kaos

come out of Craft Masonry demanding a better title than that which distinguishes
Brethren who have been raised to a substituted Masterhood in the kind of light which
only makes darkness visible, and have found no lasting profit in reunion with companions
of their toil whose position is no better than their own. [Vol. II, p 372]
Forgive my prejudicial view, but whenever I see him puffed-up to that size, I generally
start looking for what’s lurking behind him. Taking just such a stance, he once scourged
the evil occultists from Holy Precincts of the Golden Dawn, and this fact is never far
from my thoughts as I read him.
More to our point, if Crowley has produced a fundamentally flawed interpretation
of the Rose-Croix Grade, in the form of the oto 5 th degree, then his work is certainly
not unique, at least according to Waite. A comparison to another of its peers, such as
that worked in obedience to the Supreme Council of France, might prove illuminating.
JOHN DAY
Jac Partit responds:
I would first say that it is richly ironic that John Day quotes Waite in support of an oto
argument. The problem with the New Masonic Encyclopædia is that it is not reliable. Its
limitations are extensively discussed in R A Gilbert’s biography of Waite and I won’t
repeat them here. The principle source that I used to inform my remarks was A C F
Jackson’s history of the Ancient and Accepted Rite published in 1995 to mark the 150 th
anniversary of the Supreme Council for England and Wales. Let’s move on to the
points raised one by one:
1. Chapter of Clermont. I am afraid that current research suggests that the Chapter of
Clermont was entirely mythical. It was created by Pierre de Lintot who attributed it to
Clermont who was then the Grand Master of French freemasonry. He included seven
degrees that proved to be developed in France in the 1760s and 1770s.
2. Key dates:
1761—First mention of the title “Sovereign Princes Rose-Croix” applied to holders
of the degree of Knights of the Eagle.
149