Quotes:St. Germain, the Count of

H. P. Blavatsky

The Count of St. Germain. Referred to as an enigmatical personage by modern writers. Frederic II., King of Prussia, used to say of him that he was a man whom no one had ever been able make out. Many are his “biographies”, and each is wilder than the other. By some he was regarded as an incarnate god, by others as a clever Alsatian Jew. One thing is certain, Count de St. Germain — whatever his real patronymic may have been — had a right to his name and title, for he had bought a property called San Germano, in the Italian Tyrol, and paid the Pope for the title. He was uncommonly handsome, and his enormous erudition and linguistic capacities are undeniable, for he spoke English, Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, German, Russian, Swedish, Danish, and many Slavonian and Oriental languages, with equal facility with a native. He was extremely wealthy, never received a sou from anyone — in fact never accepted a glass of water or broke bread with anyone made most extravagant presents of superb jewellery to all his friends, even to the royal families of Europe. His proficiency in music was marvellous; he played on every instrument, the violin being his favourite. “St. Germain rivalled Paganini himself”, was said of him by an octogenarian Belgian in 1835, after hearing the “Genoese maestro”. “It is St. Germain resurrected who plays the violin in the body of an Italian skeleton ”, exclaimed a Lithuanian baron who had heard both. He never laid claim to spiritual powers, but proved to have a right to such claim. He used to pass into a dead trance from thirty‐seven to forty‐nine hours without awakening, and then knew all he had to know, and demonstrated the fact by prophesying futurity and never making a mistake. It is he who prophesied before the Kings Louis XV. and XVI., and the unfortunate Marie Antoinette. Many were the still living witnesses in the first quarter of this century who testified to his marvellous memory; he could read a paper in the morning and, though hardly glancing at it, could repeat its contents without missing one word days afterwards; he could write with two hands at once, the right hand writing a piece of poetry, the left a diplomatic paper of the greatest importance. He read sealed letters without touching them, while still in the hand of those who brought them to him. He was the greatest adept in transmuting metals, making gold and the most marvellous diamonds, an art, he said, he had learned from certain Brahmans in India, who taught him the artificial crystallisation (“quickening”) of pure carbon. As our Brother Kenneth Mackenzie has it : — “ In 1780, when on a visit to the French Ambassador to the Hague, he broke to pieces with a hammer a superb diamond of his own manufacture, the counterpart of which, also manufactured by himself, he had just before sold to a jeweller for 5500 louis d’or”. He was the friend and confidant of Count Orloff in 1772 at Vienna, whom he had helped and saved in St. Petersburg in 1762, when concerned in the famous political conspiracies of that time; he also became intimate with Frederick the Great of Prussia. As a matter of course, he had numerous enemies, and therefore it is not to be wondered at if all the gossip invented about him is now attributed to his own confessions: e.g., that he was over five hundred years old; also, that he claimed personal intimacy “with the Saviour and his twelve Apostles, and that he had reproved Peter for his bad temper ” — the latter clashing somewhat in point of time with the former, if he had really claimed to be only five hundred years old. if he said that “he had been born in Chaldea and professed to possess the secrets of the Egyptian magicians and sages ”, he may have spoken truth without making any miraculous claim. There are Initiates, and not the highest either, who are placed in a condition to remember more than one of their past lives. But we have good reason to know that St. Germain could never have claimed “personal intimacy ” with the Saviour. How ever that may be, Count St. Germain was certainly the greatest Oriental Adept Europe has seen during the last centuries. But Europe knew him not. Perchance some may recognise him at the next Terreur which will affect all Europe when it comes, and not one country alone.

Source: H. P. Blavatsky, The Theosophical Glossary, art. St. Germain, the Count of

Zirkoff, Boris

Saint-Germain, Count de. No attempt is made here to give even a fragmentary account of the life of this remarkable individual. The best works which deal with the life and activities of Count de Saint-Germain are the one by Mrs. Isabel Cooper-Oakley (1854-1914) entitled The Comte de St. Germain. The Secret of Kings (Milano: “Ars Regia,” Casa Editrice del Dott. G. Sulli-Rao, 1912, pp. 284, ill.; 2nd ed., London, Theos. Publ. House, 1927), parts 524 of which were originally published in The Theosophical Review of London (Vols. XXI—XXIII, November, 1897—November, 1898), and the French work by Paul Chaco mac entitled Le Comte de Saint-Germain (Paris: Chacornac Frères, 11, Quai Saint-Michel, 1947, pp. 318, front.). Mrs. Cooper-Oakley’s work is very scarce.

Both works are well documented. A special bibliographical section in the first, and copious footnotes in both, contain a wealth of information and references to original documents and sources. Unfortunately, a few errors of judgment have crept into Mrs. Cooper- Oakley’s work wherein she quotes from sources which in later years have become suspect. In Chacornac’s work, on the other hand, too much space is devoted to various imaginative accounts current in Theosophical and pseudo-theosophical groups about de Saint-Germain. This adds nothing of value to an otherwise serious and scholarly work.

We feel that a careful perusal of these two works would be of greater advantage to the student than reading many other less accurate books written by people who had no interest in occult studies.

Among the pitfalls to be cautiously avoided, mention should be made of the following:

1)Count de Saint-Germain, the occultist, has been frequently confused with Claude-Louis de Saint-Germain (1707-1778), a Frenchman famous for his military talents and at one time, namely in 1775, appointed by Louis XVIth a Secretary of War, at the death of the Marechal de Muy. References to the Margrave of Anspach, the localities of Schwabach and Triesdorf, as well as to Count Alexis Orlov (1735-1807), Catherine II of Russia, and the Russian Court Revolution of the time, are all connected with Claude-Louis and have nothing to do with Count de Saint-Germain, the renowned occultist. Mrs. Cooper-Oakley and others were not careful enough on this subject.

2)The Princely Family of Râkôczy is well known for the active part it took in the national life of Transylvania. Overlooking for the present the earlier periods in the history of this family, suffice it to say that Francis (Ferenc) Râkôczy I (1645-1676) married March 1, 1666, Helen (Ilona) Zrinyi, daughter of Péter Zrinyi and the Countess Catherine (Katalin) Frangepân. Péter, having conspired against Austria, was executed at Wiener-Neustadt, together with Count Frangepân. Francis Râkôczy I, with his wife and his 525 mother, Sophia (Zsofia) Bathory, took refuge in the fortress of Munkacs. His life was saved by the interposition of the Jesuits on the payment of an enormous ransom. Three children issued from this marriage: George (Gyorgy), bom in 1667 and who lived but a few months; Julianna, bom in 1672 and who died in 1717; and Francis (Ferenc) Rakoczy II, bom March 27, 1676, and who died April 8, 1735. Their father died on July 8, 1676, but a few months after the birth of Francis.

The widowed Helen Zrinyi married June 15, 1682, Count Imrehez Thokoly. The latter, an ally of Turkey against Austria, was arrested and sent to Belgrade; his wife was taken to Vienna and was free within the confines of this city. Emperor Charles VI took charge of the two remaining children of Francis Rakoczy. One year later, Helen Zrinyi rejoined Imrehez Thokoly and never saw again either her fatherland or her children.

At the age of 18, Francis Rakoczy II married, Sept. 25, 1694, Charlotte-Amalia von Hessen-Rheinfels; from this marriage issued: Leopold-George (Lipot-Gyorgy), bom at Kistapolcsany May 28, 1696, and who died in 1700; Joseph (Jozsef), bom Aug. 17, 1700, and who died Nov. 10, 1738; George (Gyorgy), bom Aug. 8, 1701, and who died June 22, 1756; and Charlotta, born Nov. 16, 1706.

Some have claimed that it is the elder son of Francis Rakoczy II, Leopold-George, who became our Count de Saint-Germain, but there are authentic records to the effect that this boy died when he was only four years old. In the light of the above-mentioned historical facts, various statements by Carl, Landgrave of Hessen, and others, appear to be contradictory and unreliable.

In a letter written by Count von Alvensleben to Emperor Frederick II, whose ambassador he was at Dresden, and dated June 25, 1777, the writer says that Count de Saint-Germain told him that he was known as Prince Rakoczy. However, he did not say he was the son of Francis Rakoczy II, and did not name his two brothers. Instances when Count de Saint-Germain used the name of Rakoczy are not definitely authenticated.

In the light of what precedes, it is highly inadvisable and historically unjustifiable to speak of the occultist de Saint-Germain as being “the Master, Prince Rakoczy,” as has been repeatedly done by various students of Theosophy and groups of students within and outside of the organized Theosophical Movement, even to the extent of listing his former incarnations. Any connection with the House of Rakoczy on the part of Count de Saint-Germain cannot be established by any accessible historical data or available documentary evidence, even though this idea may appeal to the 526 imagination of certain students and serve as a suitable background for their speculations.

We do not deny the possibility of such a connection, which may or may not have existed, subject to future disclosures. We simply warn the careful student not to accept on mere hearsay, alleged facts which, in reality, cannot be at present either proved or disproved by any tangible evidence.

3)Another point of very great importance is the fact that a number of writers, including Mrs. Cooper-Oakley and Philip Malpas (1875-1958), have accepted as genuine the so-called Souvenirs sur Marie-Antoinette by the Countess d’Adhemar. It is true that the Countess d’Adhemar was on intimate terms with Marie-Antoinette. She was originally Mademoiselle de Pont-Chavigny, later the widow of the Marquis de Valbelle; she married Comte d’Adhemar around 1782. The Count had been known under the name of Mont- falcon and was in military service. He was a descendant of the d’Adhemar family which had been extinct since the 16th century. The Countess was born in 1760 and died in 1822. As the Count de Saint-Germain was in Paris in the years 1758 and 1759, she could not have known him in those days. Curiously enough, the Souvenirs of the Countess d’Adhemar range over the period from 1760 to 1821.

These Souvenirs, however, were written by the Baron £tienne- Leon de La Mothe-Langon (1786-1864), a prolific writer of “historical” memoirs in which truth and fiction are cleverly interwoven to keep the reader spellbound. For anyone to accept his writings as a sober narrative of actual events, or as quoting verbatim what was told him by participants in such events, is highly unwise. A closer analysis of this would lead us too far afield. The Souvenirs of the Countess d’Adhemar should be taken with several “grains of salt,” and not flaunted as some historical document of unquestioned authenticity.

From H.P.B.’s own words, it appears that her aunt, Nadyezhda Andreyevna de Fadeyev, had in her possession some important 527 documents concerning the Count de Saint-Germain. It her work about the Count, Isabel Cooper-Oakley definitely states that she has been permitted to obtain some excerpts from the famous Souvenirs, a copy of which was at the time in the library of Madame de Fadeyev. It is probable that H.P.B.’s reference was to that work in the library of her aunt.

While no published work about Count de Saint-Germain, or any that mentions him or recounts certain events connected with him, can receive a blanket endorsement, there are at least some which may be looked upon as relatively reliable, and which are most certainly no forgeries or out and out romances. Among them mention should be made of the following:

Mémoires de mon temps. This work, according to the title-page, was dictated by the Landgrave Prince Carl von Hessen-Kassel, and published in Copenhague in 1861. The Prince was bom at Kassel December 19, 1744, the son of Prince Frederick of Hessen and of Mary, daughter of King George II of England. After spending part of his life at the Court of Christian VII, King of Denmark, whose daughter he married, he lived for many years on intimate terms with Frederick II of Prussia. The work (publ. by J. H. Schultz, 8vo., 1-151 pp.) is extremely rare and may be consulted in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris.

Denkwürdigkeiten des Barons Carl-Heinrich von Gleichen, etc. Leipzig: Druck von J. B. Hirschfeld, 1847. 8vo., 234 pp. This work exists in French under the title of: Souvenirs de Charles Henri, Baron de Gleichen. Paris: Téchener, 1868. 12°, xlviii, 227, pp. It includes a Prefatory Note by Paul Grimblot.

Baron von Gleichen was bom at Nemersdorf, near Bayreuth, in 1735, and died at Ratisbonne, April 5, 1807. After being in the service of the Margrave of Bayreuth and of Denmark, he devoted himself to study and writing. His work is also extremely scarce, but may be consulted both in the British Museum and the National Library at Paris.

Mémoires de Mme. Du Hausset, femme de chambre de Mme. de Pompadour. Paris: Baudoin frères, 1824. 8vo., xl, 313 pp. The work includes Notes and historical explanations by Quentin Craufurd, and an Essay on the Marquise de Pompadour by J.-B.-D. Despres. Another edition (Paris: Firmin-Didot frères, 1846, 525 pp.) includes excerpts from the historical and literary Mémoires of Bauchaumont, from 1762 to 1782, and a Prefatory Note and comments by Fs. Barrière. Still another ed. (Paris: E. Flammarion, 1891, xx, 181 pp.) was published with a Preface and Notes by Hippolyte Fournier.

528 The author of these Mémoires was Nicolle, daughter of François Collesson, leather currier, and of Claudine Rollot, daughter of a draper-merchant at Vitry-le-François, and was bom in that town July 14, 1713. She married Jacques-René du Hausset, an equerry, who died in 1743. She became housemaid to Mme. de Pompadour, and died July 24, 1801, after a life of many vicissitudes.

Among the more recent works on the Count, mention should be made of the work by Pierre Lhermier, Le mystérieux comte de Suint-Germain, posthumously published at Paris in 1943 by the Éditions Colbert. This is one of the most carefully written works evidencing an understanding of the subject.

As to the portrait of Count de Saint-Germain, there is only one known to have existed. It was in the collection of Jeanne Camus de Pontcarré, Marquise d’Urfé, who died November 13, 1775. According to Paul Chacornac’s opinion, this portrait was painted by Count Pietro dei Rotari (1707-1762), an artist who was bom at Verona, Italy, and acquired a considerable reputation in his native land. He was a disciple of Antoine Balestra and of Ange Trevisani, and produced several rather large paintings, some of which are in Munich and Dresden (Cf. Siret, Dictionnaire historique des peintres, Paris, Lacroix, 1866). Later in life, Rotari went to Russia at the invitation of Empress Elizabeth, and became her Court Painter. He died in St. Petersburg, after some years of very successful work during which he painted several hundred portraits, some of which were at one time in the Palace at Peterhof. Rotari was on intimate terms with Count de Saint-Germain who travelled to St. Petersburg at his suggestion, where they frequented together many of the renowned aristocratic families of Russia.

It is Chacornac’s opinion that Count de Saint-Germain presented to Madame d’Urfé this portrait painted by Rotari, somewhat prior to his departure for The Hague, at the beginning of 1760. When she died, a portion of her collection was bought by the Duke de la Vallière in 1777, at whose death both his library and his paintings were sold.

It was most likely at this time that a French engraver known as N. Thomas (b. about 1750; d. in Paris about 1812) produced a copper engraving of the oil painting, and this engraving eventually was deposited in the “Cabinet des Estampes” of the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris.

Source: Boris de Zirkoff, «H. P. Blavatsky Collected Writings», vol. 3, pp. 523-528