Reformation, Revolution, Renovation

Front matter

NIVERSAL REFORM

Studies in Intellectual History, 1550-1700

REFORMATION, REVOLUTION, RENOVATION

PART 1 The Origins

1 Backtothe Sources 29 1.1 The Reformation of Divine and Human Things 1.2 The Revolution of the Ages 53 1.3 The Renovation of Philosophy 73 1.4 Concluding Remarks 96

2 The Paracelsian Impetus 102 2.1 Visions of a Golden Time 106 2.2 The Revelation of Secrets 16 2.3 Alchemy and Medicine 126 2.4 Philosophical Inspirations 135 2.5 PrimevalWisdom 153 2.6 Concluding Remarks 161

PART 2 The Bibliographical Origins

3 The Authors and the Rosicrucian Worldview 167 3.1 Authorship in Question 171 3.2 Apocalyptic Expectations 179 3.3 New Societies and Attempts at Reform 185 3.4 Paracelsian Motivation 206 3.5 Concluding Remarks 209

VIII

CONTENTS

PART 3 The Response

4.1 4.2 4-3 4.4 4-5

4.6

Avoiding Tribulations: The First Response to the Fama — 218 The Instauration of Original Wisdom 241

The Rosicrucian Study of Alchemy and Medicine 252

The Reform of Medicine and Sciences 259

Rosicrucian Theosophy and the Reform of Divine and Human Things 264

5.1 5.2 5.3

The Rosicrucian Manifestos Debated: Libavius and Fludd 293 The Rosicrucian Manifestos Debated: Grick and Mögling 327 Concluding Remarks and Further Challenges: Official Investigations 349

Appendix: Theca Gladi Spiritus (1616), nrs. 175-202 373 Bibliography 38

Index 423

Acknowledgements

My greatest debt of gratitude in writing this book, which is based upon my dissertation, goes to my three supervisors, Christoph Lüthy, Howard Hotson, and Peter Forshaw. Christoph has guided me in my research ever since I started my studies in the research master in my “home court" Nijmegen. Over the years, we have had numerous conversations about Paracelsus, the Rosicrucians, and early modern philosophy, and I am immensely grateful for his invaluable advice, tireless support, and warm encouragement. Howard supervised my research during my research stays in Oxford. Whenever I was there, we had regular and lengthy discussions about the project and the direction it should take. This book is the immediate result of his instrumental advice at various stages of the writing process. Peter established my connection with Amsterdam, and this study has greatly benefitted from his expertise, insightful suggestions, and comments that helped me navigate through our peculiar field of research.

I am also greatly indebted to the members of the manuscript committee, Carlos Gilly, Didier Kahn, Leen Spruit, Tara Nummedal, and Vladimír Urbánek. Their suggestions for transforming this manuscript into a book have been particularly useful. I should especially like to thank Carlos for his council on Rosicrucianism during my research stay in Spain; Didier for his comprehensive and precise suggestions on the various chapters of this book; Leen for answering the numerous questions I have had over the years; Tara for her help in shaping the narrative; and Vladimír for his many comments and pointed remarks on various versions of this work.

I am very grateful to the various institutions and libraries that have supported me during my research. I would like to mention in particular the Dutch Research Council (Nwo) and Prins Bernhard Cultuurfonds for funding my research both in Nijmegen and Oxford, and Nwo also for granting me the opportunity to publish this book Open Access. I am also immensely thankful to the people at Radboud University, Nijmegen, and St Anne's College, Oxford, for supporting me during my studies. Many thanks go to the people at Bodleian Library Oxford, Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel, Nationaal Archief Den Haag, Niedersáchsisches Landesarchiv Wolfenbüttel, Niedersächsische Landesbibliothek Hannover, Universitätsbibliothek Salzburg, Universitátsarchiv Tübingen, and Wellcome Library London, for granting me access to their splendid collections and for their invaluable support in doing so.

Finally, I wish to express my gratitude to the members of the Center for the History of Philosophy and Science. It would be impossible to mention each of their contributions to this project individually, but it would be unthinkable to

X ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS leave out the most generous benefactors. In particular I wish to thank the head of our department, Carla Rita Palmerino, as well as Chiara Beneduce, Davide Cellamare, and Elena Nicoli for their advice, support, and friendship. cHPs has truly proven to be a haven of inexhaustible support and encouragement for early career researchers, and I am extremely grateful for having had the opportunity to work in such an encouraging environment.

Figures

Fama Fraternitatis R.c. Das ist Gerücht der Brüderschafft des Hochlöblichen Ordens R.c. An alle Gelehrte und Heupter Europae. Beneben deroselben Lateinischen Confession, Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel: Dep. 12 9 Leonhard Thurneysser, Quinta essentia, Leipzig 1574, fol. xxxvii. Photo by the author 14

Lucas Cranach, Passional Christi und Antichristi, Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel: 116.5 Theol. (18) 33

Paracelsus woodcut by A. Hirschvogel, 1538, Wellcome Collection. Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) 104

Robert Fludd, Utriusque cosmi maioris scilicet et minoris metaphysica, physica atque technica historia, line engraving by Theodor de Bry, Wellcome Collection. Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) 146

Limbourg Brothers, The Anatomy of Man, contemporary reproduction in tiles, Nijmegen City Centre. Photo by Ted van Aanholt 149

Johann Valentin Andreae, Reipublicae christianopolitanae descriptio, Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel: 1256.2 Theol. (1) 192

Fama Fraternitatis oder Bruderschafft deß Hochloblichen Ordens Roseae Crucis. An die Haupter, Stande und Gelerten Europae, Universitätsbibliothek Salzburg, CodexMsS1463 219

Benedictus Liberius, Nucleus Sophicus, seu explanatio in tincturam physicorum Theophrasti Paracelsi |...], Bayerische Staatsbibliothek. Alch. 33. URN: nbn:de:bvb:12-bsb10252641-0 238

Michael Maier, Tripvs avrevs, hoc est, tres tractatvs chymici selectissimi |...], Wellcome Collection. Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY4.0) 254

Daniel Mögling, Speculum Sophicum RhodoStauroticum, fig. 2, Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel: 24.3 Quod. 3) 276

Daniel Mógling, Speculum Sophicum RhodoStauroticum, fig. 3. Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel: 24.3 Quod. 3) 282

Robert Fludd, Utriusque cosmi maioris scilicet et minoris metaphysica, physica atque technica historia, Wellcome Collection. Attribution 4.0 International (cc BY4.0) 315

Abbreviations cP

EA Fama

NPE

Paracelsus, [title], 1

Paracelsus, [title], 11

TRE

UAT WA

Confessio Fraternitatis, in: Fama Fraternitatis R.c. Das ist/ Gerücht der Brüderschafft des Hochlóblichen Ordens R.c. An alle Gelehrte und Heupter Europae. Beneben deroselben Lateinischen Confession, Welche vorhin in Druck noch nie ausgangen/ nuhnmehr aber auff vielfültiges nachfragen zusampt deren beygefügten Teutschen Version zu freundtlichen gefallen/ allen Sittsamen gutherzigen Gemühtern wolgemeint in Druck gegeben und communiciret Von einem des Liechts/Warheit/ und Friedens liebhabenden und begierigen Philomagro. Kassel: Wilhelm Wessel, 1615.

Der Frühparacelsismus. Corpus Paracelsisticum. Dokumente Frühneuzeitlicher Naturphilosophie in Deutschland. Edited by Wilhelm Kühlmann and Joachim Telle. Vols. 1-3. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2001-2004.

Luther, Martin. Reformations-historische deutsche Schriften, 26. Erlangen: Carl Heyder, 1830.

Fama Fraternitatis def Lóblichen Ordens des Rosenkreutzes. Kassel: Wilhelm Wessel, 1614.

Paracelsus. Neue Paracelsus-Edition. Theologische Werke 1. Edited by Urs Leo Gantenbein. Berlin and New York (NY): Walter de Gruyter, 2008.

Sämtliche Werke, 1. Abteilung: Medizinische, naturwissenschaftliche und philosophische Schriften. Edited by Karl Sudhoff, vols. 1-14. Munich and Berlin: Oldenbourg, 1929-1933.

Sümtliche Werke, 11. Abteilung: Die theologischen und religionsphilosophischen Schriften. Edited by Wilhelm Matthiessen and Kurt Goldammer, vol. 1. Munich: Otto Wilhelm Barth, 1923; vols. 2-7, supplement. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag GMBH, 1955-1973.

Theologische Realenzyclopädie, 36 vols. Berlin/New York (NY): Walter de Gruyter, 1974-2004.

Universitätsarchiv Tübingen.

Luther Martin. D. Martin Luthers Werke: kritische Gesamtausgabe. Vols. 1-120. Weimar: H. Böhlau, 1883-2009.

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 Fraternitatis!

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).? 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? 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 Allreferences 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 à 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: Christiani 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.

€ LYKE DE VRIES, 2022 | D01:10.1163/9789004249394 002 This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC By-NC-ND 4.0 license.

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.* 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. 1610 was also the year that his friend, the German alchemist and editor Benedictus Figulus (real name Benedict Tópfer, 1567-after 1619), acquired a copy of the Fama, presumably thanks to Haslmayr, and ensured its wider distribution." Such was the allure of this manifesto that before long the German ruling elite became involved. In 1611, Prince August von Anhalt-Plótzkau (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.® Haslmayr’s Answer was his fulfilment of this request, and was soon

4 Theterm “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 lobwürdige Brüderschafft der Theosophen von Rosencreutz.

Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 38; idem, “Die Rosenkreuzer,' 41. On Figulus, see: Telle, “Benedictus Figulus.”

8 Karl Widemann, Sylva scientiarum, Niedersächsische Landesbibliothek Hannover, MS Iv 341, printed numerous times, first by an unknown and presumably secret press,? but in subsequent years it was often republished together with editions of the Fama and the Confessio.!9

Meanwhile to the west of Plótzkau, in Marburg, the Paracelsian physician Johann Hartmann (1558-1631) read the Fama in 16n, 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.!! 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."? 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, Ga", 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 Ole worm 1588-1654; Dekker, The Origins of Old Germanic Studies, 236—238.

12 Lange, Den Edlen und gestrengenden Herren und Brüeder der Fraternitet [...]: “Herren und Brueder der Fraternitet und Bruederschafft des hochlóblichen 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 Künste auffs genauest und schärffst examiniren [...] und dann ihre bedenken [...] uns Schrifftlich im Truck eröffnen.” 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 it is 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.!^ In the same year, 1615, Rosicrucian texts appeared under the pseudonym Julianus de Campis, while in 1617 and 1618 the famous alchemist Michael Maier (1568- 1622) defended the brotherhood against various attacks.! In the meantime, the court astronomer and later physician Daniel Mögling (pseudonyms Theophilus Schweighart and Florentinus de Valentia, 1596-1635) discussed, extolled, and defended the manifestos in several of his writings.!®

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 René 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 Fürth, calling himself “[...] King of Jerusalem, Shiloh, Joseph

14 Sperber, Von der höchsten/ allerbesten unnd thewresten Schätze. 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 asa 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 Mégling [Theophilus Schweighart], Pandora sextae aetatis (1617); idem [Florentinus de Valentia], Rosa florescens (1617); idem [Theophilus Schweighardt], Speculum sophicum rhodostauroticum (1618). On Mógling, 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, 71ff.

and David, crowned by the grace of God, foremost brother of the Rosicrucians and invincible Scepter of the King in Sion.”!9 Further north, in the town of Giessen just a few years later, in 1623, the physician Heinrich Nolle (Nollius, 1583-1630?) published a work entitled Mirror ofthe Philosophical Parergon, which was inspired by the Rosicrucian Chemical Wedding and informed by the brethren's reform plans.?? 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.?!

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 Torrentius (1589-1644), and the printer Govert Basson (d. 1643), who published many Rosicrucian works and owned even more.?? 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 gekrónter Kónig von Jerusalem, Siloh, Joseph und David, der Brüder des Rosenkreutzes Oberster und unüberwindlichster Zepter des Kónigs 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: Äkerman, Rose Cross, 36, 43; Snoek, De Rozenkruisers, 108-124, 308-325; on Mormius: Snoek, De Rozenkruisers, 413-421; on Torrentius, see, for example: Bredius, Johannes Torrentius, and below, section 5.3.

this new movement was in fact a new manifestation of ancient, divine wisdom.?? 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.?* 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.?5

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.?6 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 111 (1558-1618), Regent of Tyrol (1602-1612) and later Archduke of Austria (1612— 1618), 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.?” 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 sCanzla reDUX (1616), discussed in Äkerman, Rose Cross. On Bureus, see: Hákansson, "Alchemy of the Ancient Goths: Johannes Bureus' Search for the Lost Wisdom of Scandinavia."

24 . Morsius' album amicorum is kept in the Stadtbibliothek Lübeck, 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 sapientissima fraternitate R.C. (1619). On Morsius, see: Schneider, Joachim Morsius und sein Kreis; Snoek, De Rozenkruisers, 386-396. Cf. below, p. 216.

26 Onearly 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: Peuckert, Die Rosenkreuzer; Schick, Das ältere Rosenkreuzertum, 193-236; Shackelford, A Philosophical Path for Paracelsian Medicine, 337—340; for protagonists such as Gabriel Naudé, 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 111 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 Tübingen. 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.?! 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."?? 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 OnHomagius and Nolle, see, for example: Klenk, “Ein sogenannter Inquisitionsproceß in Gießen 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 Torrentius’ 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. Äkerman mistakenly refers to "Catholic professors": Äkerman, 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,

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 René Descartes.?^ 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 ofthe life of the well-travelled and highly-educated Christian Rosencreutz, who is described as the father of the Rosicrucian fraternity.?° Rosencreutz is said

34 Levitin, Ancient Wisdom, 1312.

35 Relevant introductions to the manifestos include especially: Gilly, "Iter Rosicrucianum"; idem, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica; idem, “Die Rosenkreuzer als europäisches Phänomen,’ 19- 56; Brecht, Johann Valentin Andreae, 65-85. Gillys work has been summarised in Kahn, "The Rosicrucian Hoax in France," 235-344. See also: Kienast, Johann Valentin Andreae;

ee ee ama Fraternitatis E $e .

Ode

Gurt; u Dan at bu dream | WD a abut eh a

FIGURE1 Fama vos and Confessio fraternitatis (1615), HAB Wolfenbüttel 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 société idéale selon Johann Valentin Andreae, 2 vols.; Yates, The Rosicrucian Enlightenment, 41-68; Van der Kooij, 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.??

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.?? In the Arab cities Damcar and Fez he learned various secrets of nature and translated into Latin the mysterious “Liber M.”?? 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.*° 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.*! They identified themselves as physicians, adapted to the