A.M.O.R.C.'s use of
the lamen of the O.T.O.

The version that currently is in use by A.M.O.R.C. can be found in their
pamphlet Liber 777 1, written by Charles Dana Dean, and is given to members
of their Neophyte degree. It seems to be there primarily for ornament, as a
lot of A.M.O.R.C.'s use of symbols on their publications seems to be.

As will be discussed in "The Connection between A.M.O.R.C. and O.T.O.", H.
Spencer Lewis, the founder of A.M.O.R.C., had close connections to the
O.T.O. He was a member of the VIIo, an honorary member of the Sovereign
Sanctuary of the IXo for Switzerland, Germany and Austria 2 under the
authority of Theodor Reuss. Even though this is documented in their own
book, Rosicrucian Documents" 3, one of their classmasters suggested
differently when I asked him 4. Lewis also met Aleister Crowley briefly in
1918 e.v., during his stay in America. Crowley wasn't impressed with him 5,
and later Lewis was to collaborate with Heinrich Traenker, who fraudulently
claimed to be the O.H.O. of the O.T.O. 6, as well as publish an attack on
the person of Aleister Crowley, the legitimate successor of Theodor Reuss as
O.H.O., in A.M.O.R.C.'s defence pamphlet Audi Alteram Partem 7. This
provided Lewis with good opportunity to come into contact with the lamen and
eventually make it available for A.M.O.R.C.'s benefit and later use.

Some people have suggested that the lamen was in fact not inspired by the
lamen of the O.T.O., but the french neorosicrucian movements of the 19th
century 8, whom there is no doubt that Lewis was in contact with. If not as
he claims in 1909 e.v. (when his initiation into R+C is supposedly to have
taken place) 9, he was at least in contact with them in the 1930s, when he
collaborated with them on a project called F.U.D.O.S.I. I will now try to
discuss this theory, and attempt at discerning facts from fiction.

The version of the lamen used by the O.T.O. today, which is by
far the one which is most similiar to the A.M.O.R.C. versions, was not the
one originally in use by the O.T.O. under Theodor Reuss. In fact there
existed several versions, more or less similiar to the one that is in use
today. Some of these can be found at the Image Gallery at the web-page of
A.M.B.. This version was designed by Crowley, and probably didn't see public
use before 1912 e.v. (i.e. allmost ten years before Lewis gauge of Amnity
from the O.T.O. in 1921 e.v.), 10, in his Manifesto of the M.'.M.'.M.'.,
which in 1919 e.v. was to be revised as Liber LII The Manifesto of the
O.T.O., in the journal of Scientific Illuminism, The Equinox Volume III
Number 1 11.

The most obvious change in the lamen is in the added Eye of Horus, instead
of the normal Eye in the Triangle, a common masonic symbol for God. The Eye
of Horus is of course an important symbol for Thelema, the religion founded
by Aleister Crowley in 1904 e.v., it is also the symbol of his Ordo A.'.A.'.
Another change from the version shown in the 1906 e.v. Constitution is the
removal of the wings on the Cup.

This modern symbol was later adopted by Theodor Reuss 12, as can be shown in
his letters to the United Grand Lodge of England 13, which are to be found
at the Library of the web-page of A.M.B.

The symbol used by A.M.O.R.C. doesn't show any similiarity with any of the
lamens originally used by Theodor Reuss. Instead it looks like a blue-print
of the later development of Aleister Crowley, with the exception being the
added line, discussed above.

If one is to postulate that Lewis did in fact get his version from his
french connections, it is reasonable to think that the version Reuss used,
also was an inspired version of these, since he had contact with many of the
organisations and individuals that Lewis later was to get in touch with 14,.
If the theory mentioned above is true, it would be reasonable to suppose
that the versions used by Lewis, resembles the versions used by Reuss rather
than Crowley's. The question remains, why didn't A.M.O.R.C. use any of the
original versions used by Reuss. Why is the the Eye of Horus used, a symbol
which certainly bore less sympathy with the french neorosicrucians, that
often had ties with one of the many masonic authorities, than the Eye of
God. A.M.O.R.C. has allways empahsized their egyptian ancestry 15, so it is
reasonable to think that the Eye of Horus, is what attracted A.M.O.R.C. to
the new version in the first place, rather than the one used by Reuss or his
french connections.

Using Occam's Razor, we don't need the french neorosicrucian movements to
explain the usage of the lamen of the O.T.O. in It is a more complex theory
resulting in a lot of unecessary elements, that doesn't even manage to
explain the facts surrounding the lamens (i.e. the similiarity between the
modern lamen of the O.T.O. and Lewis' lamen). On the other hand, the theory
that Lewis got inspired by the lamen of the O.T.O., accounts for all the
facts, and even provides us with a less complex theory. In the tradition of
Occam, this would make it the more more valid theory.

What is probable, is that Reuss may have gotten inspiration for the lamen
from the french movements, later Crowley adopted it and changed it for his
use, which in turn was adopted by Reuss and Traenker, from whom probably
Lewis got it from. Lewis was probably aware of it's distant french cousin,
but having empahsized the egyptian connection using the Eye of Horus, was
probably more attractive for A.M.O.R.C. than the Eye of God.

In the late seventies a letter from the O.T.O. was written to A.M.O.R.C.
which asked them to discontinue their use of the lamen of the Order, as well
as stating that any authority that the A.M.O.R.C. had through the O.T.O.,
had been delcared void and null. The latter was prompted the policies of
A.M.O.R.C. at that time, that made it difficult to remain a member of both
orders. A.M.O.R.C. continues it's use of the lamen to this date, but as long
as it is only used as private ornament, no legal steps will be taken.

Footnotes:

1 Liber 777, The Celestial Sanctum; Grand Lodge of the English Language
Jurisdiction for Europe and Africa.
Liber 777, The Celestial Sanctum; Grand Lodge of America.
Liber 777, Det Himmelske Sanktumet, Nordic Grand Lodge;
(Academia Masonica Borealis Archives)

2 O.T.O. History, by Fratres Sabazius Xo & Amt IXo, 1997.
Letter from Fr. Sabazius Xo to Peter Koenig, dated 3. oct. 1996 e.v.
(Academia Masonica Borealis Archives).

3 Rosicrucian Documents, San Jose: Rosicrucian Press no date).

4 Letter from classmaster of Nordic Grand Lodge to author (undated), but
received in 1992 e.v. (Private Arhcives). The classmaster, upon my
asking denied that Lewis had any involvement with the O.T.O., but
suggested that since he had read that the O.T.O. in the past had claimed
rosicrucian ancestry, that the founders of the O.T.O. had instead been a
member of A.M.O.R.C., overlooking the fact that the foundation predated
the foundation of the A.M.O.R.C. Recently I have been adviced by one of
the members of A.M.O.R.C., that one shouldn't take the Classmaster's
accounts too seriously, since their quality tends to vary a lot.

5 The Confessions of Aleister Crowley, London: Penguin Arkana Books 1989
e.v.
O.T.O. History, by Frater Sabazius Xo and Amt IXo (Academia Masonica
Borealis Archives).

6 "Rosenkreutzerne", by Christopher McIntosh, Copenhagen: Sphinx 1989 e.v.

7 Audi Alteram Partem - The National Defence Comitte (Private Archives)

8 Letter from member of A.M.O.R.C. to author (Private archives).

9 The connections of A.M.O.R.C. with the french neorosicrucians is well
documented in "Sar Hieronymus and the FUDOSI", by Serge Cailet"
(Excerpts in the A.M.B. Archives), "The Traditional Martinist Order and
the Martinist Order and Synarchy" by Linda Worley, The Philalethes
Magazine October 1990 (The A.M.B. Archives"), where the list of
organizations involved in the F.U.D.O.S.I., is given: Ordre de la
Rose-Croix Universelle, Ordre de la Rose Croix Universitaire, Ordre
Pythagorien, Ordre Martiniste et Synarchie, A.M.O.R.C., Ordre Martiniste
Traditionel, Eglise Gnostique Universelle, Societe d'Etudes et de
Recherches Templieres, Ordre Kabbalistique de la Rose-Croix, Soceite
d'Etudes Martinistes, Union Synarchique de Pologne, Ordre de la Milicia
Crucifera Evangelica.
A more vague account is given in Lewis Ralph Maxwell, Cosmic Mission
Fulfilled, San Jose, California: Supreme Grand Lodge of A.M.O.R.C. 1966
e.v.

10 The Manifesto of the M.'.M.'.M.'., London: 33 Avenue Studios 1912 e.v.
(Academia Masonica Borelais Archives)
In his article "Aliester Crowley: Freemason", in "Transactions of
Quatuor Coronati Lodge 108" (A.M.B. Archives), Martin P. Starr, of
Teitan Press suggests that the Constitution of 1906 e.v. has perhaps
been backdated, since it carries two symbols very similiar to the lamen
Crowley uses on "The Manifesto of the M.'.M.'.M.'.", as well as the
lamen used on J.F.C. Fuller's biography over Aleister Crowley, "The
Star in the West", or Reuss was familiar with the writings of Aleister
Crowley at a earlier point than 1910 when he admitted Crowley to the
VIIo. As I will be discussed in this article a similiar lamen was in
use by the french neorosicrucian movements at a earlier point (i.e.
Peladan's Cabbalistic Rosicrucian Order), so this controversy is
apparently laid to rest. Fuller's lamen on the frontpage of his book,
and the similiar lamen used by Reuss, may very well be just a
coinidence, stemming from a similiar older symbol, or perhaps Reuss had
indeed read Fuller's book, which wouldn't be surprising, considering
that he frequently visited and lived in London.

11 The Equinox Volume III Number 1, Detroit: Universal Book Company
1919e.v.

12 "Ordo Templi Orientis Hermetic Brotherhood of Light Manifesto, letter
dated Jan. 22, 1917 e.v. Switzerland and signed by J. Adderley
(Secretary of H[ermetic] B[rotherhood of] L[ight], letter dated May
24th 1917 e.v., signed by J. Adderley VIIo (Secretary of the O.H.O.),
letter dated July 26th 1917, and signed by Theodor Reuss (O.H.O.),
letter dated 22. August 1917 e.v., signed Theodor Reuss (A.M.B.
archives)

13 Ibid

14 "Sar Hieronymus and the FUDOSI", by Serge Cailet" (Excerpts in the
A.M.B. Archives)
"The Traditional Martinist Order and the Martinist Order and Synarchy"
by Linda Worley, The Philalethes Magazine October 1990 (The A.M.B.
Archives").

15 Lewis Harvey Spencer, Rosicrucian Questions and Answers: With Complete
History of the Rosicrucian Order, San Jose, California: Supreme Grand
Lodge of A.M.O.R.C., 1929 e.v. Rpr. 1979 e.v.

16 Letter from Bill Heidrick to author undated but received 1995 e.v.


Copyright (C) 1997 e.v. Kjetil Fjell