[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Carl's Statement on HPB

Nov 04, 2006 05:10 AM
by carlosaveline



You say: 

" The following persons  (TS-members) we know for certain members of Sat 
Bhai: H.P. Blavatsky, H.S. Olcott, W.W. Westcott, Franz Hartmann , Papus, 
John Yarker, Kenneth Mackenzie and Francis G. Irwin."

Then, if I understand it right,  you say Sat Bhai was one among other masonic systems. 

Saying HPB and HS Olcott were members of Sat Bhai is, as far as I am concerned, is a ground-breaking statement.   Especially HPB. You say "we know for certain" that these persons were members of Sat Bhai.  "We, whom?  On what grounds? 

Can you provide us the sources of your conviction about such a strong statement?   You see, the stronger the statement, the stronger its demonstration. 

I did not find any evidence about that in your interesting text below. 

Best regards,   Carlos.


Data:Sat, 04 Nov 2006 11:19:43 -0000

Assunto:[Spam] Theos-World Some more on ?The Royal Oriental Order of Sikha (Apex) and Sat Bhai?

> The Royal Oriental Order of Sikha (Apex) and Sat Bhai
> Sorry, but this is a long posting. But I hop some of you will find 
> it interesting any way.
> Note. I don't take the article of Ellic Howe as 100 % correct (hence 
> he knows more about Freemasonry, then Theosophy), but we find anyway 
> some interesting facts and points within it.
> Could Sat Bhai have anything to do with the "Inner Circle", as found 
> in Blavatsky's letter to Hurrychund Chintamon from May 4, 1878, and 
> the Simla-letter to H.O. Hume from September 1884 (were Hume was 
> appointed" Knight")? Just a thought.
> Carl
> The following person (TS-members) we know for certain members of Sat 
> Bhai:
> H.P. Blavatsky, H.S. Olcott, W.W. Westcott, Franz Hartmann , Papus, 
> John Yarker, Kenneth Mackenzie and Francis G. Irwin.
> In the original OTO/Academia Masonica (before Crowley and under 
> Kellner, Hartmann and Reuss) the Sat Bhai was one of Masonic 
> systems, which was studied (see;
> The in the archives of the United Grand Lodge of England are several 
> document from and on Sat Bhai, including jewels and certificate (see 
> Ars Quatuor Coronatorum 1972).
> The webpage of QC;
> In "Fringe Masonry in England 1870-85" by Ellic Howe we find:
> `The Order of the Sat B'hai was not Mackenzie's invention, still 
> less Irwin's, although Mackenzie had a hand in the inflation of this 
> comic pseudo-Masonic balloon, which rose a few feet into the air, 
> wobbled briefly and then quietly collapsed without the average 
> member of the Craft knowing that the thing had ever existed. 
> The Sat B'hai's advent was obscurely heralded in a letter 
> signed 'Historicus' which was published in The Freemason on 14 
> January 1871. The prose style is not unlike Mackenzie's. If so, he 
> was unaware that his misinformation referred to the 'rite' which was 
> to occupy so much of his time a few years later. 
> A brother informs us that a 34 ° of this rite is in existence called 
> the 'Apex', thus corresponding with the 90 ° of the Ancient and 
> Primitive Rite of Misraim. There are only three holders of 
> the 'Apex' in the whole world, who exist by the succession of 
> triplicate warrants from Frederick the Great of Prussia, signed 
> immediately after the Grand Constitutions. The symbols are the cord 
> and the dagger; the ceremonials are very august, 74 . and detail the 
> legendary history and object of the degree, which is to draw the 
> funds and energies of all the councils of the world to one great 
> centre. Grave purposes are said to be in view, but whether such is 
> the expulsion of the Turks from Constantinople, or the establishment 
> of a single empire either on the Continent or in America, is not 
> known. 
> A letter correcting the inaccuracies perpetrated by 'Historicus' 
> appeared about a month later in The Freemason of 18 February 1871. 
> Whoever wrote it knew the substance of the Sat B'hai or Apex legend 
> much in the form in which it was subsequently developed. 
> THE APEX- 49 ° - 81 ° 
> A very serious mistake occurs in The Freemason of the 16th [sic] 
> ult., in which it is affirmed that 'there are only three holders of 
> the Apex in the world, who exist by a succession of triplicate 
> warrants from Frederick the Great', and that the symbols of the 
> degree are a 'Cord and Dagger'. 
> Now, brethren should not be precipitate in their revelations on the 
> subject of this climax of our Grand Historics-Masonic mysteries, for 
> I am in a position to assert, most emphatically, that the warrants 
> in question were not promulgated by Frederick the Great, and that 
> the three so-called Apexes were, in fact, no other than the three 
> sponsors of the ONE SUPREME APEX, whose very style proclaims his 
> crowning and solitary grandeur, and the succession of whose high 
> office comes by an Act of Grace on the part of the existing Apex, 
> who, under circumstances of the strictest solemnity, and himself 
> strictly veiled, transmits to his successor (if practicable, in the 
> presence of one or more of the sponsors) the rituals of all other 
> orders (some of which are scarcely known in England), contained in 
> an antique leaden casket cased in cedar of Libanus (or Lebanon). By 
> this means the Apex-elect is, if of one of the lower degrees (but in 
> no case under that of a P.M.) under a peculiar dispensation. 
> So far, so good: this is a super-Masonic Order and the Apex-elect 
> must be a P.M. Furthermore, he has the status of a 'Secret Chief'. 
> This particular archetype made its Masonic debut in the 
> German 'Strict Observance' (c. 1750) and in a non-Masonic context 
> will be found in Westcott's 'Golden Dawn' (The Secret Chiefs of the 
> Third Order) and in Theosophy a la Madam Blavatsky in the secret 
> rulers of the 'Great White Lodge'. The letter continues: 
> True enough, the Cord and Dagger are the symbols of the Sponsors, 
> but not of the one unapproachable Apex, for he has seven (hence the 
> con-fraternity [sic] known in the East as the Sat-bhae, seven 
> brothers), but which failed under a secret suspension of the then 
> (1845) Sublime Climax Apex, who, at that period, happened to be on 
> one of his tours of secret inspection in India. 
> From the nature of the office of the Grand Climax Apex, 81 °, it has 
> been a time immemorial law that his name should never be divulged 
> nor his actual identity be known to any but a Sponsor. Sometimes it 
> happens, where Apex dies in any remote locality, his successor 
> cannot be known to the Sponsors, but the latter can always identify 
> the true Apex by the seven symbols which lead to the leaden casket 
> that crowns the mystic edifice, and which, with reverence, I venture 
> to assert I have seen, but it is not fitting that I should say more. 
> There is a remarkable painting, of small size, called 'The Dream of 
> Apex'. It represents a man in a gloomy appartment, startled at the 
> appearance of a serpent; but for reasons inconvenient to mention, 
> the locality cannot be indicated. 
> As your correspondent is perhaps aware, the one Supreme Apex takes 
> in regular succession, as his symbol, one of the starry signs; but 
> these are not numbered as amongst the seven occult symbols. 
> Allow me to add, that 'the Frederick the Great' is not a warrant of 
> authority. The Emperor Friedrich Barbarossa certainly did issue one, 
> but under the superior inspiration of the Veiled Apex, who, at that 
> period, is supposed to have been a Venetian. 
> N. B - - - - E 
> Perhaps the most astonishing disclosure of all was the one published 
> in The Freemason of 29 June 1872 signed 'Sp-ns-r [i.e. Sponsor], 
> II'. 'It may be sufficent to say,' he wrote, 'that I have seen the 
> true jewel of 'Apex' the jewel can be heard as well as seen.' The 
> jewel probably incorporated a small bell which tinkled. 
> The Royal Oriental Order of Sikha (Apex) and the Sat B'hai, to give 
> it its official title - was the brain child of Captain James Henry 
> Lawrence Archer (or Lawrence-Archer), Indian Army, although 
> Mackenzie did most of the donkey-work and received small thanks for 
> his trouble. John Yarker briefly referred to the Order's founder and 
> origins in The Arcane Schools, 1909, P. 242: 'This is a Hindu 
> Society organized by the Pundit of an Anglo-Indian regiment, and 
> brought to this country, about the year 1872, by Captain J. H. 
> Lawrence Archer.' In Hindi the word pundit or pandit means a learned 
> man, one versed in philosophy, religion and jurisprudence, 
> alternatively a learned expert or teacher. In military usage it 
> meant a native civilian who was employed to teach the British 
> officers of Indian regiments the Hindi language and to read the 
> Devanagri script. Nothing is known about the Pundit's 'Hindu 
> Society' or the nature of the notes, MSS. etc. which Archer brought 
> to England and which Mackenzie in due course attempted to 'work up'. 
> Archer was born on 28 July 1823. He was gazetted Second-Lieutenant 
> in the 39th Foot Regiment in December 1840 (aet. 17) and served with 
> the 24th Foot Regiment throughout the Punjab Campaign in 1848-9. He 
> went on half pay as a Captain on 1 January 1869 and remained on the 
> half pay list until his death in February 1889. He was initiated in 
> Masonry in India in 1851 (aet. 28) and later became a joining member 
> of Lodge Canongate Kilwinning No. 2 at Edinburgh. 75 . 
> The British Museum catalogue lists the titles of a dozen books by 
> him, e.g. genealogical studies, military histories, memoirs of 
> Indian campaigns, a work on the Orders of Chivalry etc. 76 . As far 
> as the Sat B'hai was concerned he remained in the background. 
> Mackenzie used to complain that he was elusive, absent somewhere in 
> Scotland and not to be found. Only one letter written by Archer 
> survives in Grand Lodge Library. It was addressed to Irwin (6 April 
> 1875) and because we do not know in what context it was written its 
> contents are obscure. Yarker mentioned that his salary as a captain 
> on half pay was only 127 pounds per annum, but he must have had 
> private means. Mackenzie inferred that Archer hoped to make money 
> out of the Sat B'hai. 
> The second of the three letters published in The Freemason in 1871 -
> 2 may have been written by Archer. At that time he was not in touch 
> with Mackenzie, but he was already or soon to be acquainted with 
> Yarker. There is no evidence that Irwin ever met him, but he was a 
> member of the Captain's barely-hatched Order by the end of 1874. 
> 77 . When Mackenzie arrived on the scene in 1875 the Order existed 
> in name rather than in fact. It was he who was to wrestle with the 
> insoluble problem of placing this Hindu cuckoo in an English fringe-
> Masonic nest. No one was better equipped for this particular 
> exercise in human folly. 
> On 18 January 1875 Mackenzie told Irwin that he had 'heard of the 
> Rite of Apex [i.e. the Sat B'hail and that is all.' Eleven days 
> later he asked Irwin for information about the rite for the 
> Cyclopaedia. Irwin referred him to Archer with whom he now began to 
> correspond. He joined the Order early in April and was appointed one 
> of the seven Arch Censors. 'I can say no more because I know no 
> more,' he told Irwin. Then on 22 April he wrote: of course you know 
> a great deal more about it than you have chosen to say.' On 3 May he 
> asked Irwin if he had 'the Code and Mystery and other things'.78 . 
> The Code contained information about the Order's structure and its 
> rules. John Yarker published what he described as a revised edition 
> of the Sat B'hai Code in 1886. The text printed here in Appendix II 
> is probably from this edition. 
> Early in April 1875 Irwin was already thinking of resigning. 
> Archer's letter to him of 6 April refers to this eventuality. The 
> postscript reads: 'I send you as requested 2 Codes and 2 Mysteries. 
> Kindly send a Post Card to Bro. Yarker to forward to you the third 
> copy of each which you require.' Hence Yarker was active in the 
> business in an administrative capacity. Mackenzie was beginning to 
> busy himself, perhaps rather officiously, in London. On 10 May he 
> wrote: 
> For the present, until I learn what I want to know in the matter ... 
> stick like grim death to a dead nigger in the Apex business. All I 
> can say now is that the matter is likely to move. Don't give up your 
> Censorship on any account. I have obtained some important evidence 
> in writing. Don't do more than stir Bros. Yarker and B. Cox of 
> Weston super Mare up. 
> His enquiries continued and on 17 May he advised Irwin: 'Pray let us 
> leave Apex alone for a little while longer. I assure you there are 
> strong reasons for it.' On 24 May he reported the receipt of a 
> letter from Archer. 'I would put myself in communication with him,' 
> he told Irwin, ' . . . and see what he says - pray don't mention me 
> at present. I don't want a Masonic fraud to be perpetrated, verbum 
> sap. Ask him what he is doing. It's pretty muddled as it now 
> stands.' BY 5 June he was beginning to show more 
> enthusiasm: 'Modifications will have to be made before Apex will be 
> of much Masonic service to us. But I think there is a brilliant 
> future. I will try and see Archer in a few days ... I had a letter 
> from Yarker recently but it does not seem to reveal anything very 
> definite about Apex. Have you a copy of the code [underlined three 
> times]? If you have not, I must send you one, or a printed copy can 
> be obtained from Bro. S.P. Leather, Civil Engineer, Burnley, 
> Lancashire.' 79 . 
> By 11 June 1875 Mackenzie's attitude was again ambivalent. He had 
> received a letter from Archer and had learned that 'there is a 
> ritual as well as the Code and Mystery'. He informed Irwin that he 
> had written to Archer and made various suggestions: 'Have pointed 
> out to him that English gentlemen cannot be governed by unknown 
> heads and advised him to call a meeting of Sponsors and Censors. I 
> did not mention names but (in confidence) I may tell you that I 
> might prevail upon Bro. Hervey to accept the fourth censorship, 
> still vacant.' 
> So now the Grand Secretary of the United Grand Lodge of England was 
> to be inveigled into the Apex scheme. Mackenzie did not object 
> to 'Secret Chiefs' when they were of his own invention (cf. the 
> Order of Ishmael) but disliked the prospect of having to submit to 
> their authority when produced out of thin air by someone else, in 
> this case Archer. 
> By the autumn of 1875 a few recruits had presented themselves. On 19 
> October Mackenzie wrote: 'Bro. Ranking has joined the Order of Apex, 
> 80 . also Colonel Ridgway. Something will have to be done in this 
> soon.' On 24 November he reported that 'Brother Col. Ridgway is 
> appointed Treasurer General of the Sat B'hai.' Next, on 27 January 
> 1876 he wrote: 'I think there is every probability of Sir William 
> Feilden's brother Bro. J. Leyland Feilden joining the Sat B'hai. It 
> is high time that this was brought forward in a more tangible shape, 
> but there are so many influences at work that it is very difficult 
> to reconcile the elements.' However, at least a little progress was 
> being made because on 4 February he was able to report: 'Rite of 
> Apex is extending ... I am very carefully selecting the members of 
> the section I represent as Daksha. I only wish for real Masons of 
> studious habits, likely to render good service.. . My uncle [John 
> Hervey] thinks the Order likely to be of great utility.' One wonders 
> if the Grand Secretary supposed anything of the sort. 
> At this point we are left in a state of suspension as far as Apex or 
> the Sat B'hai are concerned because the few surviving letters for 
> 1876 contain no references to either. In the meantime Mackenzie had 
> written an article about the Order which was published in the 
> Cyclopaedia probably in the fascicule which was issued late in 1876. 
> It commences: 
> ROYAL ORIENTAL ORDER OF THE SAT B'HAI - An order incorporated with 
> that of Sikha. It originated in India, and is so named after a bird 
> held sacred by the Hindus, and known to naturalists as the 
> Malacocerus grisius, whose flight, invariably in sevens, has 
> obtained for the rite the appellation of the seven (Sat) brethren 
> (B'hai). The last meeting in India was held at Allahabad (Pryaya or 
> Prag), in the year 1845. It is divided into seven degrees (but, with 
> Sikha, composed of the Sponsors, nine), the first being the highest, 
> i.e., 1. Arch Censor. 2. Arch Courier. 3. Arch Minister, 4. Arch 
> Herald. 5. Arch Scribe. 6. Arch Auditor. 7. Arch Mute. The last 
> three degrees are, under certain limitations, open to both sexes, 
> but none but Master Masons are admitted into the first four degrees. 
> At the end of the article there is a statement which is 'typical 
> Mackenzie': 'The order is now firmly established in England and 
> Scotland, and has branches in America, Austria, and other 
> countries.' It is inconceivable that a rite which had not yet been 
> worked in England, because there were still no rituals, had already 
> been exported to America and Austria. Finally, as might be 
> expected, 'the ceremonies are of an august nature'. 
> A.E. Waite once described Mackenzie as 'a shining light of occultism 
> hidden in a bushel of secrecy', or in words to that effect. The 
> source of the quotation escapes me, although I remember it well. 
> Irwin thought much the same and in a long and critical letter 
> written on 16 January 1877 referred to Mackenzie's tendency to 
> envelop everything in a cloak of mystery. The following probably 
> refers to the Order of Ishmael rather than the Sat B'hai: 
> There is no one more ready than myself to acknowledge your 
> intellectual powers. I am well aware that you could compile a 
> hundred Rituals each as good as the average of those in present use, 
> but you unfortunately appear to have a desire to surround your 
> proceedings with an air of mystery. Now this mystery is all right 
> and proper with the greater number of Masons ... but why persevere 
> with the mystery - or trying to mvstify one who has been admitted to 
> the innermost secrets of the sanctuary? 
> Irwin was referring to himself. As for the Sat B'hai: 
> The Rite of Apex would have spread rapidly in the most of England 
> were it not for this air of mystery. There was the groundwork for 
> much that was good and beautiful ... If the ceremony of the Sat 
> B'hai is not a beautiful one, it will not be that you are unable to 
> so form it, but that an air of mystery will be thrown over it - 
> that, to use a common expression, won't go down. 
> Mackenzie replied somewhat plaintively on 28 February: 'As to Apex, 
> Sikha, Sat B'hai or whatever you like best to call it, I have only 
> to say that I am trying my best to bring it on. But I do not find 
> there is much enthusiasm about it . . . ' On 3 March he explained at 
> some length the difficulty he was having in getting the rituals into 
> shape. One of his problems was that neither the Mutes nor the 
> Auditors, who were members of the two lowest degrees, had anything 
> to do, 'and until this is extricated from the Sanskrit original I do 
> not see how a ritual can be issued.' By 5 April he thought that the 
> Sat B'hai ritual was nearly finished: 'There is a separate ceremony 
> for each grade of the Order . . . ' On 9 August he complained that 
> his work was at a standstill because Archer was away and could not 
> be found. It seems that without Archer's knowledge of Sanskrit no 
> progress was possible. The position was much the same in October and 
> he had now quarrelled with Archer. He knew, too, that some members 
> were becoming restive, hence 'we cannot expect others to take an 
> interest in the Sat B'hai until we give them something for their 
> money . . . ' He was also now aware that for Archer, at least, the 
> Sat B'hai had a certain commercial element: 'I am sorry that Bro. 
> Archer's means are so slight that he is forced to make money out of 
> the Sat B'hai . . . ', he wrote on 20 October. 
> Late in 1877 Bro. Charles Scott, of Omagh, Co. Tyrone in Ireland, 
> sent Irwin three indignant letters on the subject of Mackenzie and 
> the Sat B'hai within the course of five weeks. 
> [21 October 1877]. I know nothing of Apex more than I did three 
> years ago ... I assume that the Sat B'hai is a humbug devised to 
> raise the wind. Bros. Archer-and Mackenzie have fallen out. This is 
> plain by Archer's notes, so that Mackenzie is now Apex and Ishmael 
> and I suppose his fertile genius is conceiving something else racy 
> for the gulls. 
> [29 October 1877]. As for Apex I am washing my hands of it. It is no 
> use and only fit for gulls and dupes ... I can't introduce the Order 
> over here so I shall resign all connection with it. 
> [26 November 1877]. I wrote to Yarker withdrawing from Apex as I 
> could not understand it nor had I any opportunities of meeting those 
> who did ... It was only laughed at by my clever friends who promptly 
> refused to join a rite of very questionable benefit. 
> By 9 November 1877 Mackenzie had completed the following ceremonies: 
> 1. Opening an Ashayam
> 2. Working and closing the same
> 3. Initiation (general)
> 4. Admission of a Mute
> 5. Passing a Mute to Auditor 
> 6. Advancing Auditor to Scribe 7. Passing Scribe to Herald 
> 8. Consecrating Herald as a Minister
> 9. Entrusting a Courier 
> 10. Ceremony of Relegation
> 11. Ceremony of Perfection
> 12. Various Lectures, Regulations &c. 
> On 25 January 1878 he wrote more in sorrow than in anger to 
> Irwin: 'I hear nothing at all from Bro. Yarker. Bro. Archer is 
> mysterious. You and Bro. Scott have, it seems, both resigned and 
> from another source I hear that Madam Blavatsky is the head of the 
> Order! This last item of news is "quite too awfully laughable".' He 
> finally admitted defeat on 27 January 1879: 'As to Apex I should not 
> trouble myself about it', he advised Irwin. 'I regard it as a thing 
> of the past.' 
> However, the Order of the Sat B'hai was not quite as moribund as 
> Mackenzie supposed. A few years later John Yarker ingeniously 
> amalgamated its Ceremony of Perfection with the ritual of a recent 
> novelty called the Order of Light. 
> Frederick Hockley, who had no connection with fringe-Masonry, but 
> knew Irwin and Mackenzie well, was the first to die (10 November 
> 1885). His will included a legacy of 19 guineas to Mackenzie, who 
> followed him on 3 July 1886, shortly before his fifty-third 
> birthday. The deterioration in his handwriting in the last of his 
> letters to Irwin (20 November 1885) suggests that his health had 
> greatly failed. 
> Latterly (1883-5) he had been tinkering with the formation of an 
> exclusive little 'club' called The Society of Eight, apparently for 
> the study of alchemy. Its prospective members in August 1883 were 
> Irwin, Yarker, the Rev. W. A. Ayton 85 . and Frederick Holland, whom 
> Mackenzie described as 'a technically experienced chymist and 
> metallurgist', and who was a member of the Societas Rosicruciana in 
> Anglia. 
> In a letter to Irwin (24 August 1883) Mackenzie wrote: I fear that 
> Bro. Hockley is too advanced in years to join. I do not think that 
> Stainton Moses would do at all; there are reasons I cannot enter 
> upon. Dr. Westcott also will not do. If Holland gets him to join I 
> will at once retire.' By the end of 1885 he had quarrelled with 
> Holland and on 20 November told Irwin: 'Society of Eight quite 
> dormant, thro' Holland's fault.' Towards the end his relationship 
> with Yarker cannot have been satisfactory. The obituary notice in 
> the latter's periodical The Kneph (August 1896) could hardly have 
> been briefer or more perfunctory. "
> "Although one would suppose that the Sat B'hai was completely dead 
> and buried by 1885 both Irwin and Cox were keeping it going in a 
> small way in the West Country. On 15 December Cox wrote: 'I will 
> assist by taking No. 2 Censorship and I would suggest that Dr. Nunn 
> be asked to take the other ... there can be no harm in asking him, 
> the only objection is that he does not care much for occultism.' 
> Almost two years later Cox reported: 'Dr. Nunn intends to wear at 
> our Thursday's meeting his Sat B'hai jewel ... I forgot to say that 
> Bro. Dr. Nunn thinks that by wearing the jewel of the Sat B'hai at 
> our meeting it may be the means of others joining without outside 
> solicitation.' 85 ."
> Footnotes to above:
> 74) 74) Cf. Mackenzie's letter to Irwin of 23 October 1874 quoted on 
> p. 265 above, in which he described the Order of Ishmael's 
> ceremonies as being 'of a most august nature'.^ 
> (75) See John Yorker's biographical article in The Kneph, Vol. II, 
> April 1882, p. 13O- I am indebted to Miss E. Talbot Rice, Research 
> Assistant to the Director of the National Army Museum, London, for 
> detailed particulars of Archer's military career.^ 
> (76) Lack of time has prevented me from inspecting Archer's books. 
> His Idone: or, Incidents in the Life of a Dreamer, 1852, published 
> when he was twenty-nine, might repay study.^ 
> (77) See the certificate in Grand Lodge Library dated the 'first day 
> of Winter Solstice 1874'. Irwin was given the 'spiritual and mystic 
> name Kartikeya'.^ 
> (78) This letter includes a reference to R. W. Lirde's Ancient and 
> Archaeological Society of Druids: 'Don't have anything to do with 
> the Druids. It is only Little in another form and what information 
> he has, he obtained from me. I paid some fees to the precious order 
> and have never heard anything more of it,' Mackenzie wrote. 
> According to the Cyclopaedia it was 'a quasi-Masonic body, 
> reconstituted by Bro. R. Wenrworth Little in October 1874 ... Master 
> Masons alone are admissible to this body which, it is to be hoped, 
> will show signs of vitality at some time not far distant.' Mackenzie 
> mentioned it again on 26 February 1877: 'I know I paid a 
> subscription and I was told the money was spent on a feed but I had 
> none of it.'^ 
> (79) Samuel Petty Leather was a close friend of John Yarker, who 
> lived nearby at Manchester, and active in all the latter's fringe-
> Masonic promotions. In 1882 he was second in the hierarchy of 
> Yarker's 'Antient and Primitive Rite of Masonry, inclusive of 
> Memphis and Misraim'. On 22 February 1875 when Irwin was already 
> doubtful about the Apex project he wrote: 'I indeed feel grieved to 
> hear you have had much trouble through "Apex" and think you will do 
> well to let it rest a while. There is one point in your letter. You 
> call it "The Rite of Apex". I have not looked upon "Apex" as a rite. 
> If I were to do so I should at once stop. I am not quite clear on 
> this point. There are already too many Rites in Masonry - my rude 
> objection to the introduction of ceremonial observances was the fear 
> that it might become a rite.'^ 
> (80) David Fearon Ranking was a member of the Rosicrucian Society in 
> 1879. He joined Westcott's Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn in June 
> 1892 but resigned soon after when he was made a bankrupt.^ 
> (81) The Osiris Temple had a short life. Cox initiated eight male 
> members, all of them Freemasons, in 1888 and two more in 1890.^ 
> (82) Grand Lodge Library has a more or less contemporary MS. copy of 
> the charter.^ 
> (83) William Stainton Moses (1840-92) took Holy Orders in c. 1868 
> but resigned from a chaplaincy in the Isle of Man in 1872 when he 
> became interested in spiritualism and returned to London, where he 
> taught English at University College School. He was a founder of the 
> London Spiritualist Alliance, a frequent contributor to the 
> spiritualist press and for some years editor of Light. He was also a 
> well known private medium. When the Rosicrucian Society's Burdett 
> (London) College was founded in December 1867 its Fratres included 
> Stainton Moses and R. Palmer Thomas. The latter was later to be a 
> prominent member of the Golden Dawn.^ 
> (84) In 1877 the Theosophical Society, which was inaugurated in New 
> York in November 1875 was still hardly known in Great Britain. 
> However, there is evidence to show that H. P. Blavatsky's first 
> important book, Isis Unveiled, 1877, was being read in Rosicrucian 
> Society circles soon after its publication. The Society's remarkable 
> expansion did not begin until May 1887 when Madame Blavatsky settled 
> permanently in London. Stainton Moses was a Fellow of the New York 
> Theosophical Society in 1878 and one of the few Englishmen to have 
> any connection with it. He immediately procured honorary membership 
> for Mackenzie. Yarker met H.P. Blavatsky when she was briefly in 
> England at the end of 1878 and appears to have given her what 
> purported to be a Masonic initiation. The history of 'Co-Masonry' in 
> this country began with Yarker and continued under Theosophical 
> Society auspices.^ 
> (85) William Alexander Ayton (1816-1909), Vicar of Chacombe, 
> Northamptonshire. He had an alchemical laboratory in his cellar and 
> was afraid that his Bishop would learn of its existence. He was 
> among the first to join the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn in 
> 1888. W. B. Yeats, who met him in the G. D. milieu in 1890, 
> described him as 'an old white-haired clergyman, the most panic-
> stricken person I have ever known' (Autobiographies, 1926, pp. 227-
> 8). S. L. MacGregor Mathers introduced him to Yeats at a G.D. 
> ceremony with the words: 'He unites us to the great adepts of the 
> past.' Ayton was invested as Provincial Grand Chaplain for 
> Oxfordshire in 1875.^ 
> Read the whole article on 
> See further:
> Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, the Transactions of Quatuor Coronati Lodge 
> No. 2076, UGLE in Volume 85 for the year 1972. [p. 242.]
> And the Sat Bhai Code on 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> E-mail classificado pelo Identificador de Spam Inteligente Terra.
> Para alterar a categoria classificada, visite
> Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra.
> Scan engine: McAfee VirusScan / Atualizado em 03/11/2006 / Versão: 4.4.00/4888
> Proteja o seu e-mail Terra:

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application