Hidden Symbolism of Alchemy and the Occult Arts, Herbert Silberer [good inspirational books .txt] 📗

The previous chapter has shown that there was a higher alchemy—it was furthermore regarded as the true alchemy—which has the same relation to practical chemistry that freemasonry has to practical masonry. A prominent chemist who had entered into the history of chemistry and that of freemasonry once wrote to me: “Whoever desires to make a chemical preparation according to a hermetic recipe seems to me like a person who undertakes to build a house according to the ritual of Freemasonry.”

The similarity is not a chance one. Both external and internal relations between alchemy and freemasonry are worthy of notice. The connection is partly through rosicrucianism. Since the Parable, which shall still be the center of our study, belongs to rosicrucian literature (and indeed is probably a later development of it), it is fitting here to examine who and what the Rosicrucians really were. We cannot, of course, go into a thorough discussion of this unusually complex subject. We shall mention only what is necessary to our purpose. I shall not, however, be partial, but treat of both the parties which are diametrically opposed in their views of the problems of rosicrucian history. It will be shown [pg 174] that this disagreement fortunately has but small influence upon our problem and that therefore we are relieved of the difficult task of reaching a conclusion and of bringing historical proof for a decision which experienced specialists—of whom I am not one—have so signally failed to reach.

Rosicrucians are divided into those of three periods, the old, who are connected by the two chief writings, “Fama” and “Confessio,” that appeared at the beginning of the 17th century; the middle, which apparently represents a degeneration of the original idealistic league, and finally, the gold crossers and rose crossers, who for a time during the 18th century developed greater power. The last Rosicrucians broke into freemasonry for a while (in the second half of the eighteenth century) in a manner almost catastrophic for continental masonry, yet I observe in anticipation that this kind of rosicrucian expansion is not immediately concerned with the question as to the original relation of freemasonry and rosicrucianism. We must know how to distinguish the excrescence from the real idea. Rosicrucianism died out at the beginning of the 19th century. The rosicrucian degrees that still exist in many systems of freemasonry (as Knight of the Red Cross, etc.) are historical relics. Those who now parade as rosicrucians are imposters or imposed on, or societies that have used rosicrucian names as a label.

Many serious scholars doubt that the old Rosicrucians ever existed as an organized fraternity. I refer [pg 175] to the article Rosenkreuz in the “Handbuch der Freimaurerei” (Lenning), where this skeptical view is dominant. Other authors, on the contrary, believe in the existence of the old order and think that the freemasons who appeared in their present form in 1717 are the rosicrucians persisting, but with changed name. Joh. Gottl. Buhle, a contemporary of Nicolai, had already assumed that the rosicrucian Michael Maier introduced rosicrucianism into England, and that freemasonry began then especially with the coöperation of the Englishman Robert Fludd (1574-1637). Ferdinand Katsch warmly defended the actual existence of the old rosicrucian fraternity with arguments, some of which are disputed. He names with certainty a number of people as “true rosicrucians,” among them Julianus de Campis, Michael Maier, Robert Fludd, Frisius or Frizius, Comenius (Katch, p. 33). Rosicrucianism turned into freemasonry for practical reasons. As the most outstanding imposters represented themselves as rosicrucians this name was not conserved. The wrong was prevented, in that the true rosicrucians withdrew as such and assumed a different dress.

Generally we imagine a different origin of freemasonry. We are accustomed to look for its beginnings in practical masonry, whose lodges can be traced back to the fourteenth century. The old unions of house builders were joined by persons who were not actual workers but lay members, through whom spiritual power was added to the lodges. At the beginning of the eighteenth century the old working [pg 176] masonry was transformed into the spiritual symbolical freemasonry, but with a continuance of its forms. At that time in London the building lodges had diminished to four. These were united on June 24 (St. John's Day), 1717, and chose Anton Sayer for their grand master. That is the origin of Freemasonry as it exists to-day.

This derivation is and will be considered unsatisfactory by many, however much it may satisfy the merely documentary claims. The attempt to make it better required an inventive phantasy and this was not always fortunate in its attempts. The rosicrucian theory cannot be dismissed off hand, especially if we conceive it in a somewhat broader sense. In agreement with Katsch, Höhler (Herm. Phil., p. 6) recalls how generally people were occupied in the 16th and 17th centuries in the whole of western Europe with cabala, theosophy, magic (physics), astrology and alchemy, and indeed this held true of higher and lower social strata, scholars and laymen, ecclesiastic and secular. “The entire learned theology turned on cabala. Medicine was based on theosophy and alchemy and the latter was supposed to be derived from theosophy and astrology.” Höhler, in one respect, goes further than Katsch and conjectures: “Freemasonry had its roots in the chemical societies of the 16th and 17th centuries, in which all those things were fostered that constituted the science of that day.” This theory is incomparably more open to discussion than if one attempts to confine the origin to the insecure base of rosicrucianism. [pg 177] We shall learn to appreciate more fully the significance of the chemical societies.

In connection with the question, important for us, as to the position of the alchemy of the rosicrucians (whether they lived only in books or as an actual brotherhood), it is worth while to glance at the literature.

Joachin Frizius, whom some think identical with Fludd, writes in the “Summum Bonum, quod est verum Magiae, Cabalae, Alchymiae, verae Fratrum Roseae Crucis verorum subjectum” (first published in Frankfort, 1629):

“Aben (אבן) means a stone. In this one cabbalistic stone we have the Father, Son and Holy Ghost ... for in Hebrew Ab (אב) means Father and Ben (בן) Son. But where the Father and Son are present there the Holy Ghost must be also.... Let us now examine this Stone as the foundation of the macrocosm.... Therefore the patriarch Jacob spake, ‘How dreadful is this place. This is none other but the house of God,’ and rose up and took the stone that he had put for his pillow and poured oil upon the top of it, and said, ‘This stone that I have set for a pillar shall be God's house, etc.’ If therefore a God's house, then God is in that place or else his earthly substance. Here it was that the patriarch, as he slept on this stone, conserved something divine and miraculous, through the power of that spirit-filled stone which in its corporeality is similar to the relation of the body to the soul. But the spiritual stone was Christ; but Christ [pg 178] is the eternal wisdom, in which as the scripture says are many mansions, which are undoubtedly distinguished on account of the different grades of grace and blessedness. For blessedness follows wisdom or knowledge, the higher and more we know the farther we go towards the Godhead.” (Summ. Bon., pp. 17 ff.)

“Thereupon it clearly appears who this macrocosmic Stone Aben ... really is, and that his fiery spirit is the foundation stone of all and given for all (sit lapis seu petra catholica atque universalis) ... which was laid in Zion as the true foundation, on which the prophets and the apostles as well have built, but which was also to the ignorant and wicked builders a stumbling block and bone of contention. This stone therefore is Christ who has become our Cornerstone....” (Summ. Bon., p. 19.) “If we consider now the stone Aben in its significance for the microcosmos ... we shall soon be sure that as a stone temple of God it can have no less value for every outer man in so far as the Holy Ghost also reserves a dwelling in him forever.” (Summ. Bon., p. 20.)

“That is also the reason why the stone Aben appears in double form (quod ambae petrae), that is, in the macrocosmic and in the microcosmic.... For the spiritual stone is Christ that fulfills all. So we also are parts of the spiritual stone and such are also living stones, taken out of that universal stone (a petra illa catholica excisi)....” (Summ. Bon., p. 20.) Here again we have the alchemistic distinction [pg 179] between the universal and the particular, and the like distinction is also expressed by the opposition of the celestial and the terrestrial stones. The second chapter of I Peter speaks of the living stone. I Corinthians X, 4, says likewise: “And did all drink of that spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ.” Alchemistically expressed it is called aurum potabile (drinkable gold).

“But,” now you ask, “where then is all the gold with which those alchemists [Fama] glitter so famously?” So we answer you.... “Our gold is indeed not in any way the gold of the multitude, but it is the living gold, the gold of God.... It is wisdom, which the psalmist means, Ps. XII, 6, ‘The words of the Lord are pure words as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.’ If you now wish ... to put before yourself the true and actual animal stone, then seek the cornerstone, which is the means of all change and transformation, in yourself.” (Summ. Bon., pp. 34 ff.)

“Finally the brother works towards the consummation of his labors