Frances Yates and the Writing of History Author(s): Brian Vickers Reviewed work(s): Source: The Journal of Modern

History, Vol. 51, No. 2, Technology and War (Jun., 1979), pp. 287-316 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1879218 . Accessed: 09/07/2012 21:46
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Modern History.

http://www.jstor.org

Review Article Frances Yates and the Writingof History

Brian Vickers
Harvard University The publication of Frances Yates's study, The Rosicrucian Enlightenment, 1 has raised a number of important issues concerning the writing of Renaissance history, the history of ideas, the history of science, and the history of politics and monarchies. With the last of these-her accounts of Frederick V of the Palatinate, the court of Rudolph II, the outbreak of the Thirty Years' War-I shall have nothing to do and await the findings of the historians.2 Setting aside these matters still leaves much to discuss: the
1 Frances Yates, The Rosicrucian Enlightenment(London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1972), pp. 269. All numbers in parentheses referto this book. 2 The roll call of British historians who welcomed the original publication is remarkable: Christopher Hill (New York Review of Books [October 4, 19731, pp. 23-24: ' Its excitement is gloriously infectious, its scope is breath-taking"); John Kenyon (Observer [January 28, 1973]); Sir Isaiah Berlin (Observer [December work of imagination and learningby a great scholar"); Joel 16, 1973]: "A magnificent Hurstfield(Times [February 1, 1973]: "so eminent a scholar, . . . the truth, so skillfullyunravelled"); Asa Briggs (New Scientist [November 23, 1972]: "brilliant analysis . . . compulsive reading"); J. H. Elliott (New Statesman [January26, 1973]: "A brilliant book, writtenwith an intellectualpower and a verve which are likely to leave a deep impression on all those who are fortunateenough to fall under its spell"). Hugh Trevor-Roper went to the unusual lengthof reviewingit twice: in the Sunday Times (December 17, 1972): "A brilliantand exciting book . . . delicate scholarshipand a profoundstudy of symbolism," and in Listener (January18, 1973): "A major work . . . exact scholarshipaddressed to historicaldetail." Other favorable reviews came fromFrederick Coplestone (Spectator [January 20, 1973]), Lisa Jardine (Tablet [February 24, 19731), Anthony Powell (Daily Telegraph [December 21, 1972]), and Colin Wilson (Books and Bookmen [January 1973]: "A really scholarly book . . . a model of how such a book should be written,' and BritishBook News [May 19731: 'learned, original and exciting"). Among the historiansof science and philosophy there was less unanimity:Charles G. Nauert noted that much of the evidence was vague or nonexistentbut found it "a significant contributionto the world of learning" (Renaissance Quarterlv 28 [1975]: 366-67); C. A. Ronan, while pointingout that the new experimentalscience of the Royal Society was "something fromthe mystical-magical Rosicrucian approach," declared it "another quite different importantcontributionto our understandingof Renaissance thinking" (Annals of Science 31 [1974]: 85-86). Less impressed were P. F. Corbin in Modern Language 69 ReviewR (January 1974): 149-51: "Though there is much in her thesis which is stimulatingit cannot be accepted as proven," the evidence is "circumstantialor speculative," "inconclusive," and "a sense of context" is often lacking; and the anonymous reviewerin the Times LiterarySupplement of April 20, 1973 who pointed out some crucial weaknesses in the historical sections: "A major disappointment, lacking the solid basis of research normallyassociated with its author . . . in some

[Journal of Modern Historyv (June 1979): 287-3161 51 1979 by The Universityof Chicago. 0022-2801/79/5102-0033$02.28

288

Review Article

genesisof the Rosicrucian its "movement,"' its influence, significance for and the development science in particular. the Renaissancein general, of of Almost important theconclusions Yates's book are themethods as as by in whichevidenceis treated orderto producethese conclusions. is The Rosicrucianmovement an extraordinary episode in the troubled history the earlyseventeenth of We such a century. do not knowwhether "fraternity" ever existed,and Yates is carefulto say thatshe does not know either(pp. xiv, 206-7). Our only evidencefor its composition is first being containedin two anonymous literary, pamphlets publishedat Cassel in 1614 and 1615. These are rather brief the productions, first (or Fama, to use Yates's short to title)amounting fourteen pages in a modern translation 238-51),thesecond(or Confessio) amiounting ninepages to (pp. (pp. 251-60). They describethe foundation constitution a groupof and of initiates who devotetheir lives to the studyof the occultand to the twin ends of praisingGod and helpingmankind. They practicealchemybut denouncefalse alchemists who are greedyand fraudulent. bitterly They practicemedicine and criticize those doctorswho accept moneyfortheir work.Theirfraternityidealistic, is Theirdoctrine philanthropic. belongsto the broad stream of Renaissance occultism, acknowledging Eastern influences in (and, nearer hand,finding kindred at a spirit Paracelsus).Their founder said to have "constructed microcosm is in a corresponding all motions the macrocosm"(whatever to thatmeans) (p. 248), theyuse the in themillennium confidence their that doctrine be justified. will Everypoint in theirmanifestos could be illustrated many times over fromseveral No centuries the occulttradition. one familiar of withthisliterature could otherthana fairly describetheirdoctrine anything as ordinary, harmless, of unobjectionable adaptation familiar materials. in Yates's handsthey Yet of become the exemplars a dynamic intellectual movement whichtypifies "the Renaissancemind" and has incalculable on influence such men as
differences between Andreae and Dee and between Comenius theRosicrucians and a pointmadeagainby the Dee scholar,C. H. Josten, who declaredthat"thereis no traceofanyfiliation thecontents thetwoworks"(Andreae's of of Chyinical Wedding and Dee's Monas Hieroglyphica, "whichas yetdefies complete certain and interpretation'), concluding with hopethat"nobodywilltake Dr. Yates's conjectures the for facts" (Ambix [1973]:132-33).CharlesWebster 20 briefly notedthat"the evidence remains totally unconvincing," connections the argued "contestable questionare ... able," while the work of Andreae Comenius,and Bacon is quite remotefrom Rosicrucianism, which "itself never occupied more than the extremefringe of Europeanthought," in England"was nevermorethanan eccentric periphand and eral phenomenon' (English Historical Review89 [April1974]:434-35).A. J. Turner (British Journa the History Science 6 [1972-73]: lfor of 442-44)found book "not the since despitemuchspeculation "the evidencefails too often" veryconvincing," especiallyfor the claims of influence Dee on Khunrath by and on the whole ",movement." Turnerremains"unconvinced thatthe Rosicrucian manifestos were morethana literary anything exercisein a mystical genre,"drawing the occult on tradition, 'which gave expression an idealistic fantastic to and programme political of wish-fulfillment, entirely lacking basis in political a reality." mysticalgeometryof the Cabbalist traditions,are adept in magic, and await

respects seriously misleading' 445-46). He also insistedon the fundamental (pp.

Review Article 289

Francis Bacon, Comenius, Descartes, Kepler, Newton, and the whole of the Royal Society. It becomes "a whole culture," whose ruthless suppression by the forces of orthodoxymarks a tragicclosure of a movementwhose How is potentialcan only be described as the equal of the Enlightenment. this imposing picture built up? whether In part it is a triumphof rhetoric. Yates invests all her writing, historical description or philosophical analysis, with an excitement which will take many readers along with it. Prague under Rudolph II was "a for excitingin its potentiality new develmeltingpot of ideas, mysteriously opments" (p. 17); Bohemia is a world "seething with strangeexcitements"' (p. 28); "The strangelyexciting suggestion" is that John Dee inspired "the Rosicrucian movement" (p. 40); intense excitement" was "aroused by the Fama" (p. 45); the mechanical statues at Heidelberg were "enough to excite amazement" (p. 59). Around Frederick "deep currentswere swirling," while "all the mysterious movements of former years . . . were gathered to a head" in the propaganda for him (p. 90). John Dee had a ''strange, explosive, religious mission" in Bohemia, perhaps affected by "the new Lurianic Cabala which was capable of exciting remarkable phenomena of a religious nature" (p. 228). And so on. The rhetoric of excitement,though, will not affect the reader if he is unsatisfiedby the argumentand its serious claims for the importance and significanceof all these phenomena. Here we must record a defeat of logic, demonstratedin a numberof ways. Yates states that her book attempts "to provide a historiand it is as a historicalwork that I for cal framework this line of thinking, would wish it to be judged" (p. 221; cf. pp. xiii, 201). As such, then, it must be judged. If the historianhas a prime concern it must be with the meaning ot his documents. In addition to the normal respect for semantics he must faithfully reconstructthe context in which a particular judgment is made. A of simple example of both processes is Yates's treatment Johann Valentin Andreae and his use of the word ludibriurn. Andreae (born 1586) was a who published anonymouslyin 1616 a Lutheran pastor from Wuirttemberg work called ChymischeHochzeit ChristianiRosencreutz. Anno 1459 (Strasburg). Yates shows that it is based on the age-old alchemical use of mariiage as a symbolfor the chemical process and alludes to the Rosicrucians insofar as the name of its chiefcharacter is ChristianRosencreutz, who experiences a religiousvision involvinga banquet, a castle presided over by a King and read her Queen, with various mysticalexperiences (pp. 60-64). When I first book I was skeptical of Yates's claim that this work "ranks almost as a thirdRosicrucian manifesto" (p. 50). By page 65 this claim has become that it is but another version of the allegories of the Fama and the Confessio." (based on the allegorical structure To me it seemed to have a quite different six days of Creation) and to be a form of glamorous rhapsody about alchemy (in a chivalric setting)which makes opportunisticuse of the recent Rosicrucian publications. The publication shortlyafterwardof an authoritative two-volume study of Andreae by J. W. Montgomeryconfirmedthat skepticism was the right response.3 Montgomery adds to his previous
3 JohnWarwickMontgomery, Cross and Crucible.Johann ValentinAntdreae 2 (1586-1654).Phoenixof the Theologians, vols. (The Hague, 1973),vol. 1. Anvol. 2, and and dreae's Life, World-View, RelationswithRosicrucianism Alchemy,

290

Review Article

studiesof sixteenth- seventeenth-century and Lutheranism detailedbioga and manuscript raphyof Andreaefrompublished sources, a studyof his scientific and religiousattitudes, commented a editionof the Chvmische of and Hochzeit, and a fullyannotatedbibliography Andreae, primary secondary.The rangeand accuracyof his scholarship impressive, is not of and confusions the French least in the way he exposes the inaccuracies historian Rosicrucianism, of Paul Arnold, whomYates reliesso heavily on and uncritically. The significance Montgomery's of book, briefly, its demonstration is that of Andreae was "thechief orthodox opponent the Rosicrucian ideology (not a supporter it,pace mostinterpreters)" ix). Montgomery of (p. showsthat of there is no evidence for Andreae's authorship the two Rosicrucian evidenceof his lifelong to and pamphlets overwhelming antipathy cabalism, of astrology, magic,and otherforms the occult. Andreaewas an orthodox Lutheran pastorand theologian who triedto puthis ideals intopractice by organizing Christian societies,notedfortheirseriousdiscussionand their practical spirit mutual of variouspamphlets aid, and by writing a advocating of Christian reform society. His Christianopolis (1619) is a utopia which bent and his completeaccepperfectly expressesAndreae's humanitarian tance of the "fundamental theological approach of confessional Lutheranism" 127). The religiousframework centralto Andreae; is (p. work" (p. 55). Although some indeed,he "never wrotea non-theological friends Andreaehad occultleanings, of the Montgomery easilydemolishes "Guilt by Association"techniqueused to align Andreaewiththe occult through them. Yet Andreaedid publishin 1616 the ChvmicalWedding, whichthe in main characteris ChristianRosencreutz, the supposed founderof the Rosicrucian sect. The workitselfhas veryslenderparallelswiththe Rosicrucianliterature (pp. 171-72) and substantial divergences (pp. 225-30)differences fundamental one criticconcludedthatits purposewas so that "to ridiculethe Rosicrucian himself notes that myth,"and Montgomery some aspects of it "seem in partto be a directslap" at the Rosicrucian
"The Chvmische a Hochzeit,"withNotes and Commentary," giving barelylegible facsimile the 1690English of translation Ezechiel Foxcroft with detailed commenby tary.Cross-reference between Montgomery's and Yates's can be veryilluminatbook ing. Thus Yates attempts link Andreaewithanother to occultist, Simon Studion, author a complex of thatAndreae astrologico-chiliastic Naometria.She writes work, it for "undoubtedly knewtheNaometria he mentions in his workTurris Babel," but reports onlythat"Andreaeis veryobscurein whathe says aboutthe prophecies of whichhe linkswiththoseofthe AbbotJoachim, Brigid, Naometria, St. Lichtenberg, Paracelsus, illuminati" 50). This of courseimplies Postel,and other (p. thatAndreae is perhapssympathetic, perhapsaffected the same mentality, is certainly by but not hostile.If one turns Montgomery's to one finds clear accountof a book, however, whichis shown to belongto the same occult tradition Rosias Naometrianism, of crucianism (Montgomery, 202-6), but also a summary Andreae's written pp. judgment this system,which is "unqualifiedly on negative"in his drama Turbo in (1616-the yearof his Chymical are As Wedding), whichitsfollowers lampooned. for Turris to beingobscure,the fifth dialogueis devotedexpressly Babel, farfrom Naometrianism, whoseastrological cabalistic and are "I pretensions dismissed: would to denynothing heaven,but I am enraged you who reads lies intothe heavens" at (Montgomery, 206-7). Yates seems reluctant give herreaders truth pp. to the about criticism the occult. of

Review Article

291

manifestos 227). Why,then,did Andreaetake over the name Rosen(p. his creutz and eveninclude putative dateof birth, 1378,in a cryptogram (pp. answeris thathe was attempting supplant to 171-72)? Montgomery's the of occultnature the Rosicrucian with cabalismanifestos, their"anti-papal, chiliasm"(p. 169),by a Christian allegory. Rosencreutz is tic, astrological no longer Mage who abandonshis pilgrimage the birthplace Chrisa to of acquiressecretknowledge from East withwhichhe establishes the tianity, an esotericfraternity the West whichawaitsthe apocalyptic of the in end world. Now he is a 'Christian Everyman' who receives God's grace of "through invitation attendthe spiritual the to marriage Christand the that"'Andreae Church"(p. 228). Montgomery madeRosencreutz concludes the hero of the HoIchzeit simply satirizethe Rosicrucian not to but myth, If thatwas his goal it has to be recorded thatAndreaefailed creating confusion centuries. for his different the from Although workis recognizably Rosicrucian manifestosits firstreaderssoon assimilated to them,it it becamethesourceof further and Rosicrucian speculations, as earlyas 1699 Andreaewas thought be theauthor all three.Realization to of thathis plan had backfired came bitterly Andreae,who in his autobiographical to vita (written the end of his lifebut not published at until1799)expressedhis of disgustthat it had proved "productive a brood of monstrosities: a which you maywonder was evaluated interpreted subtle ludibrium, and with ingenuity somepeople,foolishly by in of enough, demonstration theinanity of the curious' (p. 37). Montgomery translates the word Iadibrium as A. ""fantasy," following E. Waite.4It is a wordwhichrecursin Andreae's in to and writings, his references the Rosicruciansall of whichare scornful In dismissive. 1617 Andreaepublished satirical a dialogue,Menippus(enthesocial reforms promised the Rosicrucians by have notmaterialized. One of the speakers asks, "Do you believe that there really are some members-or is the whole thinga Iudibriam the part of curiosityon mongers?"The otherrepliesthathe does not know,but regrets thatso But many peoplehave suffered "through unrealized hopes of membership."" perhapstheydeservedto, says the first some speaker, 'fortheypreferred artificial strange and thanthesimple wayrather wayof Christ,' whocan be reached "by prayers,tears, fasting, exercises" (pp. zeal, and spiritual 181-82). Againstthis spuriousand corrupt proposalAndreaewrotean Invitatio Fraternatis in in Christi 1617-18whichhe described his autobiography as being expressly "ludibrio illi RosencruIcianoopposita,' and whichoffers insteada Christian brotherhood whichincludescare of the neighbor, the and humanitarian of sharing wealth, other practical suggestions 184-85). (pp. The following year AndreaepublishedTirrisBabel (1619) whichhas the "'siveJudiciorum Fraternitate stibtitle de Rosacae CrucisChaos." Whereas theRosicrucians claimed had thatthe"generalreformation' wouldcometo all menregardless language Andreaesays thatthe effect theirwork of of has been to increasechaos. At theend ' Fama' is made to admitthatall her wondrousclaims are worthless (p. 186). Only a year later, in De
4 See A. E. Waite, The Brotherhood the Rosy Cross (London, 1924) and (f comments 552). (p. Montgomery's

to primarily christiatize the mvth' (p. 228).

that larged in 1618), which recorded a widespread feelingof disappointment

292

Review Article

occultism general, in syntagma (1620), Andreaeattacked curiositas pernicie of the concluding that "unless I am mistaken, ludibrium the Rosicrucian is fraternity the heart and scandal of occultismin our time" (p. 186). (ca. 1623),recordto Andreaereturned theattackin a dialogue,Theophilus millennium not take did felt ing the disappointment whenthe Rosicrucian place (ibid.). is Andreae's polemicagainst Rosicrucianism the productof a serious that"the idea of a Christian sense of outrage Society" had been Christian's thattheyexisted. assuming by appropriated a groupof charlatans-always concretemodels of what such a He attackedtheirscheme and offered Societatisimago, discovered G. H. by societyshouldbe. The Christianae time in 1954,5describesa in Turnbull 1944 and publishedfor the first whichhas some simireformed religion learnedsocietybased on Lutheran some to the Royal Society,and belongsto to larities Bacon's New Atlantis, in an interest learnedacademieswhichwas widespread-evenJohnEvelyn and for wishedto founda lay monastery retirement study.6Andreaenot in only drew the model but actuallyestablisheda Societas Christiana measureto Rosicrucianism. as 1618-19,again explicitly a counteractive a in his to Writing Duke Augustus 1642he described efforts found society to "'quam fictitiae ludibrio Rosicruciae (p. indigno opponeremus" Fraternitatis to 213), and writing Comeniusin 1629he recordshow "post famaevanae ante in Fraternitatis Roseae] ludibrium hoc coivimus, [Comeniusspecifies: . CHRISTUM loco suo restituere circiter. . . Scopus fuit, octennium (p. 214). and of One of thestriking qualitiesof Andreae'slifeis thefusion theory He of practice, the interconnection beliefsand theirrealization. not only in dimensions his societybut he gave it lasting realizedan ideal Christian enough,is closed to ""imwhich,again explicitly utopia,Christianopolis, Brothers the Rose Cross" butis open of call postors whofalsely themselves (p. to the true Rosicrucians, Christians 240). In the namely,practicing Wilhelm Wense,who had to preface thatworkAndreaepraisedhis friend and deceivedby theFama and had asked, "'If these seen people confused reforms seem proper,whydo we not trythemourselves?"In his funeral sermonfor Wense in 1642 Andreae recordedthat he had strivenfor fraterdeceitful (fictitia) in improvement society"at a timewhena certain nity" had imposeditselfupon gullibleminds(pp. 214-15). history a man that of It is one of thegreatparadoxes seventeenth-century fableand throughout life,"laughedat the Rosicrucian his who consistently, (p. the as he combated little curiosity-brothers," putit in his autobiography withtheir brush.As we have seen, Andreae 179),shouldhave been tarred of twice dismissesthemas fictitiaand four times as the proponents a the the wordas "deceitful," second ludibrium. Montgomery translates first as "fantasy," and arguesthatAndreaeregarded Rosicrucianism "fantasas a tic," not as a "jest." Yet why did he call his own ChvmicalWedding ludibrium? Montgomery argues that Andreae "can use the termeither
5 See G. H. Turnbull, Valentin Andreaes SocietasChristiana," "Johann ZeitschriUt Philologie73 (1954): 407-32; 74 (1955): 151-85. fur deutsche 6 See JohnEvelyn, letterto RobertBoyle, dated September 1659, in The 3, of CompleteWorks the RightHonourableRobertBovle, 5 vols. (London. 1744), 5:397-99.

Review Article

293

positivelyor negatively-positively in relationto the Hochzeit, negativelyin referenceto the Rosicrucians" (p. 37, n.). This, I feel, stretchescredibility. All of Andreae's uses of the word seem to me pejorative: his account of the Hochzeit, which had survived even thoughother works of his had perished (as if to say that this of all should have survived!) and had spawned a brood of monstrous and bizarre interpretations,is not, I think, "positive": "Superfuerunt e contra Nuptiae Chymicae, cum monstrorumfoecundo foetu, ludibrium,quod mireris a nonnullis aestimatum et subtili indagine explicatum, plane futile et quod inanitatemcuriosorum prodat" (p. 37). It may be possible to read this as modesty,or self-deprecation, ratherthan as a thoroughgoing recantation,but I find it hard to overlook a rather rueful tone, as if in recognitionof the responsibilityof this work, and his own misguidedattemptto out-trump the Rosicrucians by appropriating the name of theirhero, forgivingfurther to a movementwhich he had spent much life of his life tryingto stamp out. Given that the word ludibrium has unusual importance in Andreae's attitude to Rosicrucianism, it is surprisingthat neither Montgomery nor Yates should give the reader any wider linguisticcontext. Looking it up in Lewis and Short's Latin dictionary we find it glossed as "a mockery, derision, wantonness" (cf. Lucr. 2.47; Livy 24.4.2; 30.30; Suet. Vit. 17). By transferenceit means "A: A laughing-stock,butt, jest, sport" (cf. Livy 1.56.9; Hor. 1.14.15; Quint. 6.1.45) and "B: A scoff, jest, sport . . . standingjest." A standard Renaissance dictionary(Thesaurus . . . post Ro. Stephani et aliorum . . . a Io. Mathia Gesnero . . . Lipsiae MDCCXLIX) definesIlidibriu,n "Res vana et deridenda,certa talis, qua alius ludit," and as gives some interestingreferences from Virgil (Aen. 6.75: r-apidisludibria i,entis,"the sport of rushingwinds") and Quintilian(1.6.32:foedissima . . . ludibria, "the most hideous absurdities" as the Loeb translationrendersit). At whatever level, then, the word had pejorative connotations,and Yates's firstreference to Andreae's ludibrium, in his judgment of his Chy mical Wedding, glosses it as "a fiction,or a jest, of littleworth" (p. 31). But in other places in her book the word's clearly pejorative meaning is ignored. On page 84 it is identified with a "serious game," on page 95 it is a "joke," and on pages 125 and 177 it is equated with "fiction,parable"; on page 129 it glosses the word "merrily," on page 140 it is a "play scene," on page 142 a "comedy," on page 144 it is glossed as "mystical joke," and a "myth." Evidentlyit has become for Yates a flexibleconcept which can be attached to the Rosy Cross fraternity any convenientpoint-indeed in the index it at is even described as "word used of the Rosicrucian movement" (p. 265). Both the contexts in Andreae's writingsand the dictionaryevidence would lead one to agree with Charles Webster that the phrases involvingludibrium are "derisive terms."'7 The importance of determiningthe meaning of this word is that it expresses Andreae's attitudeto Rosicrucianism. For Yates it would clearly not do if what she presents as a major movementin European historywere dismissed as a joke or laughingstock.In order to rehabilitatethe word, and justifyher thesis, she is forced to distort Andreae's actual relation to this "furore." By a series of rhetoricalmaneuvers she gives the impressionthat

Comeniana (1970): 149; quotedby Yates, p. 50. 26

CharlesWebster, and the Great Reformation," Acta 'Macaria: Samuel Hartlib

294

Reviewt, Article

calls the "movement" he was closelyconnected withwhatshe repeatedly (since thereis no evidence of any singleauthor,let alone two, one can hardlygive it the cohesive and organizedstatusof a 'movement'). To the Chvmical Weddingto the Rosicrucian begin with she appropriates 'manifestos": "It is the thirditem in the series which launched the for furore. The seriescame out annually threeyears,theFama Rosicrucian in in 1614,the Confessioin 1615,the Wedding 1616" (p. 60). The factthat Andreae's work followedthe othertwo does not make it a series, the productof conscious planning. But at least this gets the sequence right, relatedto whichshe elsewhere inverts: "The manifestoes undoubtedly are not the ChemicalWedding, though theyare probably by Andreae"(p. 30). alludes to the No, the relationship the otherway round,the Wedding is not not manifestos, theyto it; and theyare not "probably,"but certainly, as of by Andreae.On the nextpage Andreaeis described the "propagator between Wedding the 'Rosicrucian' fantasies" 31); thepatent (p. differences and the manifestos ignored, are Andreaeis said to have given "romantic of to (p. allegorical expression thethemes themanifestos" 39), and his work is finally "the totally assimilated the othertwo (pp. 50, 65), representing to climaxof the Rosencreutz myth"(p. 69). As Yates returns Andreae duringthe course of her wide-ranging to evidenceforhis narrative, doubtsor reservations any about the historical behindthe scenes of participation sweptaway. "Andreae was certainly are in works" thewholemovement whichhe frequently to refers his numerous the (p. 50; note that nothing said of the tone of these references); is and "its 'Rosicrucianmovement" connected was withthe ElectorPalatine, the "may moving spirit"was Andreae(p. 54). Though Fama and Confessio not be written the same hand as the Wedding''-thelaws of historical by the following veracity compel that qualification seem also to permit but in groundless supposition-'the plan of theallegories all threeworksbears in out the stampof mindsworking concert, benton sending intothe world of theirmyth Christian Rosencreutz"(p. 65). The pictureis beingbuilt expressing a let ourselves-ofa groupof occultists up-a fantasy, us remind is not can sharedprogram. factthattheauthorship multiple, single, now The The responseto Rosito activity. be subtlyrestated suggestcollaborative "was chiefly reply theFama and theConfesin to Yates writes, crucianism, to sio, the authorsof which,thoughobviouslybelonging the school of Rosencreutz mythology propagated Andreaein the Chemical Wedding by theseworkshas been invertedj, between may [noteagain how the relation I any theories have been otherthanAndreaehimself. do not put forward withAndreae of who mayhave co-operated abouttheidentities thewriters over the Rosencreutz propaganda"(p. 91). But that does not stop her or such as Jungius JanusGruter (who, recording otherpeople's candidates, she suggests."mightbe watchedforclues"), howevertenuousor linsubstantiatable are. these suggestions So we read thatAndreaeis "the person who knew mostabout the Rosicrucian he manifestoes," "and his circle" of beingin contact, open or secret,withmostof theilluininati Europe(p. 137). This whole account of Andreae as the movingspiritbehind Rosiis crucianism based on no historical evidenceof any kindotherthan his for a persona in the unhappyuse of the name ChristianRosencreutz Not onlyis thereno evidenceforit, but againstit we Chmnzical Wedding.

Review Article

295

How by of criticisms Rosicrucianism Andreaehimself. have manyexplicit it: She reinterprets thewordludibrium, does Yates deal withthisevidence? whichincludes Mythology) is forinstance, used in a work(the Christian so to references the theater, thatthisevidence 'mustbe taken favorable but mustthenbe not derogatory a intoaccount" and the wordludibrium speciousmisuseof term praise(pp. 140ff.).That seemsa self-evidently of context.The fact is that Andreae here dismissedthe R. C. linguistic and foolishpeople" and frivolous as Brothers "mere players,comedians, throughout comedies as fraternity one that"plays, their Europe,"references also Yates's reinterpretation takestheform whichcan onlybe denigratory. excerptfromAndreae and then in commenting, of givinga substantial aspect.Thus tone attention to thederogatory butto someother not drawing noon the attackby Truthin the Christian Mythology the ' new-fangled stage" the thathad been occupying "literary tions' of the Rosicrucians . conjecproducing "altercations, . vague hintsand malicious recently, thatI maynot be "utterly, herself whichshe has withdrawn tures" from condema in involved so dubiousand slippery concern-an unequivocally how muchAndreae showing passage-is takenby Yates as merely natory "as of valuable,"and thathe only approved the theater good and morally play scene (p. 143). Rosicrucian with tampering the original disliked others to That seems to me a disingenuous comment, say the least. of The mostdrasticof her reinterpretationsthe AndreaeevidenceconthatAndreaehad earlierapYates suggests chronology. cernsa putative around of a but of proved theRosicrucians experienced suddenchange heart welcomed"now "seems to be whichhe had first ardently 1617."The myth In by disparaged him as a vain 'ludibrium.' its place, he now urgedthe Societies' . . . to be inspired formation 'Christian of Unions, or 'Christian in manifestoes" (p. to by aimsverysimilar thoseexpressed the Rosicrucian here. First,thereis no evidence converge 140). Several misinterpretations second, welcomed" the Rosicrucians; that Andreae had ever "ardently in was Wedding published Yates does notremind thatsincetheChymical us hea third, did Rosicrucianism; 1616it is barely yearlaterthathe is rejecting to societies as an alternative Rosicrucianism-as not turn to Christian humanitarianism Christian has Montgomery shown,therewas a consistent socithe his throughout life; and fourth, purposesof Andreae'sChristian It to eties were not at all similar those of the Rosicrucians. is deceptive, anxiousaboutthe "extremely then,to speak of Andreaein 1617beconming (p. whichhe had earliersupported 143),and it is course" of a movement ones. into his references laudatory to even moredeceptive turn peJorative of instance thistacticoccursin Yates's treatment of The mostextreme scientific that Christian utopia in the prefaceto which Christianopolis, as the Andreaedismissed R. C. Fraternity "a joke" thathad nevertheless amongthe learned"and 'an amongmen . . . conflict produced 'confusion and swindlers,"createdby "some of unrestand commotion impostors onlyin theeyes of society therereallyis such a one), hazy,omniscient (if who put theirown "foolish ceremonies"above its own boastfulness," and "Him whois himself Way theTruth, theLife" (pp. 145-46).From the concluYates extracts singleand positive a thisunambiguous denunciation has had at least thisgood sion, that "accordingto Andreae,the furore (p. and realizethe need forreform" thatit has made people think result, he fliesin thefaceoftheevidence, thinks thatconclusion 146). If thereader

296

Review Article

will be moreamazed when Yates, havingclaimedthatAndreae'sworkis inspired "Hermetic-Cabalist, by magico-scientific" trends initiated Dee, by Fludd,and Campanella, concludesthat"Andreae is, then,repeating a in disguisedformin Christianopolis secret themesof the Rosicrucian the manifestos and of his own Chemical Wedding.He disguises it by his apparent of rejection Rosicrucians, onlyin the preface not [thepassagejust quoted]butalso in thetextof thatwork." She is referring the sequence to wheretheguardat the easterngate refuses to low classes of entry certain people, including and "impostors "stage-players" who falselycall themselvesthebrothers the Rosicrucians." of Again,an unequivocal of rejection this fantasy, line with Andreae's lifelong in pronouncements. Miss But Yates can cope: "We have to move carefully here because this is an Andreaenjoke. It is the false R. C. Brothers who are excluded from Christianopolis, thetrueones" (p. 150). Quite so . . . and by the same not token,the putative changeof attitude was also illusory.It transpires that Andreaewas working Rosicrucianism the time,as a kindof double for all agent. II The sequencediscussing Andreaeis typical a rather of disturbing aspectof Yates's work-hertreatment critics Rosicrucianism the occult,or of of (or magic generally). Either she dismissesthese criticsby castingthem as violentenemiesor terrified neuroticsor, as here, she firstignoresthe then criticism, givesa "neutral"summary theattack,and finally of takesit merely proofthata seriousdiscussionwas goingon. Thus a series of as rathercaustic satires on Frederickof the Palatinatefor his presumed associationswiththe Rosicrucians (pp. 55 ff.) are takenin a completely solemn manner, an actual account of the Fraternity's as doctrines.To this perform maneuver has had to empty she the satiresof theirmockery and almostinvert them intopanegyrics. she putsit herself, "satirical As the and contemptuous account" of the movement these documents, in "if divestedof the satirical tone and read in a positive sense, gives an impression Frederick a religious reforming of as and leaderwhich in well fits with visionary reforming of the Rosicrucian the and tone manifestos" 58; (p. myitalics).One does nothave to be a literary critic perceive to thatthisis an illicit maneuver: parodies "A B's extravagant claims:remove parody the and you have an accurateaccountof B." But if you "remove" the satire froma satire,what is left?Later in the century, this time in England, another satiric attackon the Rosicrucians appeared, pamphlet a dated 1676, fromwhich Yates quotes this announcement: "To give notice,that the ModernGreen-ribbon'd Caball, together withthe Ancient Brotherhood of the Rosy Cross; the Hermetick Adepti and the companyof Accepted Masons intend to dine together the 31 of November all on next. . . . [A comicmenuis thendescribed and thosewho think goingare advisedto of wear spectacles]'For otherwise'tis thought the Said Societies will (as hitherto) maketheirAppearanceInvisible'" (p. 211). The jest in grouping all theseinvisible secretsocietiestogether plain,but perhapsonly Yates is could takeit as seriousevidencethat"a wholegroupof esotericsocieties" were regarded havingsomething common. as in The issue is notas trivial thatlast examplemight as suggest.It has long

Review Article 297 beenknown thatSir Isaac Newtonwas extremely in interested alchemy, but the significance thisinterest of has-of course-been interpreted variously. To understand we wouldneed to knowfarmorethanhas yetbeen made it clearof Newton'sattitude toward thatactivity. Happily,Newtonhas leftus his opinionof the Rosicrucians his copy of Vaughan'stranslation The in of Fame and Confessionof the Fraternity R.C. (1652), now in the Yale Library. Newtonhas copiedintothisbook someother information aboutthe Fraternity ends his notewiththefollowing and brusqueremark: "This was the history thatimposture," which,however, of on Miss Yates comments: "This, however, need notnecessarily imply it contempt; couldmerely mean thatNewtonknewthatthe Rosencreutz was a myth, ludibrium" story a (p. 200). Thereis a curiouscombination qualities Yates. She is sufficiently of in widelyread as a scholarto know of this note; she has the integrity to publish, and notto suppressit; yet she finally interprets in thisperverse it manner, the oppositeof its declaredmeaning, to and goes on to a further rash of speculation (pp. 201-2). The dangerof thisapproachto history is thatall thepositions and polarities be reversed: can blackbecomeswhiteif we divestit of the satire,wordsdo not meanwhattheyappearto mean. If cardied withsufficient out thiswouldproducea massivefalsification energy of the evidence;and Yates's book is not without tracesof thiseffect. As a final exampleofthisinversion negative of criticism theclaimfor into theexistence positive of "recognition" might we consider stated the opinion of Comenius.As we have seen withAndreae,one reaction the Rosicruto cians was of seriousdisappointment: despitetheadmirable Christian philanthropy themanifestos millennium notarrived, of the had indeednothing had changed.The R. C. Brothers failedto appear. In The Labyrinth the had of World and theParadise of theHeart (written 1623,printed 1631)Comenius records appearance a manin a marketplace the of calling peopletogether the and describing accomplishments a newgroupof sevenmenwhoknow the of all thesecrets nature can overcome human of and all limitations. people The are delighted think to thattheycould now "without error, knoweverything . . . liveforseveralhundred yearswithout sickness grey and hair, they if only wished it" (p. 163). Hopes grow enormously and each man desires to partake,each writeshis petition be receivedinto the group,but each to petition "was returned without answer;and their an joyful hope was turned to grief"(ibid.). The disappointment so greatthatmen"ran from was one region theearth another, of to lamenting misfortune they their that couldnot findthese happymen" (p. 164). But thenanother trumpet called,another manappeared,selling wares his from Rosicrucians: the "Now everything was sold was wrappedup in that boxes thatwerepainted and had variouspretty inscriptions, as Portae such Sapientiae; Fortalitium; Gymnasium Bonum Macro-microUniversitatis; cosmicon;Harmonia utriusque Cosmi; Christiano-Cabalisticum" (ibid.), and so on. All who purchasedwere forbidden open theirboxes because to otherwise "secret wisdom" in it "would evaporateand vanish." But the some mendid, and "finding themquiteempty, showedthisto others."All, incensed, cried "Fraud!" to the salesman,who managedto calm themby saying that the magic objects were really there but that "they were invisible all but 'Filiae scientiae'(thatis, the sons of science)" . . . (p. to 164).The fussdied down,thesalesmanwentaway,and thepeoplewho had soughtthese mysteries were "sittingin cornerswith locked mouths."

298

Review Article

"Eitherthey all narrating this,drawstwo conclusions: Comenius'spilgrim, (as to had been admitted the mysteries some believedof them),and were obligedto carryout theiroath of silence,or (as it seemed to me, looking any spectacles) they were ashamed of theirhopes and ot their without asks his guide whether uselesslyexpendedlabour" (p. 165). The pilgrim answer will come of all theirhopes and receivesthe unsatisfying nothing thesemenknow will something come ifone waits,forperhaps thatperhaps refuses "continuegaping to the timewhenit will happen.But the pilgrim here" since he does not know "of a singleexampleof one [man] who succeeded": "Let us proceedhence." this of movements passage To thereaderwho knowsanything millenarian ring.Those who have faiththatthe timewill come can be has a familiar all thosewho do not believeare alwaystorn accepting difficulties; patient, held up by by the suspicionthat it is all a hoax, a case of "imposture has phrase-thatthe whole operation been credulity''-inBacon's striking Yates But by performed a mountebank. whatis Comenius'sown attitude? textsshowthat"the young allusionsto Rosicrucian arguesthatthe specific and in had evidently steepedhimself all thisliterature, had hoped Comenius (pp. 165-66).Yet it seemsto formuchfrom it," but was thendisappointed any sense that fromthe outside,without me thatthe passage is written of had ever been a would-bemember the "Comenius" (or the Narrator) group.Whatwe are givenis a view of othermen's hopes and credulities, but-it seems to the Pilgrim--ashamedof theirhopes possiblysatisfied, and of theiruselesslyexpendedlabour." I see no groundsfor Yates's that establishing of interpretation this passage as autobiography, literalist Comeniuswas a "follower" of Andreae; nor, even less, do I see that to the Comenius'sfinalvisionof angelsprotecting chosen has anything do angelology"(p. 169). What I do find Christian with "Hermetic-Cabalist is of in of striking a number thesecritiques Rosicrucianism notso muchthe at was such a fraternity all as thedeep there aboutwhether totalskepticism The had been fulfilled. composers that disappointment noneof its promises who occultists of the manifesto, then,coulldbe seen as genuineChristian who hopedforwhattheycouldnotachieve;or theycouldbe seen as frauds joke, perhapsforgain, perhapsforfun. Either a had perpetrated practical aboutthe and was disillusioning could onlyarouse suspicion way the result whole process. III Yates observesthatin due course the Roscrucian"furore"died out, and concernsEur-opean for she has an explanation it. Part of her explanation to and the ThirtyYears' War, on which I am not competent history of nature theoccultin this the but partconcerns general pronounce, another in againstit. In her earlieressay on hermeticism periodand the reactions mania.''8 "tendsto have persecution thatthe Rosicrucian scienceshe wrote Here she drops that objective account and claims, in effect,that the shortage draimatis of (whoeverhe was-there seems a distinct Rosicrucian
I F. Yates, "The Hennetic Science," inArt.Scienceand Tradition Renaissance in 1967),pp. 255-74: quote (Baltimore, Historv the Renaissance,ed. C. Singleton in from 263. p.

Review Article 299 personae)had everyreasonto feelpersecuted sincehe was in facthunted. We have heardof the conspiracy of theory history; is its first this cousin, the persecution theory.Here again Yates's rhetoric can be seen. She is continually a polarizing situation, rendering as a violent it imputing conflict, anger, She derived malice,to theparticipants. uses metaphors from warsto accountfor-dareone say, create?-an animus against theseforces what of she calls enlightenment. two successive sentencesshe uses the word In "enemies"("of themovement"') three times-a mansuchas Libaviusis not just a criticbut an enemy(p. 51). and thereare other"enemies" (e.g., p. 57). Mersennemakesan "onslaught' on the Rosicrucians, writesvarious "attacks" in which Casaubon's redatingof the Hermeticato a postChristian periodbecomes"a weapon" (p. 111). The Rosicrucian movement suffered "-total a collapse . . . withthe defeatat Praguein 1620" which "usheredin a greatsatiricalcampaign"againstit, "the campaign the of conquerors" (112). Such metaphors mayseemmerely signsof stalewriting, butthey have someseriousconsequences. One is thattheemotions stress of and combatare nourished beingindulged by and resultin a falsification of particular reactions.Thus the sustainedchallegeto the pseudo-sciences made by Mersenne presented violentterms, if Mersenne is in as were a totalitarian concerned withextermination policies. He is supposedto have said thatthe occult sciences 'must be eliminated, root and branch. . . . destroyed . . severely repressed" 112).To see howfalsethatpicture (p. is it is necessary read Mersenne. to This giving-in violenceis dangerous. a number places Yates puts to In of and accordmovement "witch-scares," side by side theRosicrucian which, ing to her (usingTrevor-Roper an authority) as in weregrowing size and ferocity during seventeenth the As will century. historians say (have said), that interpretationthewitch-scare extremely of is and doubtful, likeso much else in Yates's book it deals withthe contrary arguments the simple by device of neverconsidering them.But it is the connection all thiswith of Rosicrucianism that is especiallydisturbing. Chapter8 is called "The Rosicrucian in Scare in France." In twoworks published Francein 1623we find the allegations theRosicrucians in leaguewith devil(pp. 103ff.) that are and are themselves accusation witches.This is a familiar the against occult and magic and has been heard in sciences,notablyastrology, alchemy, But everyperiodsinceSaintAugustine. Yates arguesthatthisis peculiarly to fitting the mood of the 1620sand thatboththese pamphlets "are really the Thisclaimis madefour working a witch-craze" up against Rosicrucians. on times page 105;on thenextpage it is repeated as often is linked and just up to a German witch-craze withthe suggestion thatthiswas all perhaps to partof a conspiracy stampout "the Palatinate-Bohemian with movement its connections withthe Rosicrucian manifestos." Yates thenamplifies this claim by examining polemicsof Naude, and by the timeshe reaches the of she has createda picture a country Mersenne paralysed fear.Merby is senne'sreaction said to be "'influenced fear' (pp. 112). Further: 'The by of in failure the Rosicrucian movement Germany, suppression firce its by and by savagelyadversepropaganda,affected tone of thought the the in into earlyseventeenth century, injecting it an atmosphere fear' (p. 113; I of have italicized grossly the overstated emotive gestures). The R. C. Brothers "4could into sorcerers witch-hunters' 124). In the easily be turned by (p. and ".earlier moreterrible times' of theearlyseventeenth relations century

300

Review Article

betweensecret societies "would have been deadly serious and full of danger"(p. 217). The philosophers aboutto foundthe Royal Society'had to be very careful. Religious passions were still high, and a dreaded witch-scare might startat any moment stop their to efforts" (pp. 188-89). One can onlydeplorethiskindof writing. worksin muchthesame way It as the witch-craze itself:imputeviolence,oppressionand persecution to those who disagreewith you and you more or less give yourself carte blanchefordealingwiththemas you will. Yates is alwaysreadyto attack witch-hunters, in the process she runs the same danger:where the but witch-hunters created witchesto fulfill needed role, she is creating the witch-hunters. we actuallycompare her account of Mersenneor the If Royal Societywithher dark hints("the Societyhad manyenemiesin its earlieryears; its religious positionseemed unclear;witch-scares were not a altogether thing the past," p. 189) thenwe soon see wherethe truth of lies-the phantoms fadeaway, daylight returns. thispersecution But theory has another and perhaps even more serious consequence in that it psychologises critics themovement. thisclimate fearno one can all of In of be allowed to criticizean occult group because he has substantial and seriousintellectual objections its ideology its methods. criticizes to or He it because he is afraid it; or because he is afraidthatother of people willthlink he is a nmember it; or becauisehe is secretly of attracted it. to JamesI published book attacking a magic.In Yates's world thishas to be understood follows:"Jameswas desperately as afraid anything of savouring of magic;thiswas his mostdeep-seated neurosis.. . . Mersenne, too, was afraid.He had to protect own interest mathematics mechanics his in and from any taintof conjuring. This gave an asperity his anti-Renaissance to . movement . ." (p. 113). This typeof historiographypernicious is because it implies thatthecritic'sresponsewas notobjective personal, but inspired by irrational so motives, thathis judgments be takenless seriously-in can fact,he maynotreallvbe opposedto the movement all. . . . Yates even at uses thiscritical modelto accountforthemakeup the RoyalSociety.The of "Oxfordgroup," a numberof scientists who were among the founding members the Royal Society,are said to have been actingto dissociate of themselves'as completely possible fromimputation magic,still a as of dangerforscientific groups" (p. 187). For thisreason,she suggests, they intensify praiseof Bacon's experimental their method, "carefully" and dlraw away from occultmathematics Dee and Fludd (ibid.). The evidence the of for theirassociation with this tradition too superficial be worth is to discussing.9 Now comes the proof:"The way was now prepared the for of unleashing a witch-scare" (ibid.). This witch-scare-atermimplying, I take it, theactivehunting downand brutal examination personsthought of to be witches-consisted no moreviolenteventthanthe publication in in 1659 by Meric Casaubon of Dee's own SpiritualDiary, recording his "supposedconversations withangels." (Yates gives us no detailsof this work,but it wouldseem thatDee was the pathetic victim an unscrupuof lous imposture.) Casaubon's act in publishing book is now giventhe this crudestpersonalinterpretation: appears that Casaubon had personal 'It
9 Wilkins is supposed to have been "drawingquite openlyon the Dee-Fludd tradition his work 'mathematical for on magic'" (187): Yates cannotsee that one can borrow one idea from man without a taking the otherstoo. all

Review Article

301

reasons for the publication, throughwhich he hoped to establish his own way of writinghistory? Surely not. exploit it. Is this a fruitful The dramatizationand polarization of all the parties concerned creates an image which does not correspond to reality. This is a technique which defendersof the occult have used before. An example close at hand is the controversy between John Webster and Seth Ward which Miss Yates discusses (pp. 185 ff.). In his attack on the Universities, Academiarimn Exvamiieni (1654), which includes an apologia for the hermetic tradition, Webster denounces the "Schools" (i.e., Universities) for their attitude to the occult: "that noble, and almost divine Science of naturalMagick, is by them not only repudiated,abominated, and prosecuted with fireand sword, but also the very name seems nauseous and execrable unto them. .10 Webster was refuted, point by point, by Seth Ward (in his Vindicae Academiariun [1654], who on this point simplycalled his opponent's bluff: with Magickshouldnotonlybe prosecuted It is surely wonderful thing, natural that a this fire and sword, but that it should be execrable also. Yet notwithstanding my I lamentable persecution, dare adventure life,That M[r.] W. may passe safely it withthisExamen,carrying eitherin hispocket,or in his hand,or in his mouth of through both the Universities this Nation, the severall Colledges of Eaton, at he Winchester the Collegeof Physicians London,and all the rest,(provided &c. without dangerof Bell, any have a care how he passes by the Collegeat Bethlem) Booke, or Candle, Fire, Swordor Execration." Ward states that Webster's great authoritiesin magic are disregarded not "because of the name of Magick, much less for any conjuringthey teach, but for the cheat and imposturewhich they put upon us," unlike the true "natural magic' of science. He is willingto give Webster the benefitof the doubt as to whetherhe wrote maliciously,to whip up feeling,or just out of ignorance: "But M. Webster knew not this, 'tis plaine thereforehe is no freefrompersecution.''12 That is a clear and relaxed Witch, and is therefore of statement the tolerance to be expected in the 1650s: Miss Yates seems to me to have seriously misjudged the intellectual climate in France and England in the seventeenth century.
orthodoxy . . ." (p. 188). First create a witch-scare, then find someone to

IV
Given the paucity of the evidence, it will by now be clear that Yates has set task indeed: we only have two documents produced herselfa very difficult by or forthe Rosicrucians (whoever they were) and, as we have seen, much contemporarycomment expressed disappointmentat the nonmaterialization of either acts or persons. Yates does not seem daunted by the slenderness of the evidence. But the reader who approaches her book as a serious historicalstudywill be botheredby the amount of sheer speculation in it, by the uncriticalways in which the Rosicrucian movementis defined,and by " JohnWebster, Academiaruin E.xamen, 68. This and Seth Ward's replyare p. in reprinted facsimileby Allen G. Debus in his Science and Education in the
" Seth Ward, Vindicae Academiaruni, p. 34; SES, p. 228.

Seventeentlh Centurv. The Webster-WardDebate (London, 1970), hereaftercited as

is SES. This quotation on p. 150.

12

Ibid.. p. 35; SES, p. 229.

302

Review Article

claims for its influence. In many places argumentdisapthe indiscriminate words are "if," "may," "perhaps," pears altogether.Some of the recurrent "would have," "surely," "must have," a sequence which oftenculminates in the positive form "was." Of very many examples-the process is cumulative, as speculations at first tentative gradually harden and then speculations-I select but a few: "Inigo Jones, become the base for further if he came to Heidelberg . . . would surely have been interestedin . . . Salomon de Caus" (p. 12). "Surely the visit of the Garterembassy . . . must and exciting event for . . . Andreae?" have been an immenselystimulating (p. 33). (There is no evidence that either of these contacts took place.) Newton, in reading Ashmole's collection of alchemical tracts, "would have observed" a quotation fromthe Fama, "would have realized" this, "would have read" that piece of occult lore, and so on (p. 201), so it "'mightbe of use"' to approach Newton's alchemy from Rosicrucianism. Newton was interestedin God-evidently mathematics "had not entirelysatisfied him. [a Perhaps he entertained,or half-entertained telling qualification],a hope that the 'Rosicrucian' alchemical way throughnature mightlead him even higher." "At any rate," Newton drew on Ashmole, who drew on Maier, to who drew on Dee, so that it would "not be historicallyfantastic entertain as a hypothesisbasis for futurestudy, the possibility that a 'Rosicrucian' element, in some revised or changed form no doubt, might enter into Newton's interest in alchemy" (p. 202). Note that despite the tentative expressions, which I have italicized, all the suppositions and speculations are allowed to stand, oftenin the formof a rhetoricalquestion. Yates has a great penchant for the unanswered (and unanswerable) question-as she says herself at one point, "I am glad to leave this in the form of a question!" (p. 87). But it is not enough to ask questions that neitheryou nor anyone else can answer, and the cumulativeeffectof these speculations is to create a structurewhich has a charm and excitementof its own but which has lost contact withthe realm of the knowable or visible. In a passage such as the followingwe seem to be hoveringon the verge of the ineffable:'"We cannot reconstructthe vanished glories of Heidelberg, but the Chemical Wedding may give us some idea of what their aim may have been. to present the encyclopedia [of all knowledge] in symbolic form, and also, perhaps, to induce an atmosphere throughwhich occult relationshipsmight be perceived, and the hidden harmoniesof the universe mightbe heard" (p. which beset 68). As she writes in the preface, "The doubt and uncertainty the seeker afterthe invisible Red Cross Brothers are themselves the inevitable accompaniment of the search for the Invisible" (p. xiv). To returnto the question of evidence, we note at times the argumentex silentio. Libavius attacked Dee's monas hieroglyphicain 1594 and "would thus certainlyhave been able to recognize the influenceof Dee's Monas in him in his disapproval of the Rosicrucian manifestoes,which would confirm them" (p. 52). By the same token, then, we mighthave expected Libavius to say so. Elias Ashmole's commentthat Maier was not properlyrewarded for his scholarlylabors in England (slightthoughthey were) reveals a whole stratumof history(it begins, as do so many of these dangerous passages, with the words "the impression is gained"), in which Maier is the intermediarybetween England and Germany to establish an alchemical-political alliance." Unknown to him, Elias axis for "an Anglo-Palatinate-Bohemian to Ashmole is thus attempting "restore, or to contine" a huge international

Review Article 303 movement 196). I find evidenceforany of thesespeculations. (p. no Where evidenceactuallyexists it can be interpreted oppositeways: take for in instance significance dedicating book to JamesI. Fludd dedicated the of a his History the Macrocosmto JamesI in 1617,and this is seen as a of sinister attempt involveJamesin Hermetic to philosophy, "attempting by that dedication drawhimintothatpoint view,or to givetheimpression to of thathe is favourable it" (p. 78). Yet six pages laterCasaubon's dedicato tionof his attackon thepre-Christian of the Hermetica, date also dedicated to James, thusseemed"to putJamesintotheanti-Hermetic camp . . ." (p. 84). Kepler,too, "like Fludd''-but unlikeCasaubon,it seems-also dedicateda book to James 223). Such evidenceis of almostno value. Where (p. the evidenceis patently insufficient Yates sometimes in takes refuge the phrase"I believe" (e.g., pp. 51, 205), although some cases it is joinedat in once to the less certain"may" form(e.g., p. 83). Equally unsatisfactory her attempts claim that certainideas or are to attitudes peculiarto the Rosicrucian are In movement. these passages no is attempt madeto survey fieldin other the directions; thereis no independentevaluation thetopic,merely assertion one's own case and the of the of ignoring everyone of else's. In an alchemical workby Khunrath (1609)there is an illustration a cave through of which"adepts" are moving toward light: "This maywell have suggested imagery the Rosicrucian in Fama" (p. 38). But the metaphors darknessand light, of and indeedcaves, as imagesof knowledge ignorance, extremely and extremely and are old widelydisseminated.The Farna's call fora new scienceto breaktheinfluence Aristotle of and Galen in the universities describedby Yates as "a thrilling to is call attention, trumpet whichwas to echo throughout that call Germany, reverberating thencethrough Europe" (p. 42); it is in fact one of the stock in of positions thecriticism the Universities whichhad been madetimeand had the againin the centuries before Fama. Thattrumpet been blownsince Petrarch least. The emblemsusingChristian at imagesof dew descending of from heaven(p. 46) and of Jehovah's wingsas a symbol protection (pp. at without attempt an 55 ff.)are statedto be specifically Rosicrucian, any in and literature indeed intotheir tremendous dissemination emblem inquiry in Christian and literature severalcenturies beforehand. are not art for We in traditional natureof the symbolism givenany accountof the completely the Christian Wedding 60), nor are we told thatthe "emphasison the (p. practicalutility"of knowledge(p. 150) does not exist as a unique and but link and Bacon's New Atlantis theChristianopolis goes specific between the back to SaintAugustine, Bible, and the Stoics and was propagated by Humanists the throughout Renaissance, especiallyin the shape of the vita activa. A final, to and particularly striking, exampleof thistendency appropriate their and general familiar imagesto herspecific argument, cutting prehistory on is away (history rebornfrom 1613 on), occurs in her comment the to "familiar frontispiece" Sprat's Historvof the Royal Society.This plate withFrancisBacon on his showsa 'bust of CharlesII, the royalfounder, on the and left, William Brouncker, first president, his right."The engraving was made by WenceslausHollar, "a Bohemianartistwho leftBohemia, and whatYates calls presumably religious for reasons,in 1627" (myitalics), "One now "this history"makes her look morecloselyat the engraving: and noticesthe prominent wingedangel, blowinga blast on a trumpet,

304

Review Article

of crowning Charles II witha wreathof fameas the founder thisfamous this Society. Bacon is underthe angel's wing. One cannothelp noticing it to now,and wondering whether couldbe an allusion 'undertheshadowof Jehova'swings,'and whether trumpeting the angelwas meantto recallthe Fama, and those hopes of long ago, so long deferred and now, at last, doubts close is impressive, certain but realized"(pp. 191-92).The rhetorical remain.Greatsignificance attached thetrumpet to theangel,both is to and of whichfeature the Rosicrucian in manifestos. ordinary The reader,withthe the in of out theengraving front him,can at once perceive logicbehind "All angelsare winged;manyangelsblow trumpets; connection: ergo,any must a Rosicrucian winged angelwith trumpet a be one." Yet ifwe go on to as lookat theplate"withrenewed interest," Yates putsit-and she reprints it (pl. 30) thatwe maycheck herinterpretation-we noticetwo odd things. it it The angelis not blowing trumpet; is holding over its right its shoulder withitsright handwhileplacing wreath the withits left hand.And Bacon is for to feetin notunder wings;allowing perspective is aboutthree four its he front the angel's leftarm. These are, I know literal-minded of objections, in but of all sadlylacking the spirit ludibrium, after Yates has fewpeers in and her knowledge philosophy the visual arts in the Renaissance.One of thanthe senses, or can onlyconcludethatthe driveforproofis stronger that this is a fieldin which the historian can (must?)be satisfied with evidenceat a farlower level thanusuallyavailable. It does seem, indeed,that Yates has suppressed her criticalfaculties. she Admittedly is dealingwiththe occult. and not everyaspect of that is to But even aftermaking such activity susceptible rational explanation. there passagesin whichtheentire are absenceof any skepticism allowances abouttheoccult'smethods aims must and thaton raisethereader'sconcern this level, too, normalprocesses of evaluating evidence have been temporarily suspended.Thus in the prefacewe are told that in his Mollas for JohnDee "believed thathe had discovered formula a a hieroglvphica and mathematical science whichwould encombined cabalist,alchemical, the able its possessorto move up and downthe scale of beingfrom lowest to the highest spheres.And in the supercelestial sphere,Dee believedthat in he had foundthe secretof conjuring angels by numerical computations of the Cabalisttradition" xii, myitalics).The student the Renaissance (p. occultwillbe prepared grant of to thatmuchindulgence thebeliefs Dee. to if the especially he has readthatstrange work, Monas.1' But whatare we to make of the laterdiscussionof the Moniasas a "mysterious epitome"of withmathematical combined where qualifications all have alchemy formulae, disappeared'? "The adeptwho had mastered theseformulae could move up and down the ladder of creation,fromterrestrial the matter,through heavens, theangelsand God" (p. 198;myitalics).Whatnow'?Has Yates to with Dee's beliefs'? identified Does she simplyaccept them,and has she deliberately converted themfromthe possible-but as yet untried-tothe actual'?It seemsas ifshe has, fora fewpages latershe writes, without any that qualifications reservations, in Rosicrucianism or "magicwas a dominating factor,working a mathematics-mechanicsthe lower world,as as in in celestialmathematics thecelestial in world, and as angelicconjuration the
13 For a translation the Monas by C. H. Josten, of see thatstimulating journal Ambix nos. 2 and 3 (June-October 12, devotedto earlychemistry, 1964):84-221.

Review Article 305

word "working" supercelestial world" (p. 223). There the matter-of-fact leaves no doubt as to her acceptance of the actual existence of magical operation, with perhaps even a suggestion of its efficacy. Later on in that page Dee is described as a "bold operator," attempting''supercelestial mathematicalmagic," who believed that he had '"gained contact with good angels." Of course, Yates continues his claims to be in contact with the angels were bound to arouse suspicion as to his modes of action, but she does not allow that suspicion to diminish the status of his "technology,"' which was "practical and successful and entirelyrational in its new underAgain the inferencethat somestandingof mathematicaltechniques. thing(whatever it was) worked, was "practical, successful, rational"; again we miss the absence of any caveat to the unwary or innocent reader. The absence of such qualifications is to be noted at every level in this book. The suspension of disbelief occurs so often that it begins to suggest an absence of disbelief, an uncritical indulgence of the occultists' claims. She writeswithglowingapproval of John Dee (e.g., pp. 37 ff.)and approves of Oswald Croll for having cited the Hermetic texts "with reverence" and forbeing "imbued withrespect forthe great Renaissance Neoplatonists" (p. 52). The Christian Wedding is said to be "the work of a deeply religious genius, transcendingall political and sectarian labels to become an allegory of progressive spiritualexperience comparable in its intensityto Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress" (p. 69). To be able to make such a judgmentmeans that produced by this all sense of perspective has been lost. But then everything "movement" is given the same indiscriminate enthusiastic praise: the "'movement" has "a body of serious literaturebehind it," their emblems reach "a high point of artisticexpression" (p. 70). The "movement" may have failed but it "created a culture" (p. 90) and is, as such, eminently worth "serious study" (p. 92). No longer just a "movement" it now becomes "the Rosicrucian age" (p. 177)-perhaps this is the motivation behind her remark,"We know that the later sixteenthcenturyand the early
seventeenth century was an age of secret societies

John Buchan, and societies" evokes the world of the old-fashionedthriller, Edgar Wallace). Finally, Yates claims that her book has "uncovered a lost period of European history. Like archaeologists digging down through layers, we have found under the superficialhistoryof the early seventeenth century,just before the outbreak of the ThirtyYears War, a whole culture, because of such a whole civilization,lost to view, and not the less important
short duration. We may call it a Rosicrucian culture . . ." (p. 231). It seems

. . .

(p. 217) ("secret

hardly worth engaging in detailed argumentwith such a claim. Yates must know what a culture or civilization looks like and mightsome day concede that the purely verbal references to the existence of the Rosicrucian "'movement"-whether hopeful, naive, disappointed, credulous, or skeptical-cannot possibly constitutemore than a patch of foam or a single wave of European culture. It is astonishingthat such a judgment could be arrived at. Looking back it seems that one of the main factors encouragingit was her indiscriminate claims forinfluence,eitheron the R. C. movementor of it on the rest of the world. Extremelyslender evidence is presentedfor these influences-that of John Dee, for instance, seems to rest mainlyon his Monas hieroglyph.It is of characteristic Yates's whole approach that claims are advanced and then at magnified each subsequent reappearance. There is never-not even in the

306

Article Reviewv

firstinstance-any trulycritical, independentweighing up of the evidence. Dee is said in the preface to have "importance . . as an influencebehind the Elizabethan Renaissance," and she announces that a book on Dee by her pupil Peter French has substantiated those claims (p. xii). French's to book is referred later, and Dee's "influence in England" is said to have been "so profoundlyimportant" that "it is certain that the Dee influences would have reached" Anhalt in Bohemia (p. 37). Dee actually 'passed years later, were to in near" those territories Germany "which, twenty-five be the scene of the outbreak of the Rosicrucian movement" (ibid.; my italics), a remarkableinstance of delayed combustion. French is quoted as testimonythat on this European trip Dee was "in an 'incandescent' state" (p. 221). Dee "must have made a great impression in those parts" (p. 38), and his influenceis to be found in the Rosicrucian manifestos"without a shadow of doubt" (p. 39). In the final chapter Yates records how she has "'plunged into the daunting morass of the Rosicrucian literature,there to make a discovery that the major influencebehind the German Rosicrucian movementwas undoubtedlyJohn Dee. One can hardly as yet realize what this means. John Dee now becomes a towering figure in the European scene" (p. 221). Such claims have yet to be justifiedat any level. Nor, might I add, have her claims that Dee's "esoteric and mystical" thought "'inspiredSidney and his circle and the Elizabethan poetic movementwhich they led" (ibid.). Sir Philip Sidney's name keeps popping up as a kind of magic has not worked. Despite all the culturaltalisman,but the sympathetic simultaneous exposures none of Dee has rubbed off.
V

One might expect by now that Yates would show rather less of the historian's true judgment when dealing with her occult figures. This is of regrettable, course, but we mightstill hope that when she movediout of that area into general cultural historyjudgment and discriminationwould return. But we would be disappointed. The case of Francis Bacon is
instructive.

Chapter 9 is called "Francis Bacon 'Under the Shadow of Jehova's Wings' " (pp. 118-29) and attemptsto prove that Bacon's Nevt Atlantis is a Rosicrucian work. But Bacon enters her story well before that. In the opening chapter Yates describes the marriagein February 1613 of I'rincess Elizabeth, daughterof James I, with Frederick V, Elector Palatinate of the Rhine, duringthe festivitiesof which the membersof the Inner Temple and Gray's Inn put on a masque by John Beaumont. Yates tells us that Beaumont dedicated the masque to Bacon in these words: "You that spared of no time nor travail in the setting forth, ordering, and furnishing this edition,14 masque" (p. 6). Yates quotes from an early nineteenth-century and this may simplybe a case of reproducinga textual error; but she could have been expected to at least turn up the appropriate volume of James Spedding's Letters and Life of Francis Bacon. There on page 343 in volume 4 we findthat the text, and the inferenceshe draws fromit, are both wrong. Beaumont's dedication actually reads: "To THE WORTHY SIR FRANCIS
BACON HIs MAJESTY'S SOLICITOR-GENERAL, AND THE GRAVE AND

1'4

of JohnNichols, The Progresses James I (London, 1826),vol. 2.

Review Article

307

LEARNED BENCH OF THE ANCIENTLY ALLIED HOUSES OF GRAY'S INN AND THE INNER TEMPLE, THE INNER TEMPLE AND GRAY'S INN. Ye that spared

no pain nor travail in the setting forth, ordering, and furnishing this of Masque, (being the first fruits of honour in this kind which these two societies have offered his Majesty). to At once we see thatthe work is not dedicated to Bacon alone but also, most properly,to the "Bench''-the teachers, officers-of the two societies jointly:it is "ye" not "you." Bacon is singled out, because he was one of the most distinguished lawyers in the land with a lifelong connection with Gray's Inn. Further, the dedication goes on, "and you, Sir Francis Bacon, especially as you did then by your countenance and loving affections advance it, so let your good word grace it and defend it....' There is no evidence that Bacon did any more than encourage the venture, for as Spedding notes, "we have no means of knowing" what Bacon said or did on this occasion since he has left no record of it (ibid.). Yates was perhaps unfortunate use a bad text, but the full dedication to oughtto have correctedher first impression. However, she goes on to make a mountainof inferenceout of it: "If [sic] Francis Bacon devised [sic] the whole [sic] of this entertainment, must have [sic] taken the marriageof he Frederick and Elizabeth very seriously [sic] and have been profoundlvin sympathy[sic] with the alliance which it represented. That the author of The Advancement of Learning, which had been published eight years previously,in 1605, took time off from his other studies [sic] to work for [sic] this wedding" (p. 6) makes it an even more significant event. The references to the Advancement and his 'studies" are fine examples of irrelevant association used to build up a sense of Bacon's supposed serious intellectualinvolvementwiththis whole political situation. A few pages later this utterly unsubstantiated inferencesets more firmly: "Francis Bacon had shown himselfvery well disposed towards the Princess and her husband in his enthusiasticinterestin a productionfor theirwedding" (pp. 13-14). No longerthe tentativeinference,"must have"; now the definite "had." Indeed the second-stage speculation has hardened so quickly that any qualification about whether Bacon had "devised" this entertainment was merely or interestedin it can be shruggedoff altogether. Francis Bacon "composed one of the entertainments her wedding" (pp. 121-22; my italics). for Equally indiscriminate are her claims for Bacon's wholesale influenceon the occultist groups (e.g., pp. 86, 97, 181)-clearly Bacon's European reputationwas very high, but it was very high with everybody. That the occultists mav have been influencedby him (the evidence cited includes a numberof ideas that Bacon shared with many others) does not prove that there was anything specifically meaningfulabout his doctrine for them. Yates practices a formof influenceby contamination:by citingan author's name sufficiently often in the same context there is a chance that the inattentive reader will thinkthat there was indeed a substantialconnection. Thus in the main discussion of Bacon she seizes on two points made in The Advancement of Learning, firstthat there ought to be "a fraternitv in learning and illumination," second that this intellectual unificationwould duplicate the generation of knowledge made by God, "who is called the father illumination lights."15Both, of course, are commonplace ideas in of or
's Bacon, Works, ed. JamesSpedding al., 14 vols. (London, 1857-74),3:327. et Futurereferences thisedition to will be included the textas FB. in

308

Review Article

the Christian Humanist tradition. Yates immediately Yet themin interprets the narrowest specific in way as being"significant" the contextof Rosiwhichwas to have "a fratemity illumination" crucianism, of (pp. 118-19). Here a significant distinction lost: Bacon always arguedthat learning is shouldbe available to all,16but the Rosicrucian magicians restricted communication "to one another." In Miss Yates's own words, they were "illuminati" a specifically in esotericsense, not in the termsof Bacon's moregeneral and traditional metaphor knowledge light. any case it for as In is difficult see what the supposed "parallel" is meantto do, unless to perhaps insinuate to thatthesetwo ideas of Bacon inspired "outbreak" the of "the Rosicrucian movement," "nine yearslater." If thisis an attempt at tarring withthe Rosicrucian brushit is oblique, to say the least. Subsequently are reminded thechronology Bacon's laterworks(Novum we of of Organum, 1620;De Augmentis, 1623),and whatI have called"influence by contamination" appearsagain: "It is important realizethatthe Rosicruto cian movement contemporary is withthe Baconian philosophy, that the strange Rosicrucian excitements weregoingon in Europeduring years the in which worksof Bacon wereappearing England"(p. 121).Well,we the in mustreply, might important realizethatpointif you were able to it be to show any tracesof influence the one on the other.Otherwise is no of it morerelevant thanit wouldbe to suggest parallels between any twogroups of workspublished the same continent a twenty-year on in period-with JohnTaylorthe WaterPoet, say, or Cervantes'sDon Quixote. The actualdetailof thewriting the paragraph in beginning attempt the to linkthese two "movements"is a morassof hints,insinuations, halfand inferences: "We mayspeculateon how [Bacon's] influence have been mav imported. Both Frederick Elizabethwerereaders."We knowthatthey and owned Raleigh'sHistory the World, of ergo, theyare 'likelvto halvehad worksby Bacon withthemat Heidelberg" 121). Elizabeth"wouldhave (p. known Bacon in England"(ibid.). "Perhaps another transmitter Baconian of influence might have been MichaelMaier" who "maywellhave also carried books by Bacon to Germany," Bacon's Wisdom theAncientis for of' "may wellhave had a fascination Maierand his school" (p. 122). To support for these unprovable speculations Yates claimsthat"Bacon, too [like Maier], had sought his own natural for in This philosophy mythology." is to get the structure The Wisdomof'the Ancients, whichBacon uses myth of in to illustrate philosophical his ideas, not to create them,quite wrong.In the absence of any evidence Yates dismissesthe whole conceptof evidence: "However we need not particularize muchas to what the pointsof too contact mayhave been" (p. 122).We can simply takeit forgranted the that Palatinate's intellectual climate "would have included interest" Bacon. an in So muchforthe facts. To attempt strengthen linkbetweenBacon and the occult Yates to this now faces the difficulty that Bacon deliveredsome violentattacks on and otheroccultsciences,whilehe "nowherementions alchemy Dee, and nowhere cites his famous Monas hieroglvphica" 122).I To answerthis (p.
16

Science, trans.S. Rabinovitch (London, 1968),chap. 1. 17 Incidentally, "famous"seemsan extravagant claim. Dee's Monas is possibly the mostobscureworkever written an Englishman: even its modern by editorC. H. well Josten, versedin alchemy he in though is, has to confess bafflementplaces. How

See theadmirable account Paolo Rossi,Francis Bacon. FromMagicto by

Review Article 309 objectionshe uses anotherfavorite tactic, claimingthat a criticavoids mentioning occult because he is afraidof beinglinkedwithit. Yates the remindsus that she had used this argument once before,in 1968: "I suggested Bacon's avoidanceof mathematics the Copernican that and theory might have been because he regarded mathematics too closelyassociated as withDee and his 'conjuring,' Copernicus too closelyassociatedwith and as Brunoand his extreme 'Egyptian' and magicalreligion. notreferring [By to] Dee and his mathematics. . Bacon mayhave been evadingwhatseemed . to himdangerous his subjectsin orderto protect programme fromwitch. hunters . ." (p. 123). This is a fantastic suggestion, whichthereis no for evidenceof any kindin any language any level. Bacon had no reasonto at fearwitch-hunters. his workexpressesan untrammelled All in confidence the creativepowerof the humanmind,indeeda too naive confidence that truth wouldprevailon its own. His lack of interest mathematics be in can seen fromhis earliestwork,long before"Rosicrucianism"(in the 1597 Essay "Of Studies"he wrote"the Mathematickes [makemen]subtle"[FB 6:525]; he had nothing to say on the topic),and is to be explained else by the inferior givento mathematics the sixteenth-century in role universities (Bacon was only briefly Cambridge) at and by its pejorative associations withthe thickthumbs artisansand navigators. of Clearlythe cabala was associatedwithconjuring, Bacon knew the difference but betweencabala and mathematics, even if Yates seems to have forgotten it. This is not the whole of Yates's argument, though.Let us recall that James I, when presented witha copy of the Novum Organumin 1620, dismissedit witha joke: it was a work 'like the peace of God, which passeth all understanding." us forget Let otherpossible explanations of James'sinability grasp that essay in iconoclasmand induction; us to let insteadpress on withthe previous argument: has never,I think, "It been suggested James'sdoubtful that attitude towards Baconiansciencemight be connected withhis verydeep interest and dread of, magicand witchin, craft.These subjectshad a fascination him whichwas tied up with for in neuroses aboutsome experiences his earlylife. . ." (p. 123).This made Jamesan unsuitable criticof the "Renaissance Magia and Cabala," especiallywhenthey"vergedon sorcery"(p. 123). It is notactually stated,but thewholebentof thatpassage is to suggest thatBacon's Nov,um Organiim is a cabalist,hermetic work,the perusalof whichmight raise "the problem of defining difference the between good magicand bad magic" (p. 124). If Yates meansto suggest that, thenwe have one ofthemostbizarre all the of checkered accountsof Baconianscienceyetgiven.But she does notstopto discussthe point,inserting insteada paragraph JohnDee, who is then on associatedwithbothJamesI and Bacon. James refused have anything to to do withhim-veryusefulevidence,of course-so therefore Bacon "must have takengood note of James'sattitude Dee, and he mustalso have to noted" thatmen like,Raleigh,Harriot and Northumberland also not were encouraged James.Ergo: "Bacon wouldhave been careful avoid, in by to works intendedto interest James, anything savouringof Dee and his mathematics. suspicious Even so, Bacon did notsucceedin allaying James's of suspicions scientific however advancement, carefully presented" 124). (p.
could we estimate "fame," then?Are there1,000references it in the sevento its teenth 100? even ten? century?

310

Review Article

is The second of thesetwo sentences based on the nonexistent of premise in James's"suspicions"of the concealedmagicand witchcraft the Novum the but Not onlydoes it crudify discussion insubstantial, morepernicious. reasonsforBacon's intellectual by suggesting purely psychological personal, to Bacon's manyfree-spoken attitude the occult,but it overlooks critiques it of thattradition. to intellectual Further, imputes hima despicable cowardice in thathe is supposedto have been attracted thetradition judged to but it better his own self-interestconcealhis predilections. for to Yates putsthis to insinuation more clearly later on, referring "the witch-crazes which in Descartesso prudently avoids, whichFrancisBacon has prudently mind to (p. 224). This seemsto me a pretty desperate maneuver, argueex silentio thata manis secretly attracted magicbutprudently to concealsit. It it is onlya fantasy, itis a harmful and thetradition produced is that but one, and dubious.The nextthree intellectually bankrupt morally paragraphs (pp. that Bacon was moving"warily' in a insinuations 124-25) add further was mounting,' whichaccountsforhis climatewhere"witchcraft hysteria So far,Yates tellsus, we "have been moving that cautiously," thinking it "might"be illuminating studyBacon side by side withRosicrucianism. to she Now, however, has "evidenceof a moststriking kind" forhis debtto thatmovement, the namely, New Atlantis.In thisposthumously published workBacon describes ideal scientific his community, "Salomon's House, or the Collegeof the Six Days' Work,' locatedon a utopian islandwhichhas been discoveredby some sailorsdrivenoffcourseby winds. It is a work devotedto, new scienceyetfullof biblicalechoes,likemuchof Bacon's the work,appropriately because of thederivation the scientific here of communityfromKing Solomon (praisedby Bacon as havingcompiledthe first naturalhistory); typicalof Bacon, too, is its interest pageantry in and sensualsplendor. we wereto compare in a freeand open manner If it with the Rosicrucian manifestos wouldobservesome generalparallels, we such as the notionof philanthropy commonto themboth-and to innumerable otherworksof the Christian Renaissance-and some clear differences. In place of the Rosicrucian hermeticism mysteries, and in everything Bacon's community designedto be communicated; whereasthe accountsof is and sciencein theFama and Confessio vaguein theextreme, are withtheusual alchemists' prevarications pp. 247, 250, 258) Bacon offers extremely (cf. an particularized thumbnail sketchof a high-powered scientific research institute. Yates's technique aligning two "movements" for the takesvariousforms. Firstshe summarizes Bacon's workin such a way as to make it appear closer to the Rosicrucians: is a community it withan "evangelicalChrisattention the scrollof instruction to whichone of the officials hands the travelers, described Bacon as being"signedwitha stampof cherubin's by wings,not spread but hanging downwards, and by thema cross' (FB, 3:130). This is hercomment: "So was the Rosicrucian Fama sealed at the end with motto the 'UndertheshadowofJehova'swings,' and thewings, as we have seen, often appearas characteristic emblems otherRosicrucian in literature" 126). It is misleading, (p. first, describethe Fama as being to "sealed" withitsmotto; motto the merely appearsas a quotation theend at
tianity" of "'brotherly love," run by "priest-scientists." Second she draws devious behavior.
Organumr and can be simply dismissed. The first sentence is no less

Review Article

311

of thetext.Bacon's scroll,by contrast, an actual emblem has drawnon it (not statedto be sealingit). The imageof thewingsis common suppose) (I to hundreds non-Rosicrucian of emblems throughout Christian the tradition. The wingsin Bacon are explicitly to be of a cherubin, of Jehova. said not them be Jehova's to These are notthesame. If Bacon had wanted he wings wouldhave said so. The significance their of beingcherubin's wings maybe evidentto those morelearnedin Christian but symbolism, I would draw attention a passage in Exodus where God describesto Moses the to he the of sumptuous which musttakefrom children Israelin order offerings to build the Tabernacle.In the midstof the Ark18 theyare to place a or "Mercy seat of puregold" (a "covering propitiatorie" the marginal as gloss informs on top of whichshallbe placed two cherubims beaten of us), gold: "And the Cherubims shal stretch theirwingson hie, covering the . Mercyseat withtheirwings,and their faces one to another . .' (Exod. be thatthe New 25.17 ff.; see also 37.9). It might conceivably relevant Atlantis one of thebest loci forobserving is Bacon's stresson the scientist as an embodiment mercy of towardmankind, well-known a of feature his philosophy (one of the "Fathersof Salomon'sHouse" has "an aspectas if he pitied men" [FB, 3:1541). Other explanations would be possible,of content evidencethanthe of higher course,but theywould need a rather one favored Yates. by As forthephrase"undertheshadowofJehova's wings,' it maybe a text but appropriated the Rosicrucians it had an enormous by in dissemination It Christianity. could neverhave been seen as distinctively Rosicrucian, could never have been theirtrademark. The text is biblical,and many instances "shadow" as a metaphor protection of for easilycome to mind.19 To be hidden"undertheshadowof thywings"is found Psalm 17, verse in 8; the truebelievers"put theirtrust underthe shadow of thywings" in Psalm36, verse7; in Psalm57, verse1 thepsalmist's soul "trusteth thee: in willI makemyrefuge" yea, in theshadowof thywings Ps. (similarly 91:1). One of the finest sermons JohnDonne is the second Prebendsermon, by preached St. Paul's on January 1625/6. textis the seventh at The 29, verse of Psalm63: "Because thouhastbeen myhelpe,Therefore theshadowof in thywingswillI rejoyce." In his introduction Donne says thatalthough the Psalmsin generalare "the Manna of the Church,"an ointment balm and that heals all wounds, "so are there some certainePsalmes, that are Imperiall Psalmes,thatcommand over all affections, spreadthemselves and over all occasions,Catholique, universall Psalmes,thatapplythemselves to all necessities. This is one of those;for,of those Constitutions whichare called Apostolicall, is, thatthe Church one shouldmeeteveryday, to sing this Psalme. And accordingly, Chrysostone testifies, S. That it was decreed, and ordainedby the Primitive Fathers,thatno day shouldpasse "20 without publiquesinging thisPsalme. Further, Donne himself the of for
18 lx quotefrom GenevaBible,STC 2202,theEnglish the translation whichBacon wouldhave knownin his youth. 19See, e.g., Gen. 19:8;Judg. 9:15; Cant.2:3; Isa. 4:6, 25:4 30:2 32:2,49:2; Ezek. 31:6, 12, 17; Hos. 14:7. 20 Donne's Prebend ed. Sermons, JanetM. Mueller Mass., 1971),p. (Cambridge, 91. Mueller's edition the and Simpson Potter reproduces textof thestandard edition and adds to it a useful introduction commentary. pp. 220-21fortherelevant and See from documents the to quotations referred by Donne:thelatefourth-century Apostol-

312

Review Article

as Dean of St. Paul's, this "is one of those five psalmes, the daily of whereofis injoyned to me, by the Constitutions this rehearsing psalms,as it "21 Church. This musthave been, then,one of thebest-known of for is one of the mostwidelyused metaphors the protectiveness God: is of neither the property any one sect.22 the to Yates nextdrawsattention the factthatin the New Atlantis sick House, and thatone oftheofficials sailorswillbe caredforat theStrangers' for themrefuses accept payment havingbrought to withmeeting entrusted describesit, newsthattheyare to be allowedto land. As Bacon's narrator said, 'He mustnot be he him some pistolets, smiling "when we offered (as twicepaidforone labour':meaning I takeit)thathe had salarysufficient that learned)theycall an officer of the stateforhis service.For (as I after this and unequivocally is a paid" (FB, 3:132). Clearly twice rewards, taketh relevantto all men in public politics,extremely moralpoint concerning than Bacon?). Yates, however,comservice(as who should know better lays "The Fama, it willbe remembered, it downas a ruleforthe R. ments: in that C. Brothers theyare to heal thesickgratis" (p. 126). Unfortunately, First, herdesireto makehercase she has notread Bacon's textattentively. land and not,as she implies, thisincident takes place beforethe travelers to after"their sick were cared for." Second, it has nothing do with of and corruption public servants.Third, but withthe bribery medicine, as concerned "a notary"(FB, identifies official the Bacon twiceexplicitly doctor.This passagehas been not 3:132, 133). He is a lawyer, an alchemical at misinterpreted everypoint. as official," she calls him,visits Yates readson and notesthat"another a "witha smallredcrosson thetop" (FB, turban wearing white later, them had travellers thatBacon's shipwrecked proof 3:135). To herthisis "further come to the land of the R. C. Brothers"(p. 126). Yet he is not simply priest" another official. tells themthat"by vocationI am a Christian He then,thathe shouldweara cross. That it is appropriate, (ibid.). It is rather Rosicrucian a red cross can hardlybe proofthat this is a specifically of of survey thetradition Yates's own wide-ranging not emblem, least after to chivalry the Red Cross, fromSaint Georgeto the Garter, Elizabethan its and theFaerie Queene (pp. 3, 66, 69, e.g.)-not to mention disseminaEurope in the Crusades,nor its adoptionas a badge by tion throughout as of painting a symbol active other nor,last,its use in Renaissance groups, Christianity.
and which ical Conistitutions, lays downthatthispsalmis to be sungeverymorning, on SaintJohnChrysostom's of Exposition Ps. 140, which"commands the authority and of the Fathers dailyrecitation" thispsalmin theearlymorning oftheAntiochene on of commentary the whole goes on (in whatseems to be a fragment a now-lost of expression thesoul's desireforGod." eloquent psalm)to praiseit for"its intense, 21 Ibid., p. 92. 22 Montgomery 3 above), p. 194, in "has argued n. 122,notesthatF. Lundgreen (n. seal white of wingsin the Andreae all seriousness thepresence two overarching that alarum tuarum''-which of meansthatthemotto thecrestwas Ps. 17:8("Sub umbra appears at the close of the Fania), and thusthat Andreaewrotethe Rosicrucian not werea common, necessarily Biblical,heraldic Needlessto say, wings manifestos. evidencethatthe Andreaecresthad Ps. 17:8 as a device,and thereis no historical motto."

Review Article

313

derives Yates's finalpiece of evidence for "Bacon's Rosicrucianism" of givenby the governor how it is thatNew Atlantis the from explanation reproving its has retained secrecyuntilnow. He jokes withthe travelers, that that themforimplying this is a "land of magicians,"and explaining of Solomon'sedict laid down thatthe inhabitants the islandshouldlive in by removedfromthe risk of war and destruction happyself-sufficiency, otherlands (FB, 3:144). Their isolationis a moral choice, designedto But everytwelveyears,he laid down, humanrapacity. themfrom preserve fromthe outside was to be sent out to collect knowledge an expedition the and world.This is how Yates summarizes interprets passage: "Travelthey to New Atlantis collectinformation; dressedin lersweresentout from theyvisitedand adopted theirhabits,and so the dress of the countries this manifesto, means that In passed unperceived. termsof a Rosicrucian to one of the rules of the R. C. Brothers, wear no special theyfollowed in markbut to conform dress and appearancewith habitor distinguishing (p. theywere visiting" 127). But here country the inhabitants whatever of the againthedesireto proveherpointhas blurred evidenceof thetextopen about adoptingthe dress of the in front Yates. Bacon says nothing of thatthosewho "mustbe puton shore simply theyvisit.He writes country underthe names of othernations" (FB, for any time colour themselves to pretend be Dutch or 3:146). That is, if theygo to Englandtheymight but enoughpoint, as it is one of the German.It is, heavenknows,a trivial that "thoughthe name Rose Cross is keystonesin Yates's argument clear it by mentioned Bacon in the New Atlantis, is abundantly nowhere it and thathe knewthe Rose Crossfiction was adapting to hisown parable" There is (ibid.),thenwe mustconcludethatthatwholestructure a fantasy. is no evidencethatBacon knewof the Rosicrucians. repeatthese arguments threepages (pp. 127-29) merely The remaining These are now "undeniably until,once again, theyhardeninto certainty. the and so willanyoneelse who approaches Well,I denythem, influences." that"thisfactwillhave to be topicwithan open mind.WhenYates writes I of in by studiedveryseriously the future historians thought," am afraid in her will justified ignoring discusthathistorians thought be perfectly of as will sion. I dare say thatRosicrucianism notbe recognized, she assumes or of of branch history thought science," sincewho it will,"as a legitimate The fact of an can claimthatit contributed iota to either thesedisciplines? with the (1662)identified New Atlantis thatJohn Heydonin his Holv Guiide the Rosicrucians factto whichMiss Yates devotesmostof p. 128) is of (a rangeof by of to interest students Bacon's transmogrificationan appalling concedesthatHeydon'sarguYates magnanimously cranks and eccentrics. or to is ment "not a proofthatBacon belonged some Rosicrucian masonic secret society" (p. 128), but I cannot see that there is any substantial of and he'r own description the "invisibility thatposition between difference and called Brothers are in Atlantis-whoare nowhere oftheBrothers" Neiw to nev said to be invisible-a description which she adds with great er (p. 129). "whom we now knowto have been R. C. Brothers" insistence claims" (whichis how she dismisses Bothseemto me equally"unverifiable which theories Heydonand another"crank" [p. 129]),bothare "fanciful note" of thisphenomfrom taking proper serioushistorians have prevented on enon. That may seem like an unkindcomment the workof a distin-

314

Review Article

guished scholar, but I confess I can see no alternative; there is not the slightestshred of evidence that Bacon alluded to the Rosicrucians in this work. He may well have heard about the sect, but if he did he felt sufficiently indifferent it never to have mentioned it in any of his to extensive wntings. Yates may be the most insistent,but she is not the firstwriterto claim that the Neit' Atlanitis is Rosicrucian, nor am I the firstto reject the claim. One of the earlier historiansof Rosicrucianismcited by her is J. G. Buhle, whose account of its origins was freely translated and plagiarized by Thomas De Quincey in 1824.23Yates quotes Buhle-De Quincey on Andreae as the imputed author of the tracts and records De Quincey's theory that English Freemasonry derived from Rosicrucianism via the influence of Fludd (pp. 208-9). What she does not tell the reader, however, is that at the end of his essay De Quincey has two appendices "In Refutationof Certain Speculations." The firstof these24 is 'that the object of the elder Freemiasons was not to build Lord Bacon's imaginary temple of Solonmon,'as proposed by Nicolai in 1806. "Whoever has read the New Atlaintis of Bacon," De Quincey begins, "will discover in this romance a gigantic sketch fromthe hand of a mightyscientific intellect,that . . . indulged in a dream of what mightbe accomplished by a rich state under a wise governor for the advancement of the arts and sciences." The object of Solomon's house in the fable is "the extension of physical science," and r-omance thoughit was, "it led to very beneficialresults; for it occasioned in the end the establishmentof the Royal Society." De Quincey's claim is too simple, but he is right to align Bacon's plan with the establishmentof scientific societies for public 'experiment and research" and not with the closed world of the occult. De Quincey gives a compact summaryof the main differencesbetween the scientific society of the News Atlantis and that of the Freemasons. Whereas the lodges are open to "every decent workman who is sl/i jluris" and differentiate members into higherand lower degrees, Solomon's House is open only to "learned men," who are then "divided into classes according to the different objects of theirstudies": "Only the exoteric knowledge of nature, not the esoteric, is pursued by the House of Solomon. The Book of the Six Days is studied as a book that lies open before every man's eyes; by the Free-masons it was studied as a mystery which was to be illuminated by the lightout of the East" (p. 430). Had the Freemasons really wished to appropriate the Baconian tradition,they mighthave followed his concrete proposals for research. But the "eldest Free-masonrywas indifferent with respect to all profane sciences and all exoteric knowledge of natur-e"and wished to propagate only "a secret wisdom" forthe initiates. De Qtiincey's clear recognitionof the fundamentaldifferencesbetween the Nell Atlantis and the occult traditiondeserved at least a mention in Yates's history.
23 Johann Gottlieb Buhle, Ueber den Ursprunglind die l'ornehnstenSchicksale der Or-dender Rosenkreluzer unld Frevmaurer (Gottingen, 1804); Thomas De Quincey, "Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin of the Rosicrucians and the FreeMasons,' LondoonMagazine (January-June1824); reprintedin and cited from The Collected Writings Thiomas De Quincev, ed. D. Masson (Edinburgh, 1890; New of' York, 1968), 13:384-448.

24

De Quincey,pp. 429-30.

Review Article 315 VI pointswe have been able to examineYates's thesiswe have At whatever of accumulation "evidence" to and uncritical indiscriminate found notably a or Two any otherformof qualification correction. make a case, without issueswhich at thandiscussed length, to largeissuesremain be notedrather studyto deal with. it wouldtake a. book-length phenomeThe first theseconcernsYates's placingof the Rosicrucian of All of thought. thatI can do hereis to the non within context Renaissance is Rosicrucianism the Rethat note thatshe simplifies sentenceradically: sysnaissance. That pioneerchemistLibavius attackedthe Rosicrucians of it the tematically, seems,perceiving interconnection occultassumptions and within As Yates says, he "raises seriousobjections" it. and authorities 'Magia against of against theories macro-microcosmic "is strongly harmony, . and Cabala,' against Hermes Trismegistus . . , against Agrippaand . shorthe is againstthe Renaissancetradition . .' (p. 52). Trithemius-in is tradition That one exampleshowsherclaimthatthe occultor hermetic fall or the Renaissance-all othergroups,all otherphilosophies literatures element. Main Mersennealso away, this is the one central,defining manifesattendant criticized Cabalism,and all their "animism, Hermetism, tations":he is said to have made an 'attackon the whole Renaissance (p. 111). To on . tradition . . an onslaught the Renaissancetradition" in a of are Mersenne ascribed, consequence, number mostviolent opinions, thatbecause ' Magia and Cabala" have grownthen"the Renaisnamely, . mustbe eliminated . ." (p. 112),and so on, with sance ways of thinking in is language.Newton'sinterest myth and intolerant emotive increasingly at said to show "the Renaissancetypeof thinking the back of Newton's of scientific efforts" 204). The conflation Hebraic,Egyptian, Mosaic, (p. the and Hermetic lore is said to have 'fascinated Renaissance,"a point of correct Yates (p. withsomerepetition 219). It is perfectly thenexpanded (p. tradition" 220),butit is to refer "the RenaissanceHermetic-Cabalist to with of onlyone tradition manyand mustnotbe identified the Renaissance and of educational, as a whole.Giventheeclecticism pluralism Renaissance of definition the it methods, is clearthatno monist and philosophic, literary Renaissancehas any substance. here,is Yates's wishto largeissue, on whichI can onlyreport The final of rewrite history science in thisperiod.In GiordanoBrunoand the the Magusof thattheso-called Tradition (London,1964),she claimed Hermetic "relithe Renaissance"Hermetic-Cabalist tradition,'withhis essentially a on actually".operated" the world,thuscreating wholly gious attitudes" science. affected towardsthe world," whichfundamentally new "turning and by questioned CharlesTrinkaus Mary had Her argument been severely and Yates mustknowof both Hesse beforeher latestbook appeared,25
25 book, "In Our can be foundin his magisterial Trinkaus's objections Professor 2 in and Thought, vols. Image and Likeness." Humanity Divinity ItalianHumanist in were made first a paperread in (London, 1970),pp. 498-503.Hesse's criticisms of 1970 to a meeting the Historyof Science Seminarin CambridgeUniversity An for and "Hermeticism Historiography: Apology the by (attended Yates) entitled and in of published Historical Philosophical History Science," subsequently Intemnal

316

Article Reviewt,

in scholars,who are among the most distinguished theirfields. Now, acceptedby thather "belief' is "indeed now largely she writes however, the . to of historians thought . ." (p. 226). She reverts thisthesisthroughout of She speaks slightingly the energy. polemical book withincreased present revolution'(pp. xi, 220) and suggeststhat the new "so-called scientific is science emergedout of magic,of which Rosicrucianism a peculiarly the case-indeed a crucialphase,one of "the vitalstepsby which important century" intotheseventeenth mind movedout of the Renaissance European the leadingfrom discovers"a chainof tradition (p. 117); she subsequently of to Rosicrucian movement the antecedents the Royal Society" (p. 83). There would seem to be little,if any, basis for such claims. Yates's builtnoton rocknor is history an edifice of rewriting Renaissance proposed withthehistoriography on sand buton air. All scholarswho are concerned in of the Renaissancemusttake note of her work.She has greatlearning of and thought, the prestige her areas of human someof themostrecondite to will Institute continue ensurethather earlyworkand thatoftheWarburg Whileherbook on Bruno,and herFrench receiveeagerattention. writings it reading, seems Century(1947) are necessary Academiesof the Sixteenth Enlightenment used for The Rosicrucian methods to me thatthe historical of and off, a represent greatfalling and thatifthefindings methodology that could the book came to be acceptedor used as modelsforimitation results how the infectious energyof her be disastrous.It is easy to understand couldaccountforpartof the and theneed to meeteditors'deadlines, style, up received.But a sober weighing of the her book initially acclamation It a picture. has been, unfortunately, evidencehas produced verydifferent in was unavoidable, and rather lengthy, apologiesare due. But the length scholar,Joseph Shakespeare As of thenature things. theeighteenth-century to a editors write of been movedby theerrors recent put Ritson, it, having of of refutation them: "The opposingand refuting general book-length muchmoretimeand requlires commonly by and circumstance charges proof '26 of space thanthe making them.'
in Stuldies whichis vol. 5 of Minlntesota of Perspectives Science,ed. R. H. Struever, also includes of 1970),pp. 134-60.This volume thePlilosophlx Science (Minneapolis, a and searching paper,"Was Copernicus Her(pp. 163-71)EdwardRosen's witty that"the hermetcomputes that discussing claimadvancedby Yates, which metist?" ic associationamountsto about 0.00002% of the Revolutionls p. 169). Other The Occult criticisms the Yates thesisin recentyearsincludeWayneShumaker, of Patterns (Berkeley,1972),an Sciences in the Renaissance.A Studvin Intellectual and the survey: papersby Paolo Rossi (pp. 247-74)and A. R. original independent Bonelli and WilliamR. Shea, eds., Reasonl Hall (pp. 275-82) in M. L. Righini in Rev atnd Experimenit, Mysticismn the Scientific olution(New York, 1975); and andtl (Los Angeles:WilliamAndrewsClark Hernmeticisin the Scientic Revollution which consists twopapersread of volume, a 1977), mostimportant Memorial Library, and S. in "Magical Reform Astronomical at a seminar March1974:Robert Westman, (pp. 1-91), and J. E. McGuire,"NeoReform: The Yates Thesis Reconsidered" (pp. Newtonand the Corpuls Herineticumn 93-142). and platonism ActivePrinciples: 26 Joseph oni and Illustrative, the TextanldNotes of the Critical Remtiarks Ritson, Last Editionof Slhakespeare (London, 1783),p. 224.