II. With this criticism the whole theory practically

breaks down. We know that the "Fama Fraternitatis "
was published in 1615 as a manifesto of the Bruderscliafft
des loUiclien Ordens des Rosen Creutses. We have good
reason to suppose that the original draft of the " Chymical
Marriage " was tampered with ; we do not know that
previous to the year 1615 such a work was in existence as
the " Chymical Marriage of Christian Rosencreutz." What
we know to have existed was simply the "Nuptise Chymicae."
Now, supposing the "Fama Fraternitatis" to have emanated
from a source independent of Andreas, he would be natu-
rally struck by the resemblance of the mysterious Rosicru-
cian device to his own armorial bearings, and when in the
year 1616 he published his so-called comic romance, this
analogy may, not inconceivably, have led him to re-christen

234 HISTORY OF THE ROS1CRUCIANS.

his hero, and to introduce those passages which refer to the
Eose Cross. This, of course, is conjectural, but it is to be
remarked that so far as can be possibly ascertained, the
acknowledged symbol of the Fraternity never was a St
Andrew's Cross with four Eoses, but was a Cross of the
ordinary shape, with a Eed Eose in the centre, or a Cross
rising out of a Eose. There is therefore little real warrant
for the identification of the mystical and the heraldic
badge. It is on this identification, however, that the
Andrean claim is greatly based.