Goethe’s Investigation of Cagliostro’s Identity

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 secretary, La Motte, said Cagliostro eventually cut it up.1 It was initially taken away by Villette, a member of the lode Amis Reunis.2

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.3 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.”4 Later, when La Motte was interviewed, she again implicated Cagliostro as the criminal behind this theft.5 During the trial, Cagliostro’s secretary, La Motte, further said Cagliostro must have forged the document and cut it up in pieces.6 However, a critical event took place the forged contract was stolen from the court file.7 Cagliostro at the same time denied he was a forger and claimed a high birth, and rich background.

No one was able to determine Cagliostro’s true identity during the trial, or whether 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-James8 — was a leading member of Cagliostro lodge system as well as the Amis Reunis:

Sainte-James (de), l’un des fondateurs du Rite des philalètes en 1773 [i.e., Amis Reunis]; Grand-Chancelier dans  la Mère-Loge du Rite égyptien de Cagliostro en 1785.9

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.10 All La Motte’s attorney knew is this could explain 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 supposedly had led along the amorous attentions of Prince De Rohan which explained De Rohan’s guarantee. France was thereby led to suspect the 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.

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.”11 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.”12

As a result, the renown writer Alexander Dumas wrote a famous work entitled Giuseppe Balsamo which he said was intended 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....”13

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, 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 later convicted as a forger in Palermo, Sicily.14 Goethe was able to do this on a trip in April 1787 to Palermo.

First, upon arrival in 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.”15 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, “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:

[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 grand-mother, 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.16

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 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.”17

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.18

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.”19 The sister then sought to find a letter from her 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 insisted 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.20

Goethe then finally left.

Goethe in 1791 Recounts the Affair of the Necklace

In 1791, 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 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.21 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.22 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 rep- resents 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.23

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 is worldly advantage and unscrupulous exploitation of others: ‘What you want men to do for you, do not for them.’”24 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.”25 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.”26

In the account of the Affair of the Necklace interwoven in the Knight’s initiations, Goethe describes the Count as a “conscious” coonspirator 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.”27

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.

This 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.”28 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.

Notes
1. Cagliostro, Mémoire pur le Comte de Cagliostro, accusé contre M. le procureur général, accusateur; en présence de M. le Cardinal de Rohan, de la Comtesse de la Motte et autres coaccusés (Paris: 1786) at 41 (quoting La Motte).
2. Gustave Bord, La Franc-Maçonnerie en France; des origines a 1816: Les Ouvriers de l’Idéme Révolutionnaire (1688-1771) (Paris: Libraire Nationale, 1908) (reprinted Geneva-Paris: Slatkine, 1985) at 361.
3. Simon Schama, Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution (Vintage Books, 1990) at 208; Frantz Funck-Brentano, The Diamond Neck- lace (trans. Henry Sutherland Edwards) (J.P.Lipincott, 1901) at 227.
4. Claude Manceron, Age of the French Revolution (Simon & Schuster, 1989) Vol. IV Toward the Brink 1785-1787 at 71 (quoting Comte Beugnot, Memoires 1779-1815 (Paris: Hachette, 1959)). 
5. W. R. H. Trowbridge, Cagliostro Savant or Scoundrel? The true role of this splendid, tragic figure (N.Y.: University Books, 1961) at 172.
6. J.B.J. Doillot, Réponse pour La Comtesse de Valois-La Motte au Mémoire du Comte de Cagliostro (Paris: L. Cellot, 1786) at 4, 46.
7. Mossiker, The Queen’s Necklace (N.Y.: Simon & Schuster, 1961) at 593.
8. Francois Ribadeau Dumas, Cagliostro (trans. Elisabeth Abbott)(London: Allen & Unwin, 1966) at 172.
9. Grand Orient Lodge of France, ACTA LATOMORUM ou CHRONOL- OGIE DE L’HISTOIRE DE LA FRANC-MAÇONNERIE FRANÇAISE ET ÉTRANGÈRE (Ed. Dechevaux-Dumesnil)(Paris: 1815) Vol. II at 376.
10.F.Dumas, Cagliostro, at 173-74.
11.John S.C. Abbott, The History of Maria Antoinette (N.Y.: Harper & Brothers, 1849) at 105.
12.Henri Martin, History of France from the Most Remote Period to 1789 (Trans. Mary Booth) (Boston: Walker, Fuller & Co., 1866) Vol. XVI at 481.
13.Alexandre Dumas, The Memoirs of Garibaldi (1861) (Kessinger Reprint, 2006) at 19.
14.J.W.Goethe, Memoires de Goethe: Traduction Nouvelle (Paris: G. Charpentier, 1886) Vol. 2 Voyages at 140-46. Available at Gallica.
15.Goethe, id., at 140-41.
16.Id., at 14-41.
17.Id., at 143.
18.Id., at 144.
19.Id., at 145.
20.Id., at 146.
21.Nicholas Boyle, Goethe: Revolution and renunciation (1790-1803)(Oxford University Press, 2000) at 274. The synopsis that fol- lows is likewise from Boyle’s book.
22.Terry Melanson, Perfectibilists (2009) at 311, citing Schüttler’s online version of Die Mitglieder des Illuminatenordens 1776-1787/93 (Munich: 1991).
23.Boyle, id., at 173.
24.Boyle, id., at 174.
25.Id.
26.Id.
27.Nicholas Boyle, id., at 172.
28.Boyle, Goethe, id., at 173.

From the book : Illuminati Manifesto of World Revolution (1792) By Nicholas Bonneville