Cagliostro Appendix

Appendix W: Cagliostro & The Illuminati [page 355 et seq. of Illuminati Manifesto of World Revolution] - here is the text without the footnotes which are found in the book.

[355] In 1789 Cagliostro was in Rome. He was spreading his Egyptian Freemasonry, as he had done previously in France in the early 1780s. This prompted the Roman police at the request of the Inquisition to arrest him in December. [356] He was interviewed, and various questions posed. In response, Cagliostro wrote out his answers. He was appointed legal counsel who represented him. All the legal papers from this Roman police investigation were later reviewed by serious scholars. They concluded the Roman police followed all normal procedures, and thus Cagliostro was afforded all the appropriate rights of a civilian prisoner.

In 1791, a Mr. Giovanni Barberi (1748-1821) wrote a book which summarized the testimony and the results of the police investigation. Barberi quoted extensively from the police interviews with Cagliostro. Barberi’s book was first published in 1791 in Italian, French, Spanish, German and (without authorization) in English. Its original Italian title was Compendio della Vita. In English, this means Summary of a Life. It will be referred to here as the Compendio. A copy can now be downloaded from books.google.com of either the Italian or unauthorized English version. The English version confesses in the Preface that this is a translation by friends of Cagliostro. It is identical to the Italian Compendio except the English translation fails to translate and include the two references to the Illuminati present in the Italian Compendio.

Objective Tone To Compendio

The Compendio in Italian maintains a dispassionate neutrality. As one reviewer — the famous author Charles Dickens — similarly noted in his review of the French 1791 edition, it is “a matter of fact little volume” extracted from 1790 “proceedings instigated at Rome” and published by the “Apostolic Chamber.” Charles Dickens adds that the Compendio “has every appearance of a genuine work more or less extracted from the evidence brought forth at the trial.” [357]

The Key Passages About The Illuminati

There are two very brief passages filling perhaps two pages of text that mention the Illuminati in any significant degree. Barberi, the author, appears to not be aware this is the Bavarian Illuminati. He draws no linkage to Weishaupt’s group. It appears clear he thinks the Illuminati are simply either a higher level within the Strict Observance or a vague group going by that name.

In these two passages, Cagliostro describes his first introduction to a Strict Observance lodge in Germany and then his initiation at Frankfurt into a high level of the Illuminati. After a first introduction to the Illuminati through Jiminez, Cagliostro is contacted again when he moves to [358] Frankfurt-am-Main for two days. There he encountered Jiminez again. Jiminez then said Cagliostro was ready for further initiation. Cagliostro’s account of this initiation was:

I met with two men, whom I cannot reveal,... but they were chiefs of the Illuminati.... They invited me to a café. They then took me alone in a carriage three miles outside the city. We then transferred to a garden where I saw a man-made cave. With the help of a lit torch, we descended together underground about fourteen or fifteen steps, then entering a round room. In the middle was a table, upon which I saw a metal chest, that contained a quantity of writing, among which...was a manuscript... upon which was written, “We Grand Masters of the Templars,” followed by oaths and expressions that were [meant to] horrify, but which I could not recall, and it contained obligations to destroy despotic sovereigns. This formula was written in blood, and it had eleven signatures, among which my guide said he was the first. I cannot remember the names of all the men who signed but I will call them N. N. N. N. N. N. N. N. These signatures signified the names of the Grand Masters of the Illuminati; but in reality my guide did not make me, nor did I know, how it [this order] came to exist. At that point, they asked me to read from this book, which was written in French, and a little later, I read in a certain part, of which I strongly assured myself, that the determined blow of this society was directed primarily at France, and following that they would make the next blow in Italy, in particular at Rome, which Mr. Jiminez [whom he met in the first [359] contact] had been named to be the leader over [that territory], that they had an intrigue, and the Society had a great deal of money dispersed in various banks in Amsterdam, Rotterdam, London, Geneva, and Venice, and they told me that they would pay me each year one hundred eight thousand... and they had money available for those who stir up a movement against despotic sovereigns. They also revealed that their lodges in America and Europe were up as high as 20,000, and that each year on the day of St. John they each were obligated to send to the Treasury of the Sect 25 Gold Louis. Finally, they offered me money, telling me also that they were ready to give me their blood [that is, die for him as brothers]; and I received 600 [Gold] Louis happily. We then returned together to Frankfurt, where the next day I left with my wife for Strasbourg.

In 1848, Louis Blanc, a French revolutionary and historian of socialist principles, relied upon this passage to identify the Illuminati of Bavaria as important players in the planning of the French Revolution: “He was at Frankfort on the Main, when the deputies of the Illuminati met him and determined to secure him...The first blows were to reach France....He learned from the mouth of his initiators that the secret society, of which he was now a part, had strong roots....He himself received a large sum destined for the expenses of propaganda...and went to Strasbourg.”

[360] It bears mentioning that immediately after this passage in the Compendio, Barberi never again draws any importance from the mention of the Illuminati. He goes on to talk about Cagliostro’s trip to Strasbourg, France (September 1780). He never discusses the Illuminati again. Even later, when Cagliostro says that he met Jiminez again in 1786 outside Paris and was interviewed by Jiminez about preparations ongoing in France by the societies, Barberi does not remind his reader that Jiminez was previously identified by Cagliostro as an Illuminati leader in 1780. Barberi does not appear to understand the significance that an Illuminatus such as Jiminez was near Paris in 1786 consulting with Cagliostro. Barberi simply relates that later event as follows:

When Cagliostro was freed from Prison after the Affair of the Necklace [1786], he went to the Village of Passy where among many other visitors he received was Thomas Jimenez and another Grand Master. “They asked me various questions about the affairs of France, and the circumstances of my suffering at Paris, and they told me that as the leading Masons of the Strict Observance they were managing to set up the revenge of the Templars, directed and aimed principally against France and Italy, in particular against Rome.” In the same village, he then celebrated in a lodge of their rite, . . . and thirteen days later, he left for Bologna.

Barberi deduces nothing more about this event. He moves on to the next scene. Of interest also, Barberi appears to suggest that this was simply the Strict Observance and [361] Templars who were involved. The Illuminati connection is missed by Barberi because he could not see these implications from Cagliostro’s testimony.

Hence, we have highly significant quotes from Cagliostro about his Illuminati recruiters in 1780 telling him at a Strict Observance lodge of their plan to strike a blow against France. The same people in 1786 came to Paris and reminded him that their plan was almost ready to be launched against France.

Petraconne’s 1914 Scholarly Analysis of Compendio

As to the reliability of the Compendio itself, Petraccone in 1914 summarized the scholarly analysis regarding the authenticity of the work. Petraconne pointed out that in 1881, one highly reputable scholar, Ademollo, mentioned in two articles that he had access to the police investigation papers on Cagliostro. They had been kept in a private home at Rome. Petraconne says that Ademollo was able “to fully confirm all the details of the Compendio, how the process proceeded, how [Cagliostro] was permitted to discuss his defenses [with his attorneys], and how the rights of the accused were protected.”

Ademollo was a serious scholar of judicial operations at Rome at the turn of the prior century. Ademollo wrote a book detailing the Roman judicial system’s operations in 1674-1739 and 1796-1840, in a scholarly work entitled Le Giustizie a Roma, dal 1674 al 1739 e dal 1796 al 1840 (Rome: 1881)(available through books.google). Ademollo was also a scholar on the history of the Roman theatre.

Then, later, Petraconne found more manuscripts and documents on the Cagliostro investigation at the Victor Emmanuel Library at Rome. Petraconne examined them and said they “confirm the content of the questions and answers of Cagliostro, . . . [and] show even how well-informed his attorneys were in assuming his defense and trying to get his release.”

Unless these serious scholars are all wrong, it appears that Barberi’s account remains as a credible account containing reliable information obtained by the Roman police in 1790.

Goethe’s Investigation of Cagliostro’s Identity

The Impact of Cagliostro on World History

The Affair of the Necklace of 1786 was the single event that most contemporaries believed caused the revolution of 1789. At the heart of this was a forged purchase contract for a very expensive diamond necklace. The queen supposedly signed this contract. The signature duped Prince De Rohan to guarantee the purchase in January 1785. It also caused the jeweler to turn over the necklace to De Rohan. After the jeweler delivered the necklace, Cagliostro’s secre [363] tary, La Motte, said Cagliostro eventually cut it up. It was initially taken away by Villette. He was a member of the lodge Amis Réunis.

How did the story break? Cagliostro’s secretary, La Motte, came forward and told the jeweler before anyone else knew that this was a swindle. Comte Beugnot, a neutral in this, was with La Motte when De Rohan was arrested. She told Beugnot: “It’s Cagliostro from start to finish.” Later, when La Motte was interviewed, she again implicated Cagliostro as the criminal behind this theft. During the trial, Cagliostro’s secretary, La Motte, further said Cagliostro must have forged the document and cut up the necklace in pieces. However, a critical event took place — the forged contract was stolen from the court file. Cagliostro at the same time denied he was a forger and claimed a high birth, and rich background.

[364] Unfortunately, no one was able to determine Cagliostro’s true identity during the trial, or that he had a criminal background as a forger. As a result, Cagliostro escaped conviction. The reason no one could prove this is that the prosecution did not want to prove this. Unbeknownst to the king, the prosecutor he assigned — Baudard de Saint-James — was a leading member of Cagliostro’s lodge system as well as of the Amis Réunis:

Sainte-James (de), l’un des fondateurs du Rite des philalètes en 1773 [i.e., Amis Réunis]; Grand-Chancelier dans la Mère-Loge du Rite égyptien de Cagliostro en 1785.

Cagliostro admitted at trial, on examination by La Motte’s counsel, that Saint-James told Cagliostro before his arrest that La Motte had implicated him, and Cagliostro would soon be arrested and his living quarters thoroughly searched. All La Motte’s attorney knew is this explained why nothing incriminating was found at Cagliostro’s house. What escaped anyone’s notice at the time is the motive for Saint-James to help Cagliostro avoid detection.

Thus, Cagliostro was absolutely confident that he could lie at trial and never be exposed. His secret lodge brother of a peculiar fraternal order headed by Cagliostro was the Prosecutor!

Thereby, Cagliostro at trial besides throwing all the blame on his secretary, Mme. La Motte, was able to haughtily imply the queen indeed signed the contract. And the queen

[365] supposedly had led along the amorous attentions of Prince De Rohan which explained De Rohan’s guarantee. France was thereby led to suspect Queen Marie Antoinette was throwing away money to buy expensive necklaces or was illicitly seeking suitors to pay for the same. The press of 1786 used this to attack the Monarchy. It indeed was the biggest shock prior to 1789 that undermined the prestige of the Monarchy. Cagliostro was the one who gave the case a political spin by making these accusations and insinuations.

As a result of Cagliostro’s spin, Talleyrand, a revolution supporter in 1789, remarked prior to 1789: “I should be nowise surprised if it [the Affair of the Necklace] should overturn the French monarchy.” Henri Martin in 1866 wrote that the Affair of the Necklace “was destined to consummate the discredit of the royal family, and to accelerate the fall of the throne.”

As a result, the renown writer Alexander Dumas in his famous work entitled Giuseppe Balsamo wrote that he intended it as “a serious work, rather than a romance” in order to dramatize the role of the Illuminati. He said of his work Giuseppe Balsamo: “I have written the history of the Illuminati...enemies of royal power—... [who] played a large part in the French Revolution....”

[366] Goethe Verifies Cagliostro’s True Identity & Background

It turns out that Goethe’s personal investigation in Palermo proves Cagliostro escaped responsibility at the Paris trial of 1786 by lying about his identity. This perjury covered up a forgery conviction back in Italy.

In 1787, Goethe, the famous author of the German Enlightenment, made a journey to Italy. In his journal, he outlines how he proved satisfactorily the identity of Cagliostro as Balsamo — and that he was a lowborn Sicilian convicted as a forger in Palermo, Sicily. Goethe was able to do this on a trip in April 1787 to Palermo.

First, upon arrival at Palermo, Goethe asked a guest at his hotel about Giuseppe Balsamo. “One of the guests responded to me that the portrait of Cagliostro had been circulated to Palermo as it had been to all the towns of Europe, and some persons had recognized the features of Cagliostro [in the portrait] as Joseph Balsamo.” Then it was explained to Goethe that the French Minister hired an attorney in Palermo to investigate the lineage of Balsamo. Goethe asked the guest to direct him to this lawyer, which the guest then did so.

Next, Goethe met with the lawyer, who treated Goethe kindly. “Having already sent,” Goethe wrote, “regarding this genealogy and memoir [to Paris], he confided to me that he kept a copy of these legal documents just in case he ever had any need. Here is an extract of what he made:

[367]

[141] Joseph [i.e., Giuseppe] Balsamo was born at Palermo within the early days of June 1743 who had as a godmother a sister of his grandmother, on his paternal side, whose husband was named Joseph [i.e., Giuseppe] Cagliostro, from the vicinity of Messina. This godmother and great-aunt had given him

the baptismal name of her husband [i.e., Giuseppe], which is what undoubtedly suggested to him much later of taking equally the name of the family [i.e., Cagliostro]. His father, Peter Balsamo, a book-seller at Palermo, died at 45 years, and left his widow no resources and two children, namely Joseph [i.e., Giuseppe] and a daughter named Jeanne.

....As to Joseph [i.e., Giuseppe] Balsamo, since his adolescence, he took the habit of the Brothers of Mercy, a special order that tried to heal maladies. His vivacity and great aptitude for medicine, which was remarked favorably upon, was not enough to overcome the reverend fathers being forced to dismiss him for misconduct. [142] As a means of subsistence, he commenced to make magic and seek for treasure. He developed...the facility of copying handwriting in order to falsify ancient documents and fabricate frauds. One of these documents led to a serious prosecution, and he was found guilty, and thrown in prison. Yet, he found a means of escape, and he was judged in absentia.

The fugitive traveled to Calabria, and then landed in Rome where he then married the daughter of a manufacturer of belts. After this marriage, he left with his wife for Naples, under the name of Count Pellegrini. He then had the audacity to return to Palermo under this assumed name. There, he made the acquaintance of a young Sicilian prince....

Dona Lorenza, the name of the woman [wife] of Balsamo, captivated the goodwill of the prince, to the point he declared openly and proudly he was the protector of the couple.

At this point Goethe discusses details of the discovery of Balsamo’s identity, the resurrection of the original charges for fraud over documents, Balsamo’s arrest, etc. Then the

[368] Sicilian prince stands by Balsamo, etc. Balsamo is freed again. No one can determine under what pretext, as there was no judicial act releasing him, etc.

Goethe obtained further from the lawyer’s secretary copies of the legal documents so he could satisfactorily verify the genealogy.

From the evidence received, Goethe concluded that Cagliostro was indeed an imposter from Palermo whose real name was Giuseppe Balsamo. Goethe then told the secretary that he wanted to meet the mother and sister of Cagliostro. The lawyer’s secretary made the introductions after some reluctance. In that afternoon, he conducted Goethe to “the home of the family of the celebrated Count Cagliostro.”

They lived on a street named Casaro. It was a tortuous street. They lived in a house of “sickly appearance.” He met Balsamo’s sister, a woman somewhere in her 40’s, as well as the widow Capitumino. They recognized the secretary. They understood and agreed to talk about the son. Goethe then records this initial conversation:

“You know my brother!,” [said the sister].

“All Europe knows him,” I responded, “and I think you ought to know...that he is in London and is perfectly settled.”

“Then I wish to join him this instant,” she said.

Then Goethe told the mother how the son was arrested, thrown in the Bastille, but now lived happily in England. Yet, all around Goethe was poverty, evident in three sick children in the house. Nevertheless, the sister confided in Goethe that on a prior visit of her brother to Palermo “he brought the sum of 14 ounces which was a great help at that moment,” and they “thought he had become rich and a signeur.” The sister then sought to find a letter from her [369] brother, which made the secretary very happy to hear about. However, Goethe said “my curiosity was satisfied, and...[I told them to] dispense with the need to find the letter.” The family insisted on finding the letter. Goethe explained he had to leave, and then the mother said:

“Tell my son I am so very happy of the message that you brought me on his behalf,” at which point I pressed her to my heart.

Goethe then finally left.

Goethe in 1791 Recounts the Affair of the Necklace

In 1791, Wolfgang Goethe (1749-1832) wrote a masonic comedy entitled The Grand Kophta (Der Gross-Cophta). While in the history books, most assumed Cagliostro was not behind La Motte’s alleged conspiracy, Goethe tells a different story. In the story by Goethe, the hero is a young Knight who finds out that the brotherhood he joined is not aiming at altruism. It turns out to be a deception. Our young knight is no doubt Goethe himself. The brotherhood is obviously the Illuminati. Goethe had joined the Bavarian Illuminati in February 1783 as alias Abaris, reaching the rank of Regent — the highest grade. However, here in Grand Kophta Goethe is clearly expressing disillusionment.

As the story begins in Grand Kophta, Goethe identifies the lead character — the “Count” who transparently represents Cagliostro in the historical event known as the Affair of the Necklace. The Count of Grand Kophta is a penniless adventurer running a secret brotherhood. The first grade of his secret order teaches a pure ethical code: “seek what is best for you in what is best for others.” It hooks the Knight.

However, when the Knight reaches the second grade, as Boyle puts it, “to his horror, the Knight learns that the wisdom of the second grade is opposite to that of the first grade—it aims at worldly advantage and unscrupulous exploitation of others: ‘What you want men to do for you, do not for them.’” Then when the Knight rebels at this, the Count explains to him it was all a moral test to see his true heart. Now the Knight is ready for the third and final grade of master. The Knight “is appeased by this...reversal of appearances.” However, by the final act, when the Knight learns of the Count’s involvement in the plot to steal a necklace, his loyalty to the Count is “finally shattered.”

[370]

In the account of the Affair of the Necklace interwoven in the Knight’s initiations, Goethe describes the Count as a “conscious” co-conspirator with a Marchioness. She represents La Motte in the real events. The Count (=Cagliostro) “forces” the niece of the Marchioness to “impersonate the Queen” (an event that was part of the true history) to feign visions to encourage the Canon (who represented Cardinal Rohan in the real history) to believe in the amorous intentions of the Queen. The young Knight “learns of the conspiracy” and “passes the information to the authorities.” This indeed is what Goethe is doing by retelling the truth about Cagliostro’s role. In the last act in Goethe’s play, unlike in the real world, all are caught red-handed on the very night the Canon (=de Rohan) gives the Necklace to the Marchioness (=LaMotte) in anticipation of being rewarded with a “tryst” with the “spurious Queen.”

[371]

The significance of Goethe’s play The Grand Kophta is that Goethe was trying to tell the public that they did not see the true picture of the co-responsibility of Cagliostro in defrauding the jeweler. The Affair of the Necklace obviously turned Goethe off to the Illuminati. He saw that they trained members in duplicity and self-seeking rather than exclusively in virtue. For Goethe, he could not countenance measures, such as those taken by Cagliostro, to effectuate the reform of men and the world he earnestly desired. Goethe saw it would have a corrupting influence on human character.

Goethe’s rejection of the Illuminati was self-evident one month after the first performance of Grand Kophta. Goethe wrote: “All secret associations should be destroyed, whatever the consequences.” Thus, evidently, Goethe’s investigation into the life of Balsamo was an important pivot point in his life, causing him to reject the Illuminati and all secret societies. Perhaps such antipathy explains Goethe’s famous warning that the public often are ignorant of elites:

None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.

Perhaps this is also why Goethe wrote, as quoted in Goethe’s Opinions on the World, Mankind, Literature, Science, and Art (trans. Otto von Wenckstern) (London: Parker 1853), about his opposition to artificial (i.e., hidden and secret) means of revolution instead of steady progress proven by necessity aimed always to improve the condition of humankind:

[Page 4] I could not be friendly to the French Revolution, for its atrocities touched me too nearly, and disgusted me almost every hour and every day, while its beneficial results were at that time beyond my vision. Nor could I look with indifference, while attempts were making in Germany to effect that by [372] artificial means, which in France was effected by a great and imperative necessity.

But I have never been a friend of arbitrary power....Because I hated Revolutions, they called me a friend of existing institutions. The title is equivocal and I protest against it.

[Page 2] A truly liberal man employs all the means in his power to do all the good he can. He does not rush in with fire and sword to abolish imperfections, which are sometimes unavoidable. He endeavors by cautious progress to remove the ills of the body politic.