er, and her account is
specifically untrue. She is undoubtedly acquainted with the grades of
the order, but she could have obtained these from more than one
published source--as, for example, the late Kenneth McKenzie's
"Cyclopaedia of Freemasonry," or from my own "Real History of the
Rosicrucians." But even if she possess the rituals, she has not come by
them in the manner she describes. Her account is as follows:--"The
Fraternity of the Rose-Cross comprises nine degrees of initiation--1.
Zelator; 2. Theoricus; 3. Practicus (Miss Vaughan writes _Praticus_,
which would be the error of a French person who does not read Latin and
not the error of an English or American person as she claims to be); 4.
Philosophus; 5. Adeptus Minor, according to the variants of Valentin
Andreae, or Adeptus Junior, according to the variants of Nick Stone
(those were the variants of Nick Stone which were ostensibly burned in
1720 by the Grand Master Theophilus Desaguliers, but were not in reality
destroyed; transmitted to trusty English brethren, after the death of
Desaguliers, they passed from reliable hands to others also reliable,
until the reconstitution of the Rose-Cross; for the reconstituted
association exists actually in England, Scotland, the United States, and
Canada, and those variants of the grades which were made by Nick Stone,
are at the present day deposited with Doctor W. W. W., living at Cambden
(_sic_) Road, London, Supreme Magus of the Rose-Cross for England, AT
WHOSE HOUSE I HAVE TRANSCRIBED THEM); 6. Adeptus Major; 7. Adeptus
Exemptus; 8. Magister Templi; 9. Magus."

Miss Vaughan's literary methods are not exactly captivating, and the
enormous parenthesis is hers, but the capitals which close it are mine.
The English doctor mentioned is well known to transcendentalists, and he
is actually a high-grade Mason; he is also personally well-known to
myself. To the best of his recollection he has never at any time met any
person terming herself Diana Vaughan. More especially, no such
individual has ever called at his house, much less copied any rituals of
which he may be in possession. There is therefore only one term by which
it is possible to qualify Miss Vaughan in her account of this matter,
and if I refrain from applying it, it is more out of literary grace than
from considerations of gallantry, for when persons of the opposite sex
elect to make themselves odious by gross imposition, they cannot expect
to escape the legitim