Dissertation on Cagliostro
By G. G. LAURENS
Barring Napoleon the Great, no man has probably had more posthumous biographers than that genius of Magic, Mysticism and Masonry who starred under the pseudonym of "M. le Comte de Cagliostro." The reasons are obvious: a picturesque and daring ''fanfaron", he was nevertheless learned in medicine, posted in all the mysterious sciences of his day such as Magnetism, Alchemy, Mesmerism, Cabalism, Magic in all senses of the word, etc. Moreover, he was a true initiate of the Masonry of his period, and whether rightfully or wrongfully he was deemed to be the Grand Master of one rite. Finally, he possessed the brazen front needed by any man who leads a public life, and had acquired over the masses what we to-day would call "psychological ascendancy," an achievement which inevitably creates friends and foes.
"A true genius," says Max Nordan, "is he who can bring forth an original inspiration, but lo, whenever such an one happens, a swarm of parasitical beings will appear on the scene, and prey on his achievement." This was certainly true of Cagliostro, both during life and thereafter. As to the latter period, it is sure that the majority of those who resorted to the pen, whether in his defense or in defense of his persecutors, or to satisfy a personal desire, cannot be ranked among the geniuses of later days. Yes, there has been a swarm of pseudo biographers, including romancers, defenders of inquisitional prerogatives, commentators (like your humble servant just now). In making this statement the writer is fully aware that such men as Voltaire and Carlyle have found Cagliostro worthy of their notice, and that Alexandre Dumas the elder, has built up two remarkable romances based on the Cagliostro legends plus his own powers of imagination. They are a minority. From the writer's point of view the most meritorious works he has read on the subject emanate from W. R. H. Trowbridge, who at least can be credited with insight and impartial bias, and from Alfred de Gaston (1864) who before Trowbridge detected one of the flaws that will be pointed out in this way. Cagliostro has been "written up" from every, angle of view, as a paradox, a criminal, a miracle monger, versus a Rosecrutian, a Mystic, a master of Magic, etc., etc., but the various authors have plagiarized from each other and the prejudices and misstatements of each have reappeared ever and anon with new embellishments.
The Death of Cagliostro.
According to Henry Ridgely Evans, in his introduction to Hopkins' Magic (1901) and in his own book on Magic (1909) Cagliostro is supposed to have died, in the fortress of San Leo, on the 6th of October, 1795. According to Trowbridge he should have passed away and have been interred in 1791, yet this author states that the last authentic inscription in his cell bears the date of 1795. Chambers' Encyclopedia and the Britannica also set down the date of his death as 1795. All of which statements are evidently culled from identical sources. It would be superfluous to refer here to the various romancers who have exploited this character, yet to show to what conscienceless extents, infatuated writers dare to go, I will quote the writings of a subsequent mysticist, one Eliphas Levy, who in 1854 wrote that Cagliostro did actually overcome the monk appointed to receive his confession, and escaped to America, where in due course he rejuvenesced some more, and eventually became, under a new pseudonym, the founder of the spiritualists. Note that this sect became very numerous here toward the middle of the last century. Among the many other references, the writer must nevertheless quote the one that impelled him to write this essay, and which altho' startling, is susceptible of plausible discussion. It was written in 1833 by Rhegellini, an historian of Continental Masonry, and translates as follows: "In 1797, when the French approached Rome, Cagliostro was found dead in the castle of San Angelo. (?) The people believed that some members of the Inquisitorial Court were anxious to evade summary vengeance by those of his adepts who were to be found in the French army, so they caused him to be strangled to death."
The writer does not present this version with bias, but merely because it has in it much to ponder about. Over four score years have elapsed since it appeared in print in at least one work of note; why has it remained unanswered? The reader should bear in mind that in any event the death of Cagliostro did not become known until after the aforementioned French invasion. Such an invasion of the Papal States did take place in 1797, and the fortress of San Leo (or San Angelo) was besieged. What military necessity ousted for General Domorowsky to overcome a bastion that stands on the summit of a huge, isolated mountain is also not clear to ordinary readers.
Giuseppe Balsamo Cagliostro.
Line engraving by C. Guérin, 1781, after himself.
Housed in the Wellcome Collection
De l'Ami des Humains reconnoiffés les traits,
Tous les jours sont marqués par de nouveaux bienfaits, Il prolonge la Vie, il secourt l'indigence,
Le plaisir d'être utile est seul sa récompense.
Of the Friend of Humans we recognize the traits,
Every day is marked by new benefits,
He prolongs Life, he helps the indigent,
The pleasure of being useful is his only reward.
Le Comte de Saint Germain.
Open any encyclopedia in search of that name and you should find there the condensed life history of another genius of the tribe of miracle mongers. Should you find it worth while to read a biography of this pseudo Count, you will be surprised to learn that he was nearly a contemporary of Cagliostro, preceding him by but a few years, but strange to say, you will find an exact parallel of some of the doings attributed to Cagliostro. Yes, it can be historically proven that it was he who pretended to have lived more than twenty centuries and to have witnessed the crucifixion. That Cagliostro sold or concocted medicines under the pretence that they could prolong life is not such an awfully rare crime, for we did witness and do witness similar pretenses in our own day. But why in the name of all that is fair should his biographers have seized on this lead and interwoven into it the doings of Saint Germain, while deliberately drawing the curtain over the parallel? Why do they fall so low as to contradict themselves when they recount later on that Cagliostro stated in open tribunal that he was brought up in Medina, Arabia; or again, if such a legend was accredited by the people why do they later state that the rumor spread that Cagliostro was the natural son of the Grand Master of Malta? Surely there was no Grand Master in Malta before the Christian Era?
Acharat, Althotas.
These words or names that appear in the legend of his tribulations as well as his symbols and seals, and many other things that he possessed or brought forth, are of cabalistic derivation. Let it not be forgotten that the so-called cabalistic sciences had reached its highest pinnacle, at the very period when Cagliostro appeared; is it sensible to assume that the adherents of this secret doctrine did not penetrate the more than incidental accumulation of words, signs and coincidences?
Giuseppo Balsamo.
The main aim of Trowbridge's work appears to have seen to demonstrate that Cagliostro and Giuseppo Balsamo were not and could not have been the same person. He certainly puts forth sound arguments in proof of his contentions, and whereas he pretends impartial bias, he has persuaded yours truly. Surely the common-place rogue who was known in Palermo to have been reared in an atmosphere of poverty and lowliness, and who at the time of his disappearance thence, knew only a smattering of Italian and much Sicilian patois, is not likely to have blossomed into the erudite linguist who felt at ease in the courtly homes of German, Russian, Austrian, English and French noblemen and statesmen. Who will deny that Cagliostro gave proof of erudition in ancient languages as well as in modern ones, yea, practiced alchemy, medicine and occultism, any two of which would have branded an average man as "learned"? Granting that his actual knowledge of Arabic, Coptic, Maltese and Egyptian remains unproven, this man, no matter how much of a fakir, was a scholar. Scholarliness can not be faked, it could not be faked even in the days of Vergil or Plato or Cicero.
As to Documentary Evidence.
All biographers agree that they obtained their information and confirmation from documents still in existence in various official archives of France, England and Austria, and except as to the parallels to Saint Germain, many quote their authorities. When, however, Cagliostro's tribulations in Italy are at stake there is a dearth of authority except as to the birth and rogueries of Balsamo or a certain anonymous pamphlet published in 1791, presumably under the direction of the Holy Inquisition.
Trowbridge has proved that this pamphlet quotes mostly from non Italian sources, such as the "Courier de l'Europe" whose editor had failed to recover blackmail from Cagliostro, and can not be verified in its references to Rome. Robbed of many of the intercalated tales, the history of Cagliostro loses none of its fascination; for that matter niether do those of St. Germain, St. Martin, Nostradamus, Cornaro and many other miracle mongers whose life history should be known by every student of Magic.
But why were these tales merged and attributed to a single career? Is it perchance because the others died peaceably outside of Rome while Cagliostro alone had the mischance to fall under the clutches of a star chamber Court, whose very existence is execrated to-day? It is the writer's belief that the key as to the exact day of Cagliostro's death and the cause thereof is still in existence. It is said that the spirits of the times must overcome the vestiges of ancient dark methods. We in America ask for open court diplomacy. Perish all Star chamber procedures and all fear of light!
Originally pubished in the M-U-M in Vol. 9, No. 4, (Whole No. 78) in New York, September 1919.
