Controversy around a document©

Is the A.M.O.R.C. an offspring of the O.T.O. or not ?

The discovery of the first document concerning the origins of A.M.O.R.C.

Folder covering page

1. A mounted newspaper clipping with the title: «Oldest fraternal society in world to have branch here – Ancient and Mystical Order of Rosaea Crucis to Have American Lodge – Men and Women on Equal Footing – Cross Used Said to Antedate Christian Symbol by 1,700 Years – Many Distinguished Members» presented by Lewis as follows: «The first public announcement for the American Order. Appeared in the «Globe» of February 24^th 1915, exclusively by special arrangements».



2. A clipped Pronunziamento entitled «American Pronunziamento Number One», with the underside of this manuscript annotated by Lewis: «The first American Manifesto issued as a result of an organization meeting held in New York 80 Fifth Avenue on Monday Evening February 8^th, at from 8:30 to 9:40 o’clock».



3. «The first American prospectus, issued February 1915», a propaganda printed document clipped on a larger leaf on which two original symbols appear accompanied by the following manuscipt comment by Lewis: 1) «The Seal and Emblem of the American Grand Lodge, as first used on stationery»  2) «This Seal of the R+C ORDER in America (authentic) as first used on stationery».



4. Another printed document with the name and address of the first «National Officers» of A.M.O.R.C. (Grand Master General: H. Spencer Lewis, F.R.C.  Deputy Master General: Nicholas Storm, K.R.C.  Matre: May Banks-Stacey, S.R.C.  Secretary General: Thor Kiimalehto, K.R.C.  Treasurer General: D. Jerrold Loria, K.R.C.  Chaplain: Solon Fieldman, K.R.C.) with the following annotation by Lewis: «Folder of the Supreme Council and Grand Lodge, issued after the first Initiations of members in America, May 13^th 1915».

Lewis’ accompanying letter

The nature of the controversy

The Manifesto in the NYPL (clipped on a larger sheet) with the annotation by Lewis underneath

The Manifesto shown by A.M.O.R.C.

The stages of the foundation of A.M.O.R.C. in America

On December 20^th, 1914 Lewis made a preliminary announcement and placed a small notice in the «Personal Column of the New York Sunday Herald» saying that he would be pleased to hear from people «interested in Rosicrucianism». It was followed by an organization meeting held in New York on February 8^th 1915 in the presence of Thor Kiimalheto, a printer who had been among the first ones to reply to the annoucement and appointed by Lewis as the «Supreme Secretary General». The American Rosae Crucis relates the event this way:

This text clearly explains how the founder of A.M.O.R.C. submitted to those present during the above said meeting some documents, especially a «Charter» and a mysterious «Black Book», together with «a paper» and «some insignia». The same text even gives on the previous page a short description of the Charter and the Black Book, which seem to have been ready as soon as 1913, because Lewis says :

First, it should be first noticed that there seems to be an obvious link between the Black Book and the Charter. In fact Lewis makes clear that all those desiring to affiliate with A.M.O.R.C. have to sign first an «application for membership» and then «the Preliminary Oath in the Official Black Book».¹³ Then we are told by Lewis further in the text that he misinterpreted his «instructions» for the birth of A.M.O.R.C. as being: «between December 15^th and Easter of 1913-1914 instead of 1914-1915». According to this he held «a preliminary meeting during the winter of 1913-1914» where he was «surprised to find no enthusiasm and little interest» and he wended his way home with his «papers, Charter and Black Book» under his arm, «dejected and puzzled» because «of the twelve who had assembled» out of the twenty people invited from the New York Institute for Psychic Research « not even one signed the preliminary organization paper».¹⁴

We see that in both cases, either in 1913-14 or 1914-15, Lewis intended to proceed the same way : first he wanted to have someone to sign during the «preliminary meeting» a document which he calls a «preliminary organization paper», then at a further stage he intended to present the Charter «to be signed by the selected Councilors». But the preliminary meeting of 1913-14 was a failure as nobody wanted to sign the first organization paper.

Nevertheless «by the fall of 1914» there came to Lewis «a grand old lady who had been a deep student of the occult for years (...) Being of royal descent and intimately acquainted with governmental and military authorities here and abroad, she had been entrusted with a special errand and mission connected with the Order».¹⁵ Mrs. Col. May Banks-Stacey, as it appears to be her name, placed in Lewis’ hands on the date of his birthday – that is November 25^th, 1914 – few papers, a small packet and – a beautiful red rose!» Lewis comments:

In a brochure published in 1927-28 Lewis makes of Mrs. Bank-Stacey a «special Legate of the Order in India»who:

Soon afterwards Lewis placed his announcement in the Sunday Herald and then he held his meeting of February 8^th, 1915 where he presented again his Charter, Black Book, paper and documents to the participants. This time the meeting was a success: what made the difference with the failure just a year ago? It seems almost certain that the documents presented at this other meeting were of such a nature to carry the agreement of those taking part in the reunion. That is to say they were probably some documents of filiation or authority which Lewis was not able to produce before. Anyhow, the illuminated Charter «declaring the authoritative, proper and legal establishment of the A.M.O.R.C. in America» was not signed during this meeting, but only a few weeks later when «thirty of the most active workers met (...) and constituted themselves the Supreme Council.»¹⁸ The document signed during the meeting of February 8^th was just the preliminary organization, that is to say the American Pronunziamento Number One.

Significance of the American Pronunziamento Number One

The above said Charter, which of course could not be part of the dossier transmitted by Lewis to the N.Y.P.L. on March, because it was only signed on April 1^st, 1915 has been reproduced by AMORC in a brochure called Rosicrucian Documents. It says:

It shall be noticed that in this Charter «destined to be a famous document in American history»²⁰ the Grand Master General Lewis clearly says that Grand Lodge officers have been appointed in conformity with the First American Manifesto, in other words the American Pronunziamento Number One, which Lewis also presents as the First American Manifesto in his annotation. So there seems to exist an obvious link between the Charter and the preliminary organization Pronunziamento issued in February, particularly as regards the question of authority for the appointement of the first Grand Lodge Officers, such as the Grand Master General, Secretary General, etc.²¹ The Pronunziamento says :

How this laconic text could be referred to as a document of authority ? It is clear that the Pronunziamento or Manifesto is not per se a document of authority. But it makes reference to another «official Manifesto». So one immediately wonders of which Manifesto it is question here. Does this refer to the illuminated Charter signed in April by the selected Councilors?

This hypothesis seems very improbable as this Charter sends apparently back to the preliminary Pronunziamento for the question of authority. So it rather seems to refer to an other official document granted to Lewis by an external authority. But there is no clue in the Pronunziamento concerning the precise name of this «other » authority.

It is then quite possible that, during the preliminary meeting of February 8^th, 1915 there might have been a discussion between the nine people who had assembled and Lewis on the question of his rosicrucian background and qualifications to establish AMORC in America. And Lewis might have explained about his relationship with some officers of the Ordo Templi Orientis. Even perhaps he presented a document of filiation, unless he promised of delivering one as soon as possible. And the participants then asked the new Secretary General Thor Kiimalehto to put down the name of this authority on the Pronunziamento - remember that some of them were Freemasons for whom the question of filiation is particularly important - hence the «O.T.O. » manuscript annotation by Kiimalheto when he signed the Manifesto.

So this hypothesis leads me to believe that the Pronunziamento with the «O.T.O.» annotation in the N.Y.P.L. is indeed the original such as it was finalized in February 1915. Does not Lewis himself affirm that his folder is made of «Original Documents»? In this case the document still in possession of A.M.O.R.C. would just be another copy of the charter which Lewis kept for his archives but not the «original» signed by the Secretary General as there is no sign of Thor Kiimalheto’s signature here.²²

It is also worth remembering that Lewis transmitted his «History of the Rosicrucian Order» containing «Original Documents» to the N.Y.P.L. on March 19^th, before the meeting of April 1^st. One may infer that Lewis thought that the presence of his History in the N.Y.P.L. would attract new members for his Order and that it was an important element in his advertising campaign, as was also the article published in the Globe of February 24^th. In this respect it is very probable that Lewis showed his American Pronunziamento Number One again at his other organization meeting held on March 3^rd, because he says that if in fact «80 men and women attended this meeting among them being several Freemasons (...) most naturally there were some so-called skeptics present»²³ and it is among them that were chosen the members of the future Supreme Council who backed and signed the charter of April 1^st.

The corollary question is: did Lewis produce an official recognition of O.T.O. during these preliminary meetings, or is it just that he hoped to get one in the near futureand showed only at this stage a bunch of documents in relationship with O.T.O. ? But where did these documents come from if one excludes the possibility of a contact between Lewis and Reuss prior to 1920, as A.M.O.R.C. states? Did Lewis receive them from another chief of the O.T.O., namely Aleister Crowley, or other of ficers in the organization? And then: why did Lewis never refer to or reproduce the American Pronunziamento Number One again in his further publications, presenting only the constitutive charter of April 1^st ?

The history of the Rosicrucians according to the founder of A.M.O.R.C.

Lewis and the odd Mrs. Banks-Stacey: the alleged connection with Egypt and India

Lewis and Aleister Crowley: a queer and mysterious relationship

The testimony of evidence: Crowley’s address to Lewis in 1918

Crowley’s claim of authority upon Lewis

The partnership between Theodor Reuss and Lewis: the A.M.O.R.C. World Union Council

Péladan’s lamen of «L’Ordre Catholique de la Rose-Croix du Temple et du Graal»

O.T.O. / M.'.M.'.M.'. lamen

A.M.O.R.C. ancient document

Lewis and Heinrich Tränker: an International Council of A.M.O.R.C.

Second Official Fama

Heinrich Tränker's signature

A.M.O.R.C. teachings and the O.T.O.

O.T.O. Course of Instruction

Subjects of the A.M.O.R.C. Teachings

Conclusion

February, 2001

Copyright © 2001 by Robert Vanloo

All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced in any form, except for personal use or by a magazine reviewer or scholar who wishes to quote brief passages in connection with his work.



 

Crowley’s 1918 typescript address to Lewis⁸³

                                 Given from the City of the Pyramids,
                                 under the Night of Pan, in
                                 the Fourteenth Year of the Aeon, the
                                 Sun being in the Sign of Cancer.
 To the Imperator of the Ancient and Mystical Order Rosae Crucis.
 Dear Sir and Brother,
 Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law!
 A.·. A.·.
 Our whole work is based upon the Law of Thelema as laid down in the
 Book CCXX; cooperation between us would therefore involve the official
 acceptance of this Law.
 The A.·. A.·. is the Third Order of Secret Chiefs, containing Three Grades,
 Ipsissimus, Magus and Magister Templi: it will be necessary for you to
 recognise To Mega Therion - 666 - as Magus of the Order and Logos
 Aionos, the Supreme visible authority of the A.·. A.·.
 We admit your right to claim the Grade of Magister Templi on
 subscription to the Oath of that Grade.
 The Second Order, dependent upon the A.·. A.·. and preparatory to it, is
 commonly known a Ordo Rosae Rubeae et Aureae Crucis; and contains Three
 Grades. Members of the A.·. A.·. who wish to work openly, disguise
 themselves as merely members of this Order, whose governing Body has
 three Officers, Imperator, Praemonstrator and Cancellarius.
 As a Member of the Magister Templi Grade of the A.·. A.·. you would have
 independent authority to establish this Order and to operate it by any
 System convenient to you. If you should exercise this right, it might
 be possible for us to cooperate with you, To Mega Therion as
 Praemonstrator and O.I.V.V.I.O. as Cancellarius.
 The First or Outer Order is dependent again from this and preparatory
 to it. It is commonly known as the G.D. and contains six Grades,
 including the Threshold of the R.R. and A.C. and the Neophyte's Degree.
 The Authority in this Order was exercised up to yhe year 1900 or
 thereabouts, by S.L. Mathers (Count Macgregor of Glenstrae). He derived
 this right and his Grade, which was the highest in the Second Order,
 from a member of the Third Order, Sapiens Dominabitur Astris, Fraulein
 Sprengel. He abused it, and it was therefore withdrawn from him by the
 Secret Chiefs, who approached Brother Aleister Crowley in March 1903
 E.V. in the City of Cairo and transferred the Authority to him. He
 himself became a Member of the A.·. A.·.(the Third Order) in 1906 E.V. but
 did not accept the position until 3 years later. We mention this in
 order to show you that we possess the true Authority to operate in the
 tradition of C.R.C. We must however state that we have always been
 opposed to Group working and to the use of the name Rosicrucian, and
 always pretended ignorance of that Order when questioned on the
 subject. If you should claim Membership of the A.·. A.·. you would however
 be free to do exactly as you liked about this, but we should give it to
 you in the strongest terms of recommendation to avoid the use of the
 name except within the College of the Holy Ghost itself.
 O.T.O.
 The principles of the O.T.O. will be clear to you from the accompanying
 pamphlet. We should be prepared to make you a member of the Supreme
 Grand Council on subscription to the Oath of the VIIth Degree. This
 Oath would bind you to use your influence to influence others to join
 the Order. It would be necessary for you to go through the Ritual of
 the VIth Degree.
 "Order of the Illuminati"
 The Supreme Authority of the Order of the Illuminati for the United
 States of America, as derived by the uninterrupted tradition from Adam
 Weishaupt, is vested by Patents, which we are ready to produce, in
 Brother Aleister Crowley. We should be prepared to cooperate with you
 in establishing this Order in this Country. We strongly recommend that
 it should not be in any way thrown open to persons without previous
 training, but that only members of the VIIth Degree of the O.T.O. and
 of some vey high Degree of your own Order should be eligible.
 It is the intention of To Mega Therion to withdraw himself as far as
 possible from personal contact with the profane, at the earliest
 moment, and to retire to the most inaccessible portion of the earth's
 surface, where to prepare the new Volume III of the Equinox. It might
 be possible to make arrangements whereby you would undertake the
 external work connected with this publication while sending specially
 favoured, or rather fit, members of your Order to undertake a course of
 training in the solitudes.
 In order for the work of the Order to succeed, it is highly desirable
 that some of its Members at least, should be wholly consecrated. When
 such persons are wholly invisible like the Theosophical Mahatmas,
 people soon doubt their existence, and discredit is thrown on the
 principles of the Order. When, on the other hand, they are always in
 evidence, the respect in which they are held soon disappears and the
 work of the Order again suffers in consequence.
 We think it highly important to establish a shrine, on some mountain or
 in some desert, which demands at least 24 hours really hard travel to
 approach it.
 It is not necessary for you to accept all these suggestions: the
 acceptance of one would be considered a basis of active cooperation,
 but so as we began, so we end, the first and last of this letter is the
 acceptance of the law of Thelema.
 Love is the law, love under will.
                                                Yours fraternally,
                                                (signatures)
 

Private and confidential letter from Crowley to Lewis (1935)

London, December 2, 1935
STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
FOR THE PERUSAL OF MR. H. SPENCER LEWIS
AND NO OTHER PERSON.
___________________________________
My dear Imperator,
It is really very good of you to have answered my letter at such length and
with such care.
Let me first reply to your points.
(1) I have never doubted your knowledge of many of the facts in question. But I do
not think that any apparent variance between your position and mine is irreconcilable.
A. John Yarker's activities were first and foremost Masonic, and in point of fact he
quarreled with everybody! His organisation was never more than a mere skeleton.
After the original splash in which he affiliated a hundred or more High Grade Masons
to the rites of Memphis and Mizraim, the opposition of the Scottish Rite in Golden
Square (now in Duke Street) brought everything to naught. We had barely enough
men to fill the Grand Office. My Diploma from Yarker is dated November 29, 1910.
My Diploma from Frosini is dated 2666 AUC. I have an American Diploma, dated
March 21, 1913, among others.
B. Reuss could not have been Grand Master of England because he was Grand Master
of Germany. But he was the real successor, as opposed to the official successor,
simply because of his ability and energy. In a letter written to me shortly before his
death, Yarker definitely designated Henry Meyer to succeed him as National Grand
Master of England. Henry Meyer was present at the convocation of Grand Masters in
1914. I was elected Patriarch Grand Administrator General; and Meyer left all the
work to me.
Reuss was a man of action who understood realities; and, while very
scrupulous about Minutes and Charters and son on, did not allow himself to be
fettered by them.
From 1912 until the outbreak of the war, I was seeing Reuss nearly every day,
and my revised Rituals were approved by him. He was almost invariably present at
our ceremonies.
The war made it very difficult for Reuss and myself to communicate, and it
was only after the armistice that we resumed regular correspondence.
(2) All that I did was done directly under Reuss' supervision and his request. It has
nothing to do with the Golden Dawn, and I certainly did not call this Rosicrucian,
because it derives directly from Egyptian symbolism. There are no groups or meetings
in this Order. (The "Temple" activities have always been doubtfully regular, and were
discontinued in 1904.)
(3) As I stated previously, Franz Hartmann was titular Grand Master of U.S.A. But I
am inclined to agree with you that his activities cannot have been overt.
(4) I have the Charter among my papers now in Warehouse. With regard to my letter
relations with Reuss, I have to point out that the defeat of Germany meant his
complete financial ruin. He was shooting about in all directions (in what I must
regretfully describe as a random manner) for support. He would issue Diploma to all
sorts of people, for instance Traänker, without proper investigation. He was, I think,
also a little resentful with the part I had played during the war. It was when he had
given up all hope that he wrote (to - not from - Sicily) appointing me O.H.O. to
succeed him. The approach of death naturally restored his equilibrium.
(5) I do not expect to hear from people who are dead. And, as you are aware, in
Germany and Italy all such activities are rigorously suppressed. But I occasionally
receive letters from individuals of high position in the old organisation. All this has no
importance because there were at no time any large or important Lodges. It was a case
of a few and isolated people struggling along as best they could, and the war killed
everything.
(6) I have a letter from the Grand Master of the Order of the Martinists who
succeeeded Papus, in which letter I am fully recognised, dated March 8th, 1928.
(7) I have already dealt with thus under (4).
(8) My point is that it does not matter who claims to be the Head of an Order which
has no existence in fact. The only Rituals workable under modern conditions are those
of the O.T.O. written by me at the instigation, and under the supervision, of Reuss.
The only  thing that matters is the ultimate secret of the O.T.O., which is not
disclosed below IX°. That secret is important because its possession confers real
powers. I do not know whether you yourself are in possession of it, as you have not
claimed any degree beyond the VII°. But persons in charge of Governments are under
no illusions as to the value of this decret, and have gone to incredible lengths in the
hope of discovering it. See separate documents enclosed.
I have no evidence of any authority conferred on you except the Reuss
Diploma, which is after all a very guarded document, and not in any sense a Warrant
or Charter. Besides, it is revocable. I am sure you will thank me for not referring to
the City of Toulouse. What have you then which is definitely Rosicrucian in character
? What authority have you apart from that of the O.T.O.? In this working there is
ample authority from sources which you have so far not mentioned. But if I had
authority whatever, my possession of the ultimate secret would confer it.
In short, I had better tell you exactly what happened. When Mathers brought
action against the Equinox in 1910 and was thrown out of Court, Reuss came to me
and said: "I am the secret Chief of the Rosicrucian Order." I said: "Speak to my
secretary, and he will assign you a place in the queue." For at that time about a dozen
or more dead-heads came along, each claiming to be the sole and supreme chief of the
Rosicrucian Order.
But, some time later, on the publication of a certain book of mine, Reuss again
called upon me, and said: "You mus be obligated immediately to the IX° of the
O.T.O." I asked why. He replied: "Because you have published the Secret." I said: "I
have done nothing of the sort. I do not know the secret. What is it?" He then told me
the Secret. I said: "I have never heard this before, and I have certainly never published
anything about it." He went to my bookshelves, took down the book in question, and
pointed out to me the passage! I was aghast. It had been written under inspiration, and
my conscious mind had paid no attention. I had printed the passage because it had
been written under inspiration, in a mood of not wanting to be bothered to revise what
I meant to print. I saw at once that he was right, I realised the importance of the
matter. I accepted the obligations. And I devoted myself to the work of the O.T.O.
(9) I hold no brief for Dr. Krum-Heller, but he has certainly been doing work of some
practical importance. As his aims are generally sympathetic; I do not think that he
should be altogether ignored.
(10) On page 1 of your letter you deny very emphatically that the Scottish Rite and
the Rites of Memphis and Mizraim are in any factor in your claim. Yet the only
document on which you base your claim is devoted to these Rites, as concentrated in
the O.T.O. (which is printed in big type right across the Diploma) and nothing
whatever is said about Rosicrucians. Further, my own private Seal is at the foot of the
document. At the same time I wish to point out that according to my information it
has always been strictly forbidden for any Rosicrucian to claim to be one. I shall be
interested to learn why you have departed from this tradition. - I take it that it is
legitimate to say that authority is "derived" from them. -
-----------------------------------------------------------
I think that the above should be an adequate basis for complete understanding
between us. There is no need for allowing these matters to come to the knowledge of
unworthy persons.
I will now go a little into personal matters. I may remark to begin with that my
bankruptcy affairs were conducted on purely Rosicrucian principles, and have not in
any way affected my income. I am sorry about the 'egotism', but I thought that you
wanted the facts.
You write: "you say that you can clear yourself." I said that "I had been
cleared." The only difficulty that remains is to get this fact into the alleged minds of
the kind of people who read the lowest class of Sunday newspaper, and believe the
rubbish there printed. This would not matter except for the fact that even people who
know that the allegations against me are pure nonsense are afraid of the prejudice of
the illeterate. My position is in this respect precisely similar to your own. But owing
to the state of the Law in America you have no real remedy against people like
Swinburne Clymer. Otto Kahn was over here in 1922 when there was some question
of a libel action and he said to me: "in America they can print that I robbed my
partner, and raped my cook; and there is nothing I can do about it." Now in England
we have a good enough Law, but we cannot make proper use of it unless we can
afford to pay the top-nitchers. I did not know this at the time of my libel against action
against Constable, or I should have briefed Sir Patrick Hastings. I was innocent
enough to think that, because my case was so good, Truth would prevail by its own
manifestation. But I have other actions pending, and shall conduct them properly.
What is principally needed is to convict Betty May of parjury. She openly boasts of
how she fooled the Judge, and steps are actually in process to bring out a pectacular
prosecution.
You will remember that when I met you in New York, I was not altogether in
sympathy with your methods, but that when you were attacked by mutinous members
of your organisation, I rallied immediately to your defence. I also did you a good turn
in respect of the Charter purporting to be from the "French Rosicrucians in Toulouse",
by pointing out that if they had mastered all the secrets of Nature, those of elementary
rules of French grammar still baffled them, so that you wisely withdrew the
document. It is not the only occasion on which it seems that your good faith has been
abused. Some Latinists deplore some note paper.
And I have not forgotten that when two delegates of the 33° (Sovereign Grand
Council of Detroit) visited the Coast in 1919, you spoke very highly of me. But I have
never in any way interfered with you or challenged your jurisdiction, and I have only
approached you this year because of the attacks upon you by this swindling imposter
Swinburne Clymer. And I think that any divergence in opinion between us as to the
propriety of our respective methods should not be a cause of controversy. I may point
out that it seems doubtful whether you have read more than a small part of my
published work; and certainly none of the secret and unpublished writings, which are
of far greater importance. So I will ask you to reserve judgment. As to your own
methods, I quite understand for instance your use of Franz Hartmann's book. Being,
as you are, in partibus gentium, it is perhaps natural that you should find that the only
way to get elementary ideas into the heads of the natives is to do it as you have been
doing. There is no way of making such people value what is of importance except by
making them pay for it. In England you would be snowed under with law-suits and
prosecutions within a few months.
But it does seem to me that the attacks upon you have not been without effect,
and the evidence of your connection with me is quite impossible to withstand. It is not
only the question of the Diploma from Reuss, which is apparently the only document
on which you rely, but of your having adopted numerous phrases, symbols and other
matter from the Equinox, which is definitely my own. There are also numerous
references in the letters and documents reproduced by Clymer which prove to any
independent party that his contention is correct in this particular matter. Now I do not
in the least object to your adopting 'Crowley's Black Cross', (so-called because it is far
older than Crowley, and because it contains all the coulours of the rainbow) but it
does not mean that if Crowley is such a terrible person, you are tarred with the same
brush. Whereas if you helped to put him forward as the celebrated Virgin Martyr, you
will yourself appear at the close of the operation "whiter than the white wash on the
wall." I am urging these matters upon you, because I feel certain that you are in
danger of being hounded down and your usefulness destroyed. I cannot impress too
strongly upon you that when it comes to a scrap in a law-court the judge will see the
difference between such serious literature as The Equinox, and ad captandum
advertisements such as Clymer quotes on page 79 of his disgusting libel.
One of the ways in which you can help me is by informing me whether
Clymer has any following in England. If I can find anybody who publishes (that is,
according to English law, who hands to any other person not protected by legal
privilege) a copy of Clymer's pamphlet, I will send him to prison in two shakes of a
Paschal Lamb's whis ers. And such procedure would immediately destroy any
influence he may have in the U.S.A.
I will indicate to Mr. Schneider the lines on which these operations may be
carried out.
Yours in the bonds of the Order
(signed) 666
(Separate note attached to the above)
Excerpt from Therion's letter of Dec. 2nd;
"It is perhaps best not to admit having seen the Lewis stuff, as I go for him rather
heavily from the last page. Your job is, of course, to get him to put his organisation in
England at my disposal for the purpose of the vindication, and to guarantee the costs
for the best legal assistance."
 

Endnotes:

1. LES ROSE-CROIX DU NOUVEAU MONDE - Aux sources du rosicucrianisme moderne, Claire Vigne Editrice, Paris, 1996.
2. Cf. his book The Rosicrucian Fraternity in America, vol. I, 464 p., and vol. II, 959 p., Philosophical Publishing Co., Quakertown, 1935, dealing mainly with the conditions of his controversy with Lewis during the 1930's.
3. The letter heading indicates Lewis'address and job at the time: « Advertising specialist» (half torn). The date of document 4. indicates that it was transmitted to the N.Y.P.L. afterwards.
4. Cf. Cosmic Mission Fulfilled by Ralph Lewis.
5. This charter was presented in A.M.O.R.C. Mystic Triangle, September 1921, p. 1, but was not reproduced until November 1933 when a facsimile of the charter appeared for the first time in the Rosicrucian Digest.
6. See in particular Peter-R. König's web site (https://www.parareligion.ch) and «Les relations avec Crowley, Reuss et l'Ordre du Temple Oriental (O.T.O.)» in the chapter on H. Spencer Lewis of my book Les Rose-Croix du Nouveau Monde.
7. Op. cit., p. 31. The «conspirators» did reproach inter alia to Lewis his connection with Aleister Crowley and «sex-magick».
8. The complete letter is reproduced on https://www.parareligion.ch/sunrise/amorc_en.htm. The supposed «original» document of A.M.O.R.C. without the words «O.T.O» addressed to Peter-R. König is reproduced here. It also appeared on A.M.O.R.C. website rose-croix.org [defunct now], and was published the special issue of the French magazine «Actualité de l'histoire mystérieuse», April 1998, dedicated to the Rose Cross.
9. Lewis was an experimental photographer and an accomplished artist - see for instance his portrait drawing of Francis Bacon as Imperator of A.M.O.R.C. in the XVIIth century style reproduced in A.M.O.R.C. Mastery of life and Rosicrucian Manual.
10. We shall not discuss here the affirmation made by Lewis concerning his alleged initiation in Toulouse in 1909 as this is another story (see my book for details).
11. The Authentic and Complete History of the Ancient and Mystical Order Rosae Crucis, compiled by H. Spencer Lewis, F.R.C., sixth installment, in The American Rosae Crucis, July 1916, p. 12-13 (cf. reprints of American Rosae Crucis, 1916 and 1917, by Kessinger Publishing LLC).
12. Ibid. p. 11.
13. Ibid. p. 13. But why a "Black Book" and what about the real purpose of such a book?
14. Cf. ibid. and Les Rose-Croix du Nouveau Monde
15. Ibid., p. 12. See also Les Rose-Croix du Nouveau Monde.
16. Ibid.
17. Light of Egypt, A.M.O.R.C., 1927-28, p. 18-20.
18. The American Rosae Crucis, July 1916, p. 13.
19. Rosicrucian Documents, A.M.O.R.C., p. 6. The «hereunto subscribed» officers of the Grand Lodge are four: Grand Master General (H. S. Lewis); Matre General (curiously there is no signature here whereas Lewis always has always affirmed that Mrs. Banks-Stacey was «the first matre of the Order»...); Secretary General (T. Kiimalehto); Deputy Master General (N. Storm).
20. The American Rosae Crucis, July 1916, p. 13.
21. The argument of A.M.O.R.C. according to which the «minutes of meetings» do not make reference to O.T.O. is not receivable because it has been noticed many times that Lewis'declarations - particularly in matter of his occult filiation - were often incomplete or contradictory and we see no reason why these official minutes should break this rule. I do not believe either in the theory of A.M.O.R.C. making of the Pronunziamento in the N.Y.P.L. a «forgery». Indeed, who would have had an interest in forging this charter with the mention «O.T.O.» in order to «let people think O.T.O. to be originator of A.M.O.R.C.» as said in A.M.O.R.C.'s letter of February 22nd, 1999 ? Lewis opponents in the 1930's and Clymer - see in Les Rose-Croix du Nouveau Monde my chapter on the «Procès de l'A.M.O.R.C.» ? But we have seen how Clymer did ignore the existence of this early History of A.M.O.R.C. in the N.Y.P.L. otherwise he would have referred to it in his Rosicrucian Fraternity in America. So this theory is not valid either.
22. This assumption is not shared of course by the authorities of A.M.O.R.C. who still claim in a new letter dated January 5th, 2001 that this OTO mention is a forgery and in no way Kiimalehto's writing. According to them, the First American Manifesto of which there is question in the April Charter would not even be the preliminary Pronunziamento issued on February 8th, but an other American Pronunziamento Number One issued "as a result of a meeting of the Supreme Council held in June 1915." So we have asked A.M.O.R.C. to send us a copy of this other First American Pronunziamento for examination (a picture of it was apparently published during 1917 in a document called A book for all members where also appears a copy of the First American Charter). Nevertheless we do not understand very well how there might exist two different American Pronunziamentos Number One, the first issued on February 1915 and the second on June 1915... This seems rather confusing indeed.
23. Ibid.
24. To the question: "What was the date of the establishment of the Masonic Rosaecrucian Degree in France ?", Lewis did answer without hesitation that: "The first French R. C. Manifesto was issued in Paris in 1623. It called for a 'General Assembly' of all Masons who belonged to the 'Order of Rose Croix' to attend a convocation in Lyons on June 23rd, 1623, at 10 P.M. (sic). Over 700 were in attendance" (The American Rosae Crucis, February 1916, p. 30).
25. Ibid. The story of the alleged initiation in Toulouse - note that there is just a question in the article above of the French town of Lyon, not Toulouse - was not published before May 1916 when it first appeared under the title: «A Pilgrim's Journey to the East - And I journeyed to the Eastern Gate by H. Spencer Lewis, F.R.C., Imperator of the Order in America» (Fifth Installment of the Complete and Authentic History of the Order, The American Rosae Crucis, May 1916, pp. 12-27). We ignore if this was privately issued to members of A.M.O.R.C. at an earlier stage.
26. The name of Raynaud E. de Bellcastle-Ligne, which Lewis claimed afterwards to be his mentor in France, did not appear before January 1916 when his name was first mentioned in The American Rosae Crucis as the Associate Editor (p. 31).
27. Cf. supra. Note that there is a question here of "Thotmis IV." whereas Lewis will refer afterwards to "Thotmis III.".
28. The Globe, February 24th, 1915.
29. CROMAAT, A Monthly Monograph for the Members of A.M.O.R.C., Volume D, 1918, p. 26 (reprint by Kessinger Publishing, LLC).
30. CROMAAT D, p. 27. It shall be noticed that in this statement it is question of "France" also, whereas previous Lewis' declarations about Mrs. Stacey only concerned India and Egypt.
31. "Mrs. May Banks Stacey", by David T. Rocks, in Theosophical History, VI/4, October 1996.
32. When she died, Mrs. Stacey's age was not seventy-six as Lewis reports but only seventy-two.
33. Ibid.
34. Cf. supra. Mrs. Stacey's first meeting with Lewis is supposed to have happened on November 25th, and Crowley arrived in New York by the Lusitania on October 24th, 1914.
35. The Confessions of Aleister Crowley, an Autohagiography edited by John Symonds and Kenneth Grant, Arkana Books, 1989, p. 792.
36. Ibid.
37. The Great Beast - The Life of Aleister Crowley by John Symonds, Rider and Company, London, 1947, p. 123.
38. Ibid., p. 126. Remember that Crowley had been admitted in Reuss' O.T.O. in 1910 and appointed National Grand Master for Great Britain and Ireland in 1912, which included authority over an English language rite of the lower degrees of O.T.O. which was given the name of Mysteria Mystica Maxima (M.'.M.'.M.'.). After having been initiated during the year 1898 in the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Crowley had built in 1907 his own system, the Astrum Argentum or A.·. A.·. (see in particular the History of Ordo Templi Orientis by Sabazius X° and AMT IX°, O.T.O. U.S. Grand Lodge, and O.T.O. Rituals and Sex Magick by Theodor Reuss & Aleister Crowley, edited & compiled by A. R. Naylor, introduction by Peter-R. König, I-H-O Books, Thame, England, 1999).
39. The Confessions of Aleister Crowley, p. 768. Concerning details of Crowley's life in America and his involvement in pro-German politics, see also The Great Beast, pp. 123-144.
40. Op. cit. Sotheby's catalogue, English Literature and History, An Important Collection of Manuscripts by Aleister Crowley, Sale LN6731, 16 & 17 December 1996, London, p. 138, n° 344 (estimation for the document was £ 600-800 but the auction raised up to £ 4,600).
41. The American Rosae Crucis, July 1916, p. 15. Lewis claims that the "signatures - some of them of prominent men in military and governmental affairs of France, are accompanied by their official marks", hence "R.F.R.C." which stands for "République Française Rose-Croix" (sic). Lewis says in his article that the document was issued on September 30, 1915, but does not show it in the magazine. The document is much questionable as I have shown in Les Rose-Croix du Nouveau Monde, p. 114.
42. The American Rosae Crucis, November 1917, p. 223.
43. The American Rosae Crucis, November 1917, p. 229, and December 1917, p. 249.
44. The Sun, June 19th, 1918. Lewis was released soon after and the charge retired. NY detectives had seized at A.M.O.R.C. a certain Pronunziamento R.C.R.F. N° 978,601 which The Sun describes as follows: "The document is adorned with a number of crude seals, dated Toulouse, France, September 20, 1916, and signed by one Jean Jordain." This seems to be a document different from the Pronunziamento R.F.R.C. N° 987,432 above described, and it probably complemented it.
45. Ibid., Sotheby's catalogue, p. 139 and Crowley's address reproduced herewith. People at A.M.O.R.C. contest in their letter of January 5th, 2001 that this address was prepared by Crowley in the year 1918 and say that the document is "probably antedated", being part of the "Crowley's strategy for racketing A.M.O.R.C.".
46. Cf. The Great Beast, pp. 285-289. The sale of 1996 at Sotheby's concerned the Caplan and Kerman collection. Even Crowley's late secretary Gerald Yorke did ignore this document (cf. Yorke's letter to R. S. Clymer - see https://www.parareligion.ch/dplanet/yorke2.htm).
47. Cf. The Fatherland.
48. This is also why probably Lewis no longer refered afterwards to his American Pronunziamento Number One, as for many the O.T.O. mention on the document would habe been clearly an indication of his relationship with Crowley at one time.
49. This reply from Crowley to Lewis dates back to 2nd December, 1935, and has been recently discovered by Peter-R. König. It is reproduced in extenso at the end of this article. We may hope that the first letter from Crowley to Lewis, and Lewis' answer, will be also discovered soon.
50. Op. cit.
51. Cf. supra.
52. Ibid.
53. Letter from Aleister Crowley to Arnoldo Krumm-Heller dated 28th December, 1936, p. 1, which has also been discovered by our friend König. Krumm-Heller founded another Rosicrucian order in South America (see https://www.parareligion.ch/fra.htm for details).
54. This is a reference to Clymer's RFIA and concerns Reuss' Diploma sent to Lewis in 1921 (see infra for details).
55. Letter of January 13rd, 1936 from Crowley to F. M. Spann, Long Island (Crowley's collection, Manuscripts Department, Lilly Library, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana). Italics are ours.
56. The Memorandum was attached to Crowley's letter of January 28th, 1936 to Spann (ibid.). The "documentary corroboration" is a reference to the secret correspondence between Crowley and Lewis there has just been question supra.There was no suit to this Memorandum which legally had no chance of success.
57. Cromaat E, 1918, pp. 43-49.
58. Cromaat F, 1918, p. 12-13 (see also infra).
59. Cromaat G, 1918, p. 3 & 6.
60. Ibid., p. 4.
61. The Triangle, September 29th, 1921, p. 1. Of course, most of these titles do not appear as such on the charter and many have been invented by Lewis. One understands then why Lewis only reproduced the charter a long time afterwards.
62. Cf. supra the A.M.O.R.C. letter to Peter-R. König.
63. Cf. Peter R.-König "Birth and Development of the O.T.O." in O.T.O. Rituals and Sex Magick, p. 27.
64. Ibid., p. 1. Concerning the original T.A.W.U.C. project dated October 1921
    
    
    
    
65. Ibid., p. 2
66. See in particular Peter-R. König, Das Beste von Heinrich Tränker, A.R.W., 1996. After Reuss' death, Tränker automatically became Lewis' superior in the O.T.O. as Lewis was part of the "German Sanctuary" and Tränker was X° of Germany.
67. Tränker's first letter to Lewis is dated February 15th, 1930. It has been discovered by Peter-R. König who comments: "Obviously it was Lewis who first contacted Tränker, as Tränker thanked for prospectus, etc. In this letter, Tränker expressed doubt whether Lewis was able to represent the Rosicrucians in the U.S.A. as they should be a completely German body. Tränker signed as 'Nationaler Grossmeister des O.T.O. für Deutschland, Österreich and aller deutschsprechenden Laender' which automatically made him O.T.O. superior of Lewis. Tränker also expressed that there was no need to exchange Charters or mutual permissions/recognitions".
68. The Rosicrucian Digest, September 1930, pp. 234-235.
69. We are a large step further here in the exaggeration process than at the time of Reuss' Gage of Amity. But this was not Lewis' first story of this style. Indeed, already in The Light of Egypt, 1927, the Imperator had pretended in a similar fantastic story that, "when the earliest European explorers were wending their way to the Pacific Coast, hunting for the 'land of gold' (...) the Rosicrucian Fraternity sent seven of its highest initiates to the West on a secret mission. They accompanied one of the early Spanish exploration expeditions and carried with them many caskets of rarer devices, papers, jewels and a sealed sarcophagus. These things finally found a resting and hiding place on a small peninsular jutting into the Pacific, which is a montainous part of the ancient continent of Lemuria (...) In this quiet and peaceful place on the Pacific shore, a crude temple was built of adobe, adjoining a cave described on the maps they possessed. In the cave the sarcophogus, jewels and documents were placed, and the entrance closed to form a tomb and a vault (...) It was to this cave and the ruined temple that Dr. Lewis journeyed in 1918, performed the rituals and rites, followed the formulas, and brought to light the well-preserved 'body' of C.R.C. again (...) Dr. Lewis quietly returned to New York and prepared the translation of the documents he brought back with him (sic), and in other ways arranged for the celebration of the Revelation at the Great Convention, which was held at New York in the summer of 1918." (op. cit., p. 8)
70. See here the reproduction of the first and last page with the signatures of Tränker/Recnartus and Lewis, who endorsed the English version of the document on September 29th, 1930.
71. Ibid., König, pp. 32 and 357-369.
72. Cf. the lamens herewith. Lewis' lamen is well the same than Crowley's and has little in common with the original by Péladan. A.M.O.R.C. no longer uses this lamen today.
73. A.M.O.R.C. Master Monograph, Degree 11, Monograph 10, p. 4.
74. Da Capo Press, New York, 1982 (first published in New York, 1850, by Fowlers and Wells).
75. Cf. for details Les Rose-Croix du Nouveau Monde. Most of the books by Atkinson/Ramacharaka have been reprinted by Kessinger and Health Research. For an overwiew of the New Thought movement, see in particular the excellent presentation by Alan Anderson: "The New Thought Movement: A Link between East and West"
76. Ibid.
77. I.N.R.I. Hermetic Science College. British Section. Established Under the Auspices of the Order of Oriental Templars (O.T.O.), 1906, pp. 6-8. Cf. Peter-R. König, Der Grosse Theodor-Reuss Reader, ARW, München, 1997.
78. The Secret Heritage, A.M.O.R.C., 1935, p. 26.
79. It is the nature of the Rosicrucian teachings which differentiates A.M.O.R.C. today (teachings have been largely modified and modernized under the leadership of the new French Imperator, Christian Bernard) from its schismatic offsprings like the Confraternity Rosae+Crucis founded by the past American Imperator Gary Stewart or the French S.E.T.I. (Sauvegarde des Enseignements Traditionnels et Initiatiques - known today as the «Cénacle de la Rose-Croix») from Jean-Pierre July, who both want to uphold Lewis' original teachings. Concerning the history of these orders, see Marcel Roggeman's website Geschiedenis van de occulte en mystieke broederschappen: www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/6370/).
80. Riesener's interview reported by Clymer, Rosicrucian Fraternity in America, Part Two, p. 429.
81. On this question see the excellent article by our friend Serge Caillet in the French Masonic magazine 'Renaissance Traditionnelle', N° 101/102, January-April 1995, pp. 72-87, intitled 'L'affaire Spencer Lewis'. A new edition of Caillet's book on 'Sâr Hieronymus et la FUDOSI' is also announced soon.
82. At the end of his letter of January 5th, 2001 the archivist of A.M.O.R.C.-France concludes: «Whatever the group you consider, concerning either Rosicrucianism, Free-Masonry, or any other traditional organization, one is quickly confronted with myths and enigmas. One might regret indeed that many founders of initiatory societies did prefer to refer to often confused historical elements in order to justify their mission, rather than to rely upon their spiritual experience.» We agree plainly with this point of view at the strict condition that the founder of any such traditional organization does not try to make people believe that these mythical elements - or a psychic or mystical experience which should not be judged as far as it is presented for what it is - represent established historical facts. Indeed, as soon as one refers in external publications to tangible documents or facts which are presented as being part of an objective reality, one should be ready as a consequence to accept that they are liable to be submitted to a critical and historical analysis. Otherwise this would consist in a much objectionable mental or intellectual manipulation. In Free-Masonry for instance, the myth of Hiram is always presented clearly as being a 'legend' : to describe the Hiramic Legend in the form of established historical facts would lead to an unacceptable fraud.
83. Reproduced also in P.R. Koenig: Noch Mehr Materialien zum OTO, Bavaria 2000