The Rosicrucian Enlightenment

by Frances A. Yates

A history of the role that the occult has played in the formation of modern science and medicine, The Rosicrucian Enlightenment has had a tremendous impact on our understanding of the western esoteric tradition. Beautifully illustrated, it remains one of those rare works of scholarship which the general reader simply cannot afford to ignore.

Genres: History, Occult, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Religion, Esoterica, Spirituality

352 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1972

About the author

Dame Frances Amelia Yates DBE FBA was an English historian who focused on the study of the Renaissance. In an academic capacity, she taught at the Warburg Institute of the University of London for many years, and also wrote a number of seminal books on the subject of esoteric history.

Yates was born to a middle-class family in Portsmouth, and was largely self-educated, before attaining a BA and MA in French at the University College, London. She began to publish her research in scholarly journals and academic books, focusing on 16th century theatre and the life of John Florio. In 1941, she was employed by the Warburg Institute, and began to work on what she termed "Warburgian history", emphasising a pan-European and inter-disciplinary approach to historiography.

In 1964 she published Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition, an examination of Bruno, which came to be seen as her most significant publication. In this book, she emphasised the role of Hermeticism in Bruno's works, and the role that magic and mysticism played in Renaissance thinking. She wrote extensively on the occult or Neoplatonic philosophies of the Renaissance.

Reviews

[Hagar · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think Yates is going to become one of my favourite historians. This is a beautiful, exciting scholarly work. I could not stop reading it. It was SO intense. I'll likely keep going back to this book. A treasure.

[Dimitri · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not sure who it's for or what it's about... Various 17th century intellectuals (the generation that saw the outbreak of the 30 years war as adults) linked to Yates' beloved esotheric tradition which sought to revive Christianity by injecting it with Neo Platonic and "ancient Egyptian" knowledge. Chapters run per country and over published books, but not over what Rosicrucians amounted to in reality, even less over the conspiracy theories linking them to Freemasonry of the Secret Society vibe.. The closest to that would be a weak link between Rosicrucian paranoia and 17th century witch trials.

[Kaiserberg · Rating 3 out of 5]

With few available sources, Frances Yates attempts to trace the origins of the "Rosicrucian movement", fruit of great speculation and intrigue, to a 17th-century Protestant German intellectual interest in alchemy and the works of John Dee and Giordano Bruno. Such a tendency rallied behind a political project promising a "new era of enlightenment" which would have been ushered in by the Elector of the Palatinate's ascendancy to the throne of Bohemia and his marriage to Princess Elizabeth of England (itself laced with alchemical, political and religious symbolism).

Though such a project eventually failed following Prince-Elector Frederick's defeat by Hapsburg forces, Yates stresses this tradition's successive influence in European intellectual life in the following centuries: Though a "Rosicrucian" most likely never existed, Frances Yates highlights the Fama and Confessio's importance in the subsequent elaboration of Masonic rituals and those of other European fraternal secret societies as well as its influence amongst late-Rennaissance and Enlightenment learned men such as Descartes, Kepler, Newton and Francis Bacon, many of which would later pave the way for the abandonment of any pursuit of alchemy and spirituality in favour of a purely rationalistic and materialist investigation of mathematics and the natural sciences.

Yates clarifies many of the hidden political symbolism in The Fama and Confessio, key Rosicrucian texts (found in the book's appendix), providing context and background for the reader's understanding.

However, perhaps due to the convoluted nature of the subject, many of the work's conclusions are based on speculation or second-hand sources which are themselves speculative, leaving the reader confused and without a definite understanding of Rosicrucianism. That is why "The Rosicrucian Enlightenment" should not be seen as a definitive, final book explaining the movement but as a first "stepping stone" for a more comprehensive study of the subject.

[Meeg · Rating 5 out of 5]

Although written years before "Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age," this book almost starts off where the other ended chronologically. Yates reveals a forgotten chapter in history where a spiritual/political movement rose around Friedrich, Elector Palatine, and his wife Elizabeth, daughter to James I of England, whom supporters hoped to install as King and Queen of Bohemia. At the same time, a pair of anonymous manifestos were published proclaiming the existence of an hitherto invisible brotherhood of Christian mystics and setting in motion a flurry of literature supporting and attacking the principles of this "Rosicrucian brotherhood." Both these phenomena are connected to hopes for spiritual renewal and advancement of human knowledge which were stifled by the 30 Years War.
By shedding light on this era, Yates also attempts a much more ambitious project: filling in some of the blanks which show how the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment arose out of the occult natural philosophy of the Renaissance.
The results are fascinating even if (as Yates herself points out) there are many threads here for future historians to investigate.

[Erick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Frances Yates should be credited for giving Rosicrucianism a scholarly investigation. Prior to this a certain mythology had developed around it that was only perpetuated by occultists and Masons. Her investigation is very well worth reading and I agree with many of her conclusions.

[Hristos Dagres · Rating 5 out of 5]

Πρόκειται για ένα πολύ ιδιαίτερο βιβλίο που στο αντικείμενο του συνδυάζει στοιχεία ιστορίας, πολιτικής, θρησκειολογίας, επιστημολογίας και αποκρυφισμού. Καταρχάς, πριν από οτιδήποτε άλλο, πρέπει να γίνει σαφές ότι πρόκειται για ένα καθαρά επιστημονικό βιβλίο εξετάζοντας το μύθο των Ροδόσταυρων μέσα από τις πηγές και τα δεδομένα, ως ένα ιστορικό φαινόμενο και δεν έχει καμία σχέση με τα ψευδοεπιστημονικά, συνωμοσιολογικά προϊόντα που κατά καιρούς εκδίδονται για να καλύψουν αναγνώστες που κινούνται στο περιθώριο της ιστορίας και της πολιτικής.

Είναι ενδεικτικό ότι η ίδια πολλές φορές καθώς εξελίσεται η σκέψη της επισημαίνει τα σημεία στα οποία θεωρεί ότι η ακαδημαϊκή έρευνα της εποχής της είναι ανεπαρκής με αποτέλεσμα είτε να υπάρχουν σκοτεινά σημεία, είτε οι υποθέσεις της να είναι ανεπαρκώς τεκμηριωμένες. Αυτό, αν και επιστημονικά αδύναμο δεν είναι απαράδεκτο ούτε σπάνιο σε όλα τα επιστημονικά αντικείμενα. Πάντα υπάρχουν σημεία ανεπαρκώς τεκμηριωμένα τα οποία μεν γεννάνε υποθέσεις, οι οποίες όμως στην πορεία αποδεικνύονται, διαψεύδονται ή τροποποιούνται αναλόγως με την εξέλιξη της γνώσης. Από τη στιγμή που δηλώνεται, δεν είναι επιστημονικά επιλήψιμο αλλά αντιθέτως κάνει το βιβλίο ανοιχτό στην τεκμηριωμένη κριτική, είτε των σημείων αυτών, είτε γενικότερα.

Το βιβλίο εξετάζει λοιπόν τον μύθο των Ροδόσταυρων (η κατάληξη της ιδίας είναι ότι ποτέ δεν υπήρξε πραγματικά μια τέτοια αδερφότητα) στο πολιτικό, θρησκευτικό και ιστορικό πλαίσιο των συνθηκών που τον γέννησαν. Πρόκειται για μία ελλιπώς διευρευνημένη μεταβατική εποχή σκληρών συγκρούσεων κατά την μετάπτωση της εποχής της Αναγέννησης στην εποχή του Διαφωτισμού. Κεντρικό ρόλο στην αφήγηση της παίζει ο Παρακελσισμός, ένα ιδιόμορφο κράμα αποκρυφισισμού, ερμητισμού και επιστημολογίας (με κεντρική επιστημη τα μαθηματικά και κύρια έκφραση της την αρχιτεκτονική και τη μουσική). Η χημεία ήταν ακόμη εντός των ορίων της αλχημείας, η ιατρική διεκδικεί ως υπέρτατο στόχο την αθανασία και την αιώνια νεότητα (στόχος όχι ανοικτά ομολογημένος αλλά υπαρκτός ως σήμερα) και η Γνώση είναι προϊόν εξ’αποκαλύψεως αλήθειας που δίνεται από τον “Θεό” (αφηρημένη έννοια ενός ελάχιστα χριστιανικού Θεού, με πολλές καββαλιστικές και αιγυπτιακές αναφορές) και προσφέρεται μέσα από τη μελέτη των μαθηματικών και την επικοινωνία με τους αγγέλους. Γι’αυτό και κεντρικές μορφές της διαμόρφωσης του μύθου είναι διάφοροι παρακελσιστές γιατροί, ο Τζον Ντη, ο Μίκαελ Μάγιερ, διάφοροι προτεστάντες (κυρίως, χουσίτες και καλβινιστές) ιερείς και, κυρίως, ο συγγραφέας του βιβλίου ο “χυμικός γάμος του Χριστιανού Ροδόσταυρου” Βαλεντίν Γιόχαν Αντρέε. Κεντρική προσωπικότητα αναφοράς ήταν ο αποκρυφιστής Τζορντάνο Μπρούνο, ενώ αποστάσεις από την τάση, αλλά σαφώς επηρεασμένοι, έχουν πάρει ο Φράνσις Μπέηκον και ο Νεύτωνας.

Σε πολιτικοθρησκευτικό επίπεδο οι Ροδόσταυροι είναι παιδί της κλιμακούμενης έντασης μεταξύ προτεσταντών και καθολικών που κατέληξε στον τριακονταετή πόλεμο μεταξύ της προτεσταντική λίγκας της συμμαχίας Αυστρίας και Ισπανίας. Ο μύθος ξεκινάει και εξελίσεται στο τρίγωνο Βοημία, Παλατινάτο, Αγγλία με κεντρικά πρόσωπα τον Φρειδερίκο, πρίγκηπα του Παλατινάτου (και βασιλιά της Βοημίας για ένα χειμώνα) και την γυναίκα του Ελισάβετ Στιούαρτ, κόρη του Ιακώβου του Α’, βασιλιά της Αγγλίας ο οποίος τελικά προτίμησε την ουδετερότητα και δεν συνέτρεξε στρατιωτικά τον γαμπρό του στη σύγκρουση του με τα Αυστριακά και Βαυαρικά στρατεύματα. Η Yates ουσιαστικά υποστηρίζει ότι ο μύθος των Ροδόσταυρων ήταν προσπάθεια για να στηριχτεί η προπαγάνδα των προτεσταντών ότι επίκειται μια ευρύτατη μεταρρύθμιση της κοινωνίας από μία εκλεκτή κλειστή ομάδα “φωτισμένων”, με βάση την εις βάθος γνώση των μαθηματικών και την αλήθεια που τους αποκαλύπτεται με αποκρυφιστικό τρόπο. Οι Ροδόσταυροι ήταν το (μυθικό) αντίβαρο των Ιησουϊτών, καλώντας σε μία παγκόσμια συνεννόηση των “φωτισμένων” προσπαθώντας να δημιουργήσουν ένα (σαθρότατο, είν’ αλήθεια) ιδεολογικό πλαίσιο που θα ξεπερνούσε τον ατομικισμό (εγγενές μειονέκτημα του προτεσταντισμού) και θα έφερνε σε επαφή και συντονισμό τους εν δυνάμει συμμάχους στη μάχη εναντίον “των προκαταλήψεων” (για να τις αντικαταστήσουν στην πραγματικότητα, με τις δικές τους). Κεντρικός άξονας ήταν η στήριξη στον Φρειδερίκο, η επικράτηση του οποίου ήταν βέβαιη επικαλούμενοι διάφορες … προφητείες και αστρολογικές προβλέψεις! Τελικά, με τη συντριβή των στρατευμάτων του Φρειδερίκου στη μάχη του Λευκού Όρους η όλη προσπάθεια καταρρέει, κεντρικά πρόσωπα όπως ο Ντη πέφτουν σε ανυποληψία κατηγορούμενοι για μαγεία ενώ άλλοι όπως ο Φρ. Μπέηκον παίρνουν σαφείς αποστάσεις από τον αποκρυφισμό - ταυτιζόμενοι με το πνεύμα που είχε διαμορφωθεί στην αυλή του Ιακώβου Α’ που άθελα του ίσως, κατεύθυνε την πορεία της επιστήμης σε μία σχετικά αποκαθαρμένη από ερμητικά, καββαλιστικά και νεοπλατωνικά στοιχεία επιστήμη. Τελικά, αν κάτι έμεινε από αυτόν τον μύθο είναι μερικά κεντρικά στοιχεία της αδερφότητας που φαίνεται να επιβιώνουν (μαζί με οπαδούς του ροδοσταυρισμού) σε επιστημονικές εταιρείες που φτιάχνονται στην Αγγλία, μερικές δεκαετίες αργότερα, την ώρα που ο Ντη εκλιπαρεί το βασιλιά να καθαρίσει το όνομα του από τις κατηγορίες περί μαγείας.

Η Yates διατηρεί μία αρκετά κριτική στάση αλλά είναι ξεκάθαρα υπέρ της τάσης αυτής γι’αυτό και η αμφιλεγόμενη, και δελεαστική για να διαβάσει κάποιος το βιβλίο, λέξη “Διαφωτισμός” στον τίτλο του, δίπλα στο “ροδοσταυρικός”. Θεωρεί ότι ήταν μια ευκαιρία για να υπάρξει ένα συμπλησίασμα θρησκείας και επιστήμης (σε ένα αδιαμφισβήτητα σωτηριολογικό, χιλιαστικό και αποκαλυπτικό πλαίσιο) που θα οδηγούσε σε ολική “μεταρρύθμιση” της ανθρωπότητας κάτω από τον “σοφό” σχεδιασμό μιας ελίτ στην οποία έχει “αποκαλυφθεί” η Αλήθεια. Η συντριβή του Φρειδερίκου και η εχθρική στάση του Ιακώβου τελικά καθάρισαν την εξέλιξη της επιστήμης από τα αποκρυφιστικά κατάλοιπα, δυστυχώς όμως όχι από τον σωτηριολογικό μυστικισμό της.

Ο μύθος ότι η επιστήμη (κυρίως μαθηματικά, χημεία, φυσική, εσχάτως βιολογία και γενετική) μπορεί να αποκαλύψει τους νόμους που ορίζουν την κοινωνία με τρόπο απόλυτο όπως στη φυσική και, με βάση αυτούς, να σχεδιάσει επί χάρτου μια ιδανική, αρμονική κοινωνία επιβίωσε μέσα στους αιώνες και ταλανίζει ακόμη και σήμερα (ίσως τρομακτικά περισσότερο σήμερα με τη μεταμοντέρνα εκδοχή του) την Ανθρωπότητα. Και ενώ δεν υπήρξε τότε συγκερασμός επιστήμης και θρησκείας, αυτό που συνέβη είναι η μετεξέλιξη στα μάτια και τη σκέψη πολλών της Επιστήμης σε Θρησκεία με κύριο εργαλείο της τον “παντοδύναμο” βολονταρισμό του Ανθρώπου που μπορεί να επιτύχει τα πάντα, απέναντι στη Φύση, εάν απλώς το θελήσει.

Η κεντρική ιδέα του Ροδοσταυρικού Διαφωτισμού (ριζική μεταμόρφωση της κοινωνίας από μια κλίκα “φωτισμένων” που επιβάλουν ένα αξιακό πλαίσιο αποκαλυφθέν με “μαγικό” τρόπο μόνο σε αυτούς και δεν επιδέχεται καμίας αμφισβήτησης ή έστω διαπραγμάτευσης, με εργαλείο την εκάστοτε “(ψευδο)επιστημονική” γνώση) είναι ένας κοινός εννοιολογικός πυρήνας που επιβίωσε σε όλα τα προϊόντα του διαφωτισμού: από τον μαγικό φυλετισμό των Ναζί, στον μαγικό “Ιστορικό Υλισμό” της σοβιετικής ιντελιγκέντσιας, στην μαγική “Ελεύθερη Αγορά” των πολυεθνικών γραφειοκρατειών και των “γκόλντεν μπόϋ”, έως τον μαγικό “πανανθρωπισμό” των λίμπεραλ μαζικοδημοκρατιών του 21ου αιώνα. Όλα τα παραπάνω προσέφεραν το ίδιο αποτυχημένο πακέτο μιας “ιδανικής λύσης” που μπορεί να εφαρμοστεί σε όλους τους τόπους και όλους τους χρόνους, σχεδιασμένο επί χάρτου από μία ομάδα “ειδικών” που χρησιμοποιώντας διάφορα επιστημονικά (και ψευδοεπιστημονικά) επιχειρήματα υιοθετούν μια μηχανιστική λογική για την κοινωνία. Όποτε και όπου δοκιμάστηκαν τέτοια μοντέλα, ξεκινώντας από τους πυθαγόρειους στη Σικελία, απέτυχαν παταγωδώς, χωρίς όμως τα νόθα τέκνα του Ροδοσταυρικού “Διαφωτισμού” να καμφθούν. Αντάξιοι της οίησης που απαιτεί μια τέτοια προσπάθεια, δεν στέκονται κριτικά απέναντι στο μοντέλο της παντοδύναμης, μαγικής τους σκέψης. Απλώς αλλάζουν τα υλικά της συνταγής καθοδόν προν μια νέα αποτυχία.

Στο επίπεδο αυτό το βιβλίο έρχεται σε γόνιμο διάλογο με ένα άλλο βιβλίο της ίδιας σειράς Τριπτόλεμος, των εκδόσεων Κουκκίδα: το “Η Θεωρία της Εξέλιξης ως Θρησκεία” της Μ. Midgley, η οποία με επιστημονική, τεκμηριωμένη ανάλυση αποδομεί τον ψευδοεπιστημονικό ιδεολογικό πυρήνα του Επιστημολογικού Χιλιασμού (και της κοινωνικής μηχανικής που τον συνοδεύει) λέγοντας ότι μια θρησκεία που προσπαθεί να υποκαταστήσει την επιστήμη είναι μία κακή θρησκεία αλλά και μία επιστήμη που προσπαθεί να υποκαταστήσει τη θρησκεία στο δικό της ρόλο, είναι μία κακή επιστήμη!

[Maria Mng · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great book that gives you new understanding of how to scientifically investigate historical phenomenos by looking at the borderlines of them. It also gives you an insight into the pre Thirty Year's War when a spiritual new vision was given to Europeans that shaped the future of the continent.... something that probably is happening on a spiritual level in Ukraine right now, but can be formulated, by aspects that have been enlightened, in decades to come.

[NosNos · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Rosicrucian Enlightenment is a proper, scholarly treatment of a topic that has been mystified by people who are way into the idea of secret societies. Looking at a rarely considered part of European intellectual history, Yates sketches an outline of what she describes as the Rosicrucian furor: a period in the early 17th century, just before the devastating Thirty Year War, when manifestos written by unknown authors, claiming a "general reformation of the whole wide world" was at hand, were published. The manifestos claim the existence of a secret brotherhood or fraternity of learned, pious men who call themselves the Order of The Rosie Cross; and lays out what their philosophy entails. The content of the manifestos is drawing from a rich vein in Renaissance movements: the Hermetic-Cabalist tradition, the same one that influenced Giordano Bruno and many like him. Very simply put, the Hermetic part is in reference to a philosophical system based on the teachings of one Hermes Trismegistus, a man said to be contemporary with Moses; and the Cabalist part is referring to the mystic tradition in Judaism. This is even made more interesting by the (likely) fact that no such brotherhood actually existed, and the entire thing was a hoax (maybe).

Expect to see the name of the esteemed Englishman John Dee a lot, he is a landmark and fascinating person on his own, responsible for laying down the foundation for this movement. Also, alchemy. Lots of it. Math, too.

Yates unravels this fascinating yarn in every which fruitful direction. First, she establishes a historical grounding for this movement by linking it to the events leading up to the Thirty Year War. Specifically, the ascendance of Frederick V of the Palatinate to the throne of Bohemia and his marriage to Queen Elizabeth Stuart. Then, Yates describes the hysteria caused by the manifestos themselves and how they came to be. Who influenced them, who printed them, who carried on their spirit, etc. Going region to region, Yates tracks the aftershock in Germany, the panic in France, the sympathy in Italy, and the dejected return-to-sender in England.

The last several chapters are about the Enlightenment part of the title. Yates endeavours to show how this Rosicrucian ludibrium (play, act, show, silly thing) might have inspired towering figures in the history of science like Francis Bacon and Issac Newton. She shows how it might have even been responsible for the formation of the Royal Society and the reformatory (and much less radical) Christian Unions.

As a bonus, the two Rosicrucian manifestos are even available in the appendix, so you can re-enact the excitement of hearing about a secret brotherhood and frantically writing a letter to a non-existent group of people fervently begging them to join!

Wonderful book that I still haven't fully summarized. Read it if you have any interest in the fascinating intersection between the history of science, the occult, and 17th century Europe.

[Alexandra · Rating 5 out of 5]

I saw this book mentioned in a Brooklyn Rail article on "Green Hermeticism" and decided to pick it up. Highly enjoyable writing that sheds actual historical light on a topic that is mired in new-age dreck. Yates traces the influence of Renaissance Hermetic-Cabalistic/Dee-influenced thought through the early 1600's and documents it's impact on the scientific revolution in Newton, Kepler and the Royal Society. I very much enjoyed this book and I look forward to reading Yates' other books on Renaissance thought and ideas.

[Bill · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not that easy of a read. This is a orthodox type historian, and writes like it, but her conclusions are unorthodox and disturb established ideas about western history. Highly recommended, but I helps to have some background in 16th and 17th European history to get what she is saying.

[sam · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mind blowing. Highly reccomended, especially for those interested in a more grounded approach to the question of secret societies' roles in European history.

[Mike Opferman · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book does a fantastic job of being really interesting in spite of the fact that it is very dry and scholarly. The organization and clarity of the author's train of thought is such that it is easy to follow her even when I did not really have the background foundational knowledge to read a scholarly book on this topic. She does a great job of clearly laying out the info you need to understand her point as well as signposting her arguments frequently enough that you never lose track of them. Potential readers should be aware that this book is more dense and difficult than your typical "popular science" paperback, but yet I enjoyed it quite a bit and intend to read more books by this author. It was very nice to read a book that manages to take a subject which is prone to crackpot-ism and do a take on it which is simultaneously interesting/entertaining and also sober/scholarly.

[Kathy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Definitely an interesting read about an obscure and misunderstood "movement". Yates links early Rosicrucian manifestos as propaganda created to usher in the Protestant reign of Frederick V and Elizabeth Stuart of Bohemia. Includes some really great copies of Rosicrucian engravings and art. This one's for the history nerds. Sadly, if you are trying to learn how to astral project or access your akashic records this is not the book for you.

[Andrew · Rating 2 out of 5]

It took me 20 years to finish this book! Interesting material but the writing is repetitious and covers too much too thinly. I'd be interested in checking out some of Yates's other books but I won't commit to finishing them up front.

[Peter · Rating 4 out of 5]

I dabble in the history of occultism- seemingly, the only one who does who doesn’t either, at least a little in some ironic/post-ironic way, believe in magic, or want to believe in magic, or for that matter goes out of their way to debunk individual acts of supposed magic. Well, that’s all right. I’m a fan of the podcast “The SHWEP” - the Secret History of Western Esotericism Podcast, a deeply exhaustive examination of the history of occult thought, and they start, if I recall, by discussing Frances Yates, one of the great historians of the topic and someone who did a lot to legitimize its study in the Anglophone academy. Yates, as far as the host, Earl Fontainelle is concerned, was well wide of the mark in insisting on a unitary history binding the late-antique hermetic tradition and renaissance magic. Fontainelle exhibits the carefulness of the contemporary historian, as opposed to Yates’ more sweeping vistas.

Yates vista certainly sweeps here, as she seeks to link the Rosicrucian movement, a hermetic magical movement originating in early seventeenth century Germany, to the Enlightenment. Truth be told, the individual elements of the relay race she tries to stage bear more interest for me than the result of the run. The linkages between Rosicrucianism and the Royal Society are long and tenuous, and it’s a bit of an odd insistence anyway, on two lines. First, the links between occult thought generally and the flowering of science in Britain are well-established. Isaac Newton spent as much time on alchemy and trying to find codes in the Bible as he did on physics, but evidence he was especially into the Rosy Cross is much more limited (and we know Francis Bacon, almost as important, was an enemy of Rosicrucianism). On the other side of things, Newtonian physics was important to Enlightenment thought, but, and maybe this is my inclination to think politically showing, seem more important as a symbol than anything else. Men, common men, not inspired by God, decoded the movements of bodies and the nature of light, therefore, we can be bosses of ourselves and not have God interfere. The actual beliefs of Newton, Galileo, or the rest beyond their scientific discoveries weren’t especially important in the Paris salons a century hence. So the linkage wouldn’t make that much sense anyway, and the links Yates does try to trace are full of “maybes” and “might haves.”

But still, there was a lot of interesting stuff here. That’s how it often is with these occult histories- weakly-supported theses argued tediously, fascinating content otherwise. Rosicrucianism popped up in a number of places across Europe – Germany first, then France, Italy, and England – with little in the way of connective tissue or organizational support that we can find. We’re pretty sure the guy who wrote the original Christian Rosenkreuz was a German hermetic philosopher from Heidelberg. That’s important- Heidelberg is an old university town and the site of the court of the Elector Palatinate. Real heads know that the Thirty Years’ War started when the Elector Palatine (I –believe– it’s “Palatine” for the guy and “Palatinate” as an adjective for the place… and “Palpatine” is altogether another thing… but who cares) accepted the throne of Bohemia from Protestant rebels who didn’t want it going to a Hapsburg prince. The Hapsburgs were the arch-Catholic power of Europe, Christian Elector Palatine was a Calvinist, it set the whole thing off, Bohemia was strategically important and its throne one of the Electors of the Holy Roman Empire (you had to collect so many Electors, you see, to level your prince up from Inbred Shithead to Inbred Shithead Emperor), that was enough to set the whole domino chain in motion.

Christian of the Palatinate sucked as a general and leader and got his shit rocked by the mercenary armies of the Hapsburgs, ending all but the barest pretense of his ruling Bohemia. The Hapsburg/Catholic armies followed up by stomping all over the Palatinate, which is sometimes still called that, but you’d mostly know it as some of the nicer parts of the Rhineland. This is historically one of the cross-roads of Europe, so all kinds of influences have gone into its culture, and both Yates and other commentators have depicted the area as one of the more relaxed and tolerant in Germany as far as ideas and religion go.

Christian of the Palatinate was married to Princess Elizabeth, daughter of James I, the first king of both Scotland and England. People in both the Rhineland and in England were quite excited about this. They thought it presaged a glorious alliance of Protestant powers that would fend off the Hapsburgs, the Spaniards, and other forces backing the Counter-Reformation and trying to re-Catholicize Europe. It didn’t play out that way. King James was, depending on how you look at him, cowardly, clever, or both. He played both sides, marrying his daughter to Calvinist Christian and trying to marry his son, the eventual Charles I, to a Spanish infanta. He wanted to stay out of any European conflict. This was almost certainly the right strategic call- the fact that England did not pour significant resources down the rathole of the Thirty Years War probably helped it become the great power it did. That said, it angered a lot of James’s subjects, and that anger would help lead to the English Civil War and the toppling of James’s son… and his royal head.

For a little while there, though, in the 1610s, people in the Rhineland were excited. They were going to play in the big leagues. And the occultists of the area, or anyway the ones who tended towards a sort of Reformation occultism, were very excited, making big predictions, and possibly making some on-the-ground connections. The idea of the Papacy as a false church whose overthrow would lead to a golden age of knowledge – and possibly the restoration of humanity to its pre-Fall state, the “powers of the primal Adam” which included all kinds of sick-ass magic – was hard to resist for a clade of Renaissance humanists in the area. After all, as Yates helped point out in other works, the distinction between science and magic was not established at this time. Moreover, marriages are big deals in alchemical symbolism. A marriage between two young Protestant royals – it helps that they seemed visibly into each other, even after having to live in exile – who could be seen as leading a charge to this Protestant-humanist-occultist golden age, was like catnip to these people.

Yates demonstrates that a lot of occultists in the area doubled as pro-Palatinate propagandists, and less convincingly, argued that Elizabethan occultist John Dee set the whole thing in motion twenty-odd years before, seeding networks of occultists/propagandists/spies in Central Europe during visits there! It’s true Dee did spend time in both Heidelberg and Prague, the great center of European alchemical and hermetic learning, but it seems a bit much to say he laid the groundwork for a strategy involving a marriage of children not yet born, one of whom was the granddaughter of one of Elizabeth’s worst domestic enemies.

Of course, it was not to be. Alchemical allegories and good vibes do not armies beat. Central Europe fell into the hole of war, and the Protestant hero, or anyway the guy who kept the Hapsburgs from winning a dozen-odd years later, would be Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden, who did not exactly treat Germany gently himself. Christian died in the field, Elizabeth lived as a sort of pauper-princess-exile and courtly inspiration to assorted Protestant hardliners in England haranguing assorted Stuart monarchs for not doing enough for the cause. But the Rosicrucian dream, Yates argues, lived on, and it starts to slip from an occult philosophy – though one a lot closer to self-help than anything else, which might have something to do with why the Rosicrucians “came back” in twentieth century California – to a political statement of what Yates is not too persnickety to call “liberalism.” The intellectual history snob, to say nothing of the Marxist, in me reels to hear a very vague Renaissance humanism, under absolute monarchs empowered by occultist secret societies, called liberalism like it has anything to do with Mill or Dewey. I get what she means- it does seem they wanted a nicer, gentler Europe, and they thought both the sciences and mankind were perfectable (major strains of liberalism don’t, but still). But…

Well, hell, it was for sure interesting. The linkage to actual science seems not quite there. Among other things, beyond a general “be excellent to each other” vibe the main point of Rosicrucianism was the hermetic principle of microcosm- that everything is a reflection of some other greater principle of order, so the structure of human beings is somehow related to the structure of the universe, the structure of political systems, trees, geometry, all that stuff. I’m no historian of science. But Yates herself grants that Francis Bacon, who read all that hermetic stuff (annoying tic of historians of unusual or vernacular thought- they argue as though intellectuals, voracious readers generally, having read a given work, is proof they took it seriously), utterly rejected the concept of microcosm and saw it as inimical to the empiricism he placed at the center of scientific inquiry, especially in England. I’m sure many scientists going forward thought microcosmic thoughts (I admit to finding the symmetry attractive, but the obvious anthropocentrism… I’m an anthropocentrist most days but you don’t want me doing your physics…), but it doesn’t look like the main influence on science as I know it.

In any event! For all my quibbles this was still well worth reading. There’s a reason Yates still gets published, and it’s not just because there’s a sucker market for stuff about the occult. She wrote gracefully and with great verve, especially when it came to capturing these brief moments, like when Protestant hermetics thought there would be “a union of the Thames and the Rhine.” Geography didn’t favor it, even if James had, but that’d be a weird world if it did. You’d see the Rhineland as the center of united Germany, instead of Prussia, courtly philosophers, magicians, academics filling out the bureaucracy instead of army officers and landowners. Protestantism would be the colorful, spiritual one of the pair with Catholicism seeming all dour and counterreformation… Well. Fun to tinker with, and that counts for a lot, for me. ****’

[Socrate · Rating 3 out of 5]

Titlul acestei cărţi poate fi înşelător. "Rozicrucian" poate sugera că aceasta va fi o carte despre grupuri de cercetători modemi ai unor fonne de ocultism. "lluminism" poate sugera că va fi vorba despre perioada cunoscută sub numele de A ufklărung, ieşirea la lumina raţiunii din întunericul
superstiţiei, datorită lui Voltaire, Diderot şi secolului al XVIII-lea. Iar cele două cuvinte luate împreună par să producă o imposibilitate, ele reprezentînd două tendinţe opuse : una în direcţia unor fonne stranii de superstiţie, cealaltă către o opoziţie critică şi raţională faţă de superstiţie. Cum poate un rozicrucian să fie totodată un iluminist? În fapt, folosesc tennenul ,,rozicruci an" într-un sens istoric strict limitat şi nu folosesc ,,Iluminism" în sensul uzual, strict limitat istoric. Perioada la care se referă cartea este aproape exclusiv începutul secolului al XVII -lea, cu unele extinderi înainte şi după această perioadă. Lucrarea are în vedere anumite documente publicate în Gennania în prima parte a secolului al XVII-lea, documente cunoscute în general sub numele de "manifestele rozicruciene", şi situarea lor istorică.
Orice mişcare ulterioară care îşi spune "rozicruciană", inclusiv cele de pînă şi din prezent, este în întregime exclusă. De vreme ce aceste documente sau manifeste declară că noi progrese ale cunoaşterii sînt iminente, titlul meu este, din punct de vedere istoric, corect. A existat într-adevăr la începutul secolului al XVII-lea o mişcare de idei care poate fi numită "iluminism rozicrucian", şi despre acesta este vorba în cartea de faţă.
"Roziclucian" în sens pur istoric numeşte o etapă din istoria culturii europene, cea intennediară între Renaştere şi aşa-zisa revoluţie ştiinţifică din secolul al XVII -lea. Este o etapă în care tradiţia hennetic-cabalistă a Renaşterii suferise influenţa unei alte tradiţii hennetice, cea a alchimiei.
"Manifestele rozicruciene" sînt o expresie a acestei faze, în măsura în care reprezintă combinaţia dintre "Magie, Cabală şi Alchimie" ca influenţa care a determinat acest nou iluminism.

[Tara · Rating 3 out of 5]

If the skill employed in tracking the publishings and movements of people associated with the RM was also used to rigorously test the claims & ideals of its movers and shakers, that would be fine. It is no problem to take a side in the work; the problem is her panting worship of utopian manifestos prevents her from establishing the basic veracity of the claimants.

Perhaps she really did not have enough access to Dee's scrying records, so she can be given the benefit of the doubt in not knowing how far from sanity he & Kelly sunk (and there is a straight, not jagged or curved, line from their work to Crowley/Parsons who both preceded this text, so it doesn't ring true that she was completely in the dark). There's a lot of diligent puzzle-piecing here, but the laziness of the wishful thinking means this book can never be more useful than as a tracking of sources which could have been done by anyone. Her credulity, repetitiveness, and skimming rather than digging into the actual content of a stream of thought become tedious, the text seeming slippery and droning as she breathlessly repeats the same charges without contemplation or examination. The idea of reading another one of her histories elicits an actual feeling of dizziness and nausea. But she did do good tracking.

[Äsruþr Cyneaþsson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Yates's reputation as the leading scholar of intellectual movements of the Renaissance period is well deserved. This book offers significant analysis of the Rosicrucian manifesto's and the intellectual currents which inspired them. The further study of historical developments in early seventeenth century Europe gives an even greater depth of understanding into the realities of the Brotherhood and how its ideology influenced the emergent speculative Freemasonry.

In terms of balance, depth, and readability -- Yates is the benchmark for studies of this type.

[Dan McCallum · Rating 3 out of 5]

suffers from the same flaws as most intellectual histories, has a seriously flawed understanding of habsburg/catholic europe, and stretches to some pretty silly supposition at points. that said, i think it's well worth looking past these flaws - there's no better book on the rosicrucians & some of yates' insights are utterly fascinating

[Mary Catelli · Rating 3 out of 5]

A survey of some early modern thinkers, including pointing out how closely interconnected the study of magic (and angels) and science were.

[Ankh156]

First read in the 1970s when I was studying anthropokogy in Lancaster UK.

[A.J. Jr. · Rating 4 out of 5]

An historical journey into the occult roots of modern science and technology.

[Josephine Waite · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this just before bed for a lot of nights... so I tended to have a blinding flash of inspiration and enlightenment just before nodding off. So, its probably about the magical roots of scientific advancement... but I could be wrong.
A phrase I caught just before having a nap today "The Rosicrucian Enlightenment included a vision of the necessity for the reform of society, paticularly of education, for a third reformation of religion, embracing all sides of man's (sic) activity - and saw this as a necessary accompaniment of the new science. ... and after the Restoration, science was allowed to develop in isolation from utopia, and apart from the idea of a reformed society, educated to recieve it." Alarming isn't it? Where would anti vaxxers and creationists be in a society where science was in the service of social justice? Even as a student of the history and philosophy of science I have been tricked into thinking of scientific endeavour as rational, neutral, divested of magical thinking; the opposite of what I do as an artist. But I am a Utopian. I recommend this book.

[David Dines · Rating 5 out of 5]

Admittedly, I picked up this book because of my general interest in Western occultism, thinking it might bring light to some of the weirder parts of the Rosicrucian manifestos. Thankfully, Yates ignores the black hole of trying to wrestle with the question of whether or not the Rosicrucians existed and instead traces the currents of thought that likely led to and from the three published works attributed to them. She presents the argument that the manifestos of the early 1600's were likely an expression of the political aspirations of German Protestants, who themselves represented a general liberalism, faced with the growing threat of Europe being taken back by the conservative Hapsburg Roman Empire. In a way, the Rosicrucian manifestos can be seen as one of the last vestiges of the magico-mathematical explorations of the Renaissance before the Enlightenment plowed all that nonsense over.

[Aatif Rashid · Rating 5 out of 5]

Challenges the traditional history of the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment by exploring the role of ideas of magic and the occult. In particular, it explores a movement known as the Rosicrucians, not the secret society popularized by the Da Vinci Code, but a historically real group of Protestant writers associated with the court of Frederick of Palatine just before the Thirty Years War. Yates brings together strands of European history to make a compelling argument that the Scientific Revolution was not an isolated event that happened in opposition to the magical and alchemical thinking of the past but was rather a development from it, the result of early 17th century thinkers who used ideas of alchemy and the search for perfect knowledge to imagine a better world.

[Charles · Rating 4 out of 5]

Can two anonymously authored manifestoes published in Bohemia at the start of the seventeenth century trace their origins to the esoteric magic, alchemy, and cabala of the Elizabethan adviser and tutor John Dee?
How are these two short documents, about a legendary secret society, to then shape in some ways the intellectual, political, and cultural history of Europe? Perhaps, even influencing the first natural philosophers in England as they form the Royal Society?
Historian Frances Yates puts forth, through impeccable scholarship, evidence that ties together just such a fascinating story.

[Joe · Rating 5 out of 5]

The more of Frances Yates I read the more impressed I become. Scholarly, but accessible. Sometimes like a detective novel. Plenty to enjoy: hoax manifestos, Rosicrucians, John Dee and the impressive Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia (arguably the most important British royal you‘ve never heard of). Loved the frontispieces and now looking for “signs” in the Wenceslaus Hollar “Long View of London” on the wall in my flat.

[Nosemonkey · Rating 3 out of 5]

Barking mad conspiracy stuff in places, and has inspired countless scores of idiots to wander off down fruitless paths of nonsense. But thought-provoking in places, and an interesting alternate perspective on the period even after 40-odd years.

[Gregory Kuchmek · Rating 5 out of 5]

Such a phenomenal book. Heavy history of both the Elizabethan era and all of the occult goings-on of the time. Dame Yates sure as heck knew her stuff and did an absolute amazing job of research. This is the go-to book for anyone interested in anything even remotely related. Get it!

[Sara · Rating 4 out of 5]

sucker for the rosicrucians-- guilty as charged