Ordo Templi Orientis
A.M.O.R.C

A Letter from the A.M.O.R.C. about the O.T.O.
- Traduction anglaise -
                                                      Mr Peter-R. König
                                                      ****************
                                                      CH **** ***
                                                      Schweiz (Switzerland)
                                                      22/02/1999

 Sir,
 Time has passed while we have not had till now the opportunity to
 inform you as to the progress of our researches. As we specified it, it
 seemed useful to us to provide you with a short note tracing what the
 relationship between H. Spencer Lewis and Theodor Reuss had been, as
 they can be demonstrated through the correspondence they sent to each
 other (correspondence running from december 1920 to may 1922.) Finally,
 we shall publish in a near future, in a french publication, a complete
 study about this subject. You will receive a copy of this text as soon
 as it will be available, but, so that you don't lose patience, and wait
 for it for too long a time, here are below some of the elements that
 will be developed in this article.
 In your text, you give as a precision, the fact that the two men knew
 each other on 1909 during H. Spencer Lewis' trip to France and England
 without giving anyway any precision allowing to establish the actuality
 of this meeting. This yours statement proves to be without any basis
 when put face to face with the correspondence between the two men,
 which correspondence perfectly well informs of what the origins, the
 historical background of their relationship and the reasons for their
 breaking, were.
 Your remark as to the origin of this relationship are of no value. Why?
 First, because if there exists indeed a Reuss among the crew of the
 Amerika (and not the America as you write it), this Reuss is an A.
 Reuss, first officer after Captain H. Knuth. Furthermore, the list of
 the members of the crew does not mention any Theodor Reuss among the
 stewards. We ignore what elements you use as basis to state that
 Theodor Reuss had as a job on board of the Amerika, that of a steward,
 on 1909, but as it can be remarked quite obviously, your source must be
 erroneous.
 The correspondence between Theodor Reuss and H. Spencer Lewis does not
 leave any doubt about the origins of their relations. Indeed, the end
 of the year 1920 is the date when H. Spencer Lewls, endow to A.M.O.R.C.
 members of Salt Lake City (Utah), for the first time heard of the
 relations existing between a freemason of that town, McBlain Thomson,
 and Theodor Reuss. The Imperator, H. Spencer Lewis, learnt they had
 just re-started the work Papus had enterprised on 1908 with the Congrès
 Spiritualiste, the aim of which was to unite the initiatic Orders,
 within a federation, on a worlwide range. To this end, on july 1919,
 Theodor Reuss had given to McBlain Thomson, an O.T.O. certificate of
 "33°, 96°, IX°, Souv. Grand Master General and Grand President
 General... Salt Lake City, Utah". He had then invited him to
 participate to the Zurich Congress (July 1920) which was considered as
 being in the continuation of the Congrès Spiritualiste.
 H. Spencer Lewis was intrigued by the informations communicated to him
 about all this. He wanted to contact Theodor Reuss to know more about
 it. Though he did not appreciate much McBlain Thomson, he had to
 resolve himself to write to him so as to be able to contact Theodor
 Reuss. Doing so, he was successful with getting Reuss' address. By
 following this step he afterwards could write to Reuss, on december
 28th 1920, by "recommending" himself of McBlain Thomson.
 But, the moment when the responsible of A.M.O.R.C. writes to Thodor
 Reuss, this one has just broken any connexion between himself and
 McBlain Thomson, after and due to the disaster of Zurich Congress (July
 17th, 1920). Indeed, because of MacBlain Thomson's attitude during the
 congress, Reuss had prefered to leave it, somewhat noisyly. Back to
 America, MacBlain Thomson did not pride himself on the way by which he
 had diverted the Zurich Congress for the benefit of his American
 Masonic Federation that became by this operation the International
 Masonic Federation. Reuss's reaction can be imagined when he received
 H. Spencer Lewis's letter in which the last one gave MacBlain Thomson's
 name as a reference ...
 For six month Theodor Reuss will wait before answering to H. Spencer
 Lewis. His first letter is dated: june 19th 1921. In this letter,
 Theodor Reuss corrects H. Spencer Lewis's remarks about MacBlain
 Thomson's International Masonic Federation of UTAH. As a precision, he
 states he has no longer any connexion with that man who had betrayed
 his confidence. As another precision, he writes to to the Imperator of
 A.M.O.R.C. that O.T.O. is an Order coming in direct descent from the
 ancient rosicrucians and therefore, that O.T.O. is not a modern
 creation by Free Masons. From this first letter, Theodor Reuss presents
 O.T.O. as the exoteric front or showcase of a rosicrucian Order. It's
 for this reason that H. Spencer Lewis will judge interesting to
 establish relationship with Theodor Reuss. This one gives to H. Spencer
 Lewis some precisions (of his own) about the seat of the Order. In the
 last lines of his letter, he says to H. Spencer Lewis he will be happy
 to establish with him in, the future, a brotherly relationship.
 This letter is the very first step of a correspondence which will have
 as an aim, in H. Spencer Lewis's mind, to establibsh relationship
 between A.M.O.R.C. and the rosicrucians of O.T.O. since, in his various
 letters, Reuss would not rest until he presents himself as such (as a
 rosicrucian), and thus would not rest until he be considered as such.
 This first letter, which positively testifies to the beginnings of the
 connexions that existed for a while between both men can be related to
 one of the last letters Theodor Reuss sent to the Imperator, viz. the
 letter dated october 25th, 1921. In this nearly last letter where Reuss
 is amazed at H. Spencer Lewis's lack of enthusiasm in establishing
 co-working, he reminds the Imperator that he (viz. H. Spencer Lewis) is
 who contacted him first (moreover, he reminds him the dates of his
 first letters), and that, therefore, he does not understand the change
 in his attitude.
 These two letters alone permit to show, by and in themselves, how and
 in what circumstances both men began their relationship, the which
 lasted from december 1920 to may 1922.
 With MacBlain Thomson, Theodor Reuss had not made a succes with the
 renewing of the project started by Papus on 1908. He saw in A.M.O.R.C.
 an occasion to re-start this idea. Then, he sent a diploma to H.
 Spencer Lewls. This document is a "gage of amity" (a token of
 friendship) between O.T.O. and A.M.O.R.C. Let us add that it is a
 matter of honorary diploma, because the Imperator did not receive any
 ritual initiation from O.T.O. and never took part in the works of this
 Order (whatever may say some people as the ones who imagine secret
 meetings between both men.) The letter accompanying this diploma is
 vague enough as to the titles it confers. Later on, Theodor Reuss will
 specify, in his letters, the limits of the "authority" confered to H.
 Spencer Lewis, mentioning he had given to another american, Charles
 Stanfeld Jones, an O.T.O. charter for the U.S.A. He will specify that
 since this one, Stanfeld Jones, is the "spiritual son" of Crowley, he
 wishes to withdraw every authority he had given to Jones before this
 withdrawal.
 Thus, very quickly, both H. Spencer Lewis and Theodor Reuss, who
 endeavor to give a framework to their respective organization on a
 world-wide basis, have the project to create an international framework
 suitable for the establishment of a relationship between the amercian
 rosicrucians and their european brothers. After some proposals, they
 decide on september 1921 to name this framework T.A.W.U.C. (The
 A.M.O.R.C. World Union Council)
 Somewhat fast H. Spencer Lewis became enthusiastic about this project
 but he will soon regret it. Indeed, both men who want to put in a
 concrete form their union, decide to publish in commun a revue. Theodor
 Reuss then designs a model of it entitled TAWUC and offers the
 Imperator various texts as well as the articles of the T.A.W.U.C.'s
 constitution. Then, fast, appears to the Imperator of A.M.O.R.C. that
 Theodor Reuss's aims are not his own. These divarications don't
 directly concern O.T.O., for Theodor Reuss, never mentions at any time
 the teachings, the philosophy, the rituals of that group - and in this
 scope, it is necessary to emphasize that H. Spencer Lewis received no
 one of the ritual texts belonging to O.T.O. but only some texts of
 general presentation which let no opportunity to catch the least
 glimpse of the very questionable practices of O.T.O. The elements
 because of which the Imperator of A.M.O.R.C. reversed are the five
 articles Theodor Reuss submits him before they appear in TAWUC
 constitution.






 When Theodor Reuss proposes as the main purpose of the organization "to
 propagate the ancient secret teachings of the authentic R+C
 brotherhood", he agrees with this, but when Reuss proceeds and when
 being more specific about his aim he says this one also is "to
 propagate the Saint gnostic Religion and establish departments of
 religious teaching, of publication, of economics, of social economy
 ...", then the Imperator worries about all this. He answers Theodor
 Reuss by specifying he does not agree with some points and wishes them
 to be worked on before he can give any agreement about the whole
 matter. Though he is not more specific as to what he thinks about it,
 it can be assumed that to propagate the Gnostic religion or to teach
 the economics was by no mean attractive to the Imperator. Eventually,
 the issuing of the publication will be put back and what will exist
 afterwards will only be a model.
 Another problem will help for the TAWUC being established: the
 capitation asked by Theodor Reuss to finance the TAWUC secretary. H.
 Spencer Lewis judges this capitation to be acceptable, given that
 Theodor Reuss takes charge of all the secretarial work. Things don't go
 the same way with the A.M.O.R.C. Supreme Council. Its members estimate
 the sum asked is too high, even if Theodor Reuss mentions it as being
 in conformity with the usual practice among the masonic obediences. The
 negotiations in this regard won't go further and Theodor Reuss won't
 ask for anything to the Imperator. Permit us to add that at no time H.
 Spencer Lewis paid the least amount of money to Theodor Reuss.
 From this moment the projects between America and Europe crumble and H.
 Spencer Lewis who seems to feel he proceeded too fast, in all possible
 ways endavors to idle about the whole matter. H. Spencer Lewis has
 doubts as to the rosicrucian claims of his correspondent. He asks him
 the origin of the rosicrucian charters and initiations Theodor Reuss
 claims to have received. The explanations given by Reuss may have some
 interest for the historian for they are witnesses of the microcosm the
 O.T.O. head frequented ; but, they were hardly convincing as to the
 value of Reuss's rosicrucianism. H. Spencer Lewis worries about the
 fact that so little reliable a character as Aleister Crowley, exhibits
 himself in the United States as an O.T.O. representative ; so, he
 several times asks Theodor Reuss what is precisely Crowley's true
 position within O.T.O. Theodor Reuss's explanations are precise and he
 states he has broken all connexions' with Crowley. Was H. Spencer Lewis
 wholly convinced, however?
 From a long time the Imperator was waried of the dealings of the one
 (Crowley) who tried to have the people believe he was the secret chief
 of rosicrucianism. In the issue of October 1916 of American Rosae
 Crucis, H. Spencer Lewis had severely criticized Aleister Crowley whom
 he presented as a practician of black magics. He specified that
 Aleister Crowley was an impostor, had nothing to do with A.M.O.R.C, and
 that he was not the secret chief of rosicrucianism contrary to what
 Crowley tried to have believed by people. (See in American Rosae
 Crucis: "Some books not recommended - The Imperator review a few
 books", pp. 22-23, about "The Book of the Goetia")
 Another point will urge the Imperator to drop the T.A.W.U.C. project:
 the porposition Theodor Reuss did in his letter as of september 5th,
 1921. He notes Theodor Reuss seems to be more concerned by commercial
 rather than by initiatic activities.
 To the highest degree is Theodor Reuss interested by organizing a trip
 to the Oberrammergau pilgrimage, for, among others, the A.M.O.R.C.
 members of U.S.A. Indeed, Theodor Reuss, on that time, is working for
 the organization committee of the Passion Play which prepares the
 planned performances of summer 1922. Very fast, the subject of Theodor
 Reuss's correspondence will have as its essential aim to settle a trip
 capable of drawing a great number of Americans to this famous
 pilgrimage. Of course, furthermore the Oberrammergau Passion Play, he
 proposes to organize, near Munich, a two days long rosicrucian
 convention. However, besides his giving many details about the
 pilgrimage, its program, its organization, Reuss does not say a single
 word as to the planned rosicrucian activities.
 H. Spencer Lewis begins to realize that, facing him, he has an
 opportunist who above all tries to do business. He then slows down his
 relationship with Theodor Reuss. He lets the situation to go rotten by
 no longer answering Theodor Reuss's letters, which will soon cause
 Reuss's anger.
 At the end of october 1921, Theodor Reuss gets tired to wait for the
 answer to his letters of september and october. He writes to the
 Imperator to express his discontent and tells him he is amazed at that
 brutal silence. The Imperator will answer him at the beginning of
 november by invoking the need for a pause so as to think of the
 questions concerned more deeply and by arguing in a way which hardly
 hid how he was no longer interested by the future of T.A.W.U.C. As to
 the pilgrimage, it did no arouse much enthusiasm among the A.M.O.R.C.
 members. Theodor Reuss will be furious and will still write some
 letters to H. Spencer Lewis between november and april, to which
 letters H. Spencer Lewis will answer only on may 20th 1922 to state
 that no A.M.O.R.C. member will attend the pilgrimage organized by
 Theodor Reuss.
 Theodor Reuss's reaction can esily be imagined, for the famous
 Oberrammergau pilgrimage is to take place in may ... Possibly Theodor
 Reuss won't judge useful to proceed further and to continue any
 relationship with H. won 3 Spencer Lewis; so, things left it at that.
 As you can see, the relationship between H. Spencer Lewis and Theodor
 Reuss has nothing to do with what is often ignorantly thought they were
 because so often stated and then, therefore, so erroneously believed:
 the fact that A.M.O.R.C. would have depended upon O.T.O. Actually,
 A.M.O.R.C. has never depended upon any organization. Moreover, very
 much imagination is necessary to find common points between the two
 organizations, A.M.O.R.C. and O.T.O., either from the ritual view point
 or from the doctrinal one. The relationship between both organizations
 was built with as basic ideas those of a project by Theodor Reuss: to
 make active again the idea formulated by Papus in 1908. Papus's
 congress hardly gave results and Theodor Reuss who had participated to
 it, threw out again this project after World War I. After the Zurich
 Congress failed, he saw in A.M.O.R.C. important enough an organization
 that would help him to complete said project. H. Spencer Lewis who
 first thought he had to do with a worthy man was enthousiastic, but he
 also realized that Theodor Reuss purposes were not his and that Reuss's
 rosicrucianism was without any basis. He quickly noted that Reuss
 mainly tried to do business, this is the reason why he withdrew and
 left any relationship he could have had with this man, being without
 doubt sorry to have committed himself in it.
 The relationship between A.M.O.R.C. and O.T.O. was therefore a project
 without any sequel. Furthermore, from the first Theodor Reuss's letter
 (june 1921) to the time when H. Spencer Lewis no longer answers
 (october 1922), this relationship between A.M.O.R.C. and O.T.0, lasted
 but one and half year. Instead of all, the letters exchanged between
 both men is interesting inasmuch it gives many informations about the
 way Theodor Reuss presents the O.T.O., viz., as being the exoteric
 front of a secret rosicrucian circle. In his letters, he solely deals
 with this ((rosicrucian)) sight while at no moment does he tackle the
 elements of the O.T.O.'s doctrine. The study of this correspondence is
 quite edifying: it dismantles all the wild imaginings built-up by
 whoever wants to see in O.T.O. the hidden source of A.M.O.R.C. and who,
 with partial facts taken as basis, fancifully imagine true novels
 without any connexion with actuality.
 Later on, in 1930, Heinrich Tranker will get in touch with H. Spencer
 Lewis by presenting himself as being directly descended from Christian
 Rosencreuz ... and similar project to TAWUC will be borne. It won't
 proceed very far, too, but this is another history the which we will
 deal with later on.
 We hope these informations will permit you to better understand what
 the relations between A.M.O.R.C. and O.T.O. were. We have only had the
 possibility of dealing with but few of the points concerned in the
 whole matter and a more important article will be for us the occasion
 to give other precisions with, if possible the reproduction of some
 facsimile documents. If yourself possessed accurate informations, we
 are ready to study them insofar as they are proped by concrete
 elements.
 After having taken stock of the situation, we wish to do some
 observations for your intent about your books. Indeed, we have raised
 many errors about the relations A.M.O.R.C. - O.T.O. Permit us to
 indicate you some of them.
 * Before all, in Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica, (ARW 1998). On page nine
 of it, you mention H. Spencer Lewis; in a text which deals with his
 relationship with Theodor Reuss. To do so, you make use of a strange
 process. Indeed, you quote the extract of a letter from Theodor Reuss
 to H. Spencer Lewis without specifying the source which in this case is
 an internal document to A.M.O.R.C.. We assume that you have known of
 that text through the tactlesness of a member of A.M.O.R.C.
 Before quoting this letter which Christian Bernard, Imperator of
 A.M.O.R.C., has published in january 1988, you put a comment which not
 only is tendencious but which furthermore has no connexion with Reuss's
 text. You carry out the manipulation of a text. That you do not agree
 with the explanation given by Christian Bernard as to the circumstances
 of the meeting having occured between H. Spencer Lewis and Theodor
 Reuss, you have the right to do so, but, when one uses a quotation, the
 rule is that one ought to replace it in its original context and that
 one ought to specify its origin, even if it means to add one's own
 viewpoint afterwards by using criticism. These contrary elements,
 however, ought to be strongly proped and not to be based upon
 indefinite feelings. We shall pass over the ironical tone you use to
 furthermore put forward erroneous statements. We would have you know
 that, contrary to what you say in your book, H. Spencer Lewis never
 paid a single dollar to Theodor Reuss. [He had not to shut a tap he had
 not even opened ... for the benefit of somebody he would know of but
 eleven years later!]
 * In your book Der Grosse Theodor Reuss Reader (1997) you reproduce an
 A.M.O.R.C. document bearing a written reference to O.T.O. This document
 is the copy of a Pronunziamento, done after a copy coming from the New
 York Public Library. An unbiased study of this document shows it has
 been forged. This document (rid from any forgery and as originally it
 could be read) is an announcement of the birth of A.M.O.R.C. on
 february 1915 in the following words :



        "In this year of 1915 (=7) there shall be
        established in the United States of America
        the Fraternity of the Ancient and Mystical
        Order of the Rosae Crucis in accordance
        with an official manifesto"



 Following this text which is a wholly printed text, the letters
 "O.T.O." have been roughly added (in the forged text you reproduce) so
 as to let people think O.T.O. to be the originator of A.M.O.R.C. The
 letters "O.T.O." have been written, in this document, in a part the
 role of which is quite obviously and solely destined to the
 presentation of said pronunziamento.
 Here, it's a matter of coarse forgery. We ignore when and by whom this
 document deposited in the New York Public Library may have been forged
 this way. Whatever may be the answer, you ought to know this document
 is not an "original" and that the Supreme Grand Lodge of A.M.O.R.C. has
 an original (See photocopy included), an unforged one, contrary to the
 one you exhibit. The original document from the Supreme Grand Lodge of
 A.M.O.R.C. (126x203mm, linen style paper, about 13Ogr/m2, grey-green as
 to the color), does not refer to O.T.O. Moreover, how could we think
 O.T.O. to be the originator of A.M.O.R.C. since the relationship
 between H. Spencer Lewis and Theodor Reuss only started at the end of
 year 1920. Furthermore, in the documents (for instance, the minutes of
 the meetings which prepared the birth of the Order - and which had as
 one of their consequence the above mentioned Pronunziamento; the
 minutes of the meetings of the Supreme Council...), we find absolutely
 no reference to O.T.O. or to Theodor Reuss.
 We hope that all that is specified here will make you able to correct
 your texts.
 Sincerely yours ...

 Version française