inveniendo felicitatem assequuturus sit.
200. Boni bonorum inex- pectata affluentia, ad vitam delicatam, otiosam, lux- uriosam, pomposam, facile provocantur.
200. Good men are easily provoked by the unexpected wealth of goods to a voluptuous, idle, luxurious, and pompous life.
201. Etsi medicina est, quae omnes pariter morbos depellit; illis tamen, quos Deus morbis torqueri vult, haec occasio non immittitur.
201. Even if there is a cure that equally removes all diseases, yet to those whom God wants to torment with diseases, this opportunity is not granted.
202. Ditamur, erudimur, & ab infinitis incommodis lib- eramur, Deus si annuat; quo invito, tantum abest, suis ut bonis fruamur, ut vitam potius quaerendo perdituri, quam invendiendo felicitatem assecuturi simus.
202. We are enriched, instructed, and liberated from boundless troubles if this pleases God; but if He is unwilling, we are so far removed from enjoying His goods, that we will rather lose our lives while seeking than achieve happiness finding them.
Bibliography
Sources
Manuscript Texts
Den Haag, Nationaal Archief, ara Den Haag, Hof van Holland, nr. 4601, 1625-1626, Judicium Facultatis Theologicae in Academia Leydensi de Secta Fraternitatis Roseae- Crucis.
Hannover, Niedersachsische Landesbibliothek, ms iv, 341, fols. 1-864: Carl Widemann. Sylva scientiarum et artium laudabilium. Thesaurus inaestimabilis.
Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Cod.Voss.Chym. Fols. 25, 461r-470v: Paracelsus. ser- mones de antichristo.
London, Wellcome Library, ms 310 fols. 245r-264v: Fama Fraternitatis Oder Bruderschaft deftHochloblichen Ordens derfr[aternitati]isr.c. Ahn dieHeubter, Stende, und Gelehrten Europae.
London, Wellcome Library, ms 150 fols. 129r-139r: Fama Fraternitatis Oder: Bruder- schafft des Hochloblichenn Ordens des Rosen Creutzes an die Haupter, Stende unndt Gelehrttenn.
Salzburg, Universitatsbibliothek, Codex ms i 463, fols. 1r-13r: Fama Fraternitatis oder Bruderschaft deft Hochloblichen Ordens Roseae Crucis. An die Haupter, Stande und Gelerten Europae.
Stuttgart, Wurttembergische Landesbibliothek, ms Cod. Theol. et philos. 4o. 23a-b: Simon Studion. Naometria. 2 vols.
Tubingen, Universitatsarchiv, 12/17, nrs. 37-42: interviews of Tobias Hess by the Faculty of Theology, and letters by Tobias Hess.
Tubingen, Universitatsarchiv, 20/3a (1599): report on Tobias Hess by the Faculty of Medicine.
Tubingen, Universitatsarchiv, 20/12 nr. 5 (1609): report on Tobias Hess by the Faculty of Medicine.
Wolfenbuttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, Cod. Guelf. 39.7 Aug. 2o fols. 365r-374r: Fama Fraternitatis Oder Bruderschaft deft Hochloblichen Ordens deft Rosen Creuzes. An die Haupter, Stende, vnd gelerten Europae.
Wolfenbuttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, Cod. Guelf. 17.30 Aug. 4o fols. 150r-165r: Adam Haslmayr. Apologia wider etliche Punct des groften Buechs Hip. Guarinonis, physici zu Hall in Tyrol, durch Adam Haslmayr, Erzherzogischen Alumnum, Kayserlichen Nota- rium, Judicem Ordinarium, und der heiligen Theosophiae Indagatorem, allen Warheit liebenden zu gutem beschriben. Anno. m.dc.xi.
Wolfenbuttel, Niedersachsisches Landesarchiv, 1 Alt 22, nr. 226, fols. 227r-232v: Adam Haslmayr. Beschreibung des erschrecklichen Lebens, so man auf den Galeern fhieret,
durch alle Orther des Meeres und deren Provinzen undInsulen und Reg[ionen] [...]. Mense Aprili anno 1622.
Printed Texts
Alanus ab Insulis. De incarnatione Christi. In Patrologia cursus completus [...]. Series Latina 210. Edited by J.P. Migne. Paris: Impremirie Catholique, 1855.
“An den Weifiheit verstandigen Leser.” Preface to Fama Fraternitatis oder Entdeckung der Bruderschaft des loblichen Ordens deft RosenCreutzes/ Beneben der Confession Oder Bekantnus derselben Fraternitet, an alle Gelehrte und Haupter in Europa ge- schrieben, Aiir-Aviv. Gdansk: Andreas Hunefeldt, 1615.
Andreae, Jakob. Leben des Jakob Andreae, Doktor der Theologie, von ihm selbst mit grosser Treue und Aufrichtigkeit beschrieben, bis aufdas Jahr 1562. Edited and translated by Hermann Ehmer Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1991.
Andreae, Johann Valentin. Christianae societatis imago. N.p., 1620.
Andreae, Johann Valentin. Christiani amoris dextera porrecta. N.p., 1620. In Johann Valentin Andreae. Schriften zur christlichen Reform. Edited by Frank Bohling. Vol. 6 of Gesammelte Schriften. Edited by Whilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 2010.
Andreae, Johann Valentin. Christianopolis. Introduced and translated by Edward H. Thompson. International Archives of the History of Ideas 162. Dordrecht and Boston (MA): Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999.
Andreae, Johann Valentin. Chymische Hochzeit: Christiani Rosencreuz Anno 1459. Strasbourg: Lazarus Zetzner, 1616.
Andreae, Johann Valentin. Civis Christianus, sive peregrini quondam errantis restitu- tiones. Strasbourg: Lazarus Zetzner, 1619.
Andreae, Johann Valentin. Invitatio fraternitatis Christi. Ad sacri amoris candidatos. Strasbourg: Lazarus Zetzner, 1617.
Andreae, Johann Valentin. Invitationis ad fraternitatem Christi pars altera paraenetica. Strasbourg: Lazarus Zetzner, 1618.
Andreae, Johann Valentin. Menippus sive dialogorum satyricorum centuria inanitatum nostratium speculum. Strasbourg: Lazarus Zetzner, 1617.
Andreae, Johann Valentin. Mythologiae Christianae. Strasbourg: Lazarus Zetzner, 1619.
Andreae, Johann Valentin. Reipublicae christianopolitanae descriptio. Strasbourg: Lazarus Zetzner, 1619.
Andreae, Johann Valentin. Tobiae Hessi immortalitas. In Joannis Valentini Andreae memorialia, benevolentium honori, amori et condolentiae data [.]. Strasbourg: Lazarus Zetzner, 1619.
Andreae, Johann Valentin. Turbo, sive moleste et frustra per cuncta divagans ingenium. Strasbourg: Lazarus Zetzner, 1616.
Andreae, Johann Valentin. Turris Babel sive judiciorum de fraternitate Rosaceae Crucis chaos. Strasbourg: Lazarus Zetzner, 1619.
Andreae, Johann Valentin. Vita, ab ipso conscripta. Edited by Georg Friedrich Heinrich Rheinwald. Berlin: Herm. Schultzius, 1849.
Andreae, Johann Valentin [Tobias Hess]. Theca gladii spiritus. Sententias quasdam breves, vereque philosophicas continens. Strasbourg: Lazarus Zetzner, 1616.
Arnald of Villanova. Tractatus de tempore adventus Antichristi. Reproduced in Heinrich Finke. Aus den Tagen Bonifaz viii. Funde und Forschungen. Munster: Aschendorff, 1902.
Arnald of Villanova. “L’Allocutio christini d’Arnau de Vilanova: edicio i estudi del text.” Edited byJosep Perarnau I. Espelt. In: Arxiu de Textos Catalans Antics 11 (1992): 7-135.
Arndt, Johann. Vier Bucher vom wahren Christenthumb. Frankfurt: heirs of Antonius Hummen, 1664 [1605].
Augustine of Hippo. De civitate dei. Edited by Jeffrey Henderson. Translated by William M. Green. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press, Loeb classical library, 19571972.
Bacon, Francis. New Atlantis. Appended to: Sylva Sylvarum: or a Naturall Historie in ten Centuries. London, 1626.
Bacon, Francis. The Refutation of Philosophies. In The Philosophy of Francis Bacon. Edited and Translated by Benjamin Farrington. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1994.
Bacon, Francis. The Works of Francis Bacon. Edited by James Spedding, Robert Leslie Ellis, and Douglas Denon Heath. 15 vols. London, 1857-1874.
Besold, Christoph. Axiomata philosophica-theologica. Strasbourg, 1616.
B.M.I. [Raphael Eglin?]. Assertio fraternitatis r.c. quam Roseae Crucis vocant, a quodam fraternitatis eius socio carmine expressa. Frankfurt: Johann Bringer, 1614.
Bodenstein, Adam von. Onomasticon Theophrasti Paracelsi eigne aufilegung etlicher seiner wortervndpreparierungen. Basel: Pietro Perna, 1575.
Bodenstein, Adam von. In Der Fruhparacelsismus. Corpus Paracelsisticum. Dokumente Fruhneuzeitlicher Naturphilosophie in Deutschland. Edited by Wilhelm Kuhlmann and Joachim Telle. 3 vols. Tubingen: Niemeyer, 2001-2004.
Brahe, Tycho. Astronomiae instauratae progymnasmatum pars tertia. Opera omnia, vol. 3. Edited by John Louis Emil Dreyer. Copenhagen, 1916.
Breler, Melchior. Mysterium iniquitatis pseudoevangelicae, Hoc est dissertatio apologet- icapro doctrina beatiJoannis Arndt [...] adversuspseudo-evangelicos. Goslar: J. Vogt, 1621.
Bucher, Caspar. Antimenippus sive oratio. Tubingen: Johann Alexander Cellius, 1617.
Campanella, Tommaso. Articuli prophetales. Edited by Germana Ernst. Florence: La nuova Italia Editrice, 1977.
Campanella, Tommaso. Monarchia Messiae. Jesi: Gregor Arnazzinus, 1633.
Campanella, Tommaso. Tutte le opere di Tommaso Campanella. Edited by Luigi Firpo. Milan: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, 1954.
Castellio, Sebastian. Biblia sacra, Ex Sebastiani Castellionis postrema recognitione: cum annotationibus eiusdem, et historiae supplemento ab Esdra ad Machabaeos inde usque ad Christum, ex Iosepho, index praeterea novus et is quidem locupletissimus. Basel: Pietro Perna, 1573.
C.H.C. SendschreibenoderEinfaltige Antwort .In Fama Fraternitatis oderEntdeckung der Bruderschaft des loblichen Ordens deft RosenCreutzes/ Beneben der Confession Oder Bekantnus derselben Fraternitet, an alle Gelehrte und Haupter in Europa geschrieben. Gdansk: Andreas Hunefeldt, 1615.
Comenius, Jan Amos. Opera Omnia, vol. 26/1. Edited by Martin Steiner, Tomas Havelka and Vladimfr Urbanek. Prague: Academia Praha, 2018.
Confessio Fraternitatis r.c. Ad eruditos Europae. In Gabella, Phillip. Secretioris philo- sophiae consideratio brevis a Philippo a Gabella philosophiae st. conscripta, et nunc primum una cum confessione fraternitatis. r.c. Kassel: Wilhelm Wessel, 1615.
Croll, Oswald. Basilica Chymica, continens philosophicam propria [...]. Frankfurt: Claudius Marnius and Johannes Aubrius, 1609.
Croll, Oswald. Tractatus de signaturis internis rerum, seu de vera & viva anatomia maio- ris & minoris mundi. In Basilica chymica continens philosophicam propria laborum experientia confirmatam descriptionem [.]. Geneva: Philippus Albertus, 1631.
Cusanus, Nicolaus. Dialogus de ludo globi. Opera omnia, vol. 9. Edited by Johann Gerhard Senger. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 1998.
Dorn, Gerard. Artificii chymistici physici, metaphysicique, secunda pars & tertia. N.p., 1569.
Dorn, Gerard. Clavis totius philosophiae chymisticae. Lyon: Jacobus Iuncta, 1567.
Dorn, Gerard. Congeries Paracelsicae chemiae de transmutationibus metallorum, ex omnibus quae de his ab ipso scripta reperire licuit hactenus: Accessit genealogia mine- ralium, atq[ue] metallorum omnium, eiusdem autoris. Frankfurt: Andreas Wechel, 1581.
Dorn, Gerard. Congeries paracelsicae chemiae de transmutationibus metallorum, ex omnibus quae de his ab ipso scripta reperire licuit hactenus: Accessit genealogia mine- ralium, atq[ue] metallorum omnium, eiusdem autoris. Reprinted in: Theatrum Chemicum. Strasbourg: Lazarus Zetzner, 1602.
Dorn, Gerard. Dictionarium Theophrasti Paracelsi continens obscuriorum vocabularum, quibus in suis scriptis passim utitur definitiones. Frankfurt, 1584.
Eisenmenger, Samuel (Siderocrates). De methode iatromathematicae conjonctionis qua astrologiae fundamenta certissima indicantur. Strasbourg, 1563.
Erastus, Thomas. Disputationes de medicina nova Paracelsi. Vol. 1. Basel: Pietro Perna, 1572.
Fama Fraternitatis deft Loblichen Ordens des Rosenkreutzes. Kassel: Wilhelm Wessel, 1614.
Fama Fraternitatis r.c. Das ist/ Gerucht der Bruderschafft des Hochloblichen Ordens r.c.
An alle Gelehrte und Heupter Europae. Beneben deroselben Lateinischen Confession, Welche vorhin in Druck noch nie ausgangen/ nuhnmehr aber auffvielfaltiges nachfra- gen zusamptderen beygefugten Teutschen Version zufreundtlichen gefallen/ alien Sitt- samen gutherzigen Gemuhtern wol.gemei.nt in Druck gegeben und communiciret Von einem des Liechts/ Warheit/ und Friedens liebhabenden und begierigen Philomagro. Kassel: Wilhelm Wessel, 1615.
Fama Fraternitatis oder Entdeckung der Bruderschaft des loblichen Ordens defi Ros- enCreutzes/ Beneben der Confession Oder Bekantnus derselben Fraternitet, an alle Gelehrte und Haupter in Europa geschrieben. Frankfurt: Johann Berner, 1615.
Fama Fraternitatis, oft Ontdeckinge van de Broederschap des loflijcken Ordens des Roosen-Cruyces. Midtsgaders de Confessie ofte Bekentenisse des selfden Broeder- schaps/ aen allen Geleerden ende Hoofden in Europa gheschreven. Frankfurt: Johann Berner, 1615.
Fama Fraternitatis oder Entdeckung der Bruderschaft des loblichen Ordens defi Ros- enCreutzes/ Beneben der Confession Oder Bekantnus derselben Fraternitet, an alle Gelehrte undHaupter in Europa geschrieben. Gdansk: Andreas Hunefeldt, 1615.
Ficino, Marsilio. Opera omnia. 2 vols. Basel, 1576. Reprinted in Turin: Bottega d’Erasmo, 1959.
Ficino, Marsilio. Platonic Theology. Edited and Translated by Michael J.B. Allen and James Hankins. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press: 2001-2006.
Fludd, Robert. Apologia compendiaria. Fraternitatem de Rosea Cruce suspicionis et infamiae maculis aspersam veritas quasi Fluctibus abluens et abstergens. Leiden: Godefridus Basson, 1619 [1616].
Fludd, Robert. Declaratio Brevis. Edited by William Huffman and Robert A. Seelinger Jr. “Robert Fludd’s ’Declaratio Brevis’ to James i.” In: Ambix 25 (1978): 69-92.
Fludd, Robert. Sophiae cum moria certamen. N.p., 1629.
Fludd, Robert. [ Joachim Frizius], Summum bonum, quod est verum magiae, cabalae, alchymiae verae, Fratrum Roseae Crucis verorum subjectum [...]. Frankfurt: 1629.
Fludd, Robert. Tractatus Apologeticus integritatem societates de Rosea Cruce defendens. Leiden: Godefridus Basson, 1617.
Fludd, Robert. Utriusque cosmi maioris scilicet et minoris metaphysica, physica atque technica historia [.]. Oppenheim: Theodore de Bry, 1617.
Franck, Sebastian. Chronica, Zeitbuch und Geschichtsbibel. Strasbourg, 1531.
G.A.D. Ein ander Sendschreiben. In Fama Fraternitatis oder Entdeckung der Bruder- schafft des loblichen Ordens defi RosenCreutzes/ Beneben der Confession Oder Bekant- nus derselben Fraternitet, an alle Gelehrte und Haupter in Europa geschrieben. Gdansk: Andreas Hunefeldt, 1615.
Gassendi, Pierre. Epistolica exercitatio, in quae principia philosophiae Roberti Fluddi medici reteguntur. Paris: Cramoisy, 1630. Reprinted as Examen philosophiae Roberti Fluddi. In Opera omnia, vol. 6. Lyon, 1658.
Grick, Friedrich [F.G. Menapius, pseud.]. Copia literarum, copia der andern Missiv, Copia der dritten Missiv. N.p, 1617.
Grick, Friedrich [Irenaeus Agnostus, pseud.]. Fortalitium scientiae. Das ist. Die vnfehl- bare volkommeliche, vnerschatzliche Kunst allerKunsten vnd magnalien, welche alien wurdigen, tugendhafften Pansophiae studiosis die glorwurdige, hocherleuchte Bruderschaft deft Rosencreutzes zu eroffnen, gesandt [...]. N.p., 1617.
Haslmayr, Adam. Antwort An die lobwurdige Bruderschafft der Theosophen von Rosen- Creutz n.n. vom Adam Haslmayr Archiducalem Alumnum, Notarium seu Iudicem ordinarium Caesareum, der zeyten zum heyligen Creutz Dorflein bey Hall in Tyroll wohnende. Ad Famam Fraternitatis Einfeltigist geantwortet. Anno 1612. Reproduced in Carlos Gilly. Adam Haslmayr. Der erste Verkunder der Manifeste der Rosenkreuzer. Amsterdam: Pimander series, 1994.
Haslmayr, Adam [pseudo-Paracelsus]. AstronomiaOlympiNovi, das ist: Die Gestirnkunst deft newen Himmels/welche allein auft dem Glauben entspringet/ darauft der Mensch alle Magnalia Gottes und der Natur/ die den glaubigen seind zuwissen/ sehen und erlernen mag. In Philosophia Mystica, Darinn begriffen Eilff vnterschidene Theologico- Philosophische/doch teutsche Tractatlein [...]. Neustadt: Lucas Jennis, 1618.
Haslmayr, Adam [pseudo-Paracelsus]. Theologia Cabalistica. De perfecto homine in Christo Iesv, et contra de perdito animali homine in Adam, qui Lunaticus dicitur. In Philosophia Mystica, Darinn begriffen Eilff vnterschidene Theologico-Philosophische / doch teutsche Tractatlein [.]. Neustadt: Lucas Jennis, 1618.
Hesiod. Works and Days. Edited and translated by A.E. Stallings. London: Penguin Classics, 2018.
Hoffmann, Melchior. Auslegung der heimlichen Offenbarung Johannis. Strasbourg: Beck, 1530.
Hoffmann, Melchior. Erklarung des waren und hohen bunds des Allerhochsten. Edited by Manfred Krebs and Hans Georg Rott. Elsaft 2 Stad Straftburg 1533-1535 [Quellen zur Geschichte derTaufer, vol. 8]. Gutersloh: Mohn, 1960.
I.B.P. Sendschreiben an die Christliche Brudern vom RosenCreutz. In Fama Fraternitatis oder Entdeckung der Bruderschafft des loblichen Ordens deft RosenCreutzes/ Beneben der Confession Oder Bekantnus derselben Fraternitet, an alle Gelehrte und Haupter in Europa geschrieben. Gdansk: Andreas Hunefeldt, 1615.
Joachim of Fiore. Die genealogia. Reproduced in Gian Luca Potesta. “Die Genealogia— Ein fruhes Werk Joachims von Fiore und die Anfange seines Geschichtsbildes.” In: Deutsches Archivfur Erforschung des Mittelalters 56 (2000): 55-101.
Joachim of Fiore. Expositio in Apocalypsim. Venice, 1527. Reprinted in Frankfurt: Minerva GmbH, 1964.
Joachim of Fiore. Liber Concordie. Venice: Simon de Luere, 1519.
Joachim of Fiore. Il libro delle Figure. Edited by L. Tondelli, M. Reeves, and B. Hirsch- Reich. Turin: Societa Editrice Internazionale, 1953.
John of Rupescissa. Liber de consideratione quintae essentiae omnium rerum. Reproduced in Udo Benzenhofer. Johannes’ de Rupescissa “Liber de consideratione quintae essentiae omnium rerum” deutsch: Studien zur Alchemia medica des 15. Bis. 17 Jahrhun- derts mit kritische Edition des Textes. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1980.
John of Rupescissa. Liber lucis. In ii libro della luce. Edited by Andrea Aromatico. Venice: Marsilio, 1997.
John of Rupescissa. Liber secretorum eventuum (or: Liber futurorum secretorum even- tuum). Bern Burgerbibliothek 215 (1349). Edited by Robert E. Lerner and Christine Morerod-Fattebert. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires Fribourg Suisse, 1994.
John of Rupescissa. Vade mecum in tribulatione. In Appendix ad fasciculum rerum expetendarum et fugiendarum. Edited by Edward Brown. Vol. 2. London: Richard Chiswell, 1690.
Julianus de Campis [Christoph Welling?]. Sendbrieff Oder Bericht an Alle/ welche von der Newen Bruderschaft des Ordens vom RosenCreutz genant/ etwas gelesen/ oder von andern per modum discursus der sachen beschaffenheit vernommen. N.p., 1615.
Kepler, Johannes. De stella nova in pede Serpentarii. In Gesammelte Werke i. Edited by M. Caspar. Munich: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, and C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1938.
Khunrath, Heinrich. Von Hylealischen, Das ist, Pri-Materialischen Catholischen oder Algemeinen naturlichen Chaos, Der Naturgemessen Alchymae und Alchymisten. Magdeburg: Andreas Gehne, 1597.
Libavius, Andreas. Analysis Confessionis fraternitatis de Rosea Cruce. In Examen philo- sophiae novae. Frankfurt: Nicolaus Hoffmann, Petrus Kopffius, 1615.
Libavius, Andreas. d.o.m.a.AlchemiaAndreaeLibavii [...]. Frankfurt: lohannes Saurius, Petrus Kopffius, 1597.
Libavius, Andreas. d. o.m.a. Alchymia Andreae Libavii, recognita, emendata, et aucta tum dogmatibus et experimentis nonnullis; Tum commentario medico physico chymico [.]. Frankfurt: Iohannes Saurius, Petrus Kopffius, 1606.
Libavius, Andreas. Examen philosophiae novae quae veteri abrogandae opponitur [.]. De philosophia harmonica magica fraternitatis de Roseae Cruce. Frankfurt: Nicolaus Hoffmann, Petrus Kopffius, 1615.
Libavius, Andreas. Exercitatio Paracelsica nova de notandis ex scripto Fraternitatis de Rosea Crucis. In Examen philosophiae novae. Frankfurt: Nicolaus Hoffmann, Petrus Kopffius, 1615.
Libavius, Andreas. Wohlmeinendes Bedencken von der Fama und Confessio der Bruder- schafft des Rosen Creutzes. Frankfurt, 1616.
Libavius, Andreas [Basilius de Varna, pseud.]. d.o.m.a. Analysis dialectica colloquii ratisbonensis anno 1601. De norma et judice omnium controversiarum fidei Christianae habiti [.]. Frankfurt: Joannis Saurius, Petrus Kopffius, 1602.
Liberius, Benedictus. Nucleus Sophicus, seu explanatio in tincturam physicorum Theo- phrasti Paracelsi [.]. Frankfurt: Lucas Jennis, 1623.
Lichtenberger, Johannes. Prognosticatio Joannis Liechtenbergers: quam olim scripsit super magna illa Saturni ac louis coniunctione, quae fuitAnno mccccixxxiiii [...]. N.p., 1526 [1484].
Lichtenberger, Johannes. “Prognosticatio. Von aller stend der welt/ bosen und guten zufallen.” In Propheceien und Weissagungen. Vergangne/ Gegenwertige/ und Kun- fftige Sachen/Geschicht undZufall/Hoher undNiderer Stande [...]. Frankfurt, 1549.
Luther, Martin. D. Martin Luthers Werke: kritische Gesamtausgabe. 120 vols. Weimar: H. Bohlau, 1883-2009.
Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works. Edited by J. Pelikan and H.T. Lehmann. St Louis: Concordia, 1955-1976.
Luther, Martin. Reformations-historische deutsche Schriften. Vol. 26. Edited by Johann Konrad Irmischer. Erlangen: Carl Heyder, 1830.
Luther, Martin. Wider die Mordischen und Reubischen Rotten der Bawren. Wittenberg: Johannes Cochlaeus, 1525.
Maier, Michael. Silentium post clamores, das ist, Apologi und Verantwortung, wieder etlicher ungestummer Clamanten (so sich in die Fraternitat r.c. auffzunehmen, begehret, aber ijres Gefallens keine Antwort, erlanget) aussgegossen [.]. Frankfurt: Lucas Jennis, 1617.
Maier, Michael. Themis aurea, hoc est, de legibus fraternitatis r.c. tractatus, quo earum cum rei veritate convenientia demonstratur. Frankfurt: Nicolaus Hoffmann and Lucas Jennis, 1618.
Maier, Michael. Tripus aureus, hoc est, tres tractatus chymici selectissimi [.]. Frankfurt: Lucas Jennis, 1618.
Maier, Michael. Verum inventum. hoc est, munera Germaniae, ab ipsa primitus reperta ... & reliquo orbi communicata, quae tanta sunt [...]. Frankfurt: Nicolaus Hoffmann and Lucas Jennis, 1619.
Mersenne, Marin. Quaestiones celeberrimae in Genesim. Paris: Cramoisy, 1623.
Mirandola, Giovanni Pico della. Oration on the Dignity of Man. Edited by Francesco Borghesi, Michael Papio and Massimo Riva. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Mogling, Daniel [Theophilus Schweighart, pseud.]. Pandora sextae aetatis, sive Speculum gratiae. Das ist: Die ganze Kunst und Wissenschafft der von Gott Hocher- leuchten Fraternitet Christiani Rosencreutz [...]. Allen der Universal Weifiheit/ und Gottlichen Magnalien waren liebhabern/treuhertziger Meynung entdeckt. N.p., 1617.
Mogling, Daniel [Theophilus Schweighart, pseud.]. Speculum Sophicum RhodoStau- roticum Das ist: Weitlauffige Entdeckung deft Collegij unnd axiomatum von der son- dern erleuchten Fraternitet Christ. RosenCreutz: [.]. N.p., 1618.
Mogling, Daniel [Florentinus de Valentia, pseud.]. Rosa Florescens contra F.G. Menapii calumnias. Das ist: Kurtzer Bericht und Widerantwort/ auff die sub dato 2 Iunii 1617
ex agro Norico in Latein/ und dan folgendes 15 Julii obgedachtes Jahr Teutsch publi- cirte unbedachte Calumnias, F.G. Menapii, Wider die Rosencreutzische Societet. N.p., 1617.
Mogling, Daniel [Valerius Saledinus, pseud.]. Perpetuum mobile, das ist, immerwehrende Bewegung. Frankfurt: Lucas Jennis, 1625.
Morsius, Joachim. Nuncius Olympicus. Von etzlichen geheimen Buchern und Schriften/ so ein furnehmer Gottesgelehrter und hocherleuchter berumbter Theosophus und Medicus [...] zusammengebracht, darin die grosteHimmlische undIrrdische Weifiheit begriffen ist. Philadelphia, 1626.
Morsius, Joachim [Anastasius Philareti Cosmopolitae, pseud.]. Epistola sapientissimae f.r.c. remissa. Philadelphia: Christian Harpocrates, 1614[?].
M.V.S. A.Q.L.I.H. Ein ander Sendschreiben. In Fama Fraternitatis oder Entdeckung der Bruderschaft des loblichen Ordens deft RosenCreutzes/ Beneben der Confession Oder Bekantnus derselben Fraternitet, an alle Gelehrte undHaupter in Europa geschrieben. Gdansk: Andreas Hunefeldt, 1615.
Naude, Gabriel. Instruction a la France sur la verite de l’histoire des Freres de la Roze- Croix, Paris: F. Julliot, 1623.
Nollius, Heinrich [Heinrich Nolle]. Parergi philosophici speculum, in quo ars et diffi- cultas conficiendi lapidem philosophorum toti orbi consideranda exhibetur [.]. Giessen: Caspar Chemlin, 1623.
Osiander, Andreas. Eyn wunderliche Weyssagung von dem Babstumb, wie es ihm biz an das endt der welt gehen sol, in figuren oder, gemal begriffen, gefunden zu Nurnberg im Cartheuser Closter, und ist seher alt. 1527. Reproduced in Gerhard Muller and Gottfried Seebafi. Schriften und Briefe, April 1525 bis Ende 1527. Vol. 2 of Andreas Osianderd.A. Gesamtausgabe. Gutersloh: Gutersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, 1977.
Paracelsus. Astronomia Magna: Oder Die gantze Philosophia sagax der grossen und kleinen welt [.]. Edited by Michael Toxites. Frankfurt: Hieronymous Feyerabend, 1571.
Paracelsus. Aureoli Philippi Theophrasti Bombasts von Hohenheim Paracelsi ... Opera, Bucher und Schrifften so viel deren zur Handt gebracht und vor wenig Jahren mit und auss ihren ... Originalien collacioniert, vergliechen, verbessert.../ durch loannem Huserum ... in zehen unterschiedliche Theil in Truck gegeben. Strasbourg: Lazarus Zetzner, 1603.
Paracelsus. Der Bucher und Schrifften/ des Edlen/ Hochgelehrten und Bewehrten Philo- sophi unnd Medici, Philippi Theophrasti Bombast von Hohenheim/ Paracelsi genannt. Edited by Johannes Huser. 10 vols. Basel: Conrad Waldkirch, 1589-1591.
Paracelsus. FourTreatises. Edited by Henry E. Sigerist. Baltimore (MD) and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996.
Paracelsus. Neue Paracelsus-Edition. Theologische Werke i. Edited by Urs Leo Ganten- bein. Berlin and New York (NY): Walter de Gruyter, 2008.
Paracelsus. Samtliche Werke. i. Abteilung: Medizinische, naturwissenschaftliche und philosophische Schriften. Edited by Karl Sudhoff. 14 vols. Munich and Berlin: Olden- bourg, 1922-1933.
Paracelsus. Samtliche Werke, ii. Abteilung: Die theologischen und religionsphilosophis- chen Schriften, Erster Band, Philosophia magna i. Edited by Wilhelm Matthiessen. 1 vol. Munich: Otto Wilhelm Barth, 1923.
Paracelsus. Samtliche Werke, ii. Abteilung: Theologische und religionsphilosophische Schriften. Edited by Kurt Goldammer, vols. 2-7, supplement. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1955-1995.
Peter John Olivi. Postilla in Apocalypsim. Partly reproduced in Beitrage zur Sekten- geschichte des Mittelalters, vol. 2, Dokumente vornehmlich zur Geschichte der Valde- sier und Katharer. Edited by V Dollinger. New York (NY): Burt Franklin, 1890.
Postel, Guillaume. De orbis terrae concordia libri quatuor. Basel, 1544.
Postel, Guillaume. La tierce partie des orientales histoires. Poitiers: Enguilberts de Manerf, 1560.
Pseudo-Paracelsus [Paracelsus]. Apocalypsis Hermetis. In Aureoli Philippi Theophrasti Bombasts von Hohenheim Paracelsi ... Opera, Bucher und Schrifften so viel deren zur Handtgebracht undvorwenigJahren mit undauss ihren ... Originalien collacioniert, vergliechen, verbessert.../durch loannem Huserum ... in zehen unterschiedliche Theil in Truck gegeben. Vol. 2. Strasbourg: Lazarus Zetzner, 1603.
Pseudo-Paracelsus [Paracelsus]. Samtliche Werke. i. Abteilung: Medizinische, naturwis- senschaftliche und philosophische Schriften. Edited by Karl Sudhoff. Vols. 11, 14. Munich and Berlin: Oldenbourg, 1929-1933.
Purstinger, Berthold. Onus ecclesiae. Landshut: Johannes Weyssenburger, 1524 [1519]. Reformation Kaiser Sigismunds. Edited by Heinrich Koller. Stuttgart: Anton Hierse- mann, 1964.
Roger Bacon. Compendium Studii Philosophiae. In Opera quaedam hactenus inedita Rogeri Baconi. Vol. 1 of Opus tertium. Edited by J.S. Brewer. London: Longman, Green, Longman and Roberts, 1859.
Roger Bacon. The “Opus Majus” of Roger Bacon. Edited by John Henry Bridges. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford Clarendon Press, 1897.
Roeslin, Helisaeus. Iudicium oder Bedencken von Newen Stern, welcher den 2 Octobris erschinen und zum erstenmal gesehen worden. Strasbourg: Bertram, 1605.
Roeslin, Helisaeus. De opere Dei creationis seu de mundo hypotheses orthodoxae quan- tumuis paradoxae. Frankfurt: Andrea Wechelus, 1597.
Sperber, Julius [?]. Von der hochsten/allerbesten unndthewresten Schatze. Dasesnichts anders sey/ denn die rechte und ware Magia oder Cabala. Reprinted in: Echo der von Gotthocherleuchten Fraternitet des loblichen ordens r.c. Gdansk: Andrea Hunefeld, 1615.
Sperber, Julius [?]. Ein Geheimer Tractatus Von den dreyen Seculis oder Haupt=zeiten
/ von anfang biJi zum Ende der Welt. Darinnen [...] dargethan wird/ das noch eine Guldene als die dritte und letzte Zeit hinderstellig sey [...]. Amsterdam: Benedictus Bahnsen, 1660 [1597].
Steuco, Agostino. De perenni philosophia libri ix. Lyon, 1540. Theosophi eximii epistola ad Anastasium Philaretum Cosmopolitam de sapientissima fraternitate r.c. Frankfurt: Johann Hofmann, 1619.
Thomas a Kempis. Opuscula aurea. Venice: Philippus lunta, 1568.
Toxites, Michael [Michael Schutz]. Letters in Der Fruhparacelsismus. Corpus Paracel- sisticum. Dokumente fruhneuzeitlicher Naturphilosophie in Deutschland. Edited by Wilhelm Kuhlmann and Joachim Telle. 3 vols. Tubingen: Niemeyer, 2001-2004.
Toxites, Michael [Michael Schutz]. Preface to Astronomia Magna: Oder Die gantze Philosophia sagax der grossen und kleinen welt [.]. Frankfurt: Hieronymous Feyer- abend, 1571.
Toxites, Michael [Michael Schutz] and Johann Fischart. Onomasticon 2 vols. Theo- phrasti Paracelsi (hoc est, earum vocum, quarum in scriptis eius solet usus esse, expli- catio). Strasbourg, 1574.
Thurneysser, Leonhard. Melitsat kai hermeneia, Das ist ein Onomasticvm [.] Vber etliche frembde vnd [.] vnbekante Nomina, Verba, Proverbia, Dicta [.] Deren nicht allein in des theuren Philosophi und Medici Aurelij, Theophrasti, Paracelsi von Hohenheim [.] nach dem Alphabet verzeichnet. 2 vols. Berlin, 1574-1583.
Thurneysser, Leonhard. Quinta essentia, das ist/ die hochste subtilitet/ krafft und wir- ckung/ beyder der furtrefflichsten/ und menschlichem geschlecht am nutzlichsten Kunsten/ der Medicin und Alchemy [.]. Leipzig, 1574.
Turner, Robert. Ars Notoria: The Notory Art of Solomon. Shewing the Cabalistic Key of Magical Operations, the Liberal Sciences, Divine Revelation, and the Art of Memory. London: F. Cottrel, 1657.
Von Suchten, Alexander. De secretis antimonii Liber unus. Das ist/ Von der gros/sen heymligkeit/ des Antimonij die Artzney belangent. Edited by Michael Toxites. Strasbourg: Heirs of Christian Muller, 1570.
Von Suchten, Alexander. Mysteria gemina antimonii, das ist: Von den grossen geheim- nussen dei Antimonii. Furst, 1685 [1604].
Von Suchten, Alexander. Tractatus secundus de antimonio vulgari Alexandri von Suchten an den Erbarn und Ehesten Johan Baptista von Seebach geschrieben. In Alexander von Suchten. Mysteria gemina antimonii. Leipzig, 1604.
Von Suchten, Alexander. Letters in Der Fruhparacelsismus. Corpus Paracelsisticum. Dok- umente Fruhneuzeitlicher Naturphilosophie in Deutschland. Edited by Wilhelm Kuhlmann and Joachim Telle. 3 vols. Tubingen: Niemeyer, 2001-2004.
Weigel, Valentin. Der guldene Griff/ Alle Ding ohne Irrthumb zu erkennen/ vielen Hoch- gelahrten vnbekandt/vnd doch allen Menschen nothwendig zu wissen. Hall: Joachim Krusicke, 1613 [1578].
Weigel, Valentin. Gnothi seauton. Nosce teipsum Erkenne dich Selbst. 2 vols, vol. 1. Neustadt: Johann Khnuber, 1615.
Weigel, Valentin. Ein nutzliches Tractatlein vom Ort der Welt. Hall: Joachim Krusicke, 1614.
Secondary Literature
Abray, Lorna Jane. The People’s Reformation: Magistrates, Clergy, and Commons in Strasbourg 1500-1598. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press, 1985.
Akerman, Susanna. “The Rosicrucians and the Great Conjunctions.” In Continental Millenarians: Protestants, Catholics, Heretics. Edited by John Christian Laursen and Richard H. Popkin, 1-8. Millenarianism and Messianism in Early Modern European Culture 4. Dordrecht: Springer, 2001.
Akerman, Susanna. Rose Cross over the Baltic: The Spread of Rosicrucianism in Northern Europe. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
Akerman, Susanna. “Paracelsianism in Sweden.” In Western Esotericism in Scandinavia. Edited by Henrik Bogdan and Olav Hammer, 425-430. Leiden and Boston (MA): Brill, 2016.
Akerman, Susanna. “Helisaeus Roeslin, the New Star, and the Last Judgement.” In Rosenkreuz als europaisches Phanomen im 17. Jahrhundert. Edited by Carlos Gilly, 339-359. Amsterdam: bph, 2002.
Anman, Peter. “The Musical Theory and Philosophy of Robert Fludd.” In: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 30 (1967): 198-227.
Antognazza, Maria Rosa, and Howard Hotson. Alsted and Leibniz. On God, the Magistrate and the Millennium. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1999.
Antognazza, Maria Rosa. “Hofmann-Streit: il dibattito sul rapporto tra filosofia e teolo- gia all’Universita di Helmstedt.” In: Vita epensiero 88:3 (1996): 390-420.
Arnold, Gottfried. Unpartheyische Kirche- und Ketzer-Historie. 4 vols. Frankfurt: Fritsch, 1729.
Arnold, Paul. Histoire des Rose-Croix et les origines de la Franc-Magonnerie. Paris: Mercure de Franc, 1990 (1955).
Aston, Margaret. “The Fiery Trigon Conjunction: An Elizabethan Astrological Prediction.” In: Isis 61:2 (1970): 159-187.
Barnes, Robin Bruce. Prophecy and Gnosis: Apocalypticism in the Wake of the Lutheran Reformation. Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press, 1988.
Barnes, Robin Bruce. “Images of Hope and Despair: Western Apocalypticism: ca. 15001800.” In The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism. Vol. 2. Edited by Bernard McGinn, 143-184. New York (NY) and London: Continuum, 2000.
Barnes, Robin Bruce. Astrology and Reformation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
Begemann, Wilhelm. “Johann Valentin Andreae und die Rosenkreuzer.” In: Monatshefte der Comenius Gesellschaft 8:5/6 (1899): 145-168.
Benrath, Gustav Adolf. “Antichrist 111.” In Theologische Realenzyclopadie 3. Edited by Horst Robert Balz, et al., 24-28. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1978.
Benzenhofer, Udo. Johannes’ de Rupescissa liber de consideration quintae essentiae omnium rerum deutsch. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1989.
Benzenhofer, Udo. “Paracelsus: Leben—Werk—Aspekte der Wirkung.” In Paracelsus. Edited by Udo Benzenhofer, 7-23. Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1997.
Benzenhofer, Udo. “Zum Brief des Johannes Oporinus uber Paracelsus.” In: Sudhoffs Archiv 73:1 (1989): 55-63.
Biegger, Katharina. ’De invocatione Beatae Mariae Virginis’. Paracelsus und die Mari- enverehrung. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1990.
Bignami-Odier, Jeanne. Etudes sur Jean de Roquetaillade (Johannes de Rupescissa). Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1952.
Blair, Ann. “Mosaic Physics and the Search for a Pious Natural Philosophy in the Late Renaissance.” In: Isis 91:1 (2000): 31-58.
Blaser, Robert-Henri. Paracelsus in Basel: Festschrift fur Professor Dr. Robert-Henri Blaser. Edited by the Schweizerische Paracelsus-Gesellschaft. Basel: St. Arbogast Verlag Muttenz, 1979.
Bocher, Otto. “Chiliasmus ii: im antiken Judentum.” In Theologische Realenzyclopadie 7. Edited by Horst Robert Balz, et al., 724-727. Berlin and New York (NY): Walter de Gruyter, 1981.
Bonansea, Bernardino. Tommaso Campanella. Renaissance Pioneer of Modern Thought. Washington (WA): The Catholic University of America Press, 1969.
Bonner, Anthony. The Art and Logic of Ramon Llull: A User’s Guide. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Bono, James J. The Two Books and Adamic Knowledge: Reading the Book of Nature and Early Modern Strategies for Repairing the Effects of the Fall and of Babel. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Bouman, Jose, and Cis van Heertum. Divine Wisdom, Divine Nature. The Message of the Rosicrucian Manifestoes in the Visual Language of the Seventeenth Century. Amsterdam: In de Pelikaan, 2014.
Bouwsma, William J. Concordia Mundi: The Career and Thought of Guillaume Postel, 1510-1581. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press, 1957.
Brach, Jean-Pierre. “Mathematical Esotericism.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Western Mysticism and Esotericism. Edited by Glenn Alexander Magee, 405-416. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.
Bradbury, Rosalene. Cross Theology: The Classical Theologia Crucis and Karl Barth’s Modern Theology of the Cross. Eugene (OR): Pickwick Publications, 2011.
Brann, Noel L. Trithemius and Magical Theology. Albany (NY): State University of New York Press, 1999.
Brecht, Christoph. “Johann Valentin Andreae. Zum literarischen Profil eines deutschen Schriftstellers.” In Johann Valentin Andreae (1586-1654). Eine Biographie. Edited by Martin Brecht, 313-348. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008.
Brecht, Martin. “Chiliasmus in Wurttemberg im 17. Jahrhundert.” In Chiliasmus in Deutschland und England im 17. Jahrhundert. Edited by Martin Brecht, 25-49. Pie- tismus und Neuzeit. Ein Jahrbuch zur Geschichte des neueren Protestantismus 14. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988.
Brecht, Martin. “Christoph Besold: Versuche und Ansatze einer Deutung.” In: Pietismus und Neuzeit. Ein Jahrbuch zur Geschichte des neueren Protestantismus. 26 (2000): 1128.
Brecht, Martin. “Der Psalmenkommentar des Paracelsus und die Reformation.” In Neue Beitrage zur Paracelsus Forschung. Edited by Peter Dilg and Hartmut Rudolph, 7188. Stuttgart: Akademie Dioezese Rottenburg, 1995.
Brecht, Martin. “’Er hat uns die Fackel ubergeben ...’ Die Bedeutung Johann Valentin Andreaes fur Johann Amos Comenius.” In Das Erbe des Christian Rosenkreuz. Vor- trage gehalten anlasslich des Amsterdamers Andreae-Symposiums. Edited by bph, 28-45. Amsterdam: In de Pelikaan, 1988.
Brecht, Martin. Johann Valentin Andreae (1586-1654). Eine Biographie. Gottingen: Van- denhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008.
Brecht, Martin. “Johann Valentin Andreae. Weg und Programm eines Reformers zwi- schen Reformation und Moderne.” In Theologen und Theologie an der Universitat Tubingen. Edited by Martin Brecht, 270-343. Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1977.
Brecht, Martin. J.V. Andreae undHerzog August zu Braunschweig-Luneburg. Ihr Brief- wechsel und ihr Umfeld. Clavis Pansophiae 8. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann- Holzboog, 2002.
Brecht, Martin. Kirchenordnung und Kirchenzucht in Wurttemberg vom 16. bis zum 18. Jahrhundert. Quellen und Forschungen zur wurttembergischen Kirchengeschichte. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1967.
Brecht, Martin. “Kritik und Reform der Wissenschaften bei Johann Valentin Andreae.” In Wissenschaftsgeschichte um Wilhelm Schickard. Edited by Friedrich Seck, 129-151. Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1981.
Brecht, Martin. Theologen und Theologie an der Universitat Tubingen. Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1977.
Bredius, Abraham. Johannes Torrentius. Schilder 1589-1644. The Hague: Martinus Nij- hoff, 1909.
Breger, Herberg. “Elias Artista—A Precursor of the Messiah in Natural Science.” In Nineteen Eighty-Four: Science between Utopia and Dystopia. Edited by Everett Mendelsohn and Helga Nowotny, 49-72. Sociology of the Sciences 8. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1984.
Brown, Peter. Augustine of Hippo: A Biography. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press, 2000.
Buhle, Johann Gottlieb. Uber den Ursprung und die vornehmsten Schicksale der Orden der Rosenkreuzer undFreymaurer. Eine historisch-kritische Untersuchung. Gottingen: J.F. Rower, 1804.
Bunger, Carl. Matthias Bernegger: Ein Bild aus dem geistigen Leben Strassburgs zur Zeit des Dreissigjahrigen Krieges. Strasbourg: Karl J. Trubner, 1893.
Burr, David. The Spiritual Franciscans: From Protest to Persecution in the Century after Saint Francis. Pennsylvania (PA): Pennsylvania State University Press, 2001.
Burton, Simon J.G., Joshua Hollmann and Eric M. Parker (editors). Nicholas of Cusa and the Making of the Early Modern World. Studies in the History of Christian Traditions 190. Leiden and Boston (MA): Brill, 2019.
Cafiero, L. “Robert Fludd e la polemica con Gassendi.” In: Rivista critica di storia della filosofia. 19:4 (1964): 367-410.
Cameron, Euan. The European Reformation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Caroti, Stefano. “Melanchthon’s Astrology.” In ’Astrologi hallucinati’: Stars and the End of the World in Luther’s Time. Edited by Paola Zambelli, 109-121. Berlin and New York (NY): Walter de Gruyter, 1986.
Cerutti, Wim. De schilder en vrijdenker Torrentius. 1588-1644. Een Haarlems-Amster- damse duivelskunstenaar. Haarlem: Uitgeverij Loutje, 2014.
Chabas, Jose, and Bernard R. Goldstein. The Alfonsine Tables of Toledo. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003.
Christianson, John Robert. On Tycho’s Island. Tycho Brahe, Science, and Culture in the Sixteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Clark, Gillian. “Imperium and the City of God: Augustine on Church and Empire.” In: Studies in Church History 54 (2018): 46-70. doi 10.1017/stc.2017.4.
Clericuzio, Antonio. Elements, Principles and Corpuscles: A Study of Atomism and Chemistry in the Seventeenth Century. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004.
Clulee, Nicholas. “Astronomia Inferior. Legacies ofJohannes Trithemius and John Dee.” In Secrets of Nature. Astrology and Alchemy in Early Modern Europe. Edited by William R. Newman and Anthony Grafton, 173-234. London and Cambridge (MA): mit Press, 2001.
Cohn, Norman. The Pursuit of the Millennium: Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages. Oxford and New York (NY): Oxford University Press, 1961.
Colberg, Ehregott Daniel. Das Platonisch-Hermetische Christenthum. 2 vols. Leipzig: Gleditsch/Weidmanns, 1710.
Collins, John Joseph (editor). Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre. Semeia 14 (1979).
Collins, Adela Yarbro (editor). Early Christian Apocalypticism: Genre and Social Setting. Semeia 36 (1986).
Copenhaver, Brian P. Hermetica: The Greek Corpus Hermeticum and the Latin Asclepius in a New English Translation with Notes and Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Copenhaver, Brian P. Magic in Western Culture: from Antiquity to the Enlightenment. New York (NY) and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
Copenhaver, Brian P. “Scholastic Philosophy and Renaissance Magic in the ’De Vita’ of Marsilio Ficino.” In: Renaissance Quarterly 37:4 (1984): 523-554.
Copenhaver, Brian P. “Natural Philosophy: Magic and Alchemy.” In The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy. Edited by Charles B. Schmitt and Quentin Skinner, 264-300. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Crisciani, Chiara. “Opus and Sermo: The Relationship between Alchemy and Prophecy (12th-14th Centuries).” In: Early Science and Medicine 13 (2008): 4-14.
Crone, Hugh D. Paracelsus:The Man Who Defied Medicine. His Real Contribution to Medicine and Science. Melbourne: The Albarello Press, 2004.
Daniel, Dane T. “Paracelsus’ Astronomia Magna: Bible-based Science and the Religious Roots of the Scientific Revolution.” PhD diss., Indiana University, 2002.
Daniel, Dane T. “Paracelsus on Baptism and the Acquiring of the Eternal Body.” In Paracelsian Moments: Science, Medicine & Astrology in Early Modern Europe. Edited by G.S. Williams and C.D. Gunnoe, 117-134. Kirksville (MO): Truman State Press, 2002.
Debus, Allen G. “Fludd, Robert.” In Dictionary of Scientific Biography v. Edited by Charles Coulston Gillispie, 47-49. New York (NY): Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1972.
Debus, Allen G. Robert Fludd and his Philosophicall Key: Being a Transcription of the Manuscript at Trinity College, Cambridge. New York (NY): Science History Publications, 1979.
Debus, Allen G. The Chemical Philosophy. Paracelsian Science and Medicine in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Mineola (NY): Dover Publications, 2002.
Debus, Allen G. The English Paracelsians. London: Oldbourne Press, 1965.
Debus, Allen G. The French Paracelsians: The Chemical Challenge to Medical and Scientific Tradition in Early Modern France. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Dekker, Cornelis. The Origins of Old Germanic Studies in the Low Countries. Leiden, Boston (MA) and Cologne: Brill, 1999.
De Vries, Lyke. “The Rosicrucian Reformation. Prophecy and Reform at Play in the Rosicrucian Manifestos.” In: Daphnis 48 (2020): 270-295.
Devun, Leah. Prophecy, Alchemy and the End of Time: John of Rupescissa in the Late Middle Ages. New York (NY): Columbia University Press, 2014.
Dickson, Donald R. The Tessera of Antilia: Utopian Brotherhoods and Secret Societies in the Early Seventeenth Century. Leiden, Boston (MA) and Cologne: Brill, 1998.
Dieter, Theodor. “Luther as Late Medieval Theologian.” In The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology. Edited by Robert Kolb et al., 31-48. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Dingel, Irene (editor). Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010, 13th edition.
Dixon, Scott. “The Radicals.” In The Oxford Handbook of Protestant Reformations.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199646920.013.40
Dixon, Scott. Contesting the Reformation. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell Publishers, 2012.
Dollinger, JohannJoseph Ignaz von. BeitragezurSektengeschichte desMittelalters .Vol. 2 of Dokumente vornhemlich zur Geschichte der Valdesier und Katharer. Munich: Beck, 1890.
Dopsch, Heinz. “Paracelsus, Salzburg und der Bauernkrieg.” In Paracelsus (1493-1541). “Kernes andern Knecht...”. Edited by Heinz Dopsch, Kurt Goldammer, and Peter Kramml, 299-308. Salzburg: Verlag Anton Pustet, 1993.
Dopsch, Heinz. “Paracelsus, die Reformation und der Bauernkrieg.” In Paracelsus und Salzburg. Vortrage bei den Internationalen Kongressen in Salzburg und Badgastein anlafilich des Paracelsus-Jahres 1993. Edited by Heinz Dopsch and Peter F. Kramml, 201-216. Salzburg: Gesellschaft fur Salzburger Landeskunde, 1994.
Dopsch, Heinz. “Testament, Tod und Grabmal des Paracelsus.” In Paracelsus und Salzburg. Vortrage bei den Internationalen Kongressen in Salzburg undBadgastein anlafi- lich des Paracelsus-Jahres 1993. Edited by Heinz Dopsch and Peter F. Kramml, 251277. Salzburg: Gesellschaft fur Salzburger Landeskunde, 1994.
Dougherty, Michael V. Pico della Mirandola: New Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Dulmen, Richard van. “Daniel Mogling. ’Pansoph’ und Rosenkreuzer.” In: Blatter fur wurttembergische Kirchengeschichte 72 (1972): 43-70.
Dulmen, Richard van. “Einleitung.” In Fama Fraternitatis. Confessio Fraternitatis. Chymische Hochzeit. Edited by Richard van Dulmen, 7-12. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1973.
Dulmen, Richard van. Die Utopie einer christlichen Gesellschaft. Johann Valentin Andreae (1586-1654). Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 1978.
Ebeling, Florian. “Alchemical Hermeticism.” In The Occult World. Edited by Christopher Partridge, 74 91. New York (NY): Routledge, 2015.
Eco, Umberto. The Search for the Perfect Language. Translated by James Fentress. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1995.
Edighoffer, Roland. “Die Manifeste der Rosenkreuzer.” In Rosenkreuz als europaisches Phanomen im 17. Jahrhundert. Edited by Carlos Gilly, 161-176. Amsterdam: bph, 2002.
Edighoffer, Roland. “Einleitung.” In Johann Valentin Andreae. Rosenkreuzerschriften. Edited by Roland Edighoffer, 7-39. Vol. 3 of Gesammelte Schriften. Edited by Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 2010.
Edighoffer, Roland. “Johann Valentin Andreae. Vom Rosenkreuz zur Pansophie.” In: Daphnis: Zeitschrift fur mittlere deutsche Literatur 10 (1981): 211-239.
Edighoffer, Roland. “L’enigme paracelsienne dans les Noces chymiques de Christian Rosenkreutz.” In Paracelsus und seine internationale Rezeption in der Fruhen Neuzeit. Edited by Heinz Schott, 238-260. Leiden, Boston (MA) and Cologne: Brill, 1998.
Edighoffer, Roland. Les Rose-Croix. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1991.
Edighoffer, Roland. Les Rose-Croix et la crise de conscience europeenne auxviie siecle. Paris: Dervy, 1998.
Edighoffer, Roland. “Le Lion du Septentrion.” In: Etudes Germaniques 22 (1967): 161-189.
Edighoffer, Roland. Rose-Croix et societe ideale selon Johann Valentin Andreae. 2 vols. Paris: Arma Artis, 1982.
Edighoffer, Roland. “Rosicrucianism: From the Seventeenth Century to the Twentieth Century.” In Modern Esoteric Spirituality. Edited by Antoine Faivre and Jacob Needleman, 186-209. London: scm Press, 1993.
Emmerson, Richard Kenneth. Antichrist in the Middle Ages. A Study of Medieval Apocalypticism, Art and Literature. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1981.
Ernst, Germana. “From the Watery Trigon to the Fiery Trigon: Celestial Signs, Prophecies and History.” In ’Astrologi hallucinati’: Stars and the End of the World in Luther’s Time. Edited by Paola Zambelli, 265-280. Berlin and New York (NY): Walter de Gruyter, 1986.
Ernst, Germana. Religione, ragione e natura: ricerche su Tommaso Campanella e il tardo Rinascimento. Milan: Franco Angeli, 2002.
Ernst, Germana. The Book and the Body of Nature. Translated by David Marshall. Dordrecht: Springer, 2010.
Evans, G.R. Alan of Lille: The Frontiers of Theology in the Later Twelfth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Evans, Robert John Weston. Rudolph ii and His World: A Study in Intellectual History, 1576-1612. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973.
Faivre, Antoine. “Les Manifestos et la tradition.” In Das Erbe des Christian Rosenkreuz. Vortragegehalten anlasslich des Amsterdamer Andreae-Symposiums. Edited by bPh, 90-114. Amsterdam: In de Pelikaan, 1988.
Faivre, Antoine. Theosophy, Imagination, Tradition. Studies in Western Esotericism. Translated by Christine Rhone. New York (NY): State University of New York Press, 2000.
Faivre, Antoine. “Christian Theosophy.” In Dictionary of Gnosis and Esotericism. Edited by Wouter Hanegraaff, 258-267. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Farrington, Benjamin. The Philosophy of Francis Bacon. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1994.
Federici Vescovini, Graziella. “The Theological Debate.” In:A Companion to Astrology in the Renaissance. Edited by Brendan Dooley, 99-140. Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 49. Leiden: Brill, 2014.
Ferguson, John. Bibliotheca Chemica: A Catalogue of the Alchemical, Chemical, and Pharmaceutical Books in the Collection of the Late James Young of Kelly and Durris. 2 vols. Glasgow: James Maclehose and Sons, 1906.
Finke, Heinrich. Aus den Tagen Bonifaz viii. Funde undForschungen. Munster: Aschen- dorff, 1902.
Forshaw, PJ. “Kabbalah.” In The Occult World. Edited by Christopher Partridge, 541-551. New York (NY): Routledge, 2015.
Forshaw, P.J. “Marsilio Ficino and the Chemical Art.” In Laus Platonici Philosophi. Marsilio Ficino and His Influence. Edited by Stephen Clucas, Peter J. Forshaw, and Valery Rees, 249-272. Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History 198. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Forshaw, P.J. “’Paradoxes, Absurdities, and Madness’: Conflict over Alchemy, Magic and Medicine in the Works of Andreas Libavius and Heinrich Khunrath.” In: Early Science and Medicine 13.1 (2008): 53-81.
Forshaw, P.J. “Vitriolic Reactions: Orthodox Responses to the Alchemical Exegesis of Genesis.” In The Word and the World: Biblical Exegesis and Early Modern Science. Edited by P.J. Forshaw and K. Killeen, 111-136. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
Frey-Jaun, Regine. Die Berufung des Turhuters—Zur “Chymischen Hochzeit Christiani Rosenkreutz”vonJohann Valentin Andreae (1586-1634). Bern: Peter Lang, 1989.
Friedrich, Markus. Die Grenzen der Vernunft. Theologie, Philosophie und gelehrte Kon- flikte am Beispiel des Helmstedter Hofmannstreits und seiner Wirkungen auf das Luthertum um 1600. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004.
Gantenbein, Urs Leo. “Der fruhe Paracelsismus in der Schweiz.” In: Nova Acta Paracelsica nf 10 (1996): 14-46.
Gantenbein, Urs Leo. Paracelsus. Theologische Werke i. Vita Beata—Vom seligen Leben. New York (NY) and Berlin: De Gruyter, 2008.
Gantenbein, Urs Leo. “Leben, Tod und Jenseits bei Paracelsus.” In Gutes Leben und guter Todvon der Spatantike biszurGegenwart. Einphilosophisch-ethischerDiskurs uber die Jahrhunderte hinweg. Edited by Albrecht Classen, 157-194. Berlin and Boston (MA): Walter de Gruyter, 2012.
Gause, Ute. Paracelsus (1493-1541): Genese und Entfaltung seiner fruhen Theologie. Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1993.
Gentile, Sebastiano, and Carlos Gilly. Marsilio Ficino and the Return of Hermes Tris- megistus. Florence: Olschki, 1999.
Gilly, Carlos. Adam Haslmayr. Der erste Verkunder der Manifeste der Rosenkreuzer. Amsterdam: In de Pelikaan, 1994.
Gilly, Carlos. “Campanella and the Rosicrucians.” In Rosenkreuz als europaisches Phano- men im 17. Jahrhundert. Edited by bph, 193-210. Amsterdam: In de Pelikaan, 2002.
Gilly, Carlos. Cimelia Rhodostaurotica. Die Rosenkreuzer im Spiegel der zwischen 1610 und 1660 entstandenen Handschriften und Drucke. Ausstellung der Bibliotheca Philoso- phica Hermetica Amsterdam und der Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbuttel. Amsterdam: In de Pelikaan, 1995.
Gilly, Carlos. “Comenius und die Rosenkreuzer.” In Aufklarung und Esoterik. Edited by Monika Neugebauer Wolk, 87-107. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 1999.
Gilly, Carlos. “Das Bekenntnis zur Gnosis von Paracelsus bis auf die Schuler Jacob Bohmes.” In De Hermetische Gnosis in de loop der eeuwen. Beschouwingen over de
Invloed van een Egyptische religie op de cultuur van het Westen. Edited by Gilles Quis- pel, 400-441. Baarn: Tirion, 1992.
Gilly, Carlos. “Der ’Lowe von Mitternacht’, der ’Adler’ und der ’Endchrist’: Die politische, religiose und chiliastische Publizistik in den Flugschriften, illustrierten Flugblat- tern und Volksliedern des Dreissigjahrigen Krieges.” In Rosenkreuz als europdisches Phdnomen im i7.Jahrhundert. Edited by bPh, 249-268. Amsterdam: In de Pelikaan, 2002.
Gilly, Carlos. “Die Rosenkreuzer als europaisches Phanomen im 17. Jahrhundert und die verschlungenen Pfade der Forschung.” In Rosenkreuz als europdisches Phdnomen im 17. Jahrhundert. Edited by bph, 19-56. Amsterdam: In de Pelikaan, 2002.
Gilly, Carlos. “Don Quijote und Rosenkreuz: Die Chymische Hochzeit als alchemokri- tischer Ritterroman.” In Ein alchimistischer Roman in Strafiburg. Die Chymische Hochzeit des Christian Rosencreutz. 1616-2016. Edited by Jean-Pierre Brach and Aure- lie Chone, 9-24. Vol. 13 of Recherches Germaniques. Strasbourg: Presses Univer- sitaires de Strasbourg, 2018.
Gilly, Carlos. “Hermes or Luther? The Search for Johann Arndt’s De antiqua philosophia et divina veterum magorum sapientia recuperanda.” In Magia alchimia scienza dal ’400 al ’700. L’influsso di Ermete Trismegisto / Magic Alchemy and Science 15th-18th Centuries. The Influence of Hermes Trismegistus. 2 vols. Edited by Carlos Gilly and Cis van Heertum, 376-398. Florence: Centro Di, 2005.
Gilly, Carlos. “Introductie.” In Jan Amos Comenius. Via lucis. De weg van het licht. Translated by J.M. Schadd and R.M. Bouthoorn. Amsterdam: In de Pelikaan, 1992.
Gilly, Carlos. “Iter rosicrucianum. Auf der Suche nach unbekannten Quellen der fruhen Rosenkreuzer.” In Das Erbe des Christian Rosenkreuz. Vortrdge gehalten anldsslich des Amsterdamer Andreae-Symposiums. Edited by bph, 62-89. Amsterdam: In de Pelikaan, 1988.
Gilly, Carlos. “Johann Arndt und die ’dritte Reformation’ im Zeichen des Paracelsus.” In: Nova Acta Paracelsica, nf 11 (1997): 60-77.
Gilly, Carlos. Johann Valentin Andreae (1586-1986). Die Manifeste der Rosenkreuzer- bruderschaft. Katalog einer Ausstellung in der Bibliotheca Philosophica Hermetica. Amsterdam: bph, 1986.
Gilly, Carlos. “Khunrath und das Entstehen der fruhneuzeitlichen Theosophie.” In Heinrich Khunrath, Amphitheatrum Sapientiae Aeternae. Schauplatz der ewigen allein wahren Weisheit. Clavis Pansophiae 6. Reprint. Stuttgart-Bad Canstatt: Frommann- Holzboog, 2014.
Gilly, Carlos. “La ’quinta colonna’ nell’ermetismo: Andreas Libavius/The ’fifth column’ within Hermeticism: Andreas Libavius.” In Magia alchimia scienza dal ’400 al ’700. L’influsso di Ermete Trismegisto / Magic Alchemy and Science 15th-18th Centuries. The Influence of Hermes Trismegistus. 2 vols. Edited by Carlos Gilly and Cis van Heertum, 399-415. Florence: Centro Di, 2005.
Gilly, Carlos. “Las novas de 1572 y 1604 en los manifiestos rosacruces y en la literatura teosofica y escatologica alemana anterior a la Guerra de los Treinta Anos.” In Novas y Cometas entre 1572 y 1618. Edited by Miguel A. Granada, 275-331. Barcelona: Uni- versitat de Barcelona, 2012.
Gilly, Carlos. “’Theophrastia Sancta’—Paracelsianism as a Religion in Conflict with the Established Churches.” In Paracelsus, the Man and His Reputation, His Ideas and Their Transformation. Edited by Ole Peter Grell, 151-185. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
Gilly, Carlos. “Vom agyptischen Hermes zum Trismegistus Germanus. Wandlungen des Hermetismus in der paracelsistischen und rosenkreuzerischen Literatur.” In Konzepte desHermetismus in derLiteraturderFruhen Neuzeit. Edited by Peter-Andre Alt and Volkhard Wels, 71-131. Gottingen: V&R Unipress, 2010.
Gilson, Etienne. The Christian Philosophy of Saint Augustine. Translated by L.E.M. Lynch. New York (NY): Random House, 1967.
Godwin, Joscelyn. Robert Fludd. Hermetic Philosopher and Surveyor of Two Worlds. Boulder (CO): Shambhala, 1979.
Godwin, Joscelyn. The Harmony of the Spheres. A Sourcebook of the Pythagorean Tradition in Music. Rochester (VT): Inner Traditions, 1992.
Goertz, Hans Jurgen. “Karlstadt, Muntzer and the Reformation of the Commoners, 1521-1525.” In A Companion toAnabaptism andSpiritualism 1521-1700. Edited by John Roth and James Stayer, 1-44. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Goez, Werner. Translatio Imperii: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Geschichtsdenkens und der politischen Theorien im Mittelalter und in der fruhen Neuzeit. Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1958.
Goldammer, Kurt. “Das religiose Denken des Paracelsus.” In Paracelsus (1492-1541). “Kernes ander Knecht ...”. Edited by Heinz Dopsch, Kurt Goldammer and Peter F. Ramml, 195-200. Salzburg: Verlag Anton Pustet, 1993.
Goldammer, Kurt. “Neues zur Lebensgeschichte und Personlichkeit des Theophrastus Paracelsus. i. War Paracelsus Doktor der Theologie? ii. Die Ehelosigkeit des Paracelsus.” In: Theologische Zeitschrift 3 (1947): 191-218.
Goldammer, Kurt. “Paracelsische Eschatologie. Zum Verstandnis der Anthropologie und Kosmologie Hohenheims. i Die Grundlagen. ii. Der Reich-Gottes-Glaube.” In Paracelsus in neuen Horizonten. Gesammelte Aufsatze. Edited by Kurt Goldammer, 87-152. Salzburger Beitrage zur Paracelsusforschung 24. Vienna: Verband der Wis- senschaftlichen Gesellschaften Osterreichs, 1986.
Goldammer, Kurt. Paracelsus. Natur und Offenbarung. Hannover: T. Oppermann, 1953.
Granada, Miguel A. “Johannes Kepler and David Fabricius: Their Discussion on the Nova of 1604.” In Change and Continuity in Early Modern Cosmology. Edited by Patrick J. Boner, 67-92. Dordrecht/Heidelberg/London/New York (NY): Springer, 2011.
Granada, Miguel A. “The Discussion between Kepler and Roeslin on the Nova of 1604.”
In 1604-2004: Supernovae as Cosmological Lighthouses. Edited by M. Turatto, et al., 30-42. asp Conference Series 342. San Francisco (CA): Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 2005.
Grant, Edward. Planets, Stars and Orbs: The Medieval Cosmos 1200-1687. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Grant, Edward. “The Effect of the Condemnation of 1277.” In The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy. Edited by Norman Kretzmann et al., 537-539. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
Greengrass, Mark, Michael Leslie and Timothy Raylor. “Introduction.” In Samuel Hart- lib and Universal Reformation. Studies in Intellectual Communication. Edited by Mark Greengrass, Michael Leslie, and Timothy Raylor, 1-25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Grell, Ole Peter (editor). Paracelsus, the Man and His Reputation, His Ideas and Their Transformation. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
Guinsburg, Arlene Miller. “Paracelsian Magic and Theology. A Case Study of the Matthew Commentaries.” In: Archivjur Rejormationsgeschichte 72 (1981): 125-139.
Gunnoe, Charles D., Jr. “Erastus and Paracelsianism: Theological Motifs in Thomas Erastus’ Rejection of Paracelsian Natural Philosophy.” In Reading the Book of Nature. The Other Side of the Scientific Revolution. Edited by Allen G. Debus and Michael T. Walton, 45-66. Kirksville (MO): Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1998.
Gunnoe, Charles D., Jr. “Thomas Erastus and his Circle of Anti-Paracelsians.” In Analecta Paracelsica. Studien zum Nachleben Theophrast von Hohenheims im deutschen Kulturgebiet der jruhen Neuzeit. Edited by Joachim Telle, 127-148. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1994.
Haas, Alois M. “Paracelsus der Theologe: Die Salzburger Anfange 1524/5.” In Paracelsus und Salzburg. Vortrage bei den Internationalen Kongressen in Salzburg und Badgastein anlafilich des Paracelsus-Jahres 1993. Edited by Heinz Dopsch and Peter F. Kramml, 369-382. Salzburg: Gesellschaft fur Salzburger Landeskunde, 1994.
Haase, Roland. Das Problem des Chiliasmus. Leipzig: Gerhardt, 1933.
Hackett, Jeremiah. “Roger Bacon on the Classification of the Sciences.” In Roger Bacon and the Sciences: Commemorative Essays. Edited by Jeremiah Hackett, 49-65. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Hackett, Jeremiah. “Roger Bacon on scientia experimentalis.” In Roger Bacon and the Sciences: Commemorative Essays. Edited by Jeremiah Hackett, 277-315. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Haga, Joar. Was there a Lutheran Metaphysics? The Interpretation of communicatio idio- matum in Early Modern Lutheranism. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012.
Hakanson, Hakan. “Alchemy of the Ancient Goths: Johannes Bureus’ Search for the Lost Wisdom of Scandinavia.” In: Early Science and Medicine 17.5 (2012): 500-522.
Hamilton, Alastair. The Apocryphal Apocalypse. The Reception of the Second of Esdras
(4 Ezra) from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Hanegraaff, Wouter (editor). Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Hanegraaff, Wouter. “Tradition.” In Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism. Edited by Wouter Hanegraaff, 1125-1135. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Hanegraaff, Wouter. Esotericism and the Academy. Rejected Knowledge in Western Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Hankinson, rj (editor). The Cambridge Companion to Galen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Hannaway, Owen. The Chemists and the Word: The Didactic Origins of Chemistry. Baltimore (MD) and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975.
Harkness, Deborah E. John Dee’s Conversations with Angels: Cabala, Alchemy, and the End of Nature. Cambridge and New York (NY): Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Harrer, Gerhart. “Zur Todeskrankheit des Paracelsus.” In Paracelsus und Salzburg. Vor- trage bei den Internationalen Kongressen in Salzburg und Badgastein anlafilich des Paracelsus-Jahres 1993. Edited by Heinz Dopsch and Peter F. Kramml, 61-68. Salzburg: Gesellschaft fur Salzburger Landeskunde, 1994.
Harrison, Peter. “The ’Book of Nature’ and Early Modern Science.” In The Book of Nature in Early Modern and Modern History. Edited by Klaas van Berkel and Arjo Vanderjagt, 1-26. Louvain: Peeters, 2006.
Harrison, Peter. The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science. Cambridge and New York (NY): Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Hartner, Willy. “Tycho Brahe et Albumasar.” In La science au seizieme siecle. Union internationale d’ histoire et de philosophie des sciences, 137-150. Paris: Hermann, 1960.
Hedesan, Georgiana D. An Alchemical Quest for Universal Knowledge. The ’Christian Philosophy’ofJan BaptistVan Helmont (1579-1644). London and New York (NY): Routledge, 2016.
Hendrix, H. Traiano Boccalini fra erudizione e polemica. Studi sullla fortuna di un’opera satirica nella coscienza politica europea, Florence: L.S. Olschki, 1995.
Hillerbrand, Hans J. The Protestant Reformation. New York (NY): Harper, 1968.
Hirai, Hiro. “Living Atoms, Hylomormphism and Spontaneous Generation in Daniel Sennert.” In Matter and Form in Early Modern Science and Philosophy. Edited by Gideon Manning, 77-98. Scientific and Learned Cultures and their Institutions 28. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
Hirai, Hiro. Medical Humanism and Natural Philosophy: Renaissance Debates on Matter, Life and the Soul. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
Hirai, Hiro. Le concept de semence dans les theories de la matiere a la Renaissance: De Marsile Ficin aPierre Gassendi. Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 2005.
Hirai, Hiro (editor). Cornelius Gemma: Cosmology, Medicine and Natural Philosophy
in Renaissance Louvain. Bruniana and Campanelliana, Supplementi xxiv. Studi 10. Pisa and Rome: Fabrizio Serra-editore, 2008.
Hochhuth, Karl Wilhelm Hermann. “Mittheilungen aus der protestantischen Secten- Geschichte in der hessischen Kirche. i. Theil: Im Zeitalter der Reformation. Vierte Abtheilung: Die Weigelianer und Rosenkreuzer.” In: Zeitschriftfur historische Theo- logie 32 (1862): 86-159.
Hochhuth, Karl Wilhelm Hermann. “Mittheilungen aus der protestantischen Secten- Geschichte in der hessischen Kirche. 1. Theil: Im Zeitalter der Reformation. Vierte Abtheilung: Die Weigelianer und Rosenkreuzer. Grunius und Nollius.” In: Zeitschrift fur historische Theologie 33 (1863): 169-263.
Holdenried, Anke. “De Oraculis Gentilium (1673) and the Sibilla Erithea Babilonica: Pseudo-Jaochimite Prophecy in a New Intellectual Context.” In Joachim of Fiore and the Influence ofInspiration:Essays in Memory of Marjorie E. Reeves (1905-2003). Edited by Julia Eva Wannenmacher. 253-281. Farnham: Ashgate, 2013.
Hotson, Howard. “Arianism and Millenarianism: The Link between Two Heresies from Servetus to Socinus.” In Continental Millenarians: Protestants, Catholics, Heretics. Edited by John Christian Laursen and Richard H. Popkin, 9-36. Millenarianism and Messianism in Early Modern European Culture 4. Dordrecht: Springer, 2001.
Hotson, Howard. “Central Europe, 1500-1700.” In Reformation and Early Modern Europe. A Guide To Research. Edited by David M. Whitford, 167-206. Kirksville, (MO): Truman State University Press, 2008.
Hotson, Howard. Commonplace Learning. Ramism and Its German Ramifications 15431630. Oxford and New York (NY): Oxford University Press, 2007.
Hotson, Howard. Johann Heinrich Alsted 1588-1638. Between Renaissance, Reformation and Universal Reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Hotson, Howard. “Outsiders, Dissenters, and Competing Visions of Reform.” In The Oxford Handbook of Protestant Reformations. Edited by Ulinka Rublach, 301-320. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199646920.013.33
Hotson, Howard. Paradise Postponed. Johann Heinrich Alsted and the Birth of Calvinist Millenarianism. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000.
Hotson, Howard. “Philosophical Pedagogy in Reformed Central Europe between Ramus and Comenius: A Survey of the Contintental Background of the ’Three Foreigners’.” In Samuel Hartlib and Universal Reformation. Studies in Intellectual Communication. Edited by Mark Greengrass, Michael Leslie, and Timothy Raylor, 29-50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Hotson, Howard. “The Historiographical Origins of Calvinist Millenarianism.” In Protestant History and Identity in Sixteenth-Century Europe. Vol. 2. Edited by Bruce Gordon, 159-181. Aldershot: Scolar Press, 1996.
Hotson, Howard. “The Instauration of the Image of God in Man: Humanist Anthropology, Encyclopaedic Pedagogy, Baconianism and Universal Reform.” In The Practice
of Reform and Health, Medicine, and Science, 1500-2000. Edited by Margaret Pelling and Scott Mandelbrote, 1-21. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005.
Hotson, Howard. “Via Lucis in Tenebras. Comenius as Prophet of the Age of Light.” In Let There be Enlightenment. The Religious and Mystical Sources of Rationality. Edited by Anton M. Matytsin and Dan Edelstein, 23-61. Baltimore (MD): Johns Hopkins University Press, 2018.
Hovesen, Ejnar. Laegen Ole Worm 1588-1654. En medicinhistorisk unders0gelse og vurde- ring. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1987.
Howell, Kenneth James. God’s Two Books. Copernican Cosmology and Biblical Interpretation in Early Modern Science. Notre Dame (IA): University of Notre Dame Press, 2002.
Hsia, R. Po-chia. Social Discipline in the Reformation. Central Europe, 1550-1750. London and New York (NY): Routledge, 1989.
Hubicki, Wlodzimierz. “Libavius, Andreas.” In Dictionary of Scientific Biography viii. Edited by Charles Coulston Gillispie, 309-311. New York (NY): Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1981.
Hubicki, Wlodzimierz. “Maier, Michael.” In Dictionary of Scientific Biography ix. Edited by Charles Coulston Gillispie, 23-24. New York (NY): Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1981.
Huffman, William H. Robert FLudd and the End of the Renaissance. London and New York (NY): Routledge, 1989.
Huffman, William H. Robert Fludd. Berkeley (CA): North Atlantic Books, 2001.
Huffman, William, and Robert A. Seelinger Jr. “Robert Fludd’s ’Declaratio Brevis’ to James i.” In: Ambix 25 (1978): 69-92.
Hutin, Serge. Robert Fludd (1574-1637). Alchimiste et philosophe rosicrucien. Paris: Omnium Litteraire, 1971.
Jaeger, F.M. Cornelis Drebbel en zijne tijdgenooten. Groningen: Noordhoff, 1922.
Jaumann, Herbert. “Einleitung des Herausgebers und Ubersetzers.” In Johann Valentin Andreae. Turbo, sive moleste et frustra per cuncta divagans ingenium (1616). Edited and introduced by Herbert Jaumann, 11-76. Vol. 8 of Gesammelte Schriften. Edited by Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 2018.
Jones, Rufus M. Spiritual Reformers in the 16th and 17th Centuries. London: Macmillian, 1928.
Jong, Albert de. Traditions of the Magi. Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin Literature. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Jong, Heleen de. “The Chymical Wedding in the Tradition of Alchemy.” In Das Erbe des Christian Rosenkreuz. Vortrage gehalten anlasslich des Amsterdamer Andreae- Symposiums. Edited by bph, 115-142. Amsterdam: In de Pelikaan, 1988.
Jorink, Eric and Peter Mason. Reading the Book of Nature in the Dutch Golden Age, 15751715. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Jung, Carl Gustav. Psychologie und Alchemie (Gesammelte Werke 12). Olten: Walter- Verlag, 1972.
Kahn, Didier. “Alchimie et paracelsisme en France a la fin de la renaissance (1567-1625).” PhD diss., University of Paris, 1998.
Kahn, Didier. Hermes Trismegiste. La ’Table d’Emeraude’et sa tradition alchimique. Aux sources de la tradition. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1994.
Kahn, Didier. “Le debuts de Gerard Dorn d’apres le manuscrit autographe de sa ’Clavis totius philosophiae chymisticae’ (1565).” In Analecta Paracelsica. Studien zum Nach- leben Theophrast von Hohenheims im deutschen Kulturgebiet der fruhen Neuzeit. Edited by Joachim Telle, 59-126. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1994.
Kahn, Didier. Lefixe et le volatil: chimie et alchimie, de Paracelse a Lavoisier. Paris: cnrs editions, 2016.
Kahn, Didier. “Paracelsus’ Ideas on the Heavens, Stars and Comets.” In Unifying Heaven and Earth: Essays in the History of Early Modern Cosmology. Edited by Miguel A. Granada, Patrick J. Boner and Dario Tessicini, 59-118. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona, 2016.
Kahn, Didier. “The Rosicrucian Hoax in France (1623-4).” In Secrets of Nature. Astrology and Alchemy in Early Modern Europe. Edited by William R. Newman and Anthony Grafton, 235-344. Cambridge (MA) and London: mit Press, 2001.
Kahn, Didier and Hiro Hirai. “Paracelsus, Forgeries and Transmutation: Introduction.” In: Ambix 67:1 (2020): 1-3.
Kamenzin, Manuel. “Denn wer wolt sich wider ein solchen ehrlichen hauffen der Hohen Schulen legen? Paracelsus und die Universitaten.” In Universitaten und ihr Umfeld. Sudwesten und Reich in Mittelalter und Fruher Neuzeit. Edited by Benjamin Musegades and Ingo Runde, 139-161. Heidelberg: Universitatsverlag Winter, 2019.
Kammerer, Ernst Wilhelm. “Das Leib-Seele-Geist-Problem.” In Paracelsus (1493-1541). “Keines andern Knecht...”. Edited by Heinz Dopsch, Kurt Goldammer, and Peter Kramml, 227-234. Salzburg: Verlag Anton Pustet, 1993.
Kangro, Hans. “Joachim Jungius und Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Ein Beitrag zum geisti- gen Verhaltnis beider Gelehrten.” In: Studia Leibnitiana 1 (1969): 175-207.
Keller, Vera. “Cornelis Drebbel (1572-1633): Fame and the Making of Modernity.” PhD diss., Princeton University, (NJ), 2009.
Keller, Vera. “How to Become a Seventeenth-Century Natural Philosopher: The Case of Cornelis Drebbel (1572-1633).” In Silent Messengers: The Circulation of Material Objects of Knowledge in the Early Modern Low Countries. Edited by Sven Dupre and Christoph Luthy, 125-151. Berlin: Lit Verlag, 2011.
Keller, Vera. Knowledge and the Public Interest, 1575-1725. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
Kienast, Richard. Johann Valentin Andreae und die vier echten Rosenkreutzer-Schriften. Leipzig: Mayer & Muller, 1926.
Kirn, Hans-Martin. “’Nicht nur eine Vermutung ...'—Der Topos der endzeitlichen Judenbekehrung bei Christoph Besold (1755-1638).” In Frommigkeit-Theologie-
Frommigkeitstheologie. Contributions to European Church History. Festschrift fur Berndt Hamm zum 60. Geburtstag. Edited by Gudrun Litz, Heidrun Munzert and Roland Liebenberg, 519-536. Studies in the History of Christian Traditions 124. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2005.
Klaassen, Walter. Living at the End of the Ages. Apocalyptic Expectations in the Radical Reformation. Lanham/New York (NY)/London: University Press of America, 1992.
Klenk, Heinrich. “Ein sogenannter Inquisitionsprozefi in Giefien anno 1623.” In: Mit- teilungen des oberhessischen Geschichtsvereins. nf 49/50 (1965): 39-60.
Koepp, Wilhelm. Johann Arndt: eine Untersuchung uber die Mystik im Luthertum. Aalen: Scientia Verlag, 1973.
Kolb, Robert. Andreae and the Formula of Concord: Six Sermons on the Way to Lutheran Unity. St. Louis (MO): Concordia, 1977.
Koller, Heinrich. “Introduction.” Reformation Kaiser Sigismunds. Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1964.
Kooij, Pleun, van der. Fama Fraternitatis. Das Urmanifest der Rosenkreuzer Bruderschaft zum ersten Mal nach den Manuskripten bearbeitet, die vor dem Erstdruck von 1614 Enstanden sind. Haarlem: Rozekruis Pers, 1998.
Kovacs, Judith L. Revelation. The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ. Malden (MA): Blackwell Publishers, 2004.
Krebs, Manfred, and Hans Georg Rott (editors). Elsaf 2 Stad Strafiburg 1533-1535. Vol. 8 of Quellen zur Geschichte der Taufer. Gutersloh: Mohn, 1960.
Kristeller, Paul Oskar. The Philosophy ofMarsilio Ficino. New York (NY): Columbia University Press, 1943.
Kroon, Maarten de, and Jeanne van der Horst (directors). Mysterious Masterpiece, 2 parts [documentary]. On behalf of Stichting Picture Ahead, 2018.
Kruger, Gustav. Die Rosenkreuzer. Ein Ruckblick. Berlin, 1932.
Kuhlmann, Wilhelm. “Der ’Hermetismus’ als literarische Formation. Grundzuge seiner Rezeption in Deutschland.” In: Scientia poetica. Jahrbuch fur Geschichte der Literatur und der Wissenschaften 3 (1999): 145-157.
Kuhlmann, Wilhelm. “Oswald Crollius und seine Signaturenlehre: Zum Profil herme- tischer Naturphilosophie in der Ara Rudolphs ii.” In Die okkulten Wissenschaften in der Renaissance. Edited by August Buck, 103-123. Wiesbaden: Wolfenbutteler Abhandlungen zur Renaissanceforschung, 1992.
Kuhlmann, Wilhelm. “Pansophie.” In Theologische Realenzyclopadie 25, 624-627. Berlin and New York (NY): Walter de Gruyter, 1995.
Kuhlmann, Wilhelm. “Paracelsismus und Hermetismus. Doxographische und soziale Positionen alternativer Wissenschaft im postreformatorischen Deutschland.” In Antike Weisheit und kulturelle Praxis. Hermetismus in der Fruhen Neuzeit. Edited by Anne-Charlott Trepp and Hartmut Lehmann, 17-39. Veroffentlichungen des Max- Planck-Instituts fur Geschichte. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001.
Kuhlmann, Wilhelm, and Joachim Telle. Der Fruhparacelsismus. Corpus Paracelsis- ticum. Dokumentefruhneuzeitlicher Naturphilosophie in Deutschland. 3 vols. Tubingen: Niemeyer, 2001-2004.
Kuntz, Marion L. Guillaume Postel: Prophet of the Restitution of All Things. His Life and Thought. The Hague: Nijhof, 1981.
Kunz, Erhard. Protestantische Eschatologie. Von der Reformation bis zur Aufklarung. Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte 4. Freiburg: Herder, 1980.
Kurze, Dietrich. Johannes Lichtenberger. Eine Studie zur Geschichte der Prophetie und Astrologie. Lubeck and Hamburg: Matthiesen Verlag, 1960.
Kurze, Dietrich. “Popular Astrology and Prophecy in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries: Johannes Lichtenberger.” In ’Astrologi hallucinati’: Stars and the End of the World in Luther’s Time. Edited by Paola Zambelli, 177-193. Berlin and New York (NY): Walter de Gruyter, 1986.
Kusukawa, Sachiko. Philip Melanchthon. Orations on Philosophy and Education. Translated by Christine F. Salazar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Kusukawa, Sachiko. The Transformation of Natural Philosophy. The Case of Philip Me- lanchthon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Kvacala, Jan. “J.V Andreaes Anteil an geheimen Gesellschaften.” In: Acta et commenta- tiones universitatis jurviensis 7:2. Jurjew/Dorpat, 1899.
Ladner, Gerhart B. The Idea of Reform. Its Impact on Christian Thought and Action in the Age ofthe Fathers. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press, 1959.
Lahey, Stephen E. John Wycliffe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Laursen, John Christian, and Richard H. Popkin (editors). Continental Millenarians: Protestants, Catholics, Heretics. Millenarianism and Messianism in Early Modern European Culture 4. Dordrecht: Springer, 2001.
Laenen, J.H. Jewish Mysticism: An Introduction. Louisville (KY): Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.
Lanczkowski, Gunther. “Apokalyptik/Apokalypsen i.” In TheologischeRealenzyclopadie
3, 189-191. Berlin and New York (NY): Walter de Gruyter, 1995.
Lehmann, N. Joachim. “Schickard und Leibniz als Erfinder von Rechenmaschinen.” In Zum 400. Geburtstag von Wilhelm Schickard. Zweites Tubinger Schickard-Symposion. Edited by Friedrich Seek, 273-286. Contubernium: Tubinger Beitrage zur Universi- tats- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte 41. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke Verlag, 1995.
Leoni, Stefani. “Studium simplicitatis: The Letter of Grace in Luther’s Commentary on Genesis 1-3.” In The Earthly Paradise: The Garden of Eden from Antiquity to Modernity.
Edited by F. Regina Psalki and Charles Hinley, 181-214. New York (NY): State University of New York at Binghamton, 2002.
Lerner, Robert E. “Antichrists and Antichrist in Joachim of Fiore.” In: Speculum 60:3 (1995): 553-570.
Lerner, Robert E. “Millennialism.” In The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism. Vol. 2. Edited by Bernard McGinn, 326-360. New York (NY) and London: Continuum, 2000.
Lerner, Robert E. “Refreshment of the Saints: The Time after Antichrist as a Station for Earthly Progess in Medieval Thought.” In: Traditio 32 (1976): 97-144.
Leppin, Volker. Antichrist undJungster Tag. Das Profil apokalyptischerFlugschriftenpub- lizistikim deutschen Luthertum 1548-1618. Gutersloh: GutersloherVerlaghaus, 1999.
Levin, Harry. The Myth of the Golden Age in the Renaissance. Oxford and New York (NY): Oxford University Press, 1969.
Levitin, Dmitri. Ancient Wisdom in the Age of the New Science. Histories ofPhilosophy in England, c. 1640-1700. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
Lewis, Rhodri. Language, Mind and Nature. Artificial Languages in England from Bacon to Locke. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Lietzman, Hans, et al. Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1952, 6th edition.
List, Gunther. Chiliastische Utopie und radikale Reformation: die Erneuerung der Idee vom tausendjahrigen Reich im i6.Jahrhundert. Munich: Fink, 1973.
Lotz-Heumann, Ute. “Confessionalization.” In Reformation and Early Modern Europe. A Guide to Research. Edited by David M. Whitford, 136-157. Kirksville, (MO): Truman State University Press, 2008.
Ludwig, Ulrike. Philippismus und orthodoxes Luthertum an der Universitat Wittenberg. Die Rolle Jakob Andreas im lutherischen Konfessionalisierungsprozess Kursachsens (1576-1580). Munster: Aschendorff, 2009.
Luthy, Christoph H. “Centre, Circle, Circumference: Giordano Bruno’s Astronomical Woodcuts.” In: Journal for the History of Astronomy xli (2010): 311-327.
Luthy, Christoph H. “The Fourfold Democritus on the Stage of Early Modern Science.” In: Isis 91:3 (2000): 443-479.
Luthy, Christoph H. “What Does a Diagram Prove that Other Images Do Not? Images and Imagination in the Kepler Fludd Controversy.” In Image, Imagination, and Cognition: Medieval and Early Modern Theory and Practice. Edited by Christoph Luthy, Claudia Swan and Paul Bakker, 227-274. Leiden: Brill, 2018.
Luthy, Christoph H. “What to Do with Seventeenth-Century Natural Philosophy? A Taxonomic Problem.” In: Perspectives on Science 8:2 (2000): 164-195.
Luthy, Christoph H., and William R. Newman. “Daniel Sennert’s Earliest Writings (15991600) and Their Debt to Giordano Bruno.” In: Bruniana & Campanelliana 6 (2000): 261-279.
Maat, Jaap. Philosophical Languages in the Seventeenth Century: Dalgarno, Wilkins, Leibniz. Dordrecht and Boston (MA): Springer, 2004.
Maclean, Ian. “Introduction.” In Heterodoxy in Early Modern Science and Religion. Edited by John Brooke and Ian Maclean, x-xxii. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Manuel, Frank Edward, and Fritzie Prigohzy Manuel. Utopian Thought in the Western World. Cambridge (MA): Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1979.
Marosi, Erno. “Reformatio Sigismundi. Kunstlerische und politische Representation am Hof Sigismunds von Luxemburg.” In Sigismundus. Rex et Imperator. Kunst und Kultur zur Zeit Sigismunds von Luxemburg 1387-1437. Edited by Imre Takacs, 24-37. Mainz: Philipp von Zambern, 2006.
Marshall, Peter. The Magic Circle of Rudolph ii. Alchemy and Astrology in Renaissance Prague. New York (NY): Walker Books, 2006.
Mathison, Keith A. The Shape of the Sola Scriptura. Moscow (ID): Canon Press, 2001.
McClintock, John, and James Strong. “Peasants’ War.” In Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, vol. vii. Edited by John McClintock and James Strong, 859-860. New York (NY): Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1894.
McGinn, Bernard. “Angel Pope and Papal Antichrist.” In: Church History 47 (1978): 155173.
McGinn, Bernard. Antichrist. Two Thousand Years of the Human Fascination with Evil. New York (NY): Columbia University Press, 2000.
McGinn, Bernard. “Apocalypticism and Church Reform, 1100-1500.” In The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism. Vol. 2. Edited by Bernard McGinn, 74-109. New York (NY) and London: Continuum, 2000.
McGinn, Bernard. “Joachim of Fiore and the Twelfth-century Papacy.” In Joachim of Fiore and the Influence of Inspiration: Essays in Memory of Marjorie E. Reeves (19052003). Edited by Julia Eva Wannenmacher, 15-34. Farnham: Ashgate, 2013.
McGinn, Bernard. The Calabrian Abbot. Joachim of Fiore in the History of Western Thought. New York (NY): Macmillan, 1985.
McGinn, Bernard. Visions of the End: Apocalyptic Traditions in the Middle Ages. New York (NY): Columbia University Press, 1979.
McGrath, Alister E. Reformation Thought. An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2002.
McIntosh, Christopher. The Rosicrucians: The History, Mythology and Rituals of an Esoteric Order. Newburyport, Mass: Weiser, 1997.
McLaughin, Emmet. “Radicals.” In Reformation and Early Modern Europe. A Guide to Research. Edited by David M. Whitford, 80-120. Kirksville (MO): Truman State University Press, 2008.
McLaughin, Emmet. “Spiritualism: Schwenckfeld and Franck and Their Early Modern Resonances.” In A Companion to Anabaptism and Spiritualism 1521-1700. Edited by John Roth and James Stayer, 119-162. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Meier-Oeser, Stephan. “Henricus Nollius (ca. 1583-1626). Aristotelische Metaphysik und hermetische Naturphilosophie im fruhen 17. Jahrhundert.” In Spatrenaissance- Philosophie in Deutschland 1570-1670. Edited by Martin Mulsow, 173-194. Tubingen, Max Niemeyer Verlag, 2009.
Mendelsohn, Everett, and Helga Nowotny (editors). Nineteen Eighty-Four. Science between Utopia and Dystopia. Sociology of the Sciences 8. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1984.
Montgomery, John Warwick. Cross and Crucible. Johann Valentin Andreae (1586-1654). Phoenix of the Theologians. 2 vols. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1973.
Moran, Bruce T. “Alchemy, Prophecy, and the Rosicrucians. Raphael Eglinus and Mystical Currents of the Early 17th Century.” In Alchemy and Chemistry in the 16th and 17th Centuries. Proceedings of the Warburg Conference on Alchemy and Chemistry 1992. Edited by Piyo Rattansi and Antonio Clericuzio, 104-119. The Hague and Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994.
Moran, Bruce T. Andreas Libavius and the Transformation ofAlchemy:Separating Chemical Cultures with Polemical Fire. Sagamore Beach (MA).: Science History Publica- tions/Watson Publishers, 2007.
Moran, Bruce T. “Andreas Libavius and the Art of Chymia. Words, Works, Precepts and Social Practices.” In Bridging Traditions. Alchemy, Chemistry, and Paracelsian Practices in the Early Modern Era. Edited by Karen Hunger Parshall, Michael T. Walton and Bruce T. Moran, 59-78. Kirksville (MO): Truman State University Press, 2015.
Moran, Bruce T. Chemical Pharmacy Enters the University: Johannes Hartmann and the Didactic Care of Chymiatria in the Early Seventeenth Century. Madison (W I): American Institute of the History of Pharmacy, 1991.
Moran, Bruce T. “Court Authority and Chemical Medicine: Moritz of Hessen, Johannes Hartmann and the Origin of Academic Chemiatra.” In: Bulletin of the History of Medicine 63 (1989): 225-246.
Moran, Bruce T. “Medicine, Alchemy, and the Control of Language.” In Paracelsus, the Man and His Reputation, His Ideas and Their Transformation. Edited by Ole Peter Grell, 135-150. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
Moran, Bruce T. “Paracelsus, Religion and Dissent: The Case of Philip Homagius and Georg Zimmermann.” In: Ambix 43 (1996): 65-79.
Moran, Bruce T. The Alchemical World of the German Court: Occult Philosophy and Chemical Medicine in the Circle of Moritz of Hessen (1572-1632). Sudhoffs Archiv: Zeitschrift fur Wissenschaftgeschichte 29. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1991.
Moreau, Elisabeth. “Elements, atomes et physiologie. Le contexte medical des theories de la matiere (1567-1634).” PhD diss., Nijmegen, 2018.
Morys, Peter. “Leonhard Thurneissers De transmutatione veneris in solem.” In Die Al- chemie in der europaischen Kultur- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte. Edited by Christoph Meinel, 85-98. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1986.
Moseneder, Karl. Paracelsus und die Bilder. Uber Glauben, Magie und Astrologie im Reformationszeitalter. Tubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 2009.
Mout, Nicolette. “Chiliastic Prophecy and Revolt in the Habsburg Monarchy during the Seventeenth Century.” In Prophecy and Eschatology. Studies in Church History 10. Edited by Michael Wilks, 93-109. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1994.
Moyer, Elizabeth. The Philosophers’ Game: Rithmomachia in Medieval and Renaissance Europe. Ann Arbor (MI): The University of Michigan Press, 2001.
Muller, E.F. Karl (editor). Die Bekenntnisschriften der reformierten Kirche. Leipzig: Deichert, 1903.
Muller, Karlheinz. “Apokalyptik/Apokalypsen iii.” Theologische Realenzyclopddie 3, 202-251. Berlin and New York (NY): Walter de Gruyter, 1978.
Multhauf, Robert P. “Libavius and Beguin.” In Great Chemists. Edited by Eduard Farber, 65-79. New York (NY) and London: Interscience Publishers, 1961.
Murase, Amadeo. “Paracelsismus und Chiliasmus im deutschsprachigen Raum um 1600.” PhD diss., Heidelberg, 2013 (deposited 2015).
Nauert, Charlies Garfield. Agrippa and the Crisis of Renaissance Thought. Illinois Studies in the Social Sciences 55. Urbana (I L): University of Illinois Press, 1965.
Neumann, Ulrich. “Olim, da die Rosen Creutzerey noch florirt, Theophilus Schweighart genant: Wilhelm Schickards Freund und Briefpartner Daniel Mogling (1596-1635).” In Zum 400. Geburtstag von Wilhelm Schickard. Zweites Tubinger Schickard-Sympo- sion. Edited by Friedrich Seek, 93-115. Contubernium: Tubinger Beitrage zur Univer- sitats- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte 41. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke Verlag, 1995.
Newman, William R. “An Overview of Roger Bacon’s Alchemy.” In Roger Bacon and the Sciences: Commemorative Essays. Edited by Jeremiah Hackett, 317-336. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Newman, William R. Atoms and Alchemy: Chymistry and the Experimental Origins of the Scientific Revolution. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press, 2006.
Newman, William R., and L.M. Principe. Alchemy Tried in the Fire. Starkey, Boyle, and the Fate of Helmontian Chymistry. Chicago (I L): University of Chicago Press, 2005.
Newman, William R., and L.M. Principe. “Alchemy vs Chemistry: The Etymological Origins ofa Historographic Mistake.” In: Early Science and Medicine 3 (1998): 32-65.
North, John D. “Macrocosm and Microcosm in Paracelsus.” In Hohenheimer Proto- kolle—Neue Beitrdge zur Paracelsus-Forschung. Edited by Peter Dilg and Hartmut Rudolph, 41-58. Stuttgart: Akademie der Diozese Rottenburg-Stuttgart, 1995.
Nummedal, Tara. Anna Zieglerin and the Lion’s Blood. Alchemy and End Times in Reformation Germany. Philadelphia (PA): University of Pennsylvania Press, 2019.
Nummedal, Tara. Alchemy and Authority in the Holy Roman Empire. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press, 2007.
Nummedal, Tara and Donna Bilak (editors). Furnace and Fugue. A Digital Edition of Michael Maier’s Atalanta Fugiens with Scholarly Commentary. Charlottesville (VA): University of Virginia Press, 2020.
Oberman, Heiko A. Luther. Man between God and the Devil. Translated by Eileen Wal- liser-Schwarzbart. New Haven (CT) and London: Yale University Press, 2006.
Oberman, Heiko A. The Reformation: Roots and Ramifications. Translated by Andrew Coling Gow. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994.
Oberman, Heiko A. The Two Reformations. The Journey from the Last Days to the New World. Edited by Donald Weinstein. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press, 2003.
Ocker, Christopher. Luther, Conflict and Christendom: Reformation Europe and Christianity in the West. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Pagel, Walter. Paracelsus. An Introduction to Philosophical Medicine in the Era of the Renaissance. Basel and New York (NY): Karger, 1982.
Pagel, Walter. “The Paracelsian Elias Artista and the Alchemical Tradition.” In: Mediz- inhistorischesJournal 16 (1981): 6-19.
Palacky, Franciscus. Documenta Mag. Joannis Hus vitam, doctrinam, causam in Con- stantiensi concilio actam et controversias de religione in Bohemia annis 1403-1418 motas. Osnabruck: Biblio-Verlag, 1869.
Palmerino, Carla Rita. “The Mathematical Characters of Galileo’s Book of Nature.” In The Book of Nature in Early Modern and Modern History. Edited by Klaas van Berkel and Arjo Vanderjagt, 27-44. Louvain: Peeters, 2006.
Partington, J.J. A History of Chemistry. New York (NY): St Martin’s Press, 1961.
Partridge, Christopher. The Occult World. Abingdon: Routledge, 2014.
Paulus, Julian. “Alchemie und Paracelsismus um 1600.” In Analecta Paracelsica. Stud- ien zum Nachleben Theophrast von Hohenheims. Edited by Joachim Telle, 335-406. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1994.
Pelster, Franz. “Die Quaestio Heinrichs von Harclay uber die zweite Ankunft Christi und die Erwartung des baldigen Weltendes zu Anfang des xiv. Jahrhunderts.” In: Archivio italiano per la storia della pieta 1 (1951): 25-82.
Penman, Leigh. “Between Utopia and New Jerusalem: Eschatological Projectors and Lutheran Confessional Culture in the Seventeenth Century.” In: Early Science and Medicine 21 (2016): 470-491.
Penman, Leigh. “Climbing Jacob’s Ladder: Crisis, Chiliasm and Transcendence in the Thought of Paul Nagel (1624), a Lutheran Dissident during the Time of the Thirty Years’ War.” In: Intellectual History Review 20:2 (2010): 201-226.
Penman, Leigh. Hope and Heresy. The Problem of Chiliasm in Lutheran Confessional Culture, 1570-1630. Dordrecht: Springer, 2019.
Penman, Leigh. “ ’Repulsive Blasphemies’. Paul Nagel’s Appropriation of Unprinted Works of Jakob Bohme and Valentin Weigel in his Prodromus astronomiae apoca- lypticae (1620).” In: Daphnis 38 (2009): 597-620.
Penman, Leigh. “ ’Sophistical Fancies and Mear Chimaeras?’ Traiano Boccalini’s Rag- guagli di Parnaso and the Rosicrucian Engima.” In: Bruniana & Campanelliana 15 (2009): 101-120.
Perarnau i Espelt, Josep. “UAllocutio Christini d’Arnau de Vilanova: edicio i estudi del text.” In: Arxiu de textos catalans antics ii (1992): 7-135.
Pereira, Michela. The Alchemical Corpus Attributed to Raymond Lull. London: Warburg Institute, 1989.
Pereira, Michela. “Medicina in the Alchemical Writings attributed to Raimond Lull.” In Alchemy and Chemistry in the Sixtheenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Edited by Piyo
Rattansi and Antonio Clericuzio, 1-15. The Hague and Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994.
Peuckert, Will-Erich. Das Rosenkreutz. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag, 1973.
Peuckert, Will-Erich. Die Rosenkreuzer. Zur Geschichte einer Reformation. Jena: E. Die- derichs, 1928.
Peuckert, Will-Erich. Pansophie. Ein Versuch zur Geschichte der weifien und schwarzen Magie. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag, 1956.
Pfister, Kathrin, and Schmidt-Thieme, Barbara. “’Der Lowe aus Mittemacht’—eine pseudoparacelsische Prophezeiung und ihr Fortleben.” In: Saltzburger Beitrdge zur Paracelsusforschung 41 (2008): 38-68.
Potesta, Gian Luca. “Die Genealogia—Ein fruhes Werk Joachims von Fiore und die Anfange seines Geschichtsbildes.” In: Deutsches Archivfur Erforschung des Mittelal- ters 56 (2000): 55-101.
Potesta, Gian Luca. Il Tempo dell’apocalisse—Vita di Giocchino da Fiore. Bari: Viella, 2006.
Power, Amanda. Roger Bacon and the Defence of Christendom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Preuss, Hans. Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist im spdteren Mittelalter, bei Luther und in der konfessionellen Polemik. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrische Buchhandlung, 1906.
Principe, Lawrence M. The Secrets ofAlchemy. Chicago (IL): The University of Chicago Press, 2013.
Principe, Lawrence M. The Aspiring Adept. Robert Boyle and His Alchemical Quest. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press, 1998.
Proust, D. “The Harmony of the Spheres from Pytahgoras to Voyager.” In: The Role of Astronomy in Society and Culture, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union 250 (2011): 358-367.
Pryce, F.N. (editor) The Fame and Confession of the Fraternity of R:C: Commonly of the Rosie Cross. With a Preface Annexed Thereto, and a Short Declaration of Their Physicall Work by Eugenius Philalethes. Originally Printed in London in 1652 and Now Reprinted in Facsimile. Together with an Introduction, Notes, and a Translation of the Letter of Adam Haselmeyer, Notarius Publicus to the Archduke Maximilian. Facsimile edition Margate: W.J. Parrett for the Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia, 1923.
Pumfrey, Stephen. “The Spagyric Art; or, the Impossible Work of Separating Pure from Impure Paracelsianism: A Historiographical Analysis.” In Paracelsus. The Man and His Reputation, His Ideas and Their Transformation. Edited by Ole Peter Grell, 21-52. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
Purs, Ivo and Vladimfr Karpenko (editors). Alchemy and Rudolf'll: Exploring the Secrets of Nature in Central Europe in the 16th and 17th Centuries. Prague: Artefactum, 2016.
Putallaz, Frangois-Xavier. “Censorship.” In The Cambridge History of Medieval Philosophy. Edited by Robert Pasnau, 99-113. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Reeves, Marjorie. “Joachimist Influences on the Idea of a Last World Emperor.” In: Tra- ditto 17 (1961): 323-370.
Reeves, Marjorie. Joachim of Fiore and the Prophetic Future. London: spck, 1976.
Reeves, Marjorie. The Influence of Prophecy in the Later Middle Ages: A Study in Joachim- ism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969.
Reeves, Marjorie and Beatrice Hirsch-Reich. The Figurae of Joachim of Fiore. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.
Rehorst, A.J. Torrentius. Rotterdam: Brusse, 1939.
Robichaud, Denis J.J. “Ficino on Force, Magic and Prayers: Neoplatonic and Hermetic Influences in Ficino’s Three Books on Life.” In: Renaissance Quarterly 70 (2017): 44-87.
Roper, Lyndal. Martin Luther. Renegade and Prophet. London: The Bodley Head, 2016.
Rosen, Edward. Copernicus and His Successors. Edited by Erna Hilstein. London and Rio Grande (OH): The Hambledon Press, 2010.
Rossi, Paolo. Francis Bacon: From Magic to Science. Translated by Sacha Rabinovitch. New York (NY): Routledge, 2009.
Rossi, Paolo. Logic and the Art of Memory. The Quest for a Universal Language. Translated by Stephen Clucas. Chicago (IL) and London: The University of Chicago Press and The Athlone Press, 2000.
Roth, John, and James Stayer (editors). A Companion to Anabaptism and Spiritualism 1521-1700. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Rotondo, Antonio. “Anticristo e chiesa romana. Diffusione e metamorfosi d’un libello antiromano del Cinquecento.” In Forme e destinatione del messaggio religioso. Aspetti della propaganda religiosa nel Cinquecento. Edited by Antonio Rotondo, 19164. Florence: Olschki, 1991.
Rousse-Lacordaire, Jerome. “Mysticism.” In Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism. Edited by Wouter Hanegraaff, 818-820. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Rowland, Christopher. The Open Heaven. A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity. London: spck, 1982.
Rublack, Ulinka. The Astronomer and the Witch. Johannes Kepler’s Fight for His Mother. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
Rudolph, Hartmut. “Einige Gesichtspunkte zum Thema ’Paracelsus und Luther’.” In: Archiv jur Reformationsgeschichte 72 (1981): 34-53.
Rudolph, Hartmut. “Hohenheim’s Anthropology in the Light of His Writings on the Eucharist.” In Paracelsus. The Man and His Reputation, His Ideas and Their Transformation. Edited by Ole Peter Grell, 187-206. Brill: Leiden, 1998.
Rudolph, Hartmut. “Paracelsus’ Laientheologie in traditionsgeschichtlicher Sicht und in ihrer Zuordnung zu Reformation und katholischer Reform.” In Resultate und Desiderata der Paracelsus-Forschung. Edited by Peter Dilg and Hartmut Rudolph, 79-97. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1993.
Rudolph, Hartmut. “Theophrast von Hohenheim (Paracelsus). Arzt und Apostel der
neuen Kreatur.” In Radikale Reformatoren. 21 Biographische Skizzen von Thomas Muntzer bis Paracelsus. Edited by Hans-Jurgen Goertz, 231-242. Munich: C.H. Beck, 1978.
Rugert, Walter. John Wyclif, Jan Hus, Martin Luther: Wegbereiter der Reformation. Konstanz: Suedverlag, 2017.
Rupp, Ernest Gordon, and Philip Saville Watson (editors). Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation. Louisville (KY) and London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006 [1969].
Sabatier, Paul. Vie de S. Francois d’Assise. Paris: Librairie Fischbacher, 1931.
Sackur, Ernst. Sibyllinische Texte und Forschungen. Turin: Bottega d’Erasmo, 1976.
Salvadori, Stefania. “From Spiritual Regeneration to Collective Reformation in the Writings of Christoph Besold and Johann Valentin Andreae.” In: Aries 14 (2014): 1-19.
Salvador!, Stefania. Inventar des Briefwechsels von Johann Valentin Andreae (1586-1654). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2018.
Schechner, Sara J. Comets, Popular Culture, and the Birth of Modern Cosmology. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press, 1997.
Schick, Hans. Das altere Rosenkreuzertum. Ein Beitrag zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Freimaurerei. Struckum: Verlag fur ganzheitliche Forschung und Kultur, 1942.
Schilling, Heinz. “Between the Territorial State and Urban Liberty. Lutheranism and Calvinism in the County of Lippe.” In The German People and the Reformation. Edited by R. Po-Chia Hsia, 263-283. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press, 1988.
Schilling, Heinz. “Die ’zweite Reformation’ als Kategorie der Geschichtswissenschaft.” In Die reformierte Konfessionalisierung in Deutschland. Das Problem der “Zweiten Reformation.” Edited by Hanz Schilling, 287-437. Gutersloh: Gutersloher Verlags- haus G. Mohn, 1986.
Schilling, Heinz. “Die Konfessionalisierung im Reich: religioser und gesellschaftlicher Wandel in Deutschland zwischen 1555 und 1620.” In: Historische Zeitschrift 246:1 (1988): 1-46.
Schmid, Heinrich. The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Translated by Charles A. Hay and Henry E. Jacobs. Philadelphia (PA): Lutheran Publication Society, 1876.
Schmidt, C. Michael Schutz genannt Toxites. Leben eines Humanisten und Arztes aus dem 16. Jahrhundert. Strasbourg, 1888.
Schmidt, Ph. Die Illustrationen der Lutherbibel 1522-1700. Basel: F. Reinhardt, 1962.
Schmidt-Biggemann, Wilhelm. Philosophia Perennis. Historical Outlines of Western Spirituality in Ancient, Medieval and Early Modern Thought. Dordrecht: Springer, 2004.
Schmidt-Biggemann, Wilhelm. “Robert Fludds Streit mit Johannes Kepler.” In Ideen- geschichte um 1600: Konstellationen zwischen Schulmetaphysik, Konfessionalisierung und hermetischer Spekulation. Edited by Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann and Friedrich Vollhardt, 143-171. Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog, 2017.
Schmidt-Biggemann, Wilhelm. “Von Damcar nach Christianopolis. Andreaes Chris- tianopolis als Verwirklichungskonzept der Rosenkreuzerideen.” In Rosenkreuz als europaisches Phanomen im i7.Jahrhundert. Edited by bPh, 102-133. Amsterdam: In de Pelikaan, 2002.
Schmitt, Charles. Aristotle and the Renaissance. Cambridge (MA) and London: Harvard University Press, 1983.
Schmitt, Charles. “Perennial Philosophy: From Agostino Steuco to Leibniz.” In: Journal of the History of Ideas 27:4 (1966): 505-532.
Schneider, Hans. Der fremde Arndt. Studien zu Leben, Werk und Wirkung Johann Arndts (1555-1621). Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006.
Schneider, Heinrich. Joachim Morsius und sein Kreis. Zur Geistesgeschichte des 17. Jahr- hunderts. Lubeck: Otto Quitzow-Verlag, 1929.
Schneider, Ivo. Johannes Faulhaber 1580-1635. Rechenmeister in einer Welt des Um- bruchs. Basel/Boston (MA)/Berlin: Birkhauser Verlag, 1993.
Schott, Heinz. “ ’Invisible diseases’—Imagination and Magnetism: Paracelsus and the Consequences.”In Paracelsus, the Man and His Reputation, His Ideas and Their Transformation. Edited by Ole Peter Grell, 309-321. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
Schutze, Ingo. “Zur Ficino-Rezeption bei Paracelsus.” In Parerga Paracelsica. Paracelsus in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart. Edited by Joachim Telle, 39-44. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1991.
Scribner, R.W. For the Sake of Simple Folk: Popular Propoganda for the German Reformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
Seek, Friedrich (editor). Zum 400. Geburtstag von Wilhelm Schickard. Zweites Tubinger Schickard-Symposion. Contubernium: Tubinger Beitrage zur Universitats- und Wis- senschaftsgeschichte 41. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke Verlag, 1995.
Secret, Frangois. “Notes sur quelques alchimistes de la Renaissance, i: Un temoin- age oublie sur l’episode des placards des Freres de la Rose-Croix.” In: Bibliotheque d’ Humanisme et Renaissance 33 (1971): 625-640.
Seebafi, Gotfried. “Antichrist iv: Reformations-und Neuzeit.” In Theologische Realenzyc- lopadie 3, 28-43. Berlin/New York (NY): Walter de Gruyter, 1978.
Seebafi, Gotfried. “Apokalyptik/Apokalypsen vii: Reformation und Neuzeit.” In Theolo- gische Realenzyclopadie 3, 280-289. Berlin/New York (NY): Walter de Gruyter, 1995.
Seifert, Arno. Der Ruckzug der biblischen Prophetie von der neueren Geschichte. Studien zur Geschichte der Reichstheologie des fruhneuzeitlichen deutschen Protestantismus. Cologne and Vienna: Bohlau Verlag, 1990.
Senn, Walter. “Adam Haslmayr—Musiker, Philosoph, und ’Ketzer’.” In Festschrift Leonhard C. Franz zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Menghin Osmund, 379-400. Inns- brucker Beitrage zur Kulturwissenschaft 11. Innsbruck: Sprachwissenschaftliches Institut der Leopold-Franzens-Universitat, 1965.
Shackelford, Jole. A Philosophical Path for Paracelsian Medicine. The Ideas, Intellectual
Context and Influence of Petrus Severinus: 1540-1602. Copenhagen: Museum of Tus- culanum Press, 2004.
Shackelford, Jole. “Rosicrucianism, Lutheran Orthodoxy, and the Rejection of Paracelsi- anism in Early Seventeen Century Denmark.” In: Bulletin of the History of Medicine 70, 2 (1996): 181-204.
Shackelford, Jole. “The Early Reception of Paracelsian Theory: Severinus and Erastus.” In: Sixteenth Century Journal 26 (1995): 123-135.
Shackelford, Jole. “To Be or Not to Be a Paracelsian: Something Spagyric in the State of Denmark.” In Paracelsian Moments: Science, Medicine & Astrology in Early Modern Europe. Edited by Gerhild Scholz Williams and Charles D. Gunnoe, Jr, 35-70. Kirksville (MO): Truman State Press, 2002.
Shackelford, Jole. “Transplantation and Corpuscular Identity in Paracelsian Vital Philosophy.” In Early Modern Medicine and Natural Philosophy. Edited by Peter Distelz- weig, et al., 229-253. Dordrecht: Springer, 2015.
Sider, Ronald J. Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt: The Development of His Thought, 15171525. Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought 11. Edited by Heiko A. Oberman. Leiden: Brill, 1974.
Snoek, Govert. De Rozenkruisers in Nederland, voornamelijk in de eerste helft van de 17e eeuw. Een inventarisatie. Haarlem: Rozekruis Pers, 2006.
Stayer, James M. “Swiss-South German Anabaptism.” In A Companion to Anabaptism and Spiritualism 1521-1700. Edited by John Roth and James Stayer, 83-118. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Strasser, Gerhard F. Lingua Universalis. Kryptologie und Theorie der Universalsprachen im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1988.
Strieder, Friedrich Wilhelm. Grundlage zu einer hessischen Gelehrten und Schriftsteller - Geschichte seit derReformation bis aufgegenwartigeZeiten, vol. 3. Gottingen: Barmei- erschen Buchdruckerey, 1783.
Stupperich, Robert. “Bockelson.” In Neue deutsche Biographie. Edited by the Historical Commission of the Bayer Academy of Sciences, vol. 2, 344-345. Berlin: Duncker & Hunblot, 1953.
Sudhoff, Karl. Bibliographia Paracelsica. Besprechung der unter Theophrast von Hohenheim’s Namen 1527-1893 erschienenen Druckschriften; Versuch einer Kritik der Echtheit der Paracelsischen Schriften. Berlin: Reimer, 1894.
Sudhoff, Karl. “Ein Beitrag zur Bibliographie der Paracelsisten.” In: CentralblattjurBib- liothekswesen 10 (1893): 316-326, 385-407.
Sudhoff, Karl. “Ein Beitrag zur Bibliographie der Paracelsisten.” In: Centralblatt fur Bib- liothekswesen 11 (1894): 169-172.
Sudhoff, Karl. Paracelsus: Ein deutsches Lebensbild aus den Tagen der Renaissance. Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institus, 1936.
Sudhoff, Karl (editor). Theophrast von Hohenheim/Paracelsus. Samtliche Werke. i. Ab-
teilung. Medizinische, naturwissenschaftliche und philosophische Schriften. 14 vols. Munich and Berlin: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1922-1923.
Sudhoff, Karl, and Wilhelm Matthiefien (editors). Theophrast von Hohenheim/Para- celsus. Samtliche Werke ii. Abteilung. Die theologischen und religionsphilosophischen Schriften. vol 1. Munich: Otto Wilhelm Barth, 1923.
Telle, Joachim. “Benedictus Figulus. Zu Leben und Werk eines deutschen Paracelsisten.” In: Medizinhistorisches Journal 22 (1987): 303-326.
Telle, Joachim. “Johann Huser in seinen Briefen.” In Parerga Paracelsica. Paracelsus in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart. Edited by Joachim Telle, 159-177. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1991.
Telle, Joachim. “’vom Stein der Weisen’: Eine alchemoparacelsistische Lehrdichtung des 16. Jahrhunderts.” In Analecta Paracelsica. Studien zum Nachleben Theophrast von Hohenheims. Edited by Joachim Telle, 167-212. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1994.
Temkin, Owsei. Galenism: Rise and Decline of a Medical Philosophy. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press, 1973.
Thorndike, Lynn. A History of Magic and Experimental Science. 8 vols. New York (NY): Columbia University Press, 1941.
Thorndike, Lynn. “Albumasar in Sadan.” In: Isis 45 (1954): 22-32.
Tilton, Hereward. “The Rosicrucian Manifestos and Early Rosicrucianism.” In The Occult World. Edited by Christopher Partridge, 128-140. New York (NY): Routledge, 2015.
Tilton, Hereward. “Rosicrucianism.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Western Mysticism and Esotericism. Edited by Glenn Alexander Magee, 171-183. Cambridge and New York (NY): Cambridge University Press, 2016.
Tilton, Hereward. The Quest for the Phoenix. Spiritual Alchemy and Rosicrucianism in the Work ofCount Mic.hael Maier 1569-1622. New York (NY) and Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003.
Trepp, Anne-Charlott. “Im ’Buch der Natur’ lesen: Natur und Religion im Zeitalter der Konfessionalisierung und des Dreifiigjahrigen Krieges.” In Antike Weisheit und kul- turelle Praxis. Hermetismus in der Fruhen Neuzeit. Edited by Anne-Charlott Trepp and Hartmut Lehmann, 103-143. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001.
Trepp, Anne-Charlott. Von der Gluckseligkeit alles zu wissen. Die Erforschung der Natur als religiose Praxis in der Fruhen Neuzeit. Frankfurt: Campus, 2009.
Turnbull, George H. Hartlib, Dury and Comenius. Gleanings from Hartlib’s Papers. London: Univerity Press of Liverpool, 1947.
Valenze, Deborah. The Social Life of Money in the English Past. New York (NY): Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Van der Meer, Jitse, and Scot Mandelbrote (editors). Nature and Scripture in the Abra- hamic Religions up to 1700. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Van Nouhuys, Tabitta. The Ages of Two-faced Janus: The Comets of 1577 and 1618 and the Decline of the Aristotelian World View in the Netherlands. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
Van Berkel, Klaas, and Arjo Vanderjagt (editors). The Book of Nature in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Louvain: Peeters, 2005.
Van Berkel, Klaas, and Arjo Vanderjagt (editors). The Book of Nature in Early Modern and Modern History. Louvain: Peeters, 2006.
Van Engen, John. Sisters and Brothers of the Common Life: The Devotio Moderna and the World of the Latter Middle Ages. Philadelphia (PA): University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008.
Versluis, Arthur. Theosophia: Hidden Dimensions of Christianity. New York (NY): Lindisfarne Press, 1994.
Versluis, Arthur. Wisdom’s Children: A Christian Esoteric Tradition. Albany (NY): State University of New York Press, 1999.
Vickers, Brian. “Francis Yates and the Writing of History.” In: The Journal of Modern History 51:2 (1979): 287-316.
Voelkel, James Robert. Johannes Kepler and the New Astronomy. New York (NY) and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Voigt, Uwe. Das Geschichtsverstandnis des J.A. Comenius in Via Lucis als kreative Syn- theseleistung. Vom Konflikt der Extreme zur Kooperation der Kulturen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1996.
von Habsburg, Maximilian. Catholic and Protestant Translations of the Imitatio Christi, 1425-1650. From Late Medieval Classic to Early Modern Bestseller. Farnham: Ashgate, 2011.
Waite, Arthur Edward. The Real History of the Rosicrucians Founded on Their Own Manifestoes, and on the Facts and Documents Collected from the Writings of Initiated Brethren. G. Redway: Forgotten Books, 2008 [1887].
Wallace, Peter G. The Long Reformation: Religion, Political Conflict and the Search for Conformity, 1350-1750. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
Wallmann, Johannes. “Zwischen Reformation und Pietismus. Reich Gottes und Chili- asmus in der lutherischen Orthodoxie.” In Verflkationen. Festschriftfur GerhardEbel- ing zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Eberhard Jungel, Johannes Wallmann and Wilfrid Werbeck, 187-205. Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1982.
Walker, Daniel Pickering. The Ancient Theology. Studies in Christian Platonism from the Fifteenth to the Eighteenth Century. London: Duckworth, 1972.
Webster, Charles. “Paracelsus: Medicine as Popular Protest.” In Medicine and the Reformation. Edited by Ole Peter Grell and Andrew Cunningham, 57-77. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Webster, Charles. Paracelsus. Medicine, Magic and Mission at the End of Time. New Haven (CT) and London: Yale University Press, 2008.
Webster, Charles. Samuel Hartlib and the Advancement of Learning. New York (NY) and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.
Webster, Charles. Review of The Rosicrucian Enlightenment by Frances Yates. In: The English Historical Review 89:351 (1974): 434-435.
Webster, Charles. The Great Instauration. Science, Medicine andReform 1626-1660. London: Duckworth, 1975.
Weeks, Andrew. Paracelsus. Speculative Theory and the Crisis of the Early Reformation. New York (NY): State University of New York Press, 1997.
Weeks, Andrew. Paracelsus (Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim, 1493-1541). Essential Theoretical Writings. Leiden and Boston (MA): Brill, 2008.
Weeks, Andrew. Valentin Weigel (1533-1588): German Religious Dissenter, Speculative Theorist, and Advocate of Tolerance. Albany (NY): State University of New York Press, 2000.
Weeks, Andrew. Valentin Weigel: Selected Spiritual Writings. New York (NY): Paulist Press, 2003.
Wehr, Gerard. “Johann Valentin Andreae und die rosenkreutzerischen Manifeste.” In Das Erbe des Christian Rosenkreuz. Vortrage gehalten anlasslich des Amsterdamer Andreae-Symposiums. Edited by bPh, 12-27. Amsterdam: In de Pelikaan, 1988.
Wehr, Gerard. Valentin Weigel: der Pansoph und esoterische Christ. Freiburg im Breisgau: Aurum, 1979.
Weichenhan, Michael, ’Ergo perit coelum ...’Die Supernova desJahres 1572 unddie Uberwindung der aristotelischen Kosmologie. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2004.
Wels, Volkhard. Manifestationen des Geistes. Frommigkeit, Spiritualismus undDichtung in derFruhenNeuzeit. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht, 2014.
Wels, Volkhard. “Die Frommigkeit der Rosenkreuzer-Manifeste.” In Ideengeschichte um 1600. Konstellationen zwischen Schulmetaphysik, Konfessionalisierung und herme- tischer Spekulation. Edited by Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann and Friedrich Vollhardt, 173-207. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 2017.
Wessley, Stephen E. Joachim of Fiore and Monastic Reform. New York (NY): Peter Lang, 1990.
Williams, George Huntston. The Radical Reformation. Third edition. Philadelphia (PA): The Westminster Press, 1975.
Williams, George H. and Angel M. Mergal. Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers: Documents Illustrative of the Radical Reformation and Evangelical Catholicism. Philadelphia (PA): Westminster John Knox Press, 1957.
Williams, Steven J. The Secret of Secrets. The Scholarly Career ofa Pseudo-Aristotelian Text in the Latin Middle Ages. Ann Arbor (MI): University of Michigan Press, 2003.
Wolfstieg, August. Bibliographie der freimaurerischen Literatur, vol. 2. Leipzig: Selbst- verlag des Vereins Deutscher Freimaurer, 1912.
Wollgast, Siegfried. “Zur Wirkungsgeschichte des Paracelsus im 16. und 17. Jahrhun- dert.” In Resultate und Desiderate der Paracelsus-Forschung. Edited by Peter Dilg and Hartmut Rudolph, 113-144. Sudhoffs Archiv Beihefte, Heft 31. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1993.
Wollgast, Siegfried. “Chiliasmus und soziale Utopie im Paracelsismus.” In Neue Beitrage
zur Paracelsus-Forschung. Edited by Peter Dilg and Hartmut Rudolph, 111-139. Hohenheimer Protokolle 47. Stuttgart: Akademie zu Diozese Rottenburg-Stuttgart, 1995.
Yates, Frances. Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1964.
Yates, Frances. The Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age. London and New York (NY): Routledge, 2004.
Yates, Frances. The Rosicrucian Enlightenment. London: Routledge, 1974.
Zambelli, Paola. White Magic, Black Magic in the European Renaissance. From Ficino, Pico, Della Porta to Trithemius, Agrippa, Bruno. Leiden and Boston (MA): Brill, 2007.
Zambelli, Paola (editor). ’Astrologi hallucinati’: Stars and the End of the World in Luther’s Time. Berlin and New York (NY): Walter de Gruyter, 1986.
Zuber, Mike. “Spiritual Alchemy from the Age of Jacob Boehme to Mary Anne Atwood, 1600-1900.” PhD diss., University of Amsterdam, 2017.