Sect. 3. Now in the year of our Lord’s incarnation 1189, Richard, the son of king Henry II. by Eleanor, brother of Henry III., was consecrated king of the English by Baldwin, archbishop of Canterbury, at Westminster, on the third of the nones of September (3 Sept.). On the very day of the coronation, about that solemn hour, in which the Son was immolated to the Father, a sacrifice of the Jews to their father the devil was commenced in the city of London, and so long was the duration of this famous mystery, that the holocaust [wholly burnt offering from greek ὁλοκαύστος completely burnt] could scarcely be accomplished the ensuing day. The other cities and towns of the kingdom emulated the faith of the Londoners, and with a like devotion despatched their bloodsuckers with blood to hell.
But slander from a church that not only persecuted and massacred millions in the Middle Ages but “repeatedly” and “most insistently” supported probably the greatest criminal of all time in the twentieth century; which in 1933 “would not withdraw the powers of the Church from him at any price,” but on the contrary, wanted to procure everyone for his “great development work,” which in 1935 “strictly [rejected] any action or position taken against the state by its members” and also promised “to support the ruler of the German Reich … with all means necessary” in 1936, which, one year before the war broke out, accompanied Hitler’s “work for the future with their highest blessings.” And, when the war started, the church ordered the Catholic soldiers “to do their duty out of obedience to the Führer and be prepared to sacrifice their entire person,” which followed his invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 “with satisfaction” and affirmed: “We have repeatedly[!], and in the summer pastoral letter, called upon our believers to fulfill their duty with loyalty, to stand firm courageously, work in willingness to sacrifice and fight with all their might[!] in the service of our people in the most serious times of war,” only to condemn Hitler and the Nazis as soon as they collapsed. Well, I consider slander by a church like this an honor.
The behavior of the southern Italian and Roman nobility is also noteworthy. According to Benedetto Croce, in the south of the peninsula, “a large number of noble families” followed the Bourbons into Roman exile for several years. Croce further informed us that after 1870, they returned the same way “in groups or individually.” Towards the end of the century, the stay of the fashionable young Prince Vittorio Emanuele in Naples softened their opposition. Nevertheless, this behavior clearly demonstrates how alien the creation of the new state was to a large part of the nobility—especially those closely connected to the Bourbon court and who possessed the greatest wealth and influence!—during its crucial phase. More striking was the case of Rome, where after 1870, many families of the “black” pro-papal nobility remained hostile to a united Italy and the Savoy “occupiers” for a long time. In the capital, too, time healed wounds, but many maintained their hostile attitudes even until the conclusion of the Lateran Treaties. The divide between “black” pro-papal and “white” liberal nobles was of particular importance, as it affected the rich and prestigious families of the Roman princes, from whom popes and cardinals had emerged for centuries. They enjoyed a status almost comparable to royalty and were endowed with great wealth and strong social influence. These nobles of Naples and Rome together constituted 15 to 20 percent of the entire Italian nobility; the Piedmontese accounted for 10 percent. Elsewhere, too, where the dynasties and courts were less firmly established than the papacy in Rome, veritable sectors of aristocrats existed who—albeit less conspicuously—barely identified with the national cause.
From Hochkultur als Herrschaftselement – Italienischer und deutscher Adel im langen 19. Jahrhundert
Herausgegeben von: Gabriele B. Clemens , Malte König und Marco Meriggi
His Eminence and Highness, the Prince and 77th Grand Master of the Order, Fra’ Angelo de Mojana di Cologna, to whom this study is submitted with respect and devotion, was the kind patron of this work. The author owes his respectful thanks to His Most Excellent Obedience Grand Cross Bailli Quintin Jermy Gwyn, the Grand Chancellor of the Order, and to His Serene Highness, the Prince Grand Prior of the Grand Priory of Austria, Bailli Fra’ Friedrich A. Kinsky von Wchnitiz und Tettau, for their pioneering and supportive discussions on the structure and law, spirituality, and the spiritual-childared self-image of the research object in a technologically changing world. His Most Excellent Ambassador Count Robert de Billy and the immortalized Minister-Conseiller at the Order’s Embassy to the Republic of Austria, Dr. Leopold Hayden, whom the author had the privilege of assisting in diplomatic service, conveyed to him, during countless encounters, the unmistakable nobility-Melitsian spirit and familiarized him with the old and new imperatives of the eight-pointed Maltese Cross in our time.
Fra’ Angelo de Mojana di Cologna
The Director of the Vienna Diplomatic Academy, His Excellency Ambassador Baron Dr. Arthur Breycha-Vauthier de Baillamont, a member of the Magistral Commission for Foreign Affairs and Social Assistance of the Order, has, in a spirit of personal friendship, graciously and helpfully made his extensive private archives and his many years of experience of life in the Order of Malta available to the author. He also personally took the trouble to validate and correct the manuscript of this work, for which he is expressed his sincere gratitude. The author owes sincere and lifelong gratitude to his esteemed teachers, Prelate Emeritus Professor Dr. h. c. mult. Dr. Johannes Messner and the Nestor of International Law, Emeritus Professor Dr. h. c. mult. Dr. Alfred Verdross, from whom he was able to experience and receive insights into and inspiration for understanding the “bonum commune humanitatis” from a natural law and Christian perspective. The author remains equally sincerely grateful to the directors of the Institute for International Law and International Relations at the University of Vienna: Prof. Dr. Karl Zemanek and former Ambassador Prof. Dr. Stefan Verosta shared their knowledge of international law with him and accepted this study as a contribution to academic research.
Retired Senator Dr. Johannes Broermann, the owner of the publishing house Duncker & Humblot, and the Austrian Federal Minister of Science and Research, Dr. Hertha Firnberg, have made the publication of this study possible with their understanding and openness. In accordance with the spiritual intentions of the “Sovereign Order of Malta” as a subject of international law, this academic work is placed under the auspices of Saint John the Baptist, who gave this religious, noble, and socially hospital, worldwide community its original and still primarily binding name.
Now the question arises: does the noble character of the Order and its knights today “only” consist of the oft-cited “noble disposition,” or does the Order partially adhere to a blood nobility?
Both, as well as. For admission to the 1st and 2nd classes of the Order, certain nobility tests are required, which will not be described in detail in this work. However, some branches of the third class bear a special characteristic that corresponds to Melitian internal law: their members are “cavalieri die grazia magistrale,” that is, knights “by the grace of the Grand Master,” in the internal sense of personal “Melitian nobility” within the Order, without, however, receiving predicates, heraldic rights, or inheritance rights linked to this.
Without a doubt, the Order benefits from its “religious dependence” on the Holy See, as the latter accredits it on the basis of its international prestige and a priori relieves it of any suspicion of religious separation, social isolation, even schism and the existence of a religious sect. The Holy See grants the Order a spiritual credential by connecting it directly to the lifestream of the universal Catholic Church, keeping it bound, and feeding its religious channels. It is therefore only natural that, even in the secular-diplomatic sphere, the missions of the Holy See and the Order—namely, nunciatures and embassies, internuntiatures and legations, apostolic delegations, and Melitensian delegations—cooperate in the best possible way. For the Order of Malta is more “ecclesiastical” than any other subject of international law besides the Catholic Church, or rather the Holy See. R. A. Graham considers the Order of Malta to be one of those states (including those subjects of international law that are not states) in which there is no “separation of church and state”.
From Malteserorden und Völkergemeinschaft (Robert Prantner, 1974)
The work continuously cites for sources a book authored by the Order themselves at a publisher specialized on arts and museums. Numerous aristocratic members of the order are the authors of the chapters and they are cited individually by Prantner as if to appear like they are independent sources.
Robert Prantner later received the Papal Pontifical Equestrian Order of St. Gregory the Great.
Since the 1830s, the Order received offers to take on hospital duties and suggestions of the opportunity for increased charitable work, particularly from members of the Austrian Arch-House. However, the high regard for knightly-military splendor and prestige held by the Order’s leadership meant that this opportunity was either not seized or was seized too late. Indeed, the Knights of the Order, especially those who had served in Malta, did not like to see themselves working in a second-rate hospital in Modena or auditing the accounts of a medical institute. They much preferred to provide service befitting their status, but of only limited use, to the noble guard of the respective duchy or to the papal court. Therefore, another organization filled the gap in the market for military medical services. In 1863, the Swiss Henry Dunant (1828-1920) founded the International Committee of Relief Societies for the Care of the Wounded, whose symbol, the Red Cross, soon monopolized systematic military nursing. By remaining committed to the principle of social inequality and its often inherited aristocratic traditions with its discriminatory admission regulations, the Order of Malta missed a significant opportunity.
Until 1914, a Knight of the Order had an almost 50 percent chance of becoming a Commander and benefiting from the revenues of a commandery, which further improved their standard of living. Individual noble families successfully managed to retain the succession to the administration of the lucrative commanderies through multiple representation in the legal ranks and thus in the provincial chapter.
The motivations for membership as a Knight of Honor or Dame of Honor were broader. In the religious sphere, the Order created the opportunity for Catholic noblemen to fulfill their religious duties in an environment befitting their status. Political motivations for membership are also evident. Since traditional elites and the Catholic Church were preferred targets of liberal and socialist criticism throughout Europe, the Order of Malta served the clergy and the nobility as a transnational platform for demonstrating shared values. At the national level, honorary membership was also an expression of political commitment. For a long time, in the Grand Priory of Rome, it represented a special bond with the Pope and a relative distance from the Savoy royal house. This honorary membership in the Rhenish-Westphalian Order of Malta, which had a strong ultramontane orientation, indicated a political position just as clearly as that of parts of the former Polish nobility, who expressed anti-Prussian, anti-Russian, or anti-Austrian tendencies by belonging to a particular Grand Priory.
Until the last third of the 19th century, however, one could hardly speak of serious charitable work. The Order offered a befitting framework for charitable work, especially for women. The Knights of the Right, as the core group of the community, were little involved in the active hospitality of the Order. Active service to fellow human beings in need was partly left to institutions outside the Order. However, individual Knights of Honor gladly assumed the organizational and responsible leadership of charitable missions. Caritas thus served to provide the order with a contemporary justification for its existence in the public eye. In this way, the charitable activity fulfilled a task of central political importance for the order.
Although the Savoys are close to the Vatican, they nevertheless produced at least two Freemasons. The Freemasons and the Vatican/clergy were enemies from the beginning, fighting each other with propaganda, agitation, and intrigue. In the past, the Vatican repeatedly encouraged the persecution of Freemasons, while the Freemasons promoted enlightenment and the separation of church and state. After World War II, the two groups appear to have negotiated a kind of truce. From then on, the Catholic Church was able to establish itself among the people of the USA and Great Britain. Previously, Catholics had been discriminated against there. Until the beginning of the 19th century, Catholics were a small minority in the USA. To this day, there are hardly any Catholics among the elite of either country. Only one British Prime Minister was baptized Catholic (Boris Johnson), but even he was later confirmed Anglican. Besides Joe Biden, only one US President was a Catholic: the assassinated Kennedy. All other US presidents have been Protestants, and almost a third of them were Freemasons. The Pilgrim Fathers of the USA were Puritans (Protestants) and therefore probably disliked the Vatican. Since the beginning of the 18th century, Catholics were excluded from the British line of succession, and heirs to the throne were not allowed to marry Catholics. The law was changed in 2015. Incidentally, the British royal family was one of the most important Masonic families of the last 200 years.
Amadeus I (1845-1890) was the first known Freemason from the House of Savoy. He was King of Spain from 1871 to 1873. He lifted the ban on Freemasons that had existed in Spain until then. Eventually, Amadeus voluntarily abdicated and the first Spanish Republic was founded, which from then on was ruled by politicians, many of whom were Freemasons. The Republic lasted for almost two years, but was then replaced by a monarchy and members of the House of Bourbon regained power in Spain. Amadeus’s second wife was Maria Letizia Bonaparte, a niece of the French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte. Maria’s father, Napoléon Joseph, and her grandfather Jérôme were Freemasons, as were other members of the Bonaparte family. The Freemason Napoléon Joseph Bonaparte also married into the House of Savoy.
Victor Emmanuel of Savoy (*1937 [✝2024]) met Popes Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis. As mentioned, he was a member of the P2 [Italian Masonic Lodge] and is also a member of the Order of Malta. He has been to court several times: In the 1970s, he was investigated for international arms trafficking. He brokered the sale of 300 combat helicopters to his friend, the Shah of Persia. The helicopters eventually ended up in Jordan, Taiwan, and South Africa. Victor Emmanuel became rich through these arms sales, according to a cousin. In 1978, he fired several shots that killed 19-year-old German Dirk Hamer. It was allegedly an accident. In 1991, Victor Emmanuel was acquitted of the charge of intentional homicide but received a six-month suspended sentence for illegal possession of weapons. Dirk Hamer was the son of convicted alternative medicine practitioner Ryke Geerd Hamer, a conspiracy theorist who developed his own Germanic medical science. In 2006, Victor Emmanuel was arrested. He was accused of founding a criminal organization responsible for corruption and the exploitation of prostitutes. Victor Emmanuel had contacts in the gambling industry and allegedly procured young prostitutes for visitors to a casino. During this investigation, other people were investigated for corruption, extortion, money laundering, and mafia connections. One of the suspects was Victor Emmanuel’s cousin Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, the head of the non-reigning royal family of Bulgaria. Simeon was also Prime Minister of Bulgaria. He was accused of accepting bribes and helping an Italian businessman obtain public contracts in Bulgaria. Victor Emmanuel served as an intermediary. Three Carabinieri (police officers) were also investigated. She was suspected of passing information from a database to Victor Emmanuel and his associates. Victor Emmanuel was ultimately acquitted.
Vittorio Emanuelle in the robe of the Order of Saints Mauritius and LazarusVittorio Emanuelle III. King of Italy, Pope Pious XI. and MussoliniMussolini with Savoyen coat of arms including the house-owned Order of Saints Mauritius and LazarusCharles Albert of Sardinia (1798 – 1841)Order of Saints Mauritius and LazarusAdalberto of Savoyen-Genua (1898–1982), Duke of BergamoArmando Diaz (1861-1928), Minister of War under MussolliniUmerto II. (1904-1981), King of Italy
In 1870, the Papal States were occupied by the Italian royal family of Savoy, against the will of the Pope. Those Italian noble families who rejected the Savoys and remained loyal to the Pope are known as the Black Nobility. The Colonna family belongs to the Black Nobility. The Sicilian branch of the family, however, was closely linked to the Savoys. In 1946, the Kingdom of Italy was dissolved and the Savoys were deposed because they had supported the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. In addition to the abolition of the monarchy, titles of nobility were also abolished in Italy. The members of the papal nobility, including the Colonnas, were allowed to keep their titles of nobility and hold them to this day.
Guido Colonna di Paliano (1908-1982) represented Italy as a diplomat in New York, Toronto, Cairo, Stockholm and London from 1933. At that time Italy was a fascist dictatorship led by Benito Mussolini. After the Second World War and the end of the dictatorship, Guido Colonna was the general representative of the Italian delegation to the Marshall Plan negotiations. From 1948 to 1956 he was the first Deputy Secretary General of the OEEC and thus deputy head of the international organization. The OEEC was the forerunner of today’s OECD. Guido Colonna held a leading position in the Italian Foreign Ministry and was Italian ambassador to Norway. From 1962 to 1964 he was Deputy Secretary General of NATO and thus deputy head of the world’s most powerful military alliance. He chaired the North Atlantic Council, NATO’s most important decision-making body. He was also a member of the EEC/EEC Commission in the 1960s. It was the forerunner of today’s EU Commission.
Guido Colonna di Paliano founded the Trilateral Commission in 1973 together with the American David Rockefeller. This influential think tank facilitates exchange between the elites of North America, Western Europe, and Japan. Many business leaders and politicians are represented in the Trilateral Commission. Guido Colonna would have known the Dutchman Max Kohnstamm, as he was also a co-founder of the Trilateral Commission. Kohnstamm was a friend of the Dutch royal family. Kohnstamm was also a co-founder of the Bilderberg Meeting and is considered one of the founding fathers of the EU.
After giving up his career as a diplomat, Guido Colonna di Paliano entered the private sector. He served on the board of the Italian automobile group Fiat. The company was founded by the Agnelli family, which still controls it today. The Agnellis are considered the most powerful family of the Italian business elite and married into several Italian aristocratic families. Guido Colonna knew Giovanni Agnelli, the family’s head. They were active together in the Trilateral Commission.
Guido Colonna di Paliano was on the board of a large Italian electrical company controlled by the US conglomerate General Electric. Guido Colonna was also on the board of the chemical company Solvay. Solvay is one of Belgium’s largest companies and is still controlled by the billionaire founding family.
Guido Colonna di Paliano at the European Communities Rey Commission (1967-1970), upper row 2nd from left
Prince Ascanio Colonna di Paliano (1883-1971) was a diplomat from 1908 onward. He represented Italy in England, Turkey, Denmark, Sweden, and Hungary. After the First World War, he was part of the Italian delegation to the Paris Peace Conference. From 1938 to 1941, he served as Italian ambassador to the United States, representing the Italian dictator Mussolini in the USA. In December 1941, he delivered Italy’s declaration of war on the USA to then-US President Roosevelt. That same day, Prince Ascanio resigned from his position as ambassador because he opposed war with the USA.
Ascanio’s brother, Prince Marcantonio VII (1881-1947), married Isabelle, a member of the Lebanese Sursock family. Through the marriage, Isabelle became part of Roman high society. She and her husband were loyal to the Vatican. Isabella received Vatican citizenship, which only a few hundred people possess. In her palace, Isabella received influential figures from around the world. The Sursock family was once the wealthiest family in Lebanon and produced Freemasons. The international family also married into the Irish, Muslim, and Thai aristocracy.
Until 1968, numerous Vatican offices were held and inherited by noblemen. Since the 16th century, the Colonna family had enjoyed the privilege of having a family member sit on the right side of the papal throne during papal ceremonies. Prince Aspreno Colonna di Paliano (1916-1987) was the last member of the family to receive this honor. With his 35 titles of nobility, he was one of the most distinguished members of the high aristocracy.
Rather, we must imagine God’s rule as similar to that of the Great King. The court of Cambyses, Xerxes, and Darius was so magnificently organized that it reached the pinnacle of majesty and sublimity. The ruler himself, as is reported, sat enthroned in Susa or Ecbatana, invisible to all, in a marvelous palace whose interior shone with gold, electrum, and ivory. There were many gatehouses, one after the other, and many courtyards, separated from each other by many stadia; brazen gates and mighty walls protected the whole. The most distinguished and experienced men were appointed to this task, some in the king’s immediate vicinity as his spearmen and his attendants, others as guards of the individual courtyards, as gatekeepers and so-called listeners, so that the king himself, the Lord and God—for so he was addressed—could see and hear everything. Separate from these, others were employed: administrators of state revenues, leaders in war and hunting, recipients of gifts, and officials for all other business related to the needs of the royal household.
And the entire dominion over Asia, extending westward to the Hellespont and eastward to the Indus, was divided among themselves by generals, governors, and kings according to peoples—they, too, were servants of the Great King, to whom others, such as runners, scouts, messengers, watchmen, and keepers of the fire signals, were subordinate.
Poem by Rainer Maria Rilke from the cycle “Aus dem Nachlass des Grafen C.W.” or Sämtliche Werke Band 2 Nr. VII. Translated with Copilot AI.
Never did a book reveal such truths, Why seek a name? It matters not; The boundless found a shape and form In sacrifice’s sacred knot.
Oh see, what is possession’s worth If it knows not to offer its all? Things pass away. Aid them in passing, Lest life from a hidden crack should fall
Forever, be the giver, not the taker. The mule, the cow—all press their way To where the king’s image, like a child, Is sated, smiles, and softly lays.
His temple breathes unceasing calm, He takes and takes, yet grants reprieve, So gentle even, the princess’s hand Holds the papyrus bloom, but does not cleave.
Here, sacrifice’s paths are cut, The Sunday rises, ungrasped by weeks. Man and beast drag gains aside, Unseen by gods, as profit speaks.
Though hard, commerce bends to will, Earth cheapened, tamed by practiced skill, But one who pays the ultimate price, Surrenders all—they too are sacrificed.
The order of the Gold- and Rosicrucians as a secret church in the 18th century
Renko D. Geffarth
Western esotericism began in the Italian Renaissance in the second half of the 15th century with the rediscovery of ancient writings, such as the late antique Corpus Hermeticum, whose originator was the mythical priestly figure of Hermes Trismegistos, and its translation into Latin by the philosopher Marsilio Ficino. […]
The reception of the Kabbalah, Platonism and Hermeticism in the German-speaking world ultimately gave rise to the early modern concept of magic of Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa von Nettesheim and subsequently, with the integration of alchemy, the Paracelsian natural philosophy, the theosophy of Jakob Böhme and the panosophy of the Rosicrucian writings of the 17th century. All of this was always in interplay and conflict with Christianity and its denominations, which also persecuted such heterodox currents as heresy.[…]
Schlögl also emphasizes the enlightened character of the esoteric secret societies, as they represented an “alternative to the salvation economy of the Christian churches” with their efforts to redeem ‘creation’ in this world and therefore accommodated the “self-confidence of people at the end of the 18th century”.[…]
In an overview essay on the Illuminati Order and the Gold and Rosicrucians in 1993, the Munich historian and professor Ludwig Hammermayer once again emphasized the contrast between the ‘radical Enlightenment’ Illuminati and the ‘theocratic’ Rosicrucians.[…]
Obviously challenging areas of social and cultural reform were the confessional and associated political tensions in the empire in the 16th century, the role of religion in culture and society and, last but not least, the perceived lack of understanding of ‘science’. With the help of the secret brotherhood of the Rosicrucians, these three core issues were now to be subjected to a renewal that followed a uniform ‘world view’. The Rosicrucian manifestos and the discourse that took place in the years following their first publication were thus not only the mediators of an early modern esoteric tradition that drew on the physician and hermeticist Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim, known as Paracelsus (1493- 1541), and the hermeticism of the Renaissance, but also an expression of the perception of the crisis nature of the early 17th century.[…]
These first years after the publication of the Manifestos are considered the period of the ‘older’ Rosicrucians, followed by a ‘middle’ period resulting from the translation of the writings into other European languages and their reception in other countries, especially in England; the beginning of this second period is generally placed around the middle of the 17th century and its duration is extended into the early 18th century.For the ‘middle Rosicrucians’, there is initial speculation about actually existing brotherhoods or even just circles of people who considered or described themselves as Rosicrucians; for example, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz is said to have been a member of a circle of alchemists and Rosicrucians. However, it is still true for this phase of ‘Rosicrucianism’ that a real society, an order comparable to that of the late 18th century, very probably did not exist.[…]
The history of the development of Freemasonry presented in the following section does, however, show influences from the reception of Rosicrucian writings in 17th century England, which were passed on via Elias Ashmole (1617-1692), a member of the Royal Society founded in 1660 and one of the early Freemasons. The chronological order chosen in this study, ‘Older Rosicrucians’ – Freemasons – Gold and Rosicrucians, is therefore based on the well-founded assumption that there was a connection in terms of content between the Rosicrucian manifestos and early Freemasonry, just as there was a structural connection between 18th century Freemasonry and the Order of the Gold and Rosicrucians.[…]
Alchemy and Apocalyptic Discourse in the Protestant Reformation
Urszula Szulakowska
It was Luther who first identified the Papacy with Antichrist and, on this basis, Lutheran artists had crowned the head of the Whore of Babylon with the papal tiara, as in the Wittenberg Bible of 1522 “(Revelation 17: 1–7). Furthermore, they equated the Pope with the Beast from the Bottomless Pit (Revelation 11: 7). The standard apocalyptic repertoire was created in Luther’s immediate social circle by Lucas Cranach in his woodcuts for the Passional Christi und Antichristi (1521) and for Luther’s Septembertestament (1522). Despite the international and historical prestige of Dürer’s apocalyptic engravings (1498), which were copied in the Wittenberg Bible (1522), later Protestant iconographydid not develop on his model, but on that of Cranach.[…]
Martyrdom was believed to resource the Church with the spiritual wealth of divine grace, the foundation for its future development on earth.[…]
According to this doctrine, the flesh was the ground of human salvation, its torment a necessity, whether in life as a martyr for Christ, or after death in the state of purgation.[…]
In medieval doctrine it was the Church alone that could authorise the survival of the subject (that is, the body) by ensuring that the soul and its temporary somatic body went either to Purgatory, or (infrequently) directly to heaven through the grace of the Church’s sacraments.[…]
Some Paracelsian alchemists, especially Heinrich Khunrath (ca. 1560–1605) and Stefan Michelspacher (active ca. 1615–23), were objects of persecution on the part of both Lutheran and Catholic authorities. Khunrath was an alchemist from Saxony, the heartland of the Reformation, but his theological stance was characteristic of the second generation of Protestants who felt that Luther’s work had been left incomplete and that another religious reform was essential.[…]
Dissenters from the established Protestant Churches were important precursors of a secular society, tolerant of religious divisions, in which Church and state were separated. In characterising these dissidents,Séguenny has adopted a concept from the philosopher Leszek Kolakowski, that of “religion without a Church”. I would add that a little known aspect of the history of secularism is the role of Paracelsian theosophy in creating a heterogeneous society supporting noncompliant religious views.[…]
Anti-Christ, Stefan Michelspacher, Cabala: Spiegel der Kunst und Natur (Augsburg: David Francke, 1616), second engraving. The pope as the beast and whore of Babylon.
Historians such as Frances Yates in her investigation of the “Rosicrucian Enlightenment,” as well as Joscelyn Godwin in his analysis of the “Theosophical Enlightenment” have established the integral relation between esotericism and proto-democratic views. They have demonstrated the manner in which the Rosicrucians, or the eighteenth century “Illuminati,” characterised themselves as forerunners of enlightened thinking in their development of the intellectual traditions of classical humanism.[…]
Historians of Renaissance philosophy, such as Kristeller, have demonstrated that Renaissance Hermeticism also contributed to the emergence of a more individualistic faith. It had been Cosimo de Medici who had requested Marsilio Ficino in 1463 to translate into Latin the newly recovered Corpus Hermeticum. He completed only the first fourteen tractates and it was Lodovico Lazzarelli who translated the rest (tractates XVI–XVIII), publishing them as Diffinitiones Asclepii in Champier’s edition of 1507. This hermetic corpus mostly consisted of second century religious texts written by a variety of pagan groups in the late Hellenistic period. Some of them had been influenced by early Christianity, while others had been inspired by Middle Eastern beliefs. In the early Christian era they had been grouped under the pseudonymous authorship of “Hermes Trismegistus.” As a syncretic merger of diverse Hellenistic theosophical beliefs and practices, Hermetism had appeared in pre-Christian Egypt in the second century. Its sources included the Chaldean oracles, Orphism, the Sibylline prophecies, theogonies that united the Greek pantheon to those of Middle Eastern nations conquered by Alexander, initiatory rites and magical papyri originating in the proliferating cults of the Hellenistic Egypt, some of which had been influenced by concepts drawn from Christian soteriology. Hermetism was, thus, historically distinct from neo-platonism which was a theosophical discourse claiming direct descent from classical Platonic thought. In fact, the diversity of religious ideas in the late Roman Empire had stimulated Plotinus to evolve his own account of a triple-layered cosmology with an accompanying ontology inclined towards mystical experience. Plotinus had no interest whatsoever in magical ritual, but was intent on spiritual illumination for himself and his disciples. […]
In answer to earlier doubts concerning his religious beliefs, Fludd had written the Declaratio Brevis addressed to King James I in 1618–20. The alchemistic appropriation of the Christian sacraments of Baptism and Communion was not welcomed by the ruling Churches. None of them could accept a chemistry that claimed to produce substances equivalent to the body and blood of Christ, administering the same grace of spiritual and physical healing. The miracle of the bread and wine in the mass or Communion service was unique and could never be emulated by chemical means, no matter how devout and prayerful. Moreover, none of the Churches permitted unauthorised laity to perform the sacramental rite which was the prerogative of priests that had been formally appointed by a bishop through a direct apostolic transmission from Christ. Furthermore, if, like Fludd, they introduced kabbalistic angels (chiefly, Metatron) into the alchemical version of the rite, he was considered to be practising the most outrageous demonic magic, as Mersenne asserted. Good or bad purpose was irrelevant: the issue here concerned the question of who should control this powerful miracle. […]
The assertion that an individual human being guided by a purely inner grace could transform their own nature into that of Christ led to a second consequence, namely that the Church, whether Roman or Lutheran, became irrelevant to the work of spiritual salvation. In the organisation of dissident religious groups it was the laity who supplanted the ecclesiastical hierarchy as directors of the inner conscience. They were validating their efforts for independence of Church control by the sayings of Christ concerning the role of the Holy Spirit after his death.[…]
The Christian image of the Son of Man, specifically the one devised by the apostle Paul, was partly a historical inheritance from a pre-Christian Anthropos figure, whose cult had existed in the second century BC in Palestine, Syria and Egypt. Originating in Mesopotamia, this person had been translated to a Judaic context in the apocalyptic texts of Daniel, Ezekiel and Enoch 2.[…]
The image of the “Son of Man” (“Anthropos”) entered Judaism in the second century BC, appearing initially as a nameless, man-like person described in Daniel who subsequently became a messianic character in the account of Enoch. He was an Iranian element that was incorporated into the Jewish account of the creation of Adam. The “Son of Man” or “Anthropos” is a translation of the Hebrew term “bar nasha” which is found in the Synoptic Gospels and in the Hebrew Apocalypses of Daniel and Ezekiel. In the Semitic idiom “bar nasha” was not a first name, simply meaning “one,” or “someone”. It was the Hellenistic Christians who interpreted the term as meaning “the Son of Man” (“Anthropos”), following the Greek translation: “ο υιος του ανθροπον.” The original Jewish “bar nasha” is first encountered in the Book of Daniel 7: 13–14, which was also the first to mention the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. He subsequently re-appeared in the apocryphal Book of Enoch (first century BC) which added new elements to messianic prophecy, by integrating the non-Judaic Son of Man, the story of his concealment by God, his role in the revelation of secrets and his final task as universal Judge. Ezekiel, in turn, developed an eschatological account which prophesied a final conflict at Jerusalem followed by Judgement. The superhuman “Bar Nasha,” as God’s champion, represented the chosen people. Kraeling has, in fact, differentiated between the historical characters of the “Anthropos” and of the “Son of Man” that were fused together in subsequent Christian apocalypticism. As a victorious champion, Anthropos belonged to the history of creation, while the Son of Man “Bar Nasha” was an eschatological type.[…]
It was believed by many prophets and magicians that the Holy Spirit in the Last Days was revealing the concealed secrets of Nature, as Christ had foretold. These were available only to those of the true faith, namely, Lutherans. It is no coincidence that the alchemical resurgence of the late sixteenth century occurred in the Lutheran areas of Europe, particularly in the eastern German states through into Silesia, where there emerged lively groups of Paracelsian alchemists. Luther’s main disciple, the humanist Philip Melanchthon (who was also Reuchlin’s son-in-law) displayed a special interest in alchemy. He also encouraged the use of the new humanistic science of linguistics in order to mine sacred texts for further prophecies.
Allegory of Alchemy, Stefan Michelspacher, Cabala: Spiegel der Kunst und Natur (Augsburg:David Francke, 1616)The alchemical conjunction, Stefan Michelspacher, Cabala: Spiegel der Kunst und Natur (Augsburg: David Francke, 1616)Christ in the Fountain of Life, Stefan Michelspacher, Cabala: Spiegel der Kunst und Natur (Augsburg: David Francke, 1616)Robert Vaughan, “Christ in Glory” in Elias Ashmole, Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum (London: G. Grismond, 1652)
