Here, then, behind the organization of the Stricte Observance, of the Amis Réunis, and the Philalèthes, we catch a glimpse at last of one of those real initiates whose identity has been so carefully kept dark. For Falk, as we see in these notes, was not an isolated sage; he had pupils, and to be one of these was to be admitted to the inner mysteries. Was Cagliostro one of these adepts? Is it here we may seek the explanation of the "Egyptian Rite" devised by him in London, and of his chance discovery on a bookstall in that city of a Cabalistic document by the mysterious "George Cofton," whose identity has never been revealed? I would suggest that the whole story of the bookstall was a fable and that it was not from any manuscript, but from Falk, that Cagliostro received his directions. Thus Cagliostro's rite was in reality concealed Cabalism.
That Falk was only one of several Concealed Superiors is further suggested by the intriguing correspondence of Savalette de Langes. "Schroeder," we read, "had for his master an old man of Suabia," by whom the Baron de Waechter was also said to have been instructed in Masonry, and to have become one of the most important initiates of Germany. Accordingly de Waechter was despatched by his Order to Florence in order to make enquiries on further secrets and on certain famous treasures about which Schroepfer, the Baron de Hundt, and others, had heard that Aprosi, the secretary of the Pretender, could give them information. Waechter, however, wrote to say that all they had been told on the latter point was fabulous, but that he had met in Florence certain "Brothers of the Holy Land," who had initiated him into marvellous secrets; one in particular who is described as "a man who is not a European" had "perfectly instructed him." Moreover, de Waechter, who had set forth poor, returned loaded with riches attributed by his fellow-masons to the "Asiatic Brethren" he had frequented in Florence who possessed the art of making gold.[487] I would suggest then that these were the members of the "Italian Order" referred to by Mr. Tuckett, which, like Schroepfer and de Hundt, he imagined to have been connected with the Jacobites.
But all these secret sources of instruction are wrapped in mystery. Whilst Saint-Germain and Cagliostro--who is referred to in this correspondence in terms of light derision--emerge into the limelight, the real initiates remain concealed in the background. Falk "is almost inaccessible!" Yet one more almost forgotten document of the period may throw some light on the important part he played behind the scenes in Masonry.
It may be remembered that Archenholz had spoken of certain marvels he had seen performed by Falk in Brunswick. Now, in 1770 the German poet Gotthold Ephraim Lessing was made librarian to the Duke of Brunswick in that city. The fame of Falk may then have reached his ears. At any rate in 1771 Lessing, after having mocked at Freemasonry, was initiated in a masonic lodge at Hamburg, and in 1778 he published not only his famous masonic drama Nathan der Weise, in which the Jew of Jerusalem is shown in admirable contrast to the Christians and Mohammedans, but he also wrote five dialogues on Freemasonry which he dedicated to the Duke of Brunswick, Grand Master of all the German Lodges, and which he entitled "Ernst und Falk: Gespräche fur Freimaurer."[488]
Lessing's friendship with Moses Mendelssohn has led to the popular theory, unsupported however by any real evidence, that the Jewish philosopher of Berlin provided the inspiration for the character of Nathan, but might it not equally have been provided by the miracle-worker of Brunswick? However, in the case of the dialogues less room is left for doubt. Falk is mentioned by name and represented as initiated into the highest mysteries of Freemasonry. This is of course not explained by Lessing's commentators, who give no clue to his identity.[489] It is evident that Lessing committed an enormous blunder in thus letting so important a cat out of the bag, for after the publication of the first three dialogues and whilst the last two were circulating privately in manuscript amongst the Freemasons, an order from the Duke of Brunswick forbade their publication as dangerous. In spite of this prohibition, the rest of the series was printed, however without Lessing's permission, in 1870 with a preface by an unknown person describing himself as a non-mason.
The dialogues between Ernst and Falk throw a curious light on the influences at work behind Freemasonry at this period and gain immensely in interest when the identity of the two men in question is understood. Thus Ernst, by whom Lessing evidently represents himself, is at the beginning not a Freemason, and, whilst sitting with Falk in a wood, questions the high initiate on the aims of the Order. Falk explains that Freemasonry has always existed, but not under this name. Its real purpose has never been revealed. On the surface it appears to be a purely philanthropic association, but in reality philanthropy forms no part of its scheme, its object being to bring about a state of things which will render philanthropy unnecessary. (Was man gemeinlich gute Thaten zu nennen pflegt entbehrlich zu machen.) As an illustration Falk points to an ant-heap at the foot of the tree beneath which the two men are seated. "Why," he asks, "should not human beings exist without government like the ants or bees?" Falk then goes on to describe his idea of a Universal State, or rather a federation of States, in which men will no longer be divided by national, social, or religious prejudices, and where greater equality will exist.
At the end of the third dialogue an interval occurs during which Ernst goes away and becomes a Freemason, but on his return expresses his disappointment to Falk at finding many Freemasons engaged in such futilities as alchemy or the evocation of spirits. Others again seek to revive the * * *. Falk replies that although the great secrets of Freemasonry cannot be revealed by any man even if he wished it, one thing, however, has been kept dark which should now be made public, and this is the relationship between the Freemasons and the * * *. "The * * * were in fact the Freemasons of their time." It seems probable from the context and from Falk's references to Sir Christopher Wren as the founder of the modern Order, that the asterisks denote the Rosicrucians.
The most interesting point of these dialogues is, however, the hint continually thrown out by Falk that there is something behind Freemasonry, something far older and far wider in its aims than the Order now known by this name--the modern Freemasons are for the most part only "playing at it." Thus, when Ernst complains that true equality has not been attained in the lodges since Jews are not admitted, Falk observes that he himself does not attend them, that true Freemasonry does not exist in outward forms--"A lodge bears the same relation to Freemasonry as a church to belief." In other words, the real initiates do not appear upon the scene. Here then we see the role of the "Concealed Superiors." What wonder that Lessing's dialogues were considered too dangerous for publication!
Moreover, in Falk's conception of the ideal social order and his indictment of what he calls "bourgeois society" we find the clue to movements of immense importance. Has not the system of the ant-heap or the beehive proved, as I have pointed out elsewhere, the model on which modern Anarchists, from Proudhon onwards, have formed their schemes for the reorganization of human life? Has not the idea of the "World State," "The Universal Republic" become the war-cry of the Internationalist Socialists, the Grand Orient Masons, the Theosophists, and the world-revolutionaries of our own day?
Was Falk, then, a revolutionary? This again will be disputed. Falk may have been a Cabalist, a Freemason, a high initiate, but what proof is there that he had any connexion with the leaders of the French Revolution? Let us turn again to the Jewish Encyclopædia: