THE εEδISSIστS’ RITE A contribution to Spiritual and Knight Masonry1 Dr Leandros Lefakis 1. Introduction It is of great difficulty to approach the subject of the εasonic impact of εelissinos’ system on Russian society without providing a good deal of information on what the Russian Masonic movement was like. I therefore attempted to provide a general overview of his masonic development, particularly in that period of the eighteenth century when Russian freemasonry reached its maximum influence, before the lodges were closed by ωatherine II in the 1ιλί’S and before the movement re-emerged in different form under Alexander I, transformed the French revolution and the Napoleonic empire, culminating in the Decembrist movement. There is no doubt in my mind that freemasonry in Russia developed as it did because of a deep dissatisfaction with the kind of spiritual nourishment offered on the one hand by the Orthodox Church and on the other hand by the rationalism of the philosophes of the Enlightenment2. 1 This article was written as part of the First International Masonic Workshop on Freemasonry that held in Anavyssos, Greece (August 2014) [1] Tradition claims that, during his wanderings, Peter the Great was initiated by Sir Christopher Wren. However, no evidence exists to support this. It would appear that the first freemasons in Russia were foreigners who immigareted when Peter opened doors to the West. From 1731 to 1770 there was really no authoritative Masonic organization palying a serious part in the awakening of the Empire. After 1770 Freemasonry became a fashionable pastime for nobility. About this time Ivan Yelagin entered the Craft, because he was curious about its knowledge of hidden rites and sciences. During this period Freemasonry was particularly successful in Stέ Petersburg and εoscow, where the Yelaguin’s system flourishedέ δater, under Nikolai Novikov the Order grew still further in numbers and wealth, honored itself by beneficent foundations and took an interest in public relief and popular education. Catherine the Great reigned from 1762 until 1792. At first, Catherine applauded these efforts. Later certain official began to whisper into the ear of the Empress creating doubts about the Craft. The French Revolution dealt the fatal blow. Catherine, frightened by the events in Paris, trembled before the distant peril to absolute monarchy. The downfall of N.I. Novikov in 1792 and the closing of the lodges in 1794 were not only the consequences of ωatherine’s increasing fear of the spread of revolutionary ideas from France. There were also in part the result of internal stresses, even feuds, within the Masonic movement itself. The various types of freemasonry were rivals for the control of Russian freemasonry. For example, the competition between the Swedish templar system and Yelagin lodges was solved by Catherine II when she sent the head of the Templars, Prince G.P. Gagarin, to honourable exile in Moscow. Catherine the Great Many degrees which include the word Knight fall under the Scottish Rite (as well as in other rites). Knighthood first appears in early Freemasonry within the Order of Kilwinning, whose last degree was the Knighthood of the Rosy Cross. Another idea of Knighthood belongs at the root of the Strict Observance, 2 One has only to look at the kind of works translated into Russian, mainly from German, but sometimes from Latin: Boehme, εeister Eckhart, ωhristian Rosencreutz, Paracelsus to realize the longing of some kind of “spiritual poetry”έ Some of this longing is expressed in the literary works of poets who were freemasons, like M.N. Kherasov. It is also reflected in the original Masonic writings of the masons themselves, about which much less is known since they remain unpublished, but recently have been subjected to an initial exploration. [2] two words which first appeared in a document drawn up in 1754 at Kittlitz, where von Hund, owned a manor some 50 miles East from Dresden. They had the double meaning of strictly following the rules of the Order as well as that of distinguishing it from the then current German Freemasonry. In 1741, von Hund was made a freemason in Frankfurt/Main and stayed in Paris in 1742-1743. It remains an unanswered question whether he was then received in a knightly Order through exiled Stuartists, or not. What we know for sure, however, is that, together with a small group of very young men, he founded a Lodge and a Chapter at Kittlitz in 1751. Nothing can better describe the spirit which animated that group from the start than the beginning of the Rules it adopted in January 17523. This is a brief historical background before the appearance of Petros Melissinos and his Rite in 1765. 2. Freemasonry in Russia during the eighteenth century There was a long tradition of magic and alchemy in Russia and in spite the barriers of foreign contamination set up by the Orthodox Church, occult literature was not unknown. The pseudo – Aristotelian Secretum Secretorum, with its alchemical and astrological elements, was known in Russia probably by the end of the nineteenth century and there were copies in the libraries of many Tsars 4. An exposition of δull’s χrs Magna and a translation of his Ars Brevis had been produced in Russia in the late seventeenth century and circulated widely5έ χmong “portraits” of ύreek sages to be found in the Russian art of seventeenth century were representations of “ώermes Trismegistus”6έ John Dee’s εonas Hieroglyphica formed part of the library of Simeon Polotsky in the reign of Tsar Aleksei7. In eighteenth-century Russia, Freemasonry was inextricably linked a crash course of Westernization, originally embarked on Peter the Great8. In fact one should speak about the “invention of Eastern Europe” in the eighteenth century, as the alignment of Europe according to east and west during the age of the Enlightenment intellectual project, while reducing the significance of the Renaissance alignment according to north and south. Hereby one should add that Freemasonry began producing its own negations of some Enlightenment ideas, providing a transition to Romanticism. 3 As far as we know, von Hund had no masonic activity after he left Paris. His masonic creations of 1751 may be the result of a visit by General James Keith (1696-1758), a famous Scottish Jacobite, then Provincial Grand Master for Russia and a friend of Frederic the Great. The outbreak of the Seven Years War (1756-1ιθγ) stopped the activities of von ώund’s masonic bodies, whose most members were army officers. However, a Chapter of Jerusalem (also termed Chapter of Clermont) was created in Berlin on July 19, 1760 by a French prisoner of war 3έ ώund’s correspondence with England - some witnesses state to have seen letters written to him from London - had been interrupted because of the war. He first believed that Johnson was really what he pretended to be and grew eager to meet him. They wrote to each other; their letters are still extant. This resulted in a meeting in Altenberg attended by some sixty members of both groups in May 1764. But a few days later, Johnson was recognized as a fraud. He flew away, was arrested and sent to jail. von Hund convinced all presents to join his Strict Observance which, from then on, dominated almost all German Freemasonry during the next twelve years. 4 See W.F. Ryan, The Secrets of Secrets and the Muscovite Autocracy, in Pseudo – Aristotle. The Secrets of Secrets, Sources and Influences, ed. W.F. Ryan and C.B. Schmitt, Warburg Institute Surveys, IX, London, 1982, 114-123. 5 As many as 55 copies of Ars Magna in Russian have survived, dated form the late seventeenth century. 6 See W.F. Ryan, op.cit., 122, note 35 7 P. Longworth, Alexis Tsar of all the Russias, London, 1984, 205-206. 8 See Larry Wolffin, Inventing Eastern Europe: The Map of Civilization on the Mind of the Enlightenment, Stanford University Press, 1994. [3] Due to its popularity, secretive nature, and rumored influence, Freemasonry attracted a lot of attention in Russian history9. Thus it came as no surprise that there were more than 3,000 active foreign and Russian Freemasons in the country in the eighteenth century, a number which grew during the period of 18001861. Yet, most historians of Russia tend to either downplay the influence of foreign Masons and thereby neglect its international implications or, in a vein of conspiracy theories, attribute all problems in the subsequent development of the country to the “evil” nature of forced foreign influences. While turning to intellectual currents that were new to them (including neo-stoicism) various trends of Christian traditions, Renaissance thought, Hermeticism, Cabalistic thought, Pythagorean and Newtonian science, East European Freemasons tried to assess the spiritual legacy of the Orthodox Church, interrelating it with both ancient and modern Western philosophic traditions, no doubt, a body of thought plagued with contradictions. Considered from this standpoint of constant borrowing, adapting, and blending together different ideas and traditions, the inability to uncover a singular source of ideological uniformity of Masons, despite the clarity of its general spiritual positions, attests to the fact that Freemasonry grew from the Enlightenment but thus prepared the ground for Romanticism, and the revival of religion in nineteenth-century Eastern Europe. By studying the transmission of ideas we will better understand how the Enlightenment context worked with local situations. It is also a study of ideas and European Freemasons that traveled across borders to Russia and of the organization that facilitated this process. Or can also be seen in light of travel and a rising cosmopolitanism in ‘modern’ Europeέ To philosophers, an "unexplored country," a "tabula rasa," in Leibniz's words, Eastern Europe and Russia represented a curious case of developmental potential. Peter the Great 9 See Andrei Ivanovich Serkov, Rossiiskoe masonstvo: Slovar'-spravochnik, Moscow, 2001; Andrei Ivanovich Serkov, Istoriia russkogo masonstva, St. Petersburg, 2000. [4] Acompanied by the advances in commerce and aided by external political events, like the Jacobite rebellions, Peter the Great's reforms (and his trip to Europe) initially, fostered the increase in contacts between Europe and Russia in the first decades of the century and contributed to the influx of foreign population to Russia. At the early stages of the development of Freemasonry in Russia, ports became the first and the main centers of Masonic activity. In fact by 1710, Russia had replaced Sweden along the whole stretch of the Baltic coast from Riga to Vyborg and gained control of the Northern trade. The commercial treaty of 1734 provided a steady flow of northern raw materials to Great Britain from Russia and of Western manufactured goods from Britain to Russia, and Britain became Russia's main trading partner10 (during the eighteenth century, St. Petersburg had 204 established British trading companies). During the eighteenth century this popular commercial destination attracted foreigners from different countries, cultures, and religions who could become long-term residents and active contributors to the city's pubic and social life, creating a diverse cosmopolitan population. Also British presence in Riga was significant. In 1765, for instance, the British Consul - General in Russia (and a Junior Warden at the “Perfect Union” lodge in St. Petersburg) Samuel Swallow pointed out, “[i]t will appear that near one half of all the Exports of Riga to all Parts, are shipped by the British residing here”11. In addition to trade, another channel for broadening contacts between Great Britain and Russia was military recruitment. By recruiting from sixty to as many as five hundred British subjects to enter Russian service as naval captains, lieutenants, bombardiers, shipbuilders, smiths, and gun-founders on his visit to Britain, Peter made a major contribution to the development of the Russian navy, creating the foundations, at the same time, for the beginning of the long-standing tradition of the British presence in the Russian navy, many of whom, were Freemasons. The estimates of how many British navy specialists Peter recruited vary widely12. In addition, there were pressures of active and powerful rivals abroad and in England. Responding to the rapid growth of the lodges outside of England and faced with a growing dissention from those who were dissatisfied with only three degrees, the Grand Lodge of England needed to find strong leadership and an appropriate administrative structure to regulate and direct the lodges. Such issues as a tendency to change the Grand Masters almost yearly made it difficult to stabilize the brotherhood. In the course of the eighteenth century, there were 38 Grand Masters of the Grand Lodge of England, as compared to only five Grand Masters in the nineteenth century. In the 1730s, the Grand Lodge started creating a system for securing the allegiance of existing lodges, constituting new lodges, and ensuring adherence to the regulations of the English system. This led to the introduction of warrants to distinguish the lodges or individuals belonging to English or high-degree systems and the Ancients, 10 A. V. Demkin. Britanskoe kupechestvo v Rossii, (Moscow: Rossiiskaiia Akademiia Nauk, Institut Rossiiskoi Istorii, 1988), 13 11 Herbert Kaplan, Russian Overseas Commerce with Great Britain During the Reign of Catherine II (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1995), 95. 12 See Anthony Cross, By the Banks of the Neva: Chapters from the Lives and Careers of the British in Eighteenth-Century Russia (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 159-65, 174-6. [5] rapidly becoming an influential Masonic trend13. Formally, only the properly warranted three-degree lodges could be acknowledged as “regular”έ All societies whose constitutions did not follow the rules of the Grand Lodge were considered irregular, and their members were banned from visiting regular lodges. In 1751, this system was slightly revised to make establishment of distant lodges easier without the physical presence of the Grand Master or his Deputies by means of warrants 14. With the spread of Freemasonry abroad, the Grand Lodges needed the warrants to keep track of all the lodges under their jurisdiction and for lodges to prove their belonging to a particular system. The Provincial Grand Master, the chief Masonic authority in the region, played an important regulating role. Grand Provincial Master had extensive powers to establish lodges in his jurisdiction and oversee the development of Masonic networks. 3. The masonic expansion in Russia The second Provincial Grand Master of Russia James Keith, is generally recognized as a leading propagator of Freemasonry in Russia. The significance of Keith's activities recognized beyond Freemasons in Russia15. James Keith was born in 1696, the younger son of the Earl εarishal of Scotland, “Marishal” being a hereditary office held by the Keiths. Soon after entering Marischal College, founded by his ancestors, to study law, Keith became involved in the Jacobite Uprising of 1715, fled to the continent and entered the service of Spain. With the support of Duke of Liria, James Francis Fitzjames, a grandson of King James VII, Charles' cousin and one of the most prominent Jacobites who was sent by Spain as an ambassador to Russia, in the beginning of 1728, Keith was commissioned as Major General by Russian Emperor Peter II. In Russia, Keith rose rapidly because “he always did his duty as a brave officer, without intermeddling with any State intrigues” received a prestigious appointment as lieutenant colonel in the new regiment of guards overseeing the personal bodyguards of the Empress Anna, and participated in the Polish war of 1733, the German war, and then fought against the Turks in Ukraine16. 13 See Ivor Grantham, "The Titles of United Grand Lodge: Antients and Moderns," AQC 64 (1951): 76-78. See R. E. Parkinson, History of the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons, vol. 2 (Dublin: Lodge of Research, ce., 1957), 268-9; John Hamill, "English Grand Lodge Warrants," AQC 90 (1977): 92. 15 A song composed and published in 1758 in Edinburgh emphasizes on the importance of the spread of the Craft in foreign countries and mentions Keith' s name along with the King of Prussia in this regard: Whilst Vice lies bound in chains, True Worth exalted reigns, By Heav'n restor'd: Discord resigns her sting, Bright Peace and Freedom sing, Keith and great Prussia's King Bearing their sword. For this see James M. M Callendar, A Collection of Free Masons Songs Containing Several New Songs Never Before Published. For the Use of the Lodges (Edinburgh: Br. A. Donaldson and Company, 1758), 81-83. This is a song by Bro. Robert Colvill on the Earl of Leven's taking the chair of St. David's lodge after his election as Master on 27 December 1757. 16 On 18 February 1738, Empress Anna asked the King of Great Britain George II “to aid” Keith, the ύeneral-Lieutenant on Russian service, with the matters of his "inheritance in England." In 1740, while in Europe, Keith received a new appointment to go to London on a diplomatic mission. This time he traveled around Europe not as a Jacobite exile, but as a great General in Russia's service, an accredited envoy to the court with diplomatic immunity. Upon his return to Russia, Keith received a one14 [6] However, despite his career success, Keith was apprehensive about living in Russia. In 1733, he wrote to a correspondent in Scotland: “In a word could I forget that I was born in Scotland I should be very happy here [in Russia]. .. I see foreigners of all nations, who are content with their fortune, and are wise enough to make a virtue of necessity but ... for my own part to be quietly at home is the utmost wish”17. In 1747, Keith settled in Prussia because Frederick the Great had previously accepted his elder brother, whom he had made Governor of Neuchatel. Next, Keith became Frederick's Field Marshall, governor of Berlin, and military advisor, but the sources on his last ten years of life are scarce. The last known fact about Keith' s life is that he died at the battle of Hochkirchen, 14 October 1758, in the service of Prussia. It is not clear when and where Keith was initiated into Freemasonry. Sources present no veritable information about his Masonic activities before coming to Russia or after his appointment as the Provincial Grand Master during his stay in London from February 1740 till May 174118. It would seem probable that Keith, a fervent Jacobite, was involved with the Grand Lodge of England only during the one-year term of the Grand-Mastership of his cousin, turning later to Berlin lodges for guidance19. One source mentions that it was General Keith who founded a lodge in Halle in December of 1756. It is often assumed that Keith was such an important figure in the history of Russian Freemasonry because during his Mastership in the 1740s Russians started to be initiated into Freemasonry on the same footing as the members of foreign communities. But in fact, despite his presumed vital role in Russian Freemasonry, little is known about his actions as the Provincial Grand Master. Despite the prominent role that the British played in the introduction of Freemasonry to Russia, the most influential group of foreigners in Russia in the eighteenth century was the Germans. The German influence and the development of Freemasonry in Russia are often linked to show that Freemasonry was introduced via Germany. Several historians point out the existence of relations between a lodge in Petersburg and the Berlin lodge “Drei Weltkugeln” (“Three Globes”) as early as 1738. But since the “Three Globes” was founded not earlier than 1740, any relations between the Russian and this lodge could start only after 1740. In fact it is more probable that the supposed relations between a St. Petersburg lodge and the Three Globes started in 1762-6320. year governorship of Ukraine in 1741, actively participated in the Swedish campaign as the commander-in-chief of the Russian forces and minister-plenipotentiary to Sweden for a year and was also involved in the Prussian campaign in 1745. 17 AUA, MS 3500.1 and MS 3500.2, Keith, Correspondence to Scotland, letter from Moscow, July 1733 (found in the papers of John Douglas, merchant of Aberdeen). 18 “τn βκ εarch 1ιζί James Keith, Esq δieutenant ύeneral in the Service of RussiaΟ was present at the meeting Οwith the Masters and Wardens of fifty-eight lodges in the Devils's Tavern [when] John Keith, Earl of Kintore, was elected the Grand Master." 19 NAS, GD 156/60, Elphinstone's papers, Keith's correspondence, folder 7, contains a letter written from London, on 9 May 1738. This document was sent by Earl of Kintore, the future Grand Master of England who bestowed Provincial Grand Mastership on John Keith. Although the letter itself is devoted to the issues related to the fate of the Keiths' family estate after the Jacobite Rebellion of 1715, it also gives clues as to how the correspondence between Britain and Russia was maintained. 20 εost likely, this Stέ Petersburg lodge was the lodge of “Schastlivogo Soglasiia” (or “der ύlücklichen Eintracht”, of “ώappy χmity”) that boasted a ωourlander ψiron, the favorite of the Empress χnna, as its founder. Traditionally, Ernst Johann Biron (Biren) (1690-1772) is considered the real ruler of Russia during Anna's reign although modern historians differ as to the extent of his actual influence. [7] εasonic movement really took off in Russia during ωatherine’s reign in large part for two reasons. One was the lively intellectual intercourse with Western culture, primarily French, German, English, which characterized her reign. The second was the manifesto issued by Peter III in February 1762, freeing the nobility from compulsory service, giving the class with most pretensions to culture the leisure to travel, study, read and write, and to indulge in all kind of private social activities21. Ivan Yelaguin However, the father of Russian freemasonry was Yelagin. As himself explains in his memoirs, his masonic teacher had told him that true wisdom “had remained concealed in the temples of Chaldeans, the Egyptians, the Persians, the Jews, the Greeks and the romans and in the Hellenistic mysteries; and in the schools of Solomon … and in Jerusalem…ν and wisdom can also be found in the lodges or schools of Pythagoras, Plato, and among Indian, Chinese, Arab, Druid, and other people famous for knowledge”έ Yelagin studied “ώermes Trismegistus”, ώebrew and ωabbala, theosophy, Egyptian traditions, Saint εartin’s Des erreurs et de la verite and the writings of Robert Fludd. 4. Who was Melissinos? Petros (Pyotr) Ivanovich Melissinos (ПёІЄ МелиЅЅиЁЂ), (1726 – 1797) was a Lieutenant General of the Artillery of the Russian Empire and was widely considered the best Russian artilleryman of the 18th century. He was born as Petros Melissinos on the Greek island of Keffalonia (in Greek Κεφαλληνία) in See in detail Isabel De Madariaga, Freemasonry in eighteenth-century Russian society, in “Politics and ωulture in Eighteenthωentury Russia, Routledge”, βί1ζέ 21 [8] 172622, he was of Greek origin and his father was a physician who belonged to the noble Greek family of Melissinos (in Greek Μ η ). Throughout his life, he prided himself on his Greek origin 23. He received a thorough education in his youth (School of land-cadets in St. Petersburg, Faculty of Mechanics in Moscow, physics and mathematics in Paris) and was fluent in many languages including Russian, German, Italian, French, Turkish as well as his native Greek. He also knew some Latin and English. Melissinos family arrived in Russia during the reign of Peter the Great. While he was staying y in Paris he studied acting. In fact, when he returned to Russia founded a theatrical group, in which he played some roles. Thanks to him the Queen Elizabeth of Russia built a theater in Russia, and himself became a patron of the theater scene of St. Petersburg. During the Russo-Turkish War, 1768-1774, Melissinos was in charge of the Russian artillery. His efficient command helped Russian forces prevail against a fourfold numerical superiority of the Ottomans at Khotin, Larga, and Kagula. In 1783, he was appointed Director of the Artillery and Engineering Corps in St. Petersburg. He is remembered as an organizer of the artillery education in the Russian Empire. After the ascension of Emperor Paul, Melissinos was put in charge of the entire Russian artillery but died the following year. 22 According to the Greek historian Ilaias Tsitselis from the island of Kefallonia, Melissinos was born in St. Petersburg in 11 January of 1726. See ζέα Σ δ Ϋζβ, Κ φαζζβθδαεΪ ΢τηηδε α, υηίκζαέ δμ βθ δ κλέαθ εαδ ζακΰλαφέαθ βμ θά κυ Κ φαζζβθέαμ, σηκμ πλυ κμ, θ γάθαδμ, τπκδμ Παλα ε υΪ Λ πθά, 1λί, γλβέ The exact date of his birth was written in the opposite side of a portrait of him found in Kefallonia. 23 See ωharles όrançois Philibert εasson (1κίβ), Secret memoirs of the court of Petersburg: particularly towards the end of the reign of Catharine II and the commencement of that of Paul I., T.N. Longman and O. Rees. 339–348. See also Boris Telepneff, Outline of the History of Russian Freemasonry, βθζ “Peter Melissino, a Russian General, of Greek extraction; born, 1726; died, 1797”; Donald R. Mandich, Joseph Anthony Placek (1992). Russian heraldry and nobility. Dramco, 311, “εEδISSIστμ This family is descended from a most distinguished ύreek family which resided in Constantinople …A descendant, Rikhard Melissino in 1454 left behind his property on the Island of Crete and settled in Cephalonia from which in more recent times Ivan Afanasievich Melissino departed for Russia. He and his descendants served the Russian Throne in distinguished posts and gained fame for their family...”. [9] Melissinos was instrumental in promoting the career of one of Paul's favourites, Aleksey Arakcheyev24. His son Aleksey Melissinos, a Major General, was killed in the Battle of Dresden (1813). His brother, Ivan Melissinos, was Dean of the Moscow University under Catherine the Great. Jenkins points out that: “Melissino himself was intelligent and ambitious and was doing much to promote the cause of the artillery. He could certainly have enjoyed an even more illustrious career were it not for certain defects of character which made him appear less serious about his profession than was in fact the case. He had a reputation of being vain, weak, and a spendthrift. He was a prominent figure in Saint Petersburg society; he spoke several languages, fenced and danced well, and was an authority on the theatre. But it was difficult to take him seriously, and society had nicknamed him "le grand seigneur manqué." σonetheless, the school rapidly acquired a name under him, and in very little time the number of cadets more than doubled. The sensible changes in the studies which he introduced with the help of his abler pupils bore fruit; and the major reform in the artillery which subsequently took place was largely the work of his former pupils”25. χ contemporary όrench commentator, ωlaude όrançois εasson, described εelissinos as “a man who may, in some measure, be considered as the Richelieu of Russia26”έ This lavish praise is backed up by asserting that he combined “great practice with scientific theory” in every aspect of the arts and sciencesέ εoreover, he “cultivated literature, and had a decided taste for the French theatre”27. Despite his Greek origin, Melissinos was fluent in European languages with combination with a “gallant and magnificent” comportment, ensured that he was a prominent figure in Petersburg society during ωatherine’s reignέ ωlaude εasson also describes how his “military entertainments, his camps, his parties, and even his orgies and follies, will long be the subject of conversation”έ This testimony is corroborated by JohannAlbrecht Euler, the son of the celerbated mathematician Leonhard Euler, who in the summer of 1775 attended a public Masonic entertainment organised by Melissinos: “After this dinner, that is to say at 1ί o’clock, we went straight to Kammenyi Ostrov, where the freemasons gave the best festival in the world. General Melissino of the artillery, who is Grand Master of the lodge was at the head. There was a grand banquet and masked ball […] [and] a sumptuous and magnificent fireworks display”28. Count Alexey Andreyevich Arakcheyev or Arakcheev (1769 – 1834) was a Russian general and statesman under the reign of Alexander I. He served under Paul I and Alexander I as army leader and artillery inspector respectively. He had a violent temper, but was otherwise a competent artillerist, and is known for his reforms of tzarist artillery known as the "System of 1805". After the Tsar's death and Nicholas I's coronation, he lost all his powers and properties. 25 Michael Jenkins, Arakcheev: Grand Vizier of the Russian Empire (Dial Press, 1969), 35-36 26 ωlaude όrançois εasson, Secret Memoirs of the Court of Petersburg, vol. 2 (London, 1802), 346. 27 Masson, Secret Memoirs, 339 - 340. 28 Letter from Johann Albrecht Euler to Samuel Formey, 24 July/5 August 1775, Staatsbibliotehk zu Berlin, Preussicher Kulturbesitz, Handschriftenabteilung, Nachlass Formey, Berlin. Also see Pierre-Yves Beaurepaire, Marie-Daniel ψourrée de Corberon et Karl-ώeinrich von ώeykingμ Deux Itinéraires εaçonniques entre Paris, Varsovie et Saint- Pétersbourg р la Tombée des δumières, in ψreuillard and Ivanova, eds., La franc-maçonnerie et la culture russe, 48. 24 [10] This lavish praise is backed up by asserting that he combined “great practice with scientific theory” in every aspect of the arts and sciencesέ εoreover, he “cultivated literature, and had a decided taste for the όrench theatre”29. As stated, Melissinos was fluent in Russian, German, Italian, French, Greek, Latin, and English. This ease with European languages was combined with a “gallant and magnificent” comportment, which ensured that he was a prominent figure in Petersburg society during ωatherine’s reign30. It is fitting, therefore, that when Casanova arrived in St. Petersburg in December 1764, he went straight to Melissinos with a letter of introduction31. The Greco-Russian invited Casanova to dine with him every night and entertained him throughout the adventurer’s stay in Stέ Petersburgέ Thus ωasanova escorted Melissinos to an Epiphany celebration, as well as to a military review and banquet32. Furthermore, Melissinos acted as an intermediary between Casanova and Catherine the Great. Casanova himself writes in his memoirs33: “The next day I took a letter of introduction to M. Pietro Ivanovitch Melissino, colonel and afterwards general of artillery. The letter was written by Madame da Loglio, who was very intimate with Melissino. I was most politely welcomed, and after presenting me to his pleasant wife, he asked me once for all to sup with him every night. The house was managed in the French style, and both play and supper were conducted without any ceremony. I met there Melissino's elder brother, the procurator of the Holy Synod and husband of the Princess Dolgorouki”έ Casanova He adds: Masson, Secret Memoirs, 339 - γζίέ ωlaude εasson also describes how his “military entertainments, his camps, his parties, and even his orgies and follies, will long be the subject of conversation”έ 30 Masson, Secret Memoirs, 340. 31 Giacomo Casanova, The Complete Memoirs of Casanova (Salt Lake City: Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, 2004), 2158. 32 Op.cit. 33 Op.cit. 29 [11] “Melissino and I were present at an extraordinary ceremony on the Day of the Epiphany, namely the blessing of the Neva, then covered with five feet of ice. After the benediction of the waters children were baptized by being plunged into a large hole which had been made in the ice…”έ During ωasanova’s stay in Stέ Petersburg, it would have been highly unlikely for the two men not to have recognized each other as freemasons and not to have exchanged views on esoteric philosophy and Freemasonry as well. Indeed, in 1764 the 53 – year old Melissinos had yet to introduce his own rite, However, it would be reasonable to assume that by then he bore the framework of the new rite in mind and was seeking for the main structures that would enable him to express his creative Masonic thoughts. Another significant –though controversial- personality that was associated with Melissinos was Joseph Balsamo, better known as Cagliostro. Prior to arriving in St. Petersburg Cagliostro34 spent several months residing in Mittau (Jelgava) in neighbouring Courland. It was here that he first established his own distinctive Masonic rite, which fused alchemy, Egyptian mythology, necromancy, and embraced the socalled adoption system that included women. According to von Recke, Cagliostro had persuaded the city’s Masonic grandees, including her father and Count von der Howen, to allow him to open a lodge in the city by performing a number of alchemical experiments35. ωagliostro’s entrance into Petersburg society had been brokered through Melissinos’ Masonic connections, as Count von Howen wrote a letter of introduction to Baron von Heyking, a fellow Courland Mason36. Yet, no doubt much to ωagliostro’s consternation, von Heyking treated him with the utmost scorn. In his memoirs von Heyking describes ωagliostro as “a most brazen and ignorant charlatan” who had no intelligent conception of physics or chemistry. It is noteworthy, however, that von Heyking concedes that he “had the talent to win over Count Melissino, the Chevalier C[orberon] […] and many more”έ In ώeyking’s mind this ‘moral blindness’ was inexplicable and was “a delusion of this time which prepared other fooleries”έ Subsequently, Cagliostro used the space of his Masonic lodge to forge a seemingly magical environment, in which he conducted a series of eight séances using the six-year-old son of von Medem as his spirit medium. Alongside conjuring up spirits, Cagliostro also delivered a 34 On April 12, 1776 Balsamo was admitted as a Freemason of the Esperance Lodge No. 289 in Gerrard Street, Soho, London. In December 1777 Balsamo and his wife left London. In February 1779 Balsamo traveled to Mitau. In September 1780 Balsamo made his way to Strasbourg. In September 1781 Egyptian Freemasonry was mentioned for the first time. In October 1784 Balsamo travelled to Lyon. On December 24, 1784 he founded the mother lodge La Sagesse Triomphante of his rite of Egyptian Freemasonry at Lyon. In January 1785 Balsamo went to Paris in response to the entreaties of Cardinal Rohan. 35 A fascinating account of Cagliostro’s exploits in εittau is provided by ωharlotta Elisabeth von Recke (1ιηζ–1833), the daughter of Friedrich von Medem, a prominent Courland aristocrat and Freemason. Von Recke was among one of three women (along with her aunt and cousin) who were admitted into ωagliostro’s mixed lodge on βλ εarch 1ιιλέ See ωharlotta Elisabeth Konstantia von der Recke, Nachricht von des berüchtigten Cagliostro Aufenthalte in εittau im Jahre 1779, und von dessen dortigen magischen Operationen, (Berlin and Stettin, Friedrich Nicolai, 1787, 30. 36 Karl Heinrich Heyking, Aus Polens und Kurlands Letzten Tagen: Memoiren Des Baron Karl Heinrich Heyking (Berlin: Verlag von Johannes Rтde, 1κλι), ββγ [12] number of lectures on alchemy and other magical arts. Generally, we can assume that the impact on the Russian nobility of the visit of Cagliostro to St. Petersburg between 1779 and 1780 was significant. Moreover, of great importance was the empress’s personal response to ωagliostro’s visit, which included a series of remarkable letters to Grigorii Potemkin. Σo amuse his old age he had formed a society which, under the name of the “Philadelphia Society” (in greek Φ α φ Εα α), and which gave rise to denunciations at which Catharine only laughed, and which Paul treated seriously. The empress, being mistrustful of these assemblies, sent for Melissino, and received from him a promise that he would no longer frequent and protect any (secret )society, including Masonic. He kept his word, and concerned himself no more about them. 5. Melissinos as a freemason and his Masonic circle In 1765, ωatherine the ύreat was immersed in formulating her “ύrand Instruction” (“Bolshoi nakaz”), which was intended as a “guide to the Enlightened principles on which a better government and society might ultimately rest37έ” χt the same time as the empress was composing her Nakaz, the eminent masonic figure of Melissinos established his new Masonic rite in St. Petersburg inspired by chivalric and clerical symbolism and rituals, which advocated an alternative worldview in which alchemy played a pivotal role. τver the course of the following two decades εelissinos’ high-grade system of Freemasonry acted as a key crucible in which both Russian and European aristocrats indulged their passion for alchemy in the Russian capital. We do not exactly know when Melissinos was initiated into Freemasonry. The first reliable Masonic reference about Melissinos is made by Boris Telepneff: “Melozino Rite (sic) which had flourished already from 1765 in the Lodge of Silence”38. And the same author adds: “A ‘Peter εellozino’ is listed39 as Wε of a δodge at Yassy, εoldavia, σ° 46λ, one of the five δodges composing ‘the ύrand Provincial δodge of Russia [...] originally established in St. Petersburg under the auspices of the Berlin ύrand δodge “Royal York”. This event took place on the 22nd May, 1770: Yelaguin was elected Grand Master40”. 37 Simon Dixon, Catherine the Great (London: Profile Books, 2010), 157. Telepneff explains he took the dubious spelling from Findel 39 Telepneff, 267. 40 Op.Cit. 264, note 2, quoting Longinov 38 [13] So, if Melissinos was WM of the Lodge of Mars No 469 (and apparently the first WM after the establishment of the lodge) in 1770, then we can safely assume that Melissinos was an active Freemason to another system at the same time he had founded his own the Rite. From whom Melissinos have been masonically influenced? Melissinos may have been influenced by Baron (δouis) Théodore Henri de Tschoudy (1727–1769)41, who was in the Russian service between 1752–1755 and 1757–1760, and who championed alchemical and cabbalistic symbolism in his Masonic rites and philosophy42. He was one of the most active apostles of the school of Ramsay, and adopted his theory of the Templar origin of Freemasonry. Tschoudy, the author of the ritual of The Flaming Star (δ’étoile flamboyante), was in Russia off and on from 1753 to 1760 and acted as the private secretary of I.I. Shuvalov. He used the name of Chevalier de Lussy and Comte de Putelange and publishe the first French language periodical in Russia, le chaméleon littéraire, in 1759. His masonic rituals seem to have been very influential. 41 Baron de Tschoudy was born at Metz, in 1720. He was a Counsellor of State and member of the Parliament of Metz. Having obtained permission from the King to travel, he went to Italy, in 1752, under the assumed name of the Chevalier de Lussy. There he excited the anger of the Papal ωourt by the publication at The ώague, in the same year, of a book entitled “Etrenne au Pape, ou les Francs-εaçons Vengés”, that is, χ σew Year's ύift for the Pope, or the όree εasons χvengedέ This was a caustic commentary on the Bull of Benedict XIV excommunicating the Freemasons. It was followed, in the same year, by another work entitled, “δe Vatican Vengé” that is, The Vatican Avenged; an ironical apology, intended as a Sequence to the former book. These two works subjected him to such persecution by the Church that he was soon compelled to seek safety. Tschoudy next repaired to Russia, where his means of living became so much impaired that, Michaud says, he was compelled to enter the company of comedians of the Empress Elizabeth. From this condition he was relieved by Count Ivan Schouwalon, who made him his Private Secretary. He was also appointed the Secretary of the Academy of Moscow, and Governor of the pages at the Court. But this advancement of his fortunes, and the fact of his being a Frenchman, created for him many enemies, and he was compelled at length to leave Russia, and return to France. There, however, the persecutions of his enemies pursued him, and on his arrival at Paris he was sent to the Bastile. But the intercession of his mother with the Empress Elizabeth and with the Grand Duke Peter was successful, and he was speedily restored to liberty. He then retired to Metz, and for the rest of his life devoted himself to the task of Masonic reform and the fabrication of new systems. The ωouncil of Knights of the East was established in 1ιθβ, at Parisέ ωhemins Despontés (Encyclopédie εaçonnique I, 43) says: "[t]he Baron Tschoudy, whose birth gave him a distinguished rank in society, left behind him the reputation of an excellent man, equally remarkable for his social virtues, his genius, and his military talents." Such appears to have been the general opinion of those who were his contemporaries or his immediate successors He died at Paris, May 28, 1769. 42 τn the influence of Tschoudy’s esoteric strand of Freemasonry in Russia, see Douglas Smith, Working the Rough Stone, Northern Illinois University Press, 1999, 19; A. I. Serkov, Russkoe masonstvo. 1731–2000; Faggionato, A Rosicrucian Utopia, 1γέ τn Tschoudy’s masonic career in Russia, see Vladislav Rzheutskii, “V teni Shuvalovaέ όrantsuzskii kul’turnyi posrednik v Rossii ψaron de ωhudi,” Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, vol. 105 (2010), 91–1βζέ τn Tschoudy’s incorporation of esotericism into his Masonic doctrine, see Louis Théodore ώenri de Tschoudy, δ’étoile flamboyante ou la Société des όrancsεaçons considerée sous tous les aspects (Frankfurt-Paris: Antoine Boudet, 1766). [14] Thus, as already mentioned, Melissinos was a “consumate socialite”, he was able to publicly flaunt his εasonic grandeur and elevated status in Petersburg’s elite circlesέ One must look into the distinctive features he developed in the mid 1760s within his own Masonic system43. It wouldn’t be an invalid assumption to attribute the ritual of the seven grade system to εelissinosέ The possibility of his authorship is likely to be the case if one considers the following facts carefully. He had been a keen freemason for several years, fluent in many foreign languages, erudite, person of great education, member of esoteric circles and thus well-versed in esotericism and also in the Estern Orthodox ritual. This is the reason why εelissinos’ easily combined chivalric and clerical mythology and rituals linked to the Knights Templar and Orthodox and Catholic liturgical practices alongside Rosicrucian-style esoteric philosophy immersed in alchemical lore. Furthermore, Melissinos had many contacts with distinguished Greek freemasons who lived in St. Petersburg during that era. In fact, he could be regarded as the most prominent representative, as it were, of the Greek community of Petersburg. Another eminent figure of the society of Stέ Petersurg and member of εelissinos’ circle was εarinos Carburi or Charvouris (In Greek Μα ο Χα πο η ), another Greek from the Island of Kefallonia, serving as lieutenant-colonel in the Russian Army44. Marinos (although we do not have any reference όor the εelissinos’ rituals see C. Lenning, Encyclopädie der όreimaurerei, vol. 2 (Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1824), 460-81. For a brief description of the rite, see Allgemeines Handbuch der Freimaurerei, vol. 3 (Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1865), 306– 307. 44 Marinos Charvouris (1729 -1782) was an engineer from Kefalonia. He became famous for the transport of a large rock over the distance of 22 km, serves as the base of a statue of Peter the Great. Charvouris was born in Argostoli Kefalonia and studied at the University of Bologna. Unlike desired by the family, he did not study medicine or law, but enrolled as a mathematician and graduated as an engineer in Vienna and is considered to be the first Greek to hold a diploma in engineering. He then worked for the army of Austria-Hungary, but later, when he was informed that Melissinos was in the Court ofμ Catherine the Great he went there, under the name Prince Laskaris. Charvouris was Colonel of the tsarist army officer. He married Helena 43 [15] proving that himself was a freemason) was the brother of the famous freemason Marco Carburi (17311808), a chemistry professor at the University of Padua, who was sent in 1764-1765 to Sweden by the Venetian government to study mining techniques. Marco, while in Stockholm, visited a lodge, where conferred with Swendeborg. It must be pointed out that Carburi was the major proponent of the Rose – Croix masonry in Italy45. He is the one that signed the Chart for the installation of the first lodge in Corfu, under the name Beneficenza46. Another eminent figure was Georgios Papazolis (in Greek Γ υλΰδκμ Παπααυζβμ from Siatista. He was the one who inspired brothers Orloff with the vision of the independence of Greek populations.There are no archives according to which we could positively deduct the symperasma that Papazolis was a freemason. Only the Greek historian Kalevras47 points out that Melissinos and Papazolis (who was initiated by σikolaos χrtinos and δeon δeontiadis to the secret society “χthina” or “ώercules Ropalon” ) founded a Chryssoskouleou, a Greek woman and daughter of the Russian foreign minister. After her death, he left with their children the land on the voyage the ship went under and he lost his 11-year-old son Giorgio. Together with the surviving daughter Sophia, he settled in Paris, where his brother lived. He wrote in 1777 a book with solutions of large transport problems. He met a French woman, with whom he settled in 1779 in Lixouri on his home island and with his colleague, the French Bandu, an estate opened for research into new methods of cultivation of cotton. The farm profits generated from the production of cotton and sugarcane. On 19 April 1782 the estate was hit a gang of robbers, which murdered Charvouris, Bandu and all the staff. See Κπθ αθ έθκμ ΢Ϊγαμ, δκΰλαφέαδ πθ θ κδμ ΰλΪηηα δ δαζαηοΪθ πθ ζζάθπθ απσ βμ εα αζτ πμ βμ υααθ δθάμ υ κελα κλέαμ ηΫξλδ βμ ζζβθδεάμ γθ ΰ λ έαμ (1ζηγ – 1κβ1), θ γάθαδμ, ε βμ υπκΰλαφέαμ πθ Ϋεθπθ θ λΫκυ ΚκλκηβζΪ, 1κθκ, ηζζ – 545. See also Petrie Harbouri, The Brothers Carburi, A & C Black, London, 2002, 83. ; La FrancMaconnerie Templiere et Occultiste by Rene Le Forestier, 1987, La Table d'Emeraude, Paris. 45 See Marsha Keith Schuchard, Emanuel Swedenborg, Secret Agent on Earth and in Heaven: Jacobites, Jews and Freemaspns in Early Modern Sweden, Leiden, 2012, 598. For Marco Carburi see Eveline Durie, Ο π αθβ δαεσμ Μυ δεσμ αδλδ ησμ πλδθ εαδ εα Ϊ κθ ΰυθα βμ θ ιαλ β έαμΟ, ΠΪθ δκ Παθ πδ άηδκ, 1λλλ, βη δυ δμ ε φαζαέκυ ΄, ζέ ιέ See also θ λΫαμ Χλ. Ρδασπκυζκμ, 150 ξλσθδα άλ βμ θα κζάμ", Ϊευθγκμ, 2012, ζ. 19 ; La Franc-Maconnerie Templiere et Occultiste by Rene Le Forestier, 1987, La Table d' Emeraude, Paris. 46 The full French text of the Chart has, as follows: D’après l’autorisation du très illustre et très respectable όrère ό. ύabriel Asinari Comte de Bernez, Chevalier de l’ordre des SSts. εaurice et δazare, magiordome de S.M. le Roi de ∴ Réunies entre le Pô, le Danube et le Tibre, όournisseur général de tout l’ordre. Nous FF∴ Co. εarc Carburi Président et ύrands officiers de la ύrande εère □∴ Écossaise de Vérone séante à Padoue. Ayant l’Assemblée de cette ύrande εère δoge Écossaise vu la supplication de plusieurs frères de l’τrient de Corfou du 3ίe août 1ικ1, par laquelle ils prient d’être crées et constitués, et qu’on leur accorde des lettres patentes de constitution en δoge juste, parfaite et régulière, réunie à la réforme fondée et établie sur le même τrient. σous en vertu de l’autorisation qui nous fut conferée par le Directoire Écossais d’Italie, avons par les présentes crée, constitué ainsi que créons et constituons les dits frères en δoge juste, parfaite et régulière, réunie à la Réforme avec le titre distinctif de St. Jean de la Bienfaisance, sous la condition de la plus exacte et scrupuleuse observance de toutes les lois, rites, usages et coutumes des δoges régulières et réunies et rectifiées de notre district, et auxquelles les membres présents et à venir de la susdite δoge s’engageront sous les statuts et réglements qui leurs seront livrés par la présente, et cela avec leurs signatures. δivrée de la ύrande εère∴ Écossaise le 13 juin 1ικ2 et de l’ère de notre ordre de 13e jour du mois, 4me mois de l’an 5ικ2. [Signés] εarc Carburi Président Gaspard Scovin Second Assistant François Gusella Chancelier 47 Παθαΰδυ βμ Καζ ίλΪμ, Ι κλέα πθ δαφσλπθ πκζδ δευθ εαδ γλβ ε υ δευθ βμ έαμ, βμ υλυπβμ εαδ βμ η λδεάμ, πμ πλκμ βθ ζζΪ α εαδ βμ ζζΪ κμ πμ πλκμ αυ άθ, κπκέκυμ ηυ δεκτμ εκπκτμ εαδ φλκθάηα α εΪ β αυ υθ Ϋξ δ, πκδα απκ ζΫ ηα α πΫφ λκθ εα Ϊ εαδλκτμ δμ α Ϋγθβ, εαδ πκδαμ η αίκζΪμ εαδ αζζκδυ δμ Ϋζαίκθ ηΫξλδ βμ άη λκθ , πκδαδ εα α λΪφβ αθ, πκδαδ υακθ αδ δ Ϋ δ εαδ δ θ λΰκτ δέ Καδ αθΫε κ α δθΪ, πζβθ αζβγά ΰ ΰκθσ α, Ρααάμ, γάθαδ, 1κθλ, ηί51. [16] secret society in St Petersburg η εκπσ β δΪ κ β κ λπ δεσ λα σ βμ δ Ϋαμ βμ απ ζ υγΫλπ βμ βμ ζζΪ αμ. In April 1782, secret societies were forbidden in Russia. Although Freemasons were non included, εelissinos foreseeing the probable victory of Yelagin’s ύrand δodge, now left almost supreme, took advantage of the edict to gracefully withdraw from the contest and retired to Moscow, directing his lodges to close their doors, in obedience to the law48. 6. The degrees of the Rite Very little reliable information is available about Melesino and his system. The common and oldest source appears to be a paper issued in the Altenburger Zeitschrift für όreimaurerei, 1st vol (1823): 20-31, a reference provided by the entry MELESINO in Lenning II. σettelbladt wrote “Melesino became acquainted with several masonic systems in όrance, England and Italy” without giving any authority for his statement (Nettelbladt 294). These three countries, listed in the same order, come in a letter written in 1809 by Starck to Nettelbladt quoted below, where they apply to an unnamed “famous brother of that Chapter who died in 1ιθζ”, which cannot apply to Melesino who died in 1797. According to Isabel De Madariaga εelissinos’ system “was affiliated to that of Yelagin49”έ However, in respect of the rituals, the only trustable source of Masonic information is Lenning. Telepneff50 comments that “it seemed to be rather chaotic and out of sequence” with the other degrees of the Rite, which generally “lacked uniformity and continuity”έ According to MacKenzie the Rite contained the exoteric teachings of the Order of Ishmael51, however this argument lacks any further proof. The seven degrees according to the εelissinos’ system were as followsμ 1. Entered Apprentice; 2. Fellow-Craft; 3. Master-Mason; 4. Dark Vault; Arch 5. Scottish Master; 6. Philosopher; 7. Spiritual Knight (Magnus Sacerdos Templariorum) 48 Robert Freke Gould, op.cit., V, 218. Politics and Culture in Eighteenth-Century Russia, Routledge, 2014, 150 and especially footnote 20. 50 Op.Cit., 251. 51 Royal Masonic Cyclopaedia, 482. The Order of the Ishmael, according to MacKenzie, was a very ancient eastern order that has a legendary history like that of Freemasons (344). Contra Mackey, op.cit.. 49 [17] The first three degrees The first three degrees followed the traditional Craft (or Blue) lodge system. According to some authors these degrees did not materially differ from those we practice today by the same names. The fourth degree (Dark Vault) The fourth grade of Melissinos' Rite dealt mainly with the story of the search for and burial of the dead body of Master Hiram. The history of the fourth grade offers a new variant of the various arbitrary continuations of the dismal legend concerning Hiram. In this degree the Lodge was called the Dark Vault and was covered in balck, illuminated by the glow spread by 9 signal lanterns, together with 2 vases of burning spirits.Instead of a Mallet, the four-time Venerable Master (called Gabaon) used a bell and light, the symbol of eternal Truth, which is trapped in a lantern. The number four (sacred number of the degree) wass repeated in every form. The fifth degree (Scottish Master) The legend of the fifth degree was concerned with the later finding of the coffin of Hiram. According to the ritual of the Scottish Master, or more properly speaking, Scottish Knight, the degree was founded by King Solomon himself and “was valuable in the second age of the World”52. The number of the Knights was originally only eight but was afterwards increased to sixteen. All who aspired to this dignity were carefully proved and tried and tested and were required to be learned in the seven liberal arts. Moreover, they had to manage the Treasury of the King and of the Temple and to defend them in war, even to sacrifice of their lives. The clothing of their rank, called Ephata, was long, of red cloth, bordered with gold, their sashes red and green, worn over the right shoulder, from which the Scotch Knights have derived their present similar custom of wearing the sash 53. According to Galiffe the fifth grade was one of the Scottish degrees of rigour, forming a transition between contemporary and primitive Freemasonry. The sixth degree (Philosopher) The sixth degree was described as a motley agglomeration of solemn oaths and prayers, inculcating the fear of God (in Greek φ βο Θ ο ), humility and self – denial. According to Telepneff the secular knighthood was conferred in this degree54. According to Galiffe seven altars, including the High Altar, 52 Rite of Melesino, Masonic Review, vol. x, 268 (269). Op.cit. 54 Rite of Melesino, Masonic Review, vol. x, 268 (269). 53 [18] have been prepared in the Lodge garnished with white wax candles. Arriving at the High Altar, the candidate promised, in the most exalted words, blind obedience, even for penitence that his superiors can inflict. (Singular innovation in Masonry!) Humility is the cardinal virtue of this grade. Other specific philosophical Virtues were: Trust, Truth, Generosity, Obedience, Gentleness, Courage and, finally, THE SOUND JUDGEMENT (Finite coronat opus). The seventh degree The fact that εelissinos’ Rite combined chivalric and clerical mythology and rituals linked to the Knights Templar and Orthodox and Catholic liturgical practices alongside Rosicrucian-style esoteric philosophy is most apparent in the seventh degree entitled Magnus Sacerdos Templariorum. In terms of alchemy, this is most evident in the rituals and symbolism associated with the seventh degree. As Boris Telepneff has noted, the ceremony was cloaked in the language of spiritual alchemy, whereby the “mystical process of regeneration” was enacted via the “separation of [the] Spiritual essence of εan from his Terrestrial Nature55”έ The opening ceremony of the initiation into this degree imitates Orthodox (or Catholic) rites associated with Chrismation56, in which the initiate is consecrated with holy anointing oil. The High Priest then sung the opening line from the Catholic hymn Veni Sancte Spiritus57, known as the Golden Sequence, seven times, which is traditionally sung at Pentecost. In other words, the clerics were invoking the Holy Spirit to descend upon them. The High Priest then approached the altar, on which he placed a ceremonial rod of Aaron seven times. The altar was also adorned with six small candles and in the middle were seven lit candles. What is more, in front of the altar could be seen a white curtain, which was decorated with a red cross produced from the convergence of four black daleths58. It is worth mentioning here that the use of Telepneff, 256. όor a full description of the initiation ritual, see Johann ωhristoph Wöllner, Die Signatstern, oder Die Enthüllten Sämmtlichen Sieben Grade der Mystischen Freimaurerei, volέ γ (ψerlinμ Schöne, 1κίζ), ββγ–225. 56 Chrismation (sometimes called confirmation) is the holy mystery by which a baptized person is granted the gift of the Holy Spirit through anointing with oil. As baptism is a personal participation in the death and Resurrection of Christ, so chrismation is a personal participation in the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Unlike in the Western churches (e.g., Roman Catholic and Anglican), where confirmation is typically reserved to those of "the age of reason," chrismation in the Orthodox Church (as well as the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches) is normally administered immediately after baptism and immediately (or at least shortly) before one's first reception of Holy Communion. Chrismation is practiced by anointing the new Christian with chrism, which is holy oil (in Greek ο ). The myron is a mixture of forty sweet-smelling substances and pure olive oil. The Christian is anointed with this oil in the sign of the Cross on his forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, ears, chest, hands and feet. Each time, the priest administering the sacrament says, "The Seal and Gift of the Holy Spirit" (in Greek: ΢φλαΰὶμ πλ ᾶμ Πθ τηα κμ Ἁΰέκυ). 57 Veni, Sancte Spiritus, et emitte caelitus lucis tuae radium. In English: Come, Holy Spirit, send forth the heavenly radiance of your light. 58 Dalet (dāleth, also spelled Daleth or Daled) is the fourth letter of many Semitic alphabets, including Phoenician, Aramaic, Hebrew ‫ד‬, Syriac ‫ ܕ‬andArabic dāl ‫ د‬. See Lenning, Encyclopädie, vol. 2, 473. 55 [19] the colours black, white and red had an alchemical meaning, symbolising death, purification and rebirth59, as well as relating to the passion and resurrection of Christ. Thus, from the beginning the ceremony for initiates into the seventh degree fused Orthodox and Catholic liturgical rites, Templar garb, and “magic crosses” composed from a Hebrew letter. After the initial consecration ceremony, the high priest cited the opening line of Psalm 47—“O clap your hands all ye people”, before beginning the catechism, “dealing with revelations of occult Wisdom60”έ Thus, in answer to the question of “what is the conclave?,” the ώigh Priest answers by proclaiming that it was a “genuine assembly of true disciples of ancient wise leaders of the world, now called Brethren of the Rose Cross and also Clericsέ” όascinatingly, the high priest then emphasizes the difference between this Rosicrucian τrder and its predecessorsέ όirst, it is stressed that “this most-venerable name has been abused in former times by fraudulent ‘base’ chemists,” which would seemingly be a reference to the seventeenth-century Rosicrucian sympathizersέ σext, the high priest states that “in recent years … a certain society of so-called ύerman Rosicrucians has been established,” who are apparently numerous but they “have but little knowledge of the Royal Art”61. In addition, the high priest speaks of a third (unnamed) group, which he concedes had “some shallow theoretical concepts of wisdom but [is] still very far from the true purpose”. The importance of alchemy within the conclave is stressed further in the next question and answer of the catechism, which adopts a Paracelsian understanding the so-called Royal Art as “the Art and Wisdom of Nature”. εoreover, wisdom itself is pronounced to be “the knowledge of God and the whole of nature62”. This alchemical colour symbolism is similar to that used by the χcadémie des Vrais εaçons after 1ιθθέ See ώenrik ψogdan, Western Esotericism and Rituals of Initiation (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2007), 107. 60 Telepneff, op.cit. 251 61 χccording to ωollis that is ‘alchemy’έ 62 Lenning, Encyclopädie, vol. 2, 474. 59 [20] The catechism then discusses Genesis, whereby it is stated that the divine spirit formed from Chaos and took the form of the light (Lux). This light is understood in an alchemical sense; namely it was divided into the pure (from which the sky was formed) and the impure, from which the volcanic matter of the earth’s crust was formedέ χfter the discussion of ωreation, the ceremony switches dramatically to the ritualistic death of the initiate, which involves the candidate washing his hands in holy oil seven times, before the high-priest invokes death by pronouncing the Latin phrase Ecce homo (“ψehold the εan”), which was uttered by Pilate in the version of John 19:5 when he presents a scourged Jesus before his crucifixion. After lying face down on a straw mattress for several minutes, the initiate is ‘resurrected’ and anointed with holy oil. The candidate then swears three oaths of loyalty. Significantly, these protestations of devotion are uttered in the names of “Harris, Aumont, David and Jonathan”63. Here, the Melissinos Rite once again drew on a Templar legend, which narrated that Pierre d’χumont, the Provincial Grand Master of Auvergne, fled to Scotland in 1313 and was met by George Harris, the Grand Commander of the Order. Hence, whilst the first part of the catechism promoted the Rosicrucian heritage of the Order, the oath-swearing ceremony reinforces Templar associations. The degree to which the Melissinos lodge acted as a crucible for various strands of high-grade ritual practice is epitomized by the high priests ruminations on the meaning and significance of the letters J, B, and M that made up the three pillars of Masonry. First, the high priest explains that it refers to Jachin, Boaz, and Macbenac, with the last name laden with Templar symbolism. The Templar associations are then stressed still further by the explanation that the three letters in the Scottish Master degree also refer to Jacobus Burgundicus Molaius, or in other words Jacques de Molay. Moreover, the high priest adds that initiates in the seventh degree are privy to the Hermetic meaning of the three initials, which are expressed in Latin as Ignis, Materis Balneum (“fire and the sea-bath”) or ignis et beata material (“fire and the blessed matter”)έ This ώermetic explanation of the three pillars of Masonry is then followed by a highly esoteric alchemical description of the process towards the creation of the philosophers’ stone. 7. Johann August Starck and the connection with Melissinos The Melissinos’ Rite was only practiced in Russia between the mid 1765 and 1781, but its importance and influence should not be underestimated. Whilst Melissino directly drew on Rosicrucian and Templar traditions when formulating his rite, he was also highly innovative in his adoption of clerical symbolism and in incorporating Orthodox and Catholic liturgical rites. Melissinos’ notion of a select clerical order that was privy to an intricate form of Judeo-Christian theosophical knowledge, interlaced with Cabbala 63 Lenning, Encyclopädie, vol. 2, 476. [21] and alchemy was contemporaneous with εartines de Pasqually’s development of the τrder of Elus ωoens in France in the 1760s. Melissinos connection with Johann August Starck is a very significant point in order to comprehend the evolution of Knight (and spiritual) Masonry. Starck is a central figure of the eighteenth century whose intelligence and culture were outstanding64. Together with Carl Gotthelf von Hund, Carl Friedrich Eckleff, Etienne Morin and Jean-Baptiste Willermoz, he belonged to the Freemasons who exerted a considerable influence upon rites and rituals still practised in contemporary Freemasonry. The fact that his name (spelled Stark) is found as one of the signatories of the Grand Constitutions of 1786 is touched upon in Annex II. According to Bernheim “no one ever heard of the Templar Clerics before Starck appeared on the masonic scene and wrote his first letter to von Hund, March 31, 1767, which was a few weeks after he founded a Lodge in Wismar, together with Baron Friedrich von Vegesack”65. Bernheim, also, points out that Starck “was a Freemason possessed of an unusually high degree of culture, familiar with ancient civilizations and dead languages, a deeply religious protestant theologian at heart”έ όreemasonry appealed to him as it still does to many men of our generation, but his views of what Freemasonry really is may shock some - though not all contemporary members of the ωraftμ ‘όreemasonry is a nursery in which the τrder picks out those receptive for its most intimate secrets’έ66 ‘The τrder’ within, part of, but distinct from, Freemasonry. While studying at ύöttingen, Starck was made a εason in a όrench military lodge in 1ιθ1έ 67 He had been 64 Starck had held many public positions of trust and importance, amongst others that of interpreter of oriental at the Royal Library in Paris. He had travelled in England, Scotland, Italy and Russia, and was an ardent searcher after hermetic and theosophic mysticism. His non-masonic writings are so remarkable that the German historian Ferdinand Runkel regarded him as ‘the father of the comparative history of religions’. See Runkel I: 308. 65 See Bernheim A., Avatars of the Knight Kadosh, Heredom, volume 6. 66 Anon. [Starck] 1782, Über die alten und die neuen εysterienμ γ1κ (quoted in Krüger 1λββμ βθ1)έ Starck’s comments, acknowledging himself as the author, in Starck 1787 II [2] 250 ff. 67 The εaster of the δodge was the Viscount of ύrave, wrote Starck July γί, 1ιιι (Krüger 1λγ1μ βζ1)έ χccording to undocumented information provided by the Allgemeines Handbuch II (1λί1)μ ζβγ, the δodge’s name was δ’Espérance. The [22] in St. Petersburg from 1762 - 1765 as teacher of Oriental languages, and was also a deep student of theology and philosophy. In St. Petersburg he had come into contact with the εelissinos’ System, which was both hermetic and theosophic in its tenets. Whatever Starck saw, heard or experienced when he lived in St. Petersburg must have impressed the young man of twenty-three he was then. The books he wrote before and after he stopped all official masonic activities in 1778 show he never changed his mind about the Order.68 We can conclude that the idea of spiritual or clerical Knights may have been originated somewhere in St. Petersburg, but it is difficult to decide whether it was grasped first from some unknown source by Starck and then influenced Melissinos or vice versa (Telepneff 251 and note 101, Allgemeines Handbuch, ii, 307). I tend to agree with Gould who suggests that in the 7o degree of the rite, Magnus Sacerdos Templariorum, Starck “found inspiration for his Clerical Rite”69. In May 1768 he went back to St. Petersburg (between 1763 and 1765 he had visited and taught Oriental languages and archaeology at the Petrinum school) at St. Petersburg as private secretary to Prince Wiтsemskoi70. The same year he propagated a Masonic system, when he inaugurated a Clerical Chapter in the city71. Starck held that the mystic traditions of the Knights Templars, derived by them from those still older fraternities with whom they had been in contact in the East, were preserved amongst the clericals of that Order who had cherished their unbroken continuity until his days, and he announced that he was in communication with certain Superiors, or chiefs of the Order. author of Saint Nicaise states (2nd edέ, pέ ηκ) he was Junior Warden of Viscount de ύrave’s ambulatory δodge as he was under twenty-one. 68 Apology of the Order of Freemasonry (anon. 1770, new ed. 1778). About the purpose of the masonic Order (anon. 1781). About the ancient and the new mysteries (anon. 1782). 69 Robert Freke Gould, op.cit., V, 105. 70 Wiтsemskoi in Starck II [β]μ γ1, WaΗzenskoy according to Starck’s autobiography in Runkel Iμ βηθ, Wiesemskay in Nettelbladt: 314. The knowledge that Starck acquired of the Rite of Strict Obscrvance combined with his connection (sic!) with Melissinos convinced him of its innate weakness, and of the necessity of some reformation. He therefore was led to the idea of reviving the spiritual branch of the Order, a project which he sought to carry into effect, at first quietly and secretly, by gaining over influential Freemasons to his views. In this he so far succeeded as to be enabled to establish, in 1767, the new system of clerical Knights Templar, as a schism from the Strict Observance, and to which he gave the name of Clerks of Relaxed Observance. It consisted of seven Degrees, as follows: 1. Apprentice 2. Fellow; 3. Master; 4. Young Scottish Master; 5. Old Scottish Master, or Knight of Saint Andrew; 6. Provincial Chapter of the Red Cross; 7. Magus, or Knight of Brightness and Light; which last Degree was divided into five classes, of Novice, Levite, and Priest— the summit of the Order being Knight Priest. Thus he embodied the idea that Templarism was a hierarchy, and that not only was every Freemason a Templar, but every true Templar was both a Knight and a Priest 71 τn Starck’s εasonic activities in Stέ Petersburg, see ψoris Telepneff, “Johann χugust Starck and his Rite of Spiritual εasonry,” Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, 41 (1929), 238–284; In Telepneff (βθζ), a portrait stays with the caption ‘Pέ Iέ εelissino’έ In the same paper (βι1), mention is made of the ‘εelozino Rite which had flourished already from 1765 in the δodge of Silence’ (Telepneff explains he took the dubious spelling from όindel)έ This event took place on the ββ nd May, 1770: Yelaguin was elected ύrand εaster’έ See also χlain ψernheim, “Johann χugust Starck: The Templar Legend and the ωlerics,” Pietre- Stones Review of Freemasonry, http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/bernheim14.html (accessed 26 July, 2014). [23] The precise connection between the Melissinos’ Rite and the system introduced into St. Petersburg by Starck is difficult to ascertain. It has been claimed (however without proof) that Starck frequented Melissinos’ lodge in the city between 1763 and 176572. χccording to ωollis “it is clear … that Starck’s chivalric and clerical vision of Masonry closely mirrored that expounded by Melissinos in the same city73”. Telepneff points out that “in fact, it was known [!] that Starck did frequent εelissino’s δodge at St. Petersburg” and cited “ψlum 1γ” as an authority74. Which cannot be taken as an authority at all, since ψlum wrote “the δodge he [Starck] often visited in St. Petersburg belonged, according to Fessler [my italics], to the εelesino’s system, a kind of Templar ωhapter of a more sacerdotal then priestly character”έ Blum refered his reader to pages 194-1λθ of the όessler’s articles mentioned in note 1ι above, where όessler asserted “in εelesino’s δodge, he [Starck] saw [!] the “erhabnen Ritter Gottes” [Sublime Knight of ύod], [a degree] he had probably learned about earlier from the όrench τfficers in ύöttingen, arranged into a Templar Chapter with a more priestly than military and knightly character. [...] it may have given him the first idea of introducing a Templar ωlericat in the δodges’έ όessler however gave here no authority whatsoever. In a letter written to σettelbladt in September 1κίλ, Starck mentioned εelissinos’ ωhapter, but not Melissinos himself: “To be sure, I had great relations with the remains of the Scottish Chapter in Petersburg, accordingly I became afterwards actually everything in my hands, not only what they had, but also what a worldwide famous Brother of that Chapter, who died in 1764, collected in Italy, France and Scotland; however I was not the only and main actor [in Wismar]: Vegesack also had uncommon knowledge: I still own the copy of the patent which Count de la Tour du Pin drew up for him as a Cleric and Böhnen was a member of the Swedish Chapter” 75. The emergence of the Melissinos’ (as well as Starck’s) systems of high-grade Freemasonry in St. Petersburg in the 1760s was symptomatic of a wider European trend. As Goodrick - Clarke has observed, esoterically- minded Masonic sects in the second half of the eighteenth century, such as the Strict τbservance in ύermany, provided “a vehicle for the transmission of theosophical and alchemical traditions76”.Within the security of the εasonic lodge, a section of Europe’s aristocratic ruling class craved an alternative worldview to the rational and materialist doctrines being expounded by the likes of the Philosophes. Hence, they sought inspiration from the Western esoteric tradition that had flourished in the early modern period, alongside an acceptance of mystical Christian doctrines. 72 Jean Blum, J.-A. Starck et la querelle du crypto-catholicisme en Allemagne 1785–1789 (Paris: F. Alcan, 1912), 13. Op. cit. 74 Telepneff 1928: 250, note 97 75 Letter from September 14, 1809 (Runkel III: 225). Runkel suggests that the worldwide famous Brother was Lorenz Natter about whom it is extremely difficult to separate facts from legends. However see the beginning of note 79 above. 76 Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, The Western Esoteric Traditions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 131. 73 [24] 8. Melissinos and esoteric tradition - The Search for the Philosophers’ Stone and εelissinos’ manuscript In Russia, the seek of inspiration from the esoteric tradition is epitomized by Melissinos, who espoused the dynamic potential of the Western tradition to transform and impact upon both the individual and the surrounding environment. In other words, Melissinos did not simply utilize the alchemical tradition for εasonic rituals and symbolismν he also “succeeded in establishing an active circle of fellow adepts from across Europe in St. Petersburg, who collaborated on harnessing what they saw as the inherent potential of alchemical transmutation”77έ Known members of the εelissinos’ εasonic ωircle who actively engaged in alchemical pursuits, as testified by Marie-Daniel ψourrée, ψaron de ωorberon (1ιζκ–1810) in his Journal, include Corberon himself as well as Carl Adolph ψrühl (1ιζβ–1802), Louis-Auguste le Tonnelier, Baron de Breuteuil (1730–1807), Baron Karl Heinrich von Heyking (1752–1809), HenriFrederic Levetzan (a Danish officer), Victor Amadeus of Anhalt-Schaunburg, χbbé Pasquini (a Sienese man of letters), Prince Fyodor Sergeevich Gagarin (1757–1794), Ivan Matveevich Tolstoi, Aleksandr Ivanovich Odoevskii and a certain Chevalier Duménil78. The ultimate goal of alchemists is to produce the philosophers’ stone, which is “the arcane of all arcane, possessing the power to perfect imperfection in all things79”. Remarkably, Melissinos was the linchpin of an international coterie of would-be-adepts and fellow Masons who enthusiastically pursued this long-cherished goal in St. Petersburg in the 1770s and early 1780s. The evidence of such active alchemical experimentation overturns the view, expressed by Iurii Lotman and Stephen Baehr, among others, that Russian Masons in this period did not undertake alchemical experiments80. 77 Robert Collis, op. cit. The original six volumes of ωorberon’s Journal are stored at the εusée ωalvet in χvignonέ See εs γίηζ and εs γίθλ [hereafter Journal]. Whilst the Melissino Circle has been used as a case- study in this article, it should also be noted that Ivan Perfil’evich Elagin (1725–1794), a lead- ing Freemason in St. Petersburg and one of ωatherine the ύreat’s most trusted advisors, also actively embraced alchemy within his Masonic and Christian theosophical worldview. see A. G. Cross, “Severnye brattiaμ nepublikovannaia perepiska Iέ Pέ Elagina s Velikoi lozhei χnglii (1772–1ικί),” in XVIII vek: sbornik, 25 (St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2008), 272–γγβν χnthony ωross, “χnglo-Russian Masonic Links During the Reign of Catherine the ύreat,” in нnnerfors and ωollis, edsέ, Freemasonry and Fraternalism in Eighteenth-Century Russia, 85–108. 79 Lyndy Abraham, A Dictionary of Alchemical Imagery (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 145. 80 Stephen ψaehr argues that “the quest for the philosopher’s stone, the prima material, the elixir of life, the tincture of perfection, and the homunculus had largely lost their actuality” by the 1ιιίs and 1ικίs in Russiaέ See Stephen L. Baehr, “χlchemy and Eighteenth-Century Russian Literature: An Introduction” inReflections on Russia in the Eighteenth Century: Sixth International Conference of the Study Group on Eighteenth-Century Russia, edited by Joachim Klein, Simon Dixon & εaarten όraanje (ωologneμ ψöhlau Verlag, βίί1), 1θγ–164. Aleksandr Semeka also argues that the majority of Russian Freemasons in the eighteenth century were not interested in alchemyέ See χέ Semeka, “Russkie rozenkreitsery i sochineniia imperatritsy Ekateriny II protiv mason- stva,” Zhurnal ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia, No. 2 (1902), 366. 78 [25] Prince Fyodor Sergeevich Gagarin Σhe extent to which the Melissinos Masonic circle indulged in alchemical pursuits is revealed in the journal of Marie-Daniel ψourée, ψaron de ωorberon (1748–1810). The Frenchman arrived in St. Petersburg in November 1775, where he was secretary to the French legation until 1777 and then chargé d’affaires until returning to Paris in 178081. On arrival in the Russian capital Corberon immediately entered into a Masonic-alchemical network. Thus, within days of being in St. Petersburg the Saxon nobleman Count Carl Adolph von ψrühl (1ιζβ–1802) lent the French diplomat a 1754 edition of Bibliothèque des philosophes alchimiques ou hermétiques82. ωorberon and ψrühl were soon joined in their alchemical experiments in early 1ιιθ by a όrench aristocrat named the ωhevalier Duménil and the χbbé Pasquini, a Sienese man of lettersέ However, as Antoine Faivre has noted, of all the Masons in St. Petersburg it was Melissino who made by far the strongest impression on the French diplomat. On 5 May 1776, Corberon records in his journal that he had a meeting with Melissino in a lodge. At this meeting Melissino evidently boasted to Corberon that he was in possession of a vial that contained an elixir capable of bringing about good health and youthful vigour83. A little over a year later, in June 1777, both ωorberon and his friend von ψrühl were initiated into the seventh degree of εelissino’s εasonic system. The foreign aristocrats had been recognised as worthy adepts by Melissino, who in accepting them into his inner sanctum would consequently instruct them in perfecting their alchemical labours. Baron Karl von Heyking (1751–1809), a nobleman from Courland, was also initiated into the seventh degree of Melissino’s Rite at the same ceremony as Corberon. In his reminiscences, von Heyking writes that For an abridged two-volume edition, see Marie-Daniel ψourré, ψaron de Corberon, Un Diplomate όrançais a la cour de Catherine II 1775–1780: Journal Intime du Chevalier de Corberon, edited by L.-H. Lablande, 2 vols. (Paris: Librairie Plon, 1901). For digital images of the original journal, covering the period between January–December 1775, see http://arcanews.univ-montp3.fr/egodoc/Arc/f_/Occ=002 (accessed 4 August 2014). 82 Journal, vol. 1, 393, 1β σovember 1ιιηέ χlso see χntoine όaivre, “Un όamilier des Sociétés Ésotériques au Dix-ώuitième Siècleμ ψourrée de ωorberon,” Revue des Sciences Humaines, vol. 126 (April–June 1967), 261. 83 Journal, volέ β, βλη, βλκ, η εay 1ιιθέ χlso see όaivre, “ωorberon,” βθ1–262. 81 [26] Melissinos had “a passion for alchemy” and that on initiation into the Melissinos’ Masonic Rite he realised that its purpose was to explore “the hermetic mysteries or the philosophers’ stone84”έ Baron de Corberon ωorberon’s journal provides ample evidence of such alchemical pursuits, especially immediately prior to his departure for France in the autumn of 1780. In September 1780, for example, Prince Fedor Sergeevich Gagarin (1757–1794), a captain in the Izmailovskii Guards, offered to show Corberon a book in which he claimed he was able to obtain “the true mercury without fire, which was itself created in a bottle of vulgar mercury”. Moreover, in the same month the aspiring alchemist Ivan Matveevich Tolstoi (1746–1808), a major in the Preobrazhenskii Guards, asked Corberon whether he could subscribe to the latter’s “mythohermetic archive”. The flurry of alchemical activity prior to Corberon leaving St. Petersburg also included receiving one-and-a-half pounds of alchemical matter from a certain Gedin, on condition that he did not reveal how to make it. Corberon describes the alchemical substance as being composed of a certain powder mixed with a few pieces of metal called vulcain lunatique, and adds that “we shall see whether I find a small laboratory in Paris” in order to utilize the concoction85. 84 85 See, ψeaurepaire, “Deux Itinéraires,” ζθέ Journal, volέ η, ζζι, τctober 1ικίέ χlso see όaivre, “ωorberon,” βθζέ [27] H. von ψrühl However, undoubtedly the most prized alchemical possession that Corberon took back to Paris with him was εelissinos “great manuscript”, along with six of his designs for lodge carpets. It would seem Melissinos had entrusted ωorberon with the necessary means to export the Russian’s esoteric form of high-grade Masonry to France86. Whilst the French diplomat later became attracted to various other esoteric groups, including Swedenborgians and the Illuminati of Avignon, he continued to extol the alchemical mastery of Melissinos, as contained in the Russian’s manuscriptέ In 1787, for example ωorberon wrote to von ψrühl regarding this cherished manuscript. According to Corberon, the document relates to an incident in 1772, when Melissinos had purportedly seen, handled and smelled “transmuted gold and the elixir of life” after assisting in an alchemical experiment carried out by a certain German doctor based in Moscow named Kerstniz. Corberon himself writes that he was keen to meet with the German alchemist in 1780, but was informed that he had suddenly left Moscow in 1773 and had not returned87. It seems highly likely that the doctor in question was Johann Christian Kerstens (1713–1802), who in 1758 became the first professor of medicine, chemistry, natural history, and physics at Moscow University88. However, before leaving Moscow Corberon notes that Kerstens gave Melissinos a manuscript outlining how to carry out his alchemical method of acquiring the philosophers’ stoneέ In turn, Melissinos entrusted Corberon with a copy of this alchemical manuscript, which was written in hieroglyphs and also contained a short passage in ύermanέ ωorberon confesses to von ψrühl that “it is well, my friend, that Providence has allowed me to find here, without searching, a man who can unveil these emblems”. The Frenchman then offers a tantalizing fragment to von ψrühl “in the utmost secrecy,” ώowever we have no evidence that ωorberon export εelissinos’ Riteέ Journal, volέ η, γ1θέ September 1ικίέ χlso see όaivre, “ωorberon,” βθγέ 88 For more on Kerstens, see Richter, Geschichte, vol. 3, 342–243; A. A. Polovtsov, ed., Russkii biograf cheskii slovar, vol. 8 (St. Petersburg: Tipografiia Glavnago Upravleniia Udelov, 1897), 621. See also Collis, op.cot and especially fn 63. 86 87 [28] which reveals that it is necessary to labour for nine months, but that neither metal, coal, or fire is necessary89. The value Corberon attached to Melissinos’ alchemical manuscript is also demonstrated by the manner in which he promoted it in France in the 1780s. Thus, in July 1781, for example, Corberon met with Cardinal de Rohan (1734–1803) in Strasbourg and lent him Melissinos’ manuscript. Several years later Corberon also lent the Melissinos manuscript to Count Angiviller (1726–1810), a leading patron of the arts and personal friend of Louis XVI. ωorberon’s journal throws invaluable light on the almost obsessive interest displayed by the Melissinos Circle in alchemy between 1776 and 1780. This cosmopolitan group of Masonic adepts included noblemen from France, Denmark, Saxony, Tuscany, and Russia, who all looked to Melissinos for instruction in their alchemical pursuits. Moreover, the journal also demonstrates how the Melissinos Circle in St. Petersburg formed part of a wider pan-European alchemical - Masonic network, which actively sought to exchange knowledgeέ In τctober 1ιιθ, for example, ωorberon describes how von ψrühl had assisted in an alchemical transmutation in Holland and that the alchemist had agreed to correspond with the Saxon. In the summer of 1777, Corberon also wrote down an alchemical recipe for anti- mony that had purportedly enriched a man in Warsaw and which had been relayed to him by ωolonel d’χloy, the Courland Ambassador in St. Petersburg via Baron Heyking in Poland90. 9. Conclusions When Freemasonry was introduced in Russia had become fashionable – too much so and purely fashionable. St Petersburg was a strange medley of men from all parts of the world; men who knew nothing of either or Obedience, in fact so-called Masons, who had not the slightest idea what they were to understand Freemasonry. The Masonic lodges that sprang up then were for the most part cosmopolitan institutions. However, for idealistic Russians of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, freemasonry was a source of spiritual comfort, enlightened ideas and humanistic values. As the government was aware, a Masonic lodge was capable of developing either into a politically benign force which encouraged self-improvement and philanthropy or into a seedbed for revolutionary ideas. On the one hand, lodges fostered a belief in the possibility of self-perfection and insisted on a high standard of personal conduct. Masons also performed charitable deeds, visiting prisons, promoting education and aiding the poor. On the other hand, their social concern was bound eventually to lead to reflection on the causes of social problems and to consideration of all sorts of ways of removing political obstacles to the solution of those problems. The attraction of the knight degrees lays in its mythical connection both with the construction of the Temple of Solomon and with the Templars in the Crusades, who had allegedly survived the destruction of 89 90 Recueil, θγέ β1 July 1ικιέ χlso see, όaivre, “ωorberon,” βθηέ Journal, vol. 4, 252, 254. 12 June 1ιιιέ χlso see όaivre, “ωorberon,” βθβ–263, fn. 30. [29] the Order by Philippe le Bel in the fourteenth century. The templar masonry was particularly attractive to Russians, as not only did it adopt splendid and dramatic cloaks, but its member were known as knights, using the latin eques. Since Russia had no medieval history of chivalry and knighthood (orders of knighthodd were only introduced by Peter the Great) the Templars appealed particularly to the aristocracy and the nobles91. In Orthodox and ethnically multivariate Russia was not easy for a purely a western masonic system to be widely adopted. Petros Melissinos Melissinos was a polypragmon man. Whaite says that his Rite was “anything but fiction conceived in the brain of εelissinos”92έ εackenzie states that he was a masonic “comet of a season”, a “pseudo-masonic egg” that was never hatched93. He was a good soldier, a keen freemason, a scientist during his whole life. According to Iuri Lotman, interest in alchemical philosophy in eighteenth- century Russia combined an “obscurantist denial of science, open charlatanism and social utopianism”94. In terms of scientific obscurantism, it is impossible to categorize εelissinos as such a figureέ ωlaude όrançois εasson describes how εelissinos “succeeded in restoring to good condition the founderies of St. Petersburg, improved the See Pierre Chevallier, Histoire de la granc-maçonnerie francaise, 1ιβη-1799, Paris, 1974, 87 Whaite, 148. 93 Mackenzie, op.cit. 94 Iurii δotman, ‘Sochustvennik’ χέ σέ Radishchevaμ χέ εέ Kutuzov i ego pis’ma k Iέ Pέ Turgenevuέ” In O russkoi literature: Stat’i i issledovaniia 1λ5κ–1993, 266–283 (St. Petersburg: Iskusstvo- SPB, 1997). 91 92 [30] composition of the metal by the invention of an alloy which bears his name, and introduced a new method of boring cannonέ” όurthermore, εelissinos’ alchemical collaboration with the eminent and respected Drέ Kerstens, the first professor of medicine, chemistry and physics at the University of Moscow, illustrates how an enthusiasm for actively seeking alchemical secrets did not necessitate a detachment from progressive scientific inquiry. Regarding his involvement with alchemy and the search of philosophers’ stone, I would argue that alchemical philosophy and practice allowed for a combination of spiritual and pseudo-scientific elements. In this sense alchemy promoted the idea of spiritual and material perfectibility. Thus, esoteric symbolism—with its emphasis on death and rebirth—was in harmony with Masonic ideals and could easily be fused with the ωhristian doctrine of Jesus’ resurrectionέ Moreover, it can be argued that the ardent belief in being able to concoct the perfect alchemical receipe contributed much to scientific advancement, and, as in the case of Melissinos, produced real benefits for the Russian state. In short, alchemy provided a means for nobleman, such as Melissinos, to combine esoteric philosophy, faith, and scientific pursuits (expressed most strongly in the space of the Masonic lodge). The charge of open charlatanism, which would be wholeheartedly endorsed by Catherine the Great, is also problematic. The very public exploits of Cagliostro in St. Petersburg provide the most clear-cut example of opportunism. However, one must remember that the Melissinos Circle, carried out their alchemical experiments within an exclusive Masonic sphere restricted to initiated adepts. Thus, the members of the circle were on a level with each other and did not seek personal gain and fame from their shared alchemical endeavours. One is also hard-pushed to discern any elements of social utopiansim in the masonic worldviews of Petersburg Masons. The likes of Melissino and Elagin, for example, did not pursue the same philanthropic and social goals pursued by Novikov in Moscow. However, this does not mean that the Petersburg group of Melissinos were insular and cut off from the world around them. Rather, their outlook was more cosmopolitan and elevated above their immediate environment. The Melissinos Circle of Russian and Western European aristocrats embody the growing sense of a shared worldview that was becoming increasingly threatened in both intellectual and social terms. Thus, whilst aristocratic Russian Masons in St. Petersburg posed no threat to the status quo, they did challenge the philosophical foundations underpinning ωatherine’s vision of reformέ In this regard, one can understand the ferocity of the campaign waged by the empress against alchemy in her capital city and in her realm in general. Strictly masonically speaking the system of Melissinos looks like an imitation of the Strict Observance. Evidently, foundering in the sea of knowledge, Melissinos attempted to draw up a compendium of masonic system based on the establishment of the Order of the Temple, as well as his previous masonic expertise, and his iniatiation in the higher degrees of Swedish Rite. [31] The fact that εelissinos’ Rite combined chivalric and clerical mythology and rituals linked to the Knights Templar and Orthodox and Catholic liturgical practices alongside Rosicrucian-style esoteric philosophy is most apparent in the seventh degree (Magnus Sacerdos Templariorum). In terms of alchemy, this is most evident in the rituals and symbolism associated with the seventh degree. The whole ceremony was cloaked in the language of spiritual alchemy, whereby the “mystical process of regeneration” was enacted via the separation of the spiritual essence of Man from his terrestrial Nature. The system is a masonic creation of the time of the development of the beyond the Craft masonic degrees. There is reference to Scottish tradition (Scotch Master) so as Knight Templars tradition, in order to show the initiatory / spiritual sequel to the modern Freemasonry and the non loss of the initiatory keys. To Melissinos we are indebted for the historical fiction that the Knights Templar were divided into military and sacerdotal members; that the latter possessed all the secrets and mystic learning of the Order; and they had preserved a continuous existence down to the eighteenth century. Melissinos (and then Starck) claimed to be the emissary of these Clerical Templars, asserted their superiority over the secular Knights. Bibliography Books – Articles     Abraham Lyndy, A Dictionary of Alchemical Imagery (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 145. Allgemeines Handbuch der Freimaurerei, vol. 3 (Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1865), 306–307. AUA, MS 3500.1 and MS 3500.2, Keith, Correspondence to Scotland, letter from Moscow, July 1733 (found in the papers of John Douglas, merchant of Aberdeen). Baehr Stephen L., “χlchemy and Eighteenth-Century Russian Literature: An Introduction” in Reflections on Russia in the Eighteenth Century: Sixth International Conference of the Study Group on Eighteenth-Century Russia, edited by Joachim Klein, Simon Dixon & Maarten Fraanje  (ωologneμ ψöhlau Verlag, βίί1), 1θγ–164. Bakounine Tatiana, Le reṕertoire biographique des francs-maçons russes: (XVIIIe et XIXe siècles), Parisμ Institut d'études slaves de l'Université de Paris, 1967.  Beaurepaire Pierre-Yves, Marie-Daniel ψourrée de ωorberon et Karl-Heinrich von Heyking: Deux Itinéraires εaçonniques entre Paris, Varsovie et Saint- Pétersbourg р la Tombée des  δumières, in ψreuillard and Ivanova, edsέ, La franc-maçonnerie et la culture russe, 48. Bernheim Alain, “Johann χugust Starckμ The Templar δegend and the ωlerics,” Pietre- Stones Review of Freemasonry. http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/bernheim14.html (accessed 26 July, 2014). [32]    Blum Jean, J.-A. Starck et la querelle du crypto-catholicisme en Allemagne 1785–1789 (Paris: F. Alcan, 1912), 13. Bogdan Henrik, Western Esotericism and Rituals of Initiation (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2007), 107. Bourré Marie-Daniel, Baron de Corberon, Un Diplomate όrançais a la cour de Catherine II 1775–1780: Journal Intime du Chevalier de Corberon, edited by L.-H. Lablande, 2 vols. , Paris:  Librairie Plon, 1901. Callendar James M. M., A Collection of Free Masons Songs Containing Several New Songs Never Before Published. For the Use of the Lodges (Edinburgh: Br. A. Donaldson and Company,   1758), 81-83. Casanova de Seingalt Jacques, The Memoirs of Jacques Casanova de Seingalt, Vol. V (of VI), "In London and Moscow", London, 1894 Casanova Giacomo, The Complete Memoirs of Casanova (Salt Lake City: Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, 2004), 2158.     Chevallier Pierre, Histoire de la franc-maçonnerie francaise, 1ιβη-1799, Paris, 1974. Collis Robert, The Petersburg Crucible – Alchemy and the Russian Nobility in Catherine the ύreat’s Russia Collis Robert, The Petrine Instauration, Brill Academic Publishers, 2011. Cooper-Oakley Isabel, Traces of a Hidden Tradition in Masonry and Medieval Mysticism: Five Essays, Published by The Theosophical Publishing Society, 1900  Cross A. G., ‘ψritish όreemasons in Russia during the reign of ωatherine the ύreat’, Oxford Slavonic Papers, New Series, vol. 4 (Oxford, 1971), 43-72.       Cross Anthony, “χnglo-Russian εasonic δinks During the Reign of ωatherine the ύreat,” in нnnerfors and ωollis, edsέ, Freemasonry and Fraternalism in Eighteenth-Century Russia, 85–108. Cross Anthony, By the Banks of the Neva: Chapters from the Lives and Careers of the British in Eighteenth-Century Russia (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 159-65, 174-6. De Madariaga Isabel, Politics and Culture in Eighteenth-Century Russia, Routledge, 2014, 150. de Tschoudy Louis Théodore Henri, δ’étoile flamboyante ou la Société des όrancs-εaçons considerée sous tous les aspects (Frankfurt-Paris: Antoine Boudet, 1766). Dixon Simon, Catherine the Great (London: Profile Books, 2010), 157. Durie Eveline, Ο π αθβ δαεσμ Μυ δεσμ αδλδ ησμ πλδθ εαδ εα Ϊ κθ ΰυθα βμ θ ιαλ β έαμ, ΠΪθ δκ Παθ πδ άηδκ, 1λλλέ [33]   Faggionato Raffaella, A Rosicrucian Utopia, in Eighteenth-Century Russia: The Masonic Circle of N.I . Novikov, Springer, 2005. Findel J. G., Histoire de la Franc-Maconnerie (Depuis son origine jusqu'a nos jours, tome premier, Paris, Librairie Internationale, 1866          Faivre Antoine, “Un όamilier des Sociétés Ésotériques au Dix-ώuitième Siècleμ ψourrée de ωorberon,” Revue des Sciences Humaines, vol. 126 (April–June 1967), 261. Friedrichs Ernest, Freemasonry in Russia and Poland, Published by the International Office for εasonic Intercourse, ψerne, Printed ψüchler Τ ωo, 1λίκέ Galiffe J.B.G., δa Chaine Symbolique, τrigine Développement et Tendances de l’ idée εaçonnique, ύenève, 1κηβέ Goodrick-Clarke Nicholas, The Western Esoteric Traditions, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2008, 131. Gould R.F., History of Freemasonry, 1886. Grantham Ivor, "The Titles of United Grand Lodge: Antients and Moderns," AQC 64 (1951): 7678. Jenkins Michael, Arakcheev: Grand Vizier of the Russian Empire (Dial Press, 1969), 35-36 Kaplan Herbert, Russian Overseas Commerce with Great Britain During the Reign of Catherine II (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1995), 95. Le Forestier Rene, La Franc-Maconnerie Templiere et Occultiste by Rene Le Forestier, 1987, La Table d' Emeraude, Paris.  Leighton Lauren G., Esoteric Tradition in Russian Romantic Literature: Decembrism and Freemasonry   Lenning C., Encyclopädie der όreimaurerei, vol. 2 (Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1824), 460-81. Ligou Daniele (dir.), Dictionnaire de la Franc-maçonnerie, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1987.   MacKenzie, Royal Masonic Cyclopaedia, Mackey Albert Gallatin et alia, An Encyclopedia of Freemasonry and Its Kindred Sciences, Comprising the Whole Range of Arts, Sciences and Literature as Connected with the Institution, Vol. 2, Masonic history Company, 1912.   Mandich Donald R. , Joseph Anthony Placek (1992). Russian heraldry and nobility. Dramco, 311, Masson Charles François Philibert, Secret memoirs of the court of Petersburg: particularly towards the end of the reign of Catharine II and the commencement of that of Paul I., T.N. Longman and O. Rees, 1802, 339–340. [34]      Masson Claude François, Secret Memoirs of the Court of Petersburg, vol. 2 (London, 1802), 346. Moore C., The Masonic Review, Vol. X, Cincinnati, 1853, 268 Morgan W.W., The Freemason's Chronicle, Σσηκμ 2, 1875, 139 Naudon Paul, Histoire Generale de la Franc-maconnerie, Office du Livre, Deuxieme Edition, 1987. Ordre Ecossais des Chevaliers du Saint Temple de Jérusalem, δe Rite de εélésino et la grade de ύrand Prêtre des Templiers ou Magnus Sacerdos Templariorum  Parkinson R. E., History of the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons, vol. 2 (Dublin: Lodge of Research, ce., 1957), 268-9; John Hamill, "English Grand Lodge Warrants," AQC 90 (1977):   92. Ragon J.-M., De δa εaçonnerie τcculte et de δ’Initiation ώermétique, 1κηγέ Ryan W.F., The Secrets of Secrets and the Muscovite Autocracy, in Pseudo – Aristotle. The Secrets of Secrets, Sources and Influences, ed. W.F. Ryan and C.B. Schmitt, Warburg Institute   Surveys, IX, London, 1982, 114-123. Rzheutskii Vladislav, “V teni Shuvalovaέ όrantsuzskii kul’turnyi posrednik v Rossii ψaron de ωhudi,” Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, vol. 105 (2010), 91–124. Schuchard Marsha Keith, Emanuel Swedenborg, Secret Agent on Earth and in Heaven: Jacobites, Jews and Freemaspns in Early Modern Sweden, Leiden, 2012.       Semeka Aleksandr, “Russkie rozenkreitsery i sochineniia imperatritsy Ekateriny II protiv masonstva,” Zhurnal ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia, No. 2 (1902), 366. Serkov Andrei Ivanovich, Istoriia russkogo masonstva, St. Petersburg, 2000. Serkov Andrei Ivanovich, Rossiiskoe masonstvo: Slovar'-spravochnik, Moscow, 2001; Smith Douglas, Working the Rough Stone, Northern Illinois University Press, 1999, 19 Telepneff Boris, ‘όreemasonry in Russia’έ Ars Quatuor Coronatorum 35 (1922), 261-292. Telepneff Boris, “Johann χugust Starck and his Rite of Spiritual εasonry,” Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, 41 (1928), 238–284;  Von Damm Albert, The Masonic Movement in Russia in Brief  von der Recke Charlotta Elisabeth Konstantia, Nachricht von des berüchtigten Cagliostro Aufenthalte in Mittau im Jahre 1779, und von dessen dortigen magischen Operationen, (Berlin and Stettin, Friedrich Nicolai, 1787.   Waite A.E., A New Encyclopaedia in Freemasonry, 1881, 148 Wolffin Larry, Inventing Eastern Europe: The Map of Civilization on the Mind of the Enlightenment, Stanford University Press, 1994. [35]  Άνν νο – α α ο πλυ κυ σηκυ κυ  ανα , Μ ζδ βθκέ Κ φαζζβθέαμ, θΪ υπκθ ε κυ δεκ κτ ζ έκυ βμ Ι κλδεάμ εαδ γθκζκΰδεάμ αδλέαμ βμ ζζΪ κμ, θ γάθαδμ, 1978. α ανα ώ , Ι κλέα πθ δαφσλπθ πκζδ δευθ εαδ γλβ ε υ δευθ βμ έαμ, βμ υλυπβμ εαδ βμ η λδεάμ, Ρααάμ, γάθαδ, 1κθλ.  α  Ν απου ω , ΰευεζκπαέ δα βμ ζ υγΫλαμ Σ ε κθδεάμέ 1λη1έ Κων αν ίνο Κ., Οδ Έζζβθ μ βμ παλκυ έα εαδ δα πκλΪ κυ ζζβθδ ηκτ  βθ θα κζδεά υλυπβ (1κκμ-βίσμ αδυθαμ), Παπα π βλέκυ, γάθα, βί11έ όπου ο Αν  α ων α Χ έ, 1ηί ξλσθδα αν νο , δκΰλαφέαδ πθ εα αζτ πμ βμ υααθ δθάμ  ΰέαμ Π λκτπκζβμ - πσ βθ δ κλδεά άλ βμ θα κζάμΟ, Ϊευθγκμ, βί1βέ θ κδμ ΰλΪηηα δ δαζαηοΪθ πθ ζζάθπθ απσ βμ υ κελα κλέαμ ηΫξλδ βμ ζζβθδεάμ γθ ΰ λ έαμ (1ζηγ – 1κβ1), θ γάθαδμ, ε βμ υπκΰλαφέαμ πθ Ϋεθπθ θ λΫκυ ΚκλκηβζΪ, 1κθκ, ηζζ – 545. Η α , Κ φαζζβθδαεΪ ΢τηηδε α, υηίκζαέ δμ βθ δ κλέαθ εαδ ζακΰλαφέαθ βμ θά κυ Κ φαζζβθέαμ, σηκμ πλυ κμ, θ γάθαδμ, τπκδμ Παλα ε υΪ Λ πθά, 1904. Archives  NAS, GD 156/60, Elphinstone's papers, Keith's correspondence, folder 7, contains a letter written from London, on 9 May 1738. This document was sent by Earl of Kintore, the future Grand Master of England who bestowed Provincial Grand Mastership on John Keith. Although the letter itself is devoted to the issues related to the fate of the Keiths' family estate after the Jacobite Rebellion of 1715, it also gives clues as to how the correspondence between Britain and Russia was maintained.  Letter from Johann Albrecht Euler to Samuel Formey, 24 July/5 August 1775, Staatsbibliotehk zu Berlin, Preussicher Kulturbesitz, Handschriftenabteilung, Nachlass Formey, Berlin. [36] ANNEX 1 Chronology 1728 James Keith enters Russian service 1731 or 1740 James Keith appointed Prov GM of Russia and Germany under the GL of England95 1765 Melissinos introduce his own seven grade Masonic system 1770 or 1971 Yelagin becomes GM of GL of PrGL of Russia under Sweden 1771 Lodge of Perfection under GL of England is founded 1771 (June 1) Lodge of Peace and Union No 414, St Petersburg (June 1) Lodge of the Nine Muses No 466, St Petersburg (June 1) Lodge of Muse Urania No 467, St Peterburg (June 1) Lodge of Balona Mo 468, St Peterburg 1771 German Baron P.B. Reichel brings Strict – Observance masonry in Russia. Inauguration of Lodge Apollo which depend on Grand Lodge of Zinnendorf in Berlin. 1772 Yelagin becomes Provincial GM for all Russias96 by GL of England97. This resulted in the formation of the following lodges: 466 Nine Muses St Petersburg 467 Urania St Petersburg 468 Bellona St Petersburg 469 Lodge of Mars Yassay98 (military lodge) 470 Lodge of Muse Clio Moscow 1776 Yelagin agrees to merge his lodges with those of Reichel Unification Russian Lodges as National Grand Lodge under Yelagin (Melissinos took office in his Grand Lodge) Reichel and Yelagin began to correspond with Swedish Freemasons (Order of the Temple Ritual)99 95 According to Gould, V, 214 in January 1731 Captain John Phillips was appointed ProvGM of Russia and Germany. General Lord James Keith was appointed in 1740 ProvGM of Russia by his brother John Keith, Earl of Kintore, GM of England. 96 Yelagin eventually controlled 14 lodges in St Petersburg, Moscow and other Provinces. 97 See Grand Lodge Minutes, February 28, 1772 (Gould, V, 216 fn 4). Yelagin was in correspondence with the Grand Lodge of England, which sent him a diploma signed by the English Grand Master, the Duke of Beaufort. Yelagin agreed in turn to send reports to England and three guineas for every new lodge opened. 98 Consecration year 1770 - Warrant constitution year 1774 99 Isabel De Madariaga, Politics and Culture in Eighteenth-Century Russia, Routledge, 2014, 150. [37] 1776 Prince Kurakin was asked by by Yelagin to seek out the higher degrees in Sweden and bring them back. He seeks for more illumination in the ritual of the Order of the Temple under the Grand Master the Duke (Karl) of Sudermania (brother of the King of Sweden), a system of strict observance composed of then degrees, three Johannine, two Scottish (or St Andrew) and five knightly degrees100. 1777 Kurakin returned and raised Gagarin, Melesino and others to the Highest Sweedish degrees 1777 King Gustavus III visits Russia. Brilliant gathering was held in his honor in the lodge Apollo101. 1777 Grand Duke Paul (son of Catherine II) is initiated by King Gustavus III 1778 Lodge Phoenix (the first Swedish lodge) was consecrated in St Petersburg 1779 or 1780 District Grand Lodge under the Swedish System under Prince Gagarin102 1782 Russia becomes the 8th autonomous province of rite of Strict Observance103 1782 Secret societies were forbidden throughout Russia, however Freemasonry was not included 1782104 or 1ικι εelissinos’ system cease any activity 1794 Closing of all lodges 100 See G.V. Vernadsky, Russkoye masonstvo v tsarsyvovaniye Yekateriny II, Petrograd, 1917, 7. A.N., Pypin, Russkoye Masonstro XVIII I pervaya chetvert XIX, Petrograd, 1916, 154. 102 Gagarin receives his patent from the Duke of Sudermania in May 1780. See A.N., Pypin, op.cit. 431. 103 Since then there will be two systems rivaling for control of Russian freemasonry: the Reichel/ Yelagin and the Swedish system. 104 Gould, V, 218. 101 [38] Annex II Early Masonic information Very little reliable information is available about Melesino and his system. The common and oldest source appears to be a paper issued in the Altenburger Zeitschrift für όreimaurerei, 1st vol (1823): 20-31, a reference provided by the entry MELESINO in Lenning II. σettelbladt wrote “Melesino became acquainted with several masonic systems in όrance, England and Italy” without giving any authority for his statement (Nettelbladt 294). These three countries, listed in the same order, come in a letter written in 1809 by Starck to Nettelbladt quoted below, where they apply to an unnamed “famous brother of that Chapter who died in 1ιθζ”, which cannot apply to Melesino who died in 1797. In Telepneff 1λββ (facing βθζ), a portrait stays with the caption ‘Pέ Iέ εelissino’έ In the same paper (271), mention is made of the “Melozino Rite which had flourished already from 1ιθη in the δodge of Silence” (Telepneff explains he took the dubious spelling from Findel). A ‘Peter εellozino’ is listed (26ι) as Wε of a δodge at Yassy, εoldavia, σ° 46λ, one of the five δodges composing ‘the ύrand Provincial δodge of Russia [...] originally established in St. Petersburg under the auspices of the Berlin ύrand δodge “Royal York”. This event took place on the 22nd εay, 1ιιίμ Yelaguin was elected ύrand εaster’ (ibid. 264, note 2, quoting Longinov). The Supplement 1977 to the Masonic Year Book Historical Supplement, 2nd ed. 1969, gives Ivan Perfilevich Elagin (Yelaguin) appointed Provincial Grand Master for Russia, February 28, 1772 (herewith amending the original text of the ύrand δodge εinutes of όebruary βκ, 1ιιβμ ‘The Grand Secretary informed the Grand Lodge that the Grand Master, had been pleased to appoint His Excellency John Yelaguine, Senator, Privy-counsellor, Member of the Cabinet, &c. to her Imperial Majesty the Empress of Russia, and Knight of the Polish Orders of the White Eagle and of St. Stanislaus, to be Provincial Grand Master of the Empire of Russiaέ’) Telepneff stated six years laterμ ‘In fact, it was known [!] that Starck did frequent εelissino’s δodge at Stέ Petersburg’ and gave ψlum 1γ as an authority (Telepneff 1λβκμ βηί, note λι)έ Which cannot be taken as an authority at all, since ψlum wroteμ ‘The Lodge he [Starck] often visited in St. Petersburg belonged, according to Fessler [my italics], to the εelesino’s system, a kind of Templar ωhapter of a more sacerdotal then priestly character’έ ψlum refered his reader to pages 1λζ-1λθ of the όessler’s articles mentioned in note 1ι above, where όessler assertedμ ‘In εelesino’s δodge, he [Starck] saw [!] the “erhabnen Ritter Gottes” [Sublime Knight of ύod], [a degree] he had probably learned about earlier from [39] the όrench τfficers in ύöttingen, arranged into a Templar Chapter with a more priestly than military and knightly character. [...] it may have given him the first idea of introducing a Templar Clericat in the δodges’έ όessler however gave here no authority whatsoeverέ [40]