THE STRICT OBSERVANCE AND THE UNKNOWN SUPERIORS

OUR RESEARCH into the _Rectified Scottish Rite_ has led us to undertake as its indispensable complement a study of the _Strict Observance_, a subject as profound as it is obscure, and one that has given rise to a great deal of controversy. While awaiting the publication of this study, it will be of interest to take note of other documents that appear on the question, and to relate them to those with which we are already familiar.

Let us first of all draw attention to a remarkable study by Benjamin Fabre, author of the recent article '_Franciscus, Eques a Capite Galeato_', which appeared in the _Bastille_ of 6 and 13 September 1913 as '_Quelque imposteurs F... -M..: Starck et Coucoumous_'. In particular, the article deals with the _Clerks of the Late Observance_, a schism analogous to that of the _Clerks of the Strict Observance_ which we mentioned in regard to the Rite founded in Malta in 1771 by the Jutlandish merchant Kolmer.

The _Eques a Capite Galeato_, writing 'as one of the commissaries to the Archives of _Philalethes_,'^[1] describes the _Clerks of the Late_ Observance^[2] in these terms:

These Clerks still present a problem to the impartial observer. Some say they were Jesuits(!) who wished to perpetuate themselves secretly by forming the ecclesiastical class of the inner order of the Rule of the Strict Observance.^[3] Others say they were a new Confederation, which, led by motives of pride and cupidity, wished to dominate the said Rule by means of certain forms and scientific ideas culled from manuscripts and rare books of the Rose-Cross Brotherhood of the XVI-Ith century.^[4] Still others say it was the _Clergy of the Order of Ancient Templars_ perpetuated, and that, to the exclusion of the simple knights, possessed the doctrine and practice of the Occult Sciences, each extending the catalogue of these sciences according to the scope of his ideas and according to his own tastes.^[5]

In truth, by the ambiguity of their responses and of their constitution, and by the shrewdness of their proceedings, these Clerks encouraged every opinion people wished to form of them.

And Benjamin Fabre adds:

Their goal seems to have been to superimpose themselves upon the Rule of the Strict Observance^[6] in order to take control of its Lodges, which were established all over Europe and even in the New World. They demanded that their adepts possess all the grades conferred by the Strict Observance.^[7]

In 1767 this schism, 'which seemed to have been brought to life by an occult Power,' and which appeared first in Vienna, occurred within the Rule of the Strict Observance. From this period on, it seems that for one reason or another Baron de Hundt, _Eques ab Ense_, was found unworthy and lost that which had until that time given him his power, namely, communication with the Unknown Superiors.

When the Convention of Brunswick met in 1775, 'Baron de Hundt, representative of the Grand-Master _Eques a Penna Rubra_... was only the shadow of a shadow' Perhaps the disgrace had struck higher than the leader of the Strict Observance, reaching this Grand-Master himself, the intermediary between Hundt and the true Unknown Superiors.^[8]

ONE OF THE LEADERS of the schism was F... Starck, preacher from the court of Prussia, and doctor of (Protestant) theology...and of Masonic sciences, whose masters for these latter were Gugumus and the tavern-keeper Schroepfer. The first (whose name is also written Gugomos, Gouygomos, Kukumus, Cucumur, etc., the exact spelling being quite uncertain) figures in the list of the members of the Strict Observance under the Masonic name _Eques a Cygno Triomphante_,^[9] with the title 'lieutenant to the service of Prussia.' According to a letter of F... Prince de Carolath to F... Marquis de Savalette de Langes,^[10] Coucoumous [sic] or Kukumus, of a family originally from the Souabe, passed successively through nearly all the services of Germany, at times in the military, at times in the civil; he was admired for his talents but at the same time despised for his inconstancy and ill conduct He was chamberlain to the Duke of Wirtemberg [sic].

F... Clavel recounts^[11] that

this Gugomos appeared in High Germany and was said to have been sent from Cyprus^[12] by the _Unknown Superiors of Saint-Siege_(?). He gave himself the titles grand-priest, knight, and prince; he promised to teach the art of making gold, evoking the dead, and locating the buried treasures of the Templars. But he was soon unmasked; he tried to flee but was stopped, and was made to retract in writing all he had claimed, and to admit that he was no more than a simple imposter. ^[13]

What we about to see does not permit us to accept this conclusion entirely: Gugomos could indeed have been an imposter and could have acted as such under certain circumstances, but he must have been something else as well, at least for part of his career. For us, this much at least results from the rest of the previously cited letter of F... Prince de Carolath:

For a long time he had professed knowledge of the Occult Sciences, but it was Italy that formed him in this respect. Of this much we can be assured, that he came back from there with the most rare kinds of knowledge, which he did not fail to put into practice upon returning to his own country. By means of certain characters—which were nevertheless not true characters—and fumigations he summoned spirits. We can even be assured that a certain kind of lightning was at his command.

Now, according to witnesses we have no reason to doubt, even today certain Rabbis in North Africa^[14] still have precisely 'a special kind of lightning at their command,' and by means of 'characters' or kabbalistic figures produce a veritable storm in miniature, with cloud formations, lightning, thunder, etc., in the room where they accomplish this operation.^[15] It is probably this, or something similar, that Gugomos did; and this connection, significant from the point of view of certain Jewish influences, also leads us to recall the 'mysterious hidden adept named Valmont who often came from Africa to Italy and France and who initiated F... Baron de Waechter.^[16]

It would have been interesting to have more precise information on the subject of the 'characters' used by Gugomos in his 'operations.' Besides, who among the _Philalethes_—or for that matter, among so many other various and rival FF... of _Regimes_ that attempted with such zeal and such little success to bring 'Light from the Darkness' and 'Order from Chaos'—who among them especially at this time^[17] could boast of possessing the true _characters_, which is in short to ask who could link them to an emanation of what in the eyes of the true _Unknown Superiors_ would constitute a legitimate _Power_? The destruction or disappearance of archives sometimes occurred in all too opportune a manner not to raise suspicion. Had not the _Grand Lodge of England_ under the inspiration of the Rev... Anderson (ex-Chaplain of an _Operative Lodge_) been the first to provide an example of such a procedure from its beginnings (1717–1721)?^[18] But let us continue with our quotation:

The rumor of so many marvelous things attracted the attention of the whole world, which is to say the Masonic world, for in fairness it must be acknowledged that he [Gugomos] never displayed such things to the profane.

This discretion on the part of Gugomos was in conformity with the most elementary rules of prudence; but even in Masonic circles he ought to have shown himself more circumspect out of interest for himself as well as for his 'mission'; and the display he made of his 'knowledge' and powers was perhaps one of the causes of his subsequent disgrace, as we shall see from what immediately followed.

Soon, full of confidence, he had the boldness to convene a General Congress, where he intended to display his rare knowledge. But, O wonder!, his power left him. He could not produce the things of which he had boasted. What is more, he was subsequently debarred from the Order on account of his ill conduct. Now he continually wanders, though we are assured he has regained a portion of his knowledge. His present whereabouts are unknown.

Thus Gugomos, manifestly abandoned by the _Unknown Superiors_, for whom he was obviously only an instrument, lost all his powers just at the moment when he had greatest need of them. It is quite possible that he had had recourse to various hoaxes in order to try to justify his claims, claims which were no longer backed by the possession of real powers, of which he had only been the momentary depository; and these claims were not of a nature to be proven by any written document, which the FF.., even those of the High Grades, would have been unable to decipher.^[19] Under these circumstances, Gugomos, hard pressed by indiscreet questions, had no other route of escape than to confess himself an imposter, and he was 'debarred from the Order,' that is, from the known High Grades, the interior organization of Symbolic Masonry, which is still exterior in relation to others, those to which Gugomos had earlier been able to attach himself, but as a simple auxiliary rather than as a true initiate.

His misfortune should be all the less surprising in that the history of High Masonry during this period provides a number of similar examples: it is more or less what happened to Baron de Hundt himself, to Starck, to Schroepfer, etc., not to mention Cagliostro. Moreover, we know that even in our day a similar fate has met the envoys or agents of certain _Unknown Superiors_, truly unknown and truly _superior_: if they compromise themselves, or even if without otherwise erring they fail in their mission, all their powers are immediately withdrawn from them.^[20] This disgrace can only be temporary, however, and such was perhaps the case with Gugomos; but F.. Savalette de Langes's correspondent is mistaken, or expresses it poorly, when he writes that, consequently, 'he would have regained a part of his knowledge,' for, if powers can always be taken away or granted at the will of the _Unknown Superiors_, the case is obviously different as far as _knowledge_ is concerned, since such knowledge is acquired once and for all through initiation, however imperfect this initiation may be.

Prince de Carolath, who is rather severe toward Gugomos, nonetheless hesitates to accuse him of imposture; while not reaching a verdict about him, he appears to suspect the quality of his 'knowledge' rather than its very reality:

In this Masonic Congress [of 1775] Waechter managed to confound Kukumus.^[21] It seems that Kukumus did not have the true light, and that by continuing the relationship he had perhaps established with _impure spirits_ he thereby contributed to the increase of his own and others' perversity, and to the forging of new chains instead of freeing himself from the old.

It does indeed seem that Gugomos, seduced above all by the possession of certain powers of a quite inferior order, was attached almost exclusively to their practice; here again is perhaps one of the causes of his disgrace, for such might not have been in accord with the views of his _Unknown Superiors_.^[22]

In another letter also addressed to F... Savalette de Langes on the subject of Gugomos or Kukumus, F... Baron of Gleichen clearly declares him 'an imposter', although he is quick to add: 'But I know nothing of his _doctrine_, concerning which I have been assured that there was real evil.' Thus, independently of his _powers_, Gugomos possessed at least the rudiments of _doctrine_, something perhaps less interesting in his own eyes but which nevertheless constituted a more real 'knowledge,' as he must indeed have seen at his own expense. This _doctrine_—from whom had he received it? This question, far more important than that of Gugomos' eminently suspect moral value, amounts precisely to this: who were his _Unknown Superiors_? And we cannot of course accept the solution offered by Baron de Gleichen, who, haunted by an obsession we have already seen manifest in other cases, declares: 'Most believe he was an emissary of the _Jesuits_ [!], who have indeed made various attempts to attach themselves to Masonry.' Others than the Jesuits could have made attempts of this sort; the Jews, for example, were excluded from one part of Masonry, and what is more they still are in Sweden and in several Grand Lodges in Germany. Now Germany is precisely the country that saw the birth of most of the _Regimes_ for which the _Strict Observance_ served as prototype. This is certainly not to say that they all had the same origin _in fact_, which we believe rather unlikely, but it is easily conceivable how in taking hold of the High Grades by means of emissaries without official mandate, it would have been possible to direct all of Masonry _invisibly_, and that suffices to explain the multitude of attempts made to achieve such an end.^[23]

.

LET US OPEN a parenthesis here. Certain people are sometimes reproached with seeing a Jewish influence everywhere. Although it is perhaps not necessary to see this influence in an exclusive manner, there are others who, falling into a contrary excess, do not wish to see it at all. This is what happens in particular with the mysterious Falc (F... Salvette de Langes writes it thus) whom some 'believe to be the chief of the Jews':^[24] there are those who wish to identify him, not with Falk-Scheck, Grand-Rabbi of England, but with F... Ernest Falcke (_Epimenides, Eques a Rostro_), burgomaster of Hanover, which in no way explain the rumors in circulation about him at the time. Whoever this enigmatic figure was, his role, like that of many others, remains to be made clear, and it seems even more difficult with him than with Gugomos.

As for Falk-Scheck, we learn something in _Notice historique sur le Martinesisme et le Martinisme_—of which we shall speak again—that merits citing:

Mme De la Croix, exorcist of the possessed and too often possessed herself, boasted above all of having destroyed a lapis-lazuli talisman that the Duke of Chartres (Phillipe-Egalite, later Duke of Orleans, and Grand-Master of French Masonry) had received in England from the famed Falk-Scheck, Grand-Rabbi of the Jews, a talisman that would have led the prince to the throne and that, she claimed, was broken against her chest by virtue of her prayers.

Whether or not this claim is justified, this story does throw a singular light on certain of the occultist influences that contributed to preparing the Revolution.

..

BENJAMIN FABRE devotes the rest of his article^[25] to F... Schroepfer, 'who also had an eventful career' terminating in suicide,^[26] a career 'that is presented to us in a very curious light in the correspondence of Savalette de Langes.'

F... Bauer describes one of his evocations, which he had himself witnessed, as follows:

At an assembly of the FF.., who hailed from Leipzig to Frankfurt, all of them men of letters, the sciences, etc., after dining at an ordinary Lodge, [F.. Schroepfer] made us divest ourselves of all metals and prepared a little table apart for himself on which lay a card painted with all manner of figures and characters of which I knew nothing. He had us say a rather long and very effi- cacious prayer, and we formed ourselves into a circle. At the first hour of the morning we heard a noise as of chains and shortly thereafter three great, astonishing knocks in the same room where we lay on the floor. Afterward, he began a kind of prayer with his second in command, in a language I did not understand, upon which there entered through the door that had previously been closed and locked a black phantom he called the evil spirit, whom he addressed in the same language. The spirit in turn responded to him and left upon his command. At the hour of two there came another, with the same ceremonies, called the good spirit, and he was likewise sent away. Upon which we departed to our homes, our heads full of chimeras.... The Eques a Capite Galeato says he had been told by another witness 'that all of these occurrences, however renowned, were merely phys- ical illusions, assisted by the presumption or credulity of the specta- tors.' However, Dr Koerner admits to 'having thus far failed to reconcile the contradictory perspectives on this man'; and F... Mass- enet assures us that it was this same man who showed the Marshal of Saxony^[27] to Prince Charles of Courlande ^[28] in the presence of six witnesses, each of whom testified to the same circumstances and affirmed the fact, although they had previously had no inclination to believe such a thing. And what should we make of all this? Certainly, it is much more dif- ficult for us than for his contemporaries to form a precise and final opinion on the nature of these 'pneumatological phenomena' of Schroepfer, whose students themselves, like the Baron of Beust, Chamberlain to the Elector of Saxony, if we rely on Savalette de Langes, were still 'at the same point' as the _Philalethes_ in their search for the 'true light'. After having 'seen many doctors, Theosophists, Hermeticists, Cabbalists, and Pneumatologues,' this is quite a mediocre result!^[29]

All that can be said with certainty is that if Schroepfer ever did possess certain real powers, they were of an order inferior even to those of Gugomos. In short, persons of this kind were manifestly only imperfectly initiated, and in one fashion or another they disappear without leaving a trace after playing an ephemeral role as subordinate, and perhaps indirect, agents of the _Unknown Superiors_.^[30]

As Benjamin Fabre has quite rightly said, 'Judaizing Kabbalists and magicians, as well as imposters and rogues, such were Starck's masters.' And he adds, 'At so good a school, this intelligent disciple knew how to profit greatly, as we shall see.'

...

THE ARTICLE THAT FOLLOWED^[31] was again devoted to F... Starck (_Archidemides, Eques ab Aquila Fulva_), whom we find at the Convention of Brunswick (May 22, 1775) grappling with Baron de Hundt (_Eques ab Ense_), founder of the _Strict Observance_, 'contributing to his removal from the presidency of the Order,' but without succeeding in establishing his own claims. As we shall elsewhere return to this point, we shall not dwell on it here, but let us point out that in 1779^[32] Starck made an equally unsuccessful attempt recounted by Thory as follows: 'Doctor Stark [sic] brought together the Brothers and Clerks of the Strict Observance at Mittau; he sought to resolve their disputes, but failed in this project.^[33]

Here is how the _Eques a Capite Galeato_ recounts the real or supposed end of the Clerks of the Late Observance:

At one of the Provincial Conventions of the Rule of the Strict Observance in Germany, [the Clerks] were pressed with questions to which they did not know how, or did not wish, to respond. As to what is claimed, two among them [Starck and the Baron of Raven], who were said to be the last [of these Clerks or Clerici], exchanged their resignations with one another and renounced all propagation of their secret Order.

Some believe this resignation was only feigned and that, not having found in the Strict Observance propagators after their hearts, they made pretense of renouncing it in order that their traces might not be followed, and that they might be forgotten.

Be that as it may, F . Starck, learned Mason and learned minister of the Holy Gospel, who, as I have been assured, was one of the _Clerici_, left to the public a great number of works from which it is not impossible to judge to a certain degree the doctrines and goal of his secret Order.

Those of his works that have come to my knowledge are: _L' Apologie des F . -M .; Ephestion, le But de l'Ordre des F . -M .:_^[34] _Sur les Anciens et les Nouveaux Mystères_. The first two are translations.^[35] We should add that in 1780 in a brochure entitled 'La Pierre d'achoppement et le Rocher de scandale', 'he publicly attacked the system of the _Templars_ as seditious and contrary to government.^[36]

It is possible that the _Clerici_ were perpetuated in secret; at any rate, Starck did not disappear from the Masonic scene, since he appears again at the Convention of Paris in 1785.^[37] Despite his misfortune, he had retained a great deal of authority; should we then be astonished to see, on the death of Baron of Hundt, a medallion being struck in honor of this other 'learned Mason'^[38] who was also at least suspect of imposture and hoax?

As for the exclusive information the _Clerici_ claimed to possess, we quote from F... Meyer^[39] writing (in 1780) to Savalette de Langes:

> You know there were _Clerici_ in the Chapter of a certain Order that I do not name,^[40] and it is claimed that they alone were entrusted with the science or the secret. This does not suit modern Masons, whose curiosity is piqued. After being named _Knights_, they demand the censer as well the sword. The ease with which this grade is communicated does not testify in its favor; thus, those who have it know at most only a few enigmatic words.

Thus the FF.., who were already provided with High Grades that penetrated into this supposedly more 'inward' system, did not find the secret of Masonry therein either, nor did they become true initiates.

This observation calls to mind these words of F.. Ragon: No known grade either teaches or unveils the truth; they only make the veil more transparent..... The grades practiced up to this day have made Masons and not initiates.^[41]

Is it not then behind the various systems, and not in such and such a particular one of them, that the _Unknown Superiors_ can truly be discovered? But as for proofs of their existence and of their more or less unmediated activity, these are only hard to find when one does not wish to see them. It is this that we especially wished to bring out, and, at least for the moment, we shall abstain from formulating any other conclusions.