[22] This libel attracted considerable attention, and great use was made of it in Cagliostro’s lifetime by his enemies. Republished during the Necklace Affair, the Parliament of Paris ordered its suppression as “injurious and calumnious.” The editor of the Courier de l’Europe afterwards quoted it in his bitter denunciation of Cagliostro, and advanced it as proof of his identity with Giuseppe Balsamo. It has since generally been admitted to be a malicious invention.
[23] To doubt these statements on the score of a popular prejudice in favour of regarding Cagliostro as a liar who never by any chance spoke the truth is quite ridiculous. Not only is there no proof on which to base this assertion, but there is not even the least suggestion that Cagliostro was ever considered a liar by his contemporaries before the Editor of the Courier de l’Europe—himself the biggest of liars and knaves—took advantage of the passions let loose by the Diamond Necklace Affair to brand him as such.
[24] A cryptic reference to the Secret Societies, which were the real source of his wealth. The great success of Egyptian Masonry, of which the above-mentioned gentlemen were the bankers, more than compensated him for what he lost by the suppression of the Illuminés in 1784, the year before he came to Paris.
[25] De Luchet’s fantastic account of the visit paid by Cagliostro and his wife to Saint-Germain in Germany, and their subsequent initiation by him into the sect of the Rosicrucians, of which he was supposed to be the chief, is devoid of all authenticity.
[26] D’Alméras and Funck-Brentano—the latter extremely careless when writing of Cagliostro—never so much as mention Carlyle.
[27] If it be true that the Count and Countess Cagliostro were really Giuseppe and Lorenza Balsamo, surely the remarkable change in the appearance, not to speak of the character, of both, must be regarded as the most astonishing of all Cagliostro’s prodigies. The impression he produced from the accounts given above was totally different from that which Balsamo was said to have produced. As for his wife, it is preposterous to expect any one to believe that the pretty demirep Lorenza would have looked as girlish and fresh as the Countess Seraphina after fifteen years of the sort of life she led with Giuseppe. As vice and hardship have never yet been regarded as aids to beauty, those who persist in pinning their faith to the Balsamo legend will perhaps assent to the suggestion that Cagliostro’s remedies possessed virtues hitherto denied them.
[28] It is the custom to brand the Countess de Lamotte as infamous, and judged by moral standards she certainly was. The amazing spirit and inventions she displayed, however, give a finish to her infamy that suggest the artist as well as the mere adventuress.
[29] All contemporaries are agreed on this point. “Same figure, same complexion, same hair, a resemblance of physiognomy of the most striking kind,” says Target, who defended the Cardinal at his trial.
[30] Marie Antoinette is said to have told Böhmer she could not afford to buy it, but with her well-known extravagance and passion for diamonds one cannot help thinking she would have found the means had the necklace really appealed to her. The fact that Böhmer could find no purchaser suggests that he had as little taste as brains. The Cardinal, who like the Queen knew a beautiful object when he saw it, thought the necklace anything but a beautiful ornament, and when told that the Queen wanted it, wondered what she could see in it.
[31] The Cardinal was arrested on the 15th, and Cagliostro on the 23rd August, 1785.