Having earlier presented a critical analyses of the self-styled orders of St John or of Malta in Russia, we now follow this up with a case study about the history of eighteenth-century Russian Freemasonry. In eighteenth-century Russia, Freemasonry was inseparably intertwined with a crash course of Westernization. Yet while Freemasons of British nationality remained active in Russia, especially in the 1770s and 1780s, for instance, members of the English lodge Urania were exposed to a whole array of the multifaceted life of foreign Freemasonry in Russia. Although Urania may itself have accepted British Masons, in fact, it used English as a second language to German. Also, the English-system lodges in Russia did not necessarily maintain contact only with the lodges in England. On 15 March 1772, the Urania members for example wrote to Berlin to Royal Yorcke d 'Amitie (Royal York Lodge of Friendship), the English system lodge with the constitution from the Grand Lodge of England, to establish a close correspondence. For more on the Berlin lodge Royal York of Friendship (or Royale Yorcke L'amitie or Loge Royale York zur Freundschaft), see Chapter 3. Also, Oeorg Thiel, Grosse Loge Royal York zur Freundschaft, Gedenkblatt zur Erinnerung an die Gründung der Johannisloge de l'Amitie im Jahre 1752 (Berlin: Bernard & Oraefe, 1952); Anhang zu dem Jahrbücher der hochw. [Joh. Gottlieb RhodeJ, Grosse Loge Royale York zur Freundschaft. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Grossen Mutterloge zur Freundschaft im Orient von Berlin (Berlin, 1798); Bauld-de-Nans, Recueil de Discours prononces en differentes epoques solennelIes, dans La tres ancienne loge Francais la Royale Yorck de L'amitie (n. p., 1781).
To exemplify this further, Urania also had contacts with the military lodge of Minerva in Sadogury (Moldavia) that the Grand Lodge of England warranted by in 1772. This lodge, though formally remaining in the English system, transferred its allegiances to the Berlin-Swedish system by 1777.
Another active correspondent of Urania was the Arkhangel'sk lodge of St. Catherine (St.Catharina zu den drei Saulen) that consisted mainly of foreign merchants. General Petr Melissino and his lodge of Mars in Lassy also corresponded with Urania in 1773. (OPI GlM, fond 17, opis' 2, folder 40,44.63.) Thus, because of their exposure to the multitude of international variations of the Craft, Russian lodges often did not automatically regard the English Grand Lodge as the only source of legitimacy and the three-degree system as the highest point of Masonic knowledge. In the conditions of Russia, to bring all Russian lodges under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Grand Master and the Grand Lodge of England had to deal with international Masonic issues.
Thus it came also that as Heseltine emphasized in his letter to the Master of the Royal York lodge at Berlin, "one Dr. Zinnendorf of Berlin" was not authorized by the Grand Lodge of England to assume the title of Provincial Grand Master for Prussia, equally as the Provincial Grand Master of Sweden was not allowed to appoint Provincial Master for Prussia, thus urging to treat this appointment as "illegal, unconstitutional, and absolutely invalid." (FHL, Modems' Letter-Book, vol. 2 (1769-1775), 93 ). As is known, Johann Wilhelm Kellner (Ellenberger) von Zinnendorf (1731-1782) served as the Surgeon General in the Prussian Army and became the Master of the National Grand Mother Lodge of the Three Globes in Berlin (of Strict Observance), but later invented his own high-degree system, the so-called Zinnendorf or Swedish-Berlin system.
From the above and other letters, it is clear that the both sides, were concerned about the most powerful rival of the Elagin' s Provincial Grand Lodge: the so-called Zinnendorf (Swedish-German) system in Russia and the activities of its leader Zinnendorf and his protege Baron Georg von Reichel. As opposed to Strict Observance, the seven-degree Zinnendorf system was often called Weak Observance. According to the historian A. Wolfstieg, the Zinnendorf system was "a unique, fanciful compilation of Freemasonry, French knightly degree, German Templarism with asplashing of Rosicrucianism, alchemy and Renaissance mysticism." In 1770, by uniting twelve lodges under his system, Zinnendorf established a body called the Grand (or National) Lodge of Germany. The system was at its height when Prince Hesse-Darmstadt became its Grand Master. The Zinnendorf system is also frequently described as "Berlin-Swedish," indicating the geographical centre of its activity, it became formally linked with the English system at the end of 1773, when Zinnendorf managed to obtain recognition from the Grand Lodge of England. A condition of this recognition, however, was the agreement for the Berlin National Lodge (Landesloge) not to open any lodges except in German territories, and for the Grand Lodge of England not to open any lodges in Germany. The text of the agreement between the Grand Lodge of London and the Grand Lodge of Germany was published in the Freemasons Calendar (1777),35-38.
Elagin thus was now assured that the proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Germany were "very regular" and advised to keep up "a friendly correspondence with their G[rand] Lodge situated in Berlin" which, as Heseltine explained, was "very agreeable to us, and we hope, not disagreeable to yourself." (FHL, Moderns' Letter Book. vol. 2 (1769-1775), 117 rev. letter from Heseltine to Elagin on 9 May 1774). So, supposedly, as long as Zinnendorf was on friendly terms with the English Grand Lodge, Reichel' s Masonry was not supposed to present a serious challenge to Elagin's leadership. And while the relationship between between Reichel and Elagin was turbulent, while the English Grand Lodge revoked its agreement with Zinnendorf and the Berlin National Lodge by 1775, Elagin made a decisive turn towards a union with Reichel in 1776. In a letter on 3 September 1776, Elagin, Baron Ungern-Stenberg, and General Melissino proclaimed the decision of the Russian lodges to come under the authority of the Berlin-Swedish system and follow brother Reichel.( RGAV A, fond 1412k, folder 4754,31-32)
For Reichel and Zinnendorf, the influential Elagin was a desirable ally. It is less clear why Elagin, who earlier had been hypersensitive about a possible contamination of his own lodges by the Reichel "heresy," was eventually willing to compromise and accept the alliance. This union with Reichel and the Swedish-Berlin system went against Elagin' s obligation towards the Grand Lodge of England. Having the authority of the Grand Lodge of England under his belt, Elagin and his lodges could and did effectively compete with Reichel' s Zinnendorf system. On the other hand, as a result of the alliance, Elagin' s power and authority were increased by the acquisition of the Reichellodges. Given that the lodges under Elagin practiced bigger degrees long before that, accepting the alliance with Reichel, Elagin could cease to worry about the defection of Masons from his own lodges to Reichel's lodges. See also the discussion of the practices of Perfect Union in A. G. Cross, "British Freemasons in Russia during the Reign of Catherine the Great," Oxford Slavonic Papers. New Series IV (1971). 49-58.
By incorporating the Zinnendorf material, judging by the number of different systems' rituals, random documents, constitutions, and their translations in the personal archive of Elagin, he paid special attention to adding some substance to the very sober information received from the Grand Lodge of England. (RGADA, fond 8, opis' I, folder 216.) This can be compared with the observation of a German Freemason from Frankfurt, who complained that English Freemasons were mainly given to wining and dining, leaving nothing but the busk, the ceremonial part, of English Freemasonry (hence the attraction of ‚Occult‘ Masonry). Quoted in K. Bergmann, Festgabe für die erste Säcular-Feier der ger. u. voll. St. Joh.-Loge "Der Pilger" No. 238, 3-4.
The Swedish system was formally established with the opening of the Grand National Lodge (Grande Loge Nationale) of the Swedish system called Kapitul Feniksa (Phoenix), in St. Petersburg house of Gagarin in February 1778. In its essence however , Kapitul was a secret chapter used by the Swedish superiors to control the Russian brothers. One of the prime duties of Gagarin, as head of both the overt National Grand Lodge and the secret Kapitul, was "to guard the secret concerning the establishment of the Chapter Phoenix against the Masonic crowd and to communicate its existence only to the most reliable supporters of the new system and selected enlightened brothers. "After the foundation of the Kapitul, its officers started negotiations to involve the existing Elagin lodges with the new system. Kurakin reported to Duke of Sudermania that his first efforts went in the direction of attracting the highest Freemasonry-related officials, in order to qualify as officers of the Kapitul Phoenix, proof of at least four generations of noble ancestry was necessary. (RGA V A, fond 1412k, opis' I, folder 5300, 8-8rev.)
The turn to the Swedish system can be correlated with the cooldown of Russian-British relations in connection with Catherine's refusal to support the English navy against the American colonies or the blockade of the Mediterranean. Faggionato, Rosicrucian Utopia. 23, also emphasizes Panin's efforts in organizing an alliance of neutrality and including Sweden in it.
In fact after 1776, the majority of the lodges in Russia worked under one or another form of the high-degree Freemasonry while formally being under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of England. The diversity of foreign rites and systems available to the Russians corresponded with their constant search for new Masonic knowledge. By the mid-1770s, the first three degrees of the English system did not seem to satisfy the needs of Freemasons in Russia anymore.
In these conditions, the union of all the lodges under the guidance of the highest officials, including Elagin, minister Count Nikita Panin, Prince Gavrila Petrovich Gagarin, and General Petr Melissino, showed signs of power and prosperity. Drawing on the knowledge and the ambitions of foreign expatriates, these Russian nobles considered it to be their duty to take the development of Freemasonry in their hands Searching for the "true" Masonry and a "proper" Masonic system for Russia, Russian brothers turned to the Swedish system that was closely related to the Zinnendorf system already known to them. Furthermore with its emphasis on self-knowledge and morality, the hierarchical Swedish system was considered an essentially Christian-oriented system and fit Russian elaborate structures of rank. So for example in December 1776, Count Adam-Louis de Lewenhaupt wrote to Kurakin asking for additional information ab out family genealogies of those who were to be involved with the lodge in Stockholm to become the future leaders of the Swedish rite in Russia--after giving detailed instructions on how to compile and transmit those genealogies together with the family heraldry. (335 Arkhiv Kurakina, 8: 301.)
Referring to the bias of the Swedish rite based on the Templars' myth towards the military nobility. In addition, Lewenhaupt emphasized the exclusiveness of the Order. Pointing out that Kurakin had a colossal task in hand (the establishment of the Swedish rite in Russia) and the enthusiasm to match the scale of the project, Lewenhaupt charged him with being "le restaurateur de notre St-Ordre" in Russia." He unambiguously relied on "une liaison au dela de l' expression" that was established between the brothers of the Order because of their submission to the role of the unknown superiors in pursuing common goals. (Arkhiv Kurakina, 8: 302,1517.) At the same time, it was emphasized that even in the rigid hierarchical structure of the lodges the Grand Masters needed to be elected "pour le conservation de l'egalite" among the brothers. (NIOR RGB, fond 147, folder 339, 9-12, 9 May 1780).
We will see further, this connection to Swedish Royalty and Russian nobility was one of the key factors in the eventual downfall of the Swedish rite in Russia. Even though Elagin, the Head officer of the Grand Lodge of England in Russia, initially fostered this new link with Sweden and, as we can see in Lewenhaupt's letters and Kaunitz's correspondence, was named among the leaders of the Swedish rite from the beginning of the project, he balked presumably after learning that the movement would owe allegiance to a foreign leader. Nevertheless, many former Elagin lodges joined the Swedish system and the Kapitul, which plainly represented a sodal extension of the Panin party. By 1780, the Swedish coalition boasted fourteen lodges: seven in St. Petersburg, four in Moscow, and lodges in Reval, Cronstadt, Kinboume, and Penza. But despite the initial enthusiasm with which lodges in Russia turned to Sweden, from their Swedish superiors they hardly received any direction that went further than the detailed administrative instructions. As Prince Trubetskoi wrote, "despite all the promises and the efforts..., she [Sweden] does not tell us anything... the letters that are written from there are full of political correctness and nothing else..." (NIOR ROß, fond 147, folder 6, letter 3,6). The Swedish acts which the Russians had procured independently through the Rosenberg brothers at a cost of 1,400 rubles revealed nothing new in comparison with the Reichel Acts. At the moment, the Swedish rite and, consequently, its Russia-based brothers were under the direction of the Duke Karl of Sudermania, who was going through leadership struggle with the leader of the German Strict Observance, Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick. (NIOR RGB, fond 14, folder 474, 2rev.)
Almost immediately, by 1779, Russian authorities started looking with suspicion at the relations between the lodges in Russia and Karl of Sudermania. As Russian Freemasons explained in their letter to Duke of Brunswick,... many of our brothers entered with obligations and made a union with Swedish brothers, the union that led to the saddest consequences when the creation of the nine provinces was published carelessly in the gazette... Catherine considered this close union of Her subjects Karl's decision, in the eyes of Russian authorities, was a direct indication that Sweden, through Duke of Sudermania, was attempting to exert influence on Russian nobility. According to Sokolovskaia, the real purpose of the Swedish system in Russia was to "assist the union of the nobility of the two northern states by bringing together the most prominent families - both Russian and Swedish - on the basis on Freemasonry and by subordinating them to the will of the Order. " Although it is impossible to sustain this claim with direct evidence, in general, judging from the lack of direction from Sweden and confusion in Stockholm and St. Petersburg, there was a great deal of conscious manipulation on all sides. In preparing the union with the Swedish Freemasonry, the Brunswick leaders of the Strict Observance, while planning to keep the province under their own control, appeared to be using the Swedes to draw in the Russian lodges. The Swedes seemed to hold out the possible incorporation of Russia as an enticernent in bargaining for Duke Karl's pretensions for European leadership in high-degree Freemasonry. In this situation, Catherine could not remain unconcerned about Paul's possible Masonic connections. After the chief of Petersburg police was ordered to visit the Swedish-system lodges twice to check whether they had any correspondence with the Swedish Duke, many Freemasons realized how suspicious their subordination to the with the Swedish Duke of the Royal Family indecent. We should admit her concerns were very justified. (NIOR RGB, fond 147, folder 5, 35rev-36.)
The situation worsened when, in one unexpected sweep, Karl declared Sweden the ninth province of the Strict Observance and made himself Master of Sweden, Finland, and Russia, as well as a separate province in north Germany, from Elbe to Oder. It drew so much protest from the Danish and some German brothers that Karl abdicated his position in April 1781. The reaction of the officials to Masonic connections with the lodges abroad and particularly with the Swedish court and overall tightening of control over social activities by Catherine in the beginning of the 1780s led to the shift of the Masonic center from St. Petersburg to Moscow. Since the foundation of St. Petersburg by Peter the Great in the beginning of the eighteenth century, a strong antipathy had prevailed between the court nobles of St. Petersburg that was naturally evolving into a seat of the military and service nobility. If St. Petersburg was the capital for the government and bureaucracy, Moscow was relatively independent and free-spirited city. On his visit in 1773, Diderot expressed concern about the manners (moeurs) of Petersburg, a "confused mass of all the nations of the world," which gave the city "the manners of Harlequin" (Denis Diderot, "Entretiens avec Catherine II" (1773) in Oeuvres politiques, ed. Pal Verniere (Paris, 1963),475-76).
Combined with the rapidly developing trade and manufacture related occupations in Moscow, this relative freedom of intellectual expression made Moscow University attractive to foreigners and to Freemasons. Thus it is in Moscow and in relation to Moscow University that two influential Freemasons in Russia -- Nikolai Novikov, and Johann Georg Schwar(t)z, met in 1779. With the help of Mikhail Kheraskov, the curator of Moscow University and ardent Mason, Novikov leased the printing house of Moscow University for ten years. After moving to Moscow and meeting with Schwarz, Novikov organized a elose-knit Moscow Masonic cirele.
Novikov is one of the most researched figures of the second half of the eighteenth century in Russia and the Russian Enlightenment. Historians place special emphasis on Novikov's relations with Catherine II and a seeming contradiction between Novikov's interest in mysticism (manifested through Freemasonry) and his Enlightenment posture. (See J. G. Garrard, The Eighteenth Century in Russia, Oxford, 1973)
Schwarz's life before coming to Russia is almost a blank slate. It is reponed that he was born in 1751 (calculated from the fact that at the time of his death in 1784 he was 33 years old). In the official certificate given to him by the officials of Moscow University in 1780, Schwarz is identified as a native of Semigrad (or Transylvania in the Latin version of the document). In the certificate issued by Moscow University Schwarz is identified as "the Candidate of both laws" and "a member of the Jena Society for Latin Language." (OPI GIM, fond 281, opis' 1. folder 217.)
In 1776, Count I. S. Gagarin, while traveling abroad, met Schwarz and invited him to move to Russia to become a tutor in the family of a fellow Mason, A. M. Rakhmanov. As a family teacher to the Rakhmanovs, Schwarz spent several years in provincial town of Mogilev, quickly learned the language, and established a Strict Observance lodge under the name of Hercules in the Cradle. It is probable that the lodge had direct contacts with the Courland Freemasons. In 1779, Schwarz moved to Moscow, and with the help of his Masonic patrons at the Moscow University, secured a place of an "extraordinary professor" in philosophy and belles letters at Moscow University. In 1781, the Moscow Masonic community entrusted Schwartz with a mission to Prussia to seek for "the true acts" and learn "where to find the true Freemasonry." The Novikov group provided Schwarz with two unadressed letters to be given to whichever source of true Masonry he was to discover, 500 rubles for expenses, and additional 500 rubles for the purchase of books. There is no indication that any of the Moscow Masons, with the possible exception of Schwarz, who was in contact with foreigners in Russia and abroad, was aware of the true state of affairs in the Masonic world outside of Russia. That is why Schwarz was only vaguely instructed to... seek and try to obtain the acts of the Freemasonry, the principle of which we received from Reichei, but should not accept the Strict Observance, French or any other system possessing a political character; but if he could not find it [true Masonry] there, then he should try to discover where it might be found. Schwarz's route took him through Courland, the corridor that the Russians used to communicate with the Masonic world in Germany. In Courland he used the contacts that he had as the founder of the Strict Observance lodge in Mogilev and obtained letters of recommendation to Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick, the Provincial Grand Master of Strict Observance in Europe. Schwarz also secured meeting with the Duke's deputies Wöllner and Theden in the Berlin lodge of Three Globes. Johann Christoph von Wöllner (1732-1800), was a former student of theology, who made a career at the court of prince Henry of Prussia, was born in Gavelland in 1732, and died on 11 September 1800 (Joh. Ch. Gadicke, Freimaurer Lexicon (1818), 50). In 1775, he was appointed head of the Scottish Masters, the first Knight degree above the first three degrees of St. John's Masonic degrees (R. Gould, History of Freemasonry, III, 166). Around 1779, he was attracted to the group that claimed connections with the mystical society of Golden Rose Cross and was active in southern Germany and. Taking advantage of the confusion in the Masonic world, Wöllner and Johann Christi an Anton Theden (1714-1797), another adept of hermetic sciences attached to the Prussian court as a surgeon, were in the process of creating a new, more secretive "inner order." They tried to attract followers by promises of higher knowledge and secret power over nature hidden in their secret inner order.
The Rosicrucian system, the most esoteric Masonic-style organization, like many Masonic high-degree systems based on a story about "unknown superiors," the "true successors of Jesus Christ," heavily relied on occultism, alchemy, and magic as the highest means available towards the attainment of secret knowledge.
A patent dated 1 October 1781, and signed by Theden under his Knights Templar name, Johann Christian Eq. a. Tarda, grants Schwarz the "Theoretical degree of the only true order" on several conditions:
1) [Schwarz] should give this degree to no one but Old Scottish masters, and even then only to those who, imbued with true piety, fear of God and love of mankind are worthy of recognition.
2) This degree and the instruction attached to it may be read only in the presence of Schwarz. No brother, whatever his rank, may be, should be allowed to copy them.
3) He should try, as far as his intelligence permits, to explain it to the brothers in the best manner.
4) He should keep this degree completely secret. And therefore be extremely cautious in selecting members.
By agreeing to these conditions, Schwarz was appointed "the only supreme director of the Rosicrucians in the Russian empire with the obligation of sending the lists of the names of the brothers admitted upon his own judgment each year, so that they could be brought into the order' s network of Theoretical brothers. The conditions upon which Schwarz was appointed testify to the fact that the ties binding the newly admitted Theoretical brothers to the order were not only abstract ties of loyalty. Furthermore, "Theoretical Degree of Solomon ' s Sciences" was an introductory step into Rosicrucianism. The description of the degree, including laws for "theoretical philosophers," "questions to the beginning of the meeting of the brothers belonging to the theoretical degree," "instruction for theoretical brothers" can be found in written form, in NIOR RGB, fond 147, folders 100 and 101; fond 14, folders 227, 228, 229, 239, 247.
patent itself specifies the considerations of a more practical nature:
Brother Schwarz is also obliged to send each year ten rubles for each brother admitted, in good notes of exchange, for the benefits of our treasury for the poor. Each brother pays before admission seven thalers, out of which four remain at the disposition of supreme director Schwarz for acquisition of necessary supplies and other things. In this he is responsible to no one but me. According to a different testimony, the candidate had to pay seven rubles for admission into the Theoretical degree. Novikov mentions the payment of seven rubles, but Theden's patent to Schwarz mentions seven thalers. Funds were entrusted to Schwarz, who sent part of money to the Rosicrucian superiors in Berlin in accordance with the provision in the patent of the supreme director signed by Theden on 1 October 1782. Novikov estimated that Schwarz sent 300 rubles in all. When Schwarz died in February of 1784, he was penniless . Moscow Masons took on an obligation to financially support his children.
Rosicrucianism was accepted by Schwarz and Novikov as the one true form of Freemasonry, and became a highly secretive practice directly subordinated to Wöllner and Theden and operating under the facade of the lodge of Harmony that officially belonged to the Strict Observance system. The elite of Russian Masonry was enrolled in the exclusive "theoretical degree of Solomonian sciences" (ranking above three regular degrees), the Constitutions of which were obtained by Schwarz from the Three Globes in Berlin in 1781. Novikov administered this organization and Schwarz provided intellectual guidance, but the control over the organization came directly from Berlin. As a result of the Wilhelmsbad Convent, Wölner's Lodge of Three Globes declared its independence from the Strict Observance on 30 January 1784.
the same time, while the exclusive mysticism of the Rosicrucians
was appealing to a limited circle of Masonic intellectuals in Russia, the
Strict Observance system found a wider reception. The reasons for the Strict
Observance being so readily adopted were presented by the Moseow
circle in response to Ferdinand Brunswick's invitational circular letter for
participation of the General Congress of Strict Observance Freemasons in
Lavish ceremonies of the knights, crosses, rings, shell jackets, and genealogical trees were supposed to make great impression on a military nation in which only the high nobility was involved in our work... Among us, such military opulence cannot be unpleasant; for all our members were leading battalions and whole armies! These crosses are very appropriate to persons who in life are decorated with distinctions of honor or who do not greedily desire more than receiving these distinctions of honor. (NIOR, Fond 147, folder 5, 31).
Because of adherence to opulence and decadent manifestation of wealth associated with Masonic rank, meetings of the Strict Observance lodges often slipped into being "loud feasts" that Elagin used to characterize as a degradation of Masonic purpose. Despite, or rather because of that as we pointed out in the first chapter, in the first decade after the introduction of the system to Russia many lodges turned to the Strict Observance. In the 1760s, we can identify only the Kapitul Feniksa (of Phoenix) in St. Petersburg and Mecha (of Sword) in Riga that worked according to the Strict Observance regulations. However, already in 1776, many Freemasons in Russia were warned to be ware of the fact that "the Hydra of the Strict Observance that raised her head in Russia again" ("lerneiskoi gidry "Strogogo Nabludeniia," vnov' podniavshei svou golovu na Rossiu," Vestnik Evropy 6 (1868), 563-568).
In an attempt to reconcile different Masonic systems, Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick proposed that the various orders and rites, mainly the three currents in the German Masonic world -- Rosicrucians, Strict Observance Freemasons and llluminati of Bavaria -- meet at Wilhelmsbad for the Convent. The Novikov-Schwarz circle was in close touch with Ferdinand of Brunswick during the preparations for the Convent. On 19 September 1780, Russian brothers received a letter that asked their opinion on four major issues: 1) extern al organization and organizational arrangements, the subordination and the relation of different systems among themselves; 2) appropriateness and usefulness of rituals and ceremonies 3) Masonic activities in relation to the states and public in general; 4) economic foundations of the society. Five templar provinces were represented at the congress that lasted from 16 July till 29 August 1782. There were 35 representatives present at this meeting of the various bodies working the Strict Observance system of degrees. Only those who had attained the rank of Masonic Knighthood could vote. Among them, Baron von Knigge represented the Bavarian Iluminati. During the Convent, the following questions had to be answered: "Does the order truly originate from an ancient society, and if so, which? Are there really Unknown Superiors, keepers if the ancient Tradition, and if so, who are they? What are the true aims of the order? Is the chief aim to restore the order of the Templars? The questions also included the problem of whether the order should concern itself with the occult sciences." (Fond 1412k, folder I, 1394).
After the success at the Convent, Moscow brothers established the Provincial Kapitul and Directory to preside over all Masonic lodges belonging to the eighth (Russia) Province of the Strict Observance. tried to establish relations with the St. Petersburg lodges under the banner of uniting all lodges in Russia and spreading the "true" Freemasonry of high-degree Strict Observance. The creators of all-Russian coalition also counted on the Baltic Freemasons to join.
Considering European Masonic interactions with Russia, it is clear that the main driving force for the Russians in contacting European lodges was that Freemasonry's ideas, structure, and rituals struck a chord with very specific emotional, spiritual, intellectual, and social needs of nascent Russian intelligentsia. We can conclude for part two that Freemasonry as a movement was constantly changing, beginning with the transformation made by the English on Scottish Freemasonry in the late seventeenth century. Later, the transformations were related to the attempts to establish, or rather, return to the "authentic," "genuine," "ancient" Freemasonry. Especially popular on the Continent, these new versions, such as the Scottish rite, had an intricate hierarchy that reflected the changes in social, cultural, and intellectual preoccupations of the lodges. The most esoteric version of Freemasonry, the Rosicrucian Order, gained popularity in many European countries by the end of the eighteenth century. A more secretive and restrictive course in its content, organization, and intellectual overtones, the Rosicrucianism that appeared in Russia by very end of the century was different from the low-degree systems that had prevailed in Russia before the 1760s. In the 1780s, Russian Freemasonry' s most illustrious period, several Russian lodges formed a close association with the Berlin lodge of Three Globes, headed by J. C. Wöllner, and dedicated their work and studies to theosophical mysticism. In P.3 we will thus investigate the reasons that foreign Freemasons used for spreading the Craft into Russia.
Following a presentation in German of 18th Century Freemasonry, we now present as a first-ever in English, our completed research about E.European, starting with Russian Freemasonry. E. European Freemasonry P.1.
Russian Freemasonry going Swedish and Rosicrucian. E. European Freemasonry P.2.
Freemasons' activities brought about a shift in consciousness that implied a strengthened emphasis on national identity and patriotism with a broader rethinking of self-identity and national interests. E. European Freemasonry P.3.
Hermeneutics and Strategy. E. European Freemasonry P.4.
Implications. E. European Freemasonry P.5.
Nauchno-issledovatel'skii otdel rukopisei Rossiiskoi gosudarstvennoi biblioteki (NIOR RGB) [Manuscript Division of the Russian State Library, Moscow]
Fond 14, V. S. Arsen'ev collection of Masonic manuscripts
Fond 147. S. S. Lanskoi and S. V. Eshevskii collection of Masonic manuscripts Fond 178, Museum collection
Fond 237, D.I. Popov collection
Otdel rukopisei Natsional'noi rossiiskoi biblioteki (OR NRB) [Manuscript Division of the Russian National Library, St Petersburg]
Fond 487, N. M. Mikhailovskii collection
Fond 550, Principal collection of the manuscript books
Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi arkhiv drevnikh aktov (RGADA) [Russian State Archive of Ancient Documents, Moscow]
Fond 8, Kalinkin Dom and Files of Crimes against Morality
Fond 8, opis' 1, I. P. Elagin papers
Fond 10, Private Office of Catherine II
Fond 17, Science, Literature, Art
Fond 168. Relations of Russian Sovereigns with Governmental Posts and with Officials
Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv (RGIA) [Russian State Historical Archive, St Petersburg]
Fond 796. Chancellery of the Holy Synod papers (1721-1918)
Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi arkhiv literatury i iskusstva (RGALI) [Russian State Archive of Literature and An, Moscow]
Fond 191, Efremov collection
Fond 442, M. K. and T. O. Sokolovskii collection
Fond 1189, M. M. Kheraskov papers
Fond 1270, N. I. Novikov papers
Fond 1764. I. P. Elagin collection and papers
Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi voennyi arkhiv (RGVA) [Russian State Military Archive, Moscow]
Fond 175, Masonic Lodges and Chapters (1781-1939)
Fond 1311, Knightly Orders (1785-1931)
Fond 1412k, Documentary materials of Masonic Lodges
Fond 1311, opis' 1-2, Documentary materials of Masonic Lodges (1755-1928)
Fond 730, opis' 1, Masonic Lodge Astrea
Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Rossiiskoi Federatsii (GARF) [State Archive of the Russian Federation, Moscow]
Fond 1137, G. V. Vemadskii collection
Odel pis 'mennykh istochnikov gosudarstvennogo istoricheskogo muzeia (OPI GIM) [Division of Wrinen Sources of the State Historical Museum, Moscow]
Fond 17, Uvarov's personal collection
Fond 281, Document collection of the history of culture, science, and sodal movements
Fond 282, Document collection of the Museum of the Revolution
Fond 398, P. P. Beketov collection
Fond 440, I. E. Zabelin collection
Fond 450, E. V. Barsov collection
Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Tverskoi Oblasti [State Archive of the Tver' Region, Tver']
Fond 103, opis' 1, folder 1169, collection of Masonic documents.
Archive and Library of the United Grand Lodge of England, Freemasons' Hall (FHL), London
Archive of the United Grand Lodge of England (including Letter-books, Minutebooks, Freemasons' Calendars, and General Correspondence)
Personal Papers of Eighteenth-Century Masons
British Library, Modern British Collections and Manuscript Collections, London
Add. 23,644-23,680, Correspondence and papers of General Charles Rainsford Sloane 3329 f. 142, Masonic papers
Add. 20645 ff. 190, 199,211-256, Papers relating to Freemasons in Italy and France .
Add. 29970, Proceedings of the lodge at the Thatched House Tavem (1777-1817) Add. 23675, Papers relating to Freemasonry (1783-1796)
Bodleian Library, Oxford
MSS, Dep. Bland Burges, Burges collection
MSS Clar. Dep. C. 346-47, Clarendon papers
Fld MSFP(2)-70-71, Somerville collection
MS Rawlinson C. 136, Rawlinson collection of Masonic manuscripts
National Library of Scotland (NLS), Edinburgh
Ms 3942, f. 301v., 1. Robison's ]etters
Ace. 4796 Box 104, A. Ramsay's papers
Adv MSS 22.4.13, W. Richardson papers
National Archive of Scotland (NAS), Edinburgh
MSS Seafield Papers GD 248/518/6 H.M., Letters of Cameron' s workers GD 1/620, Rogerson papers
GD 156/62 Elphinstone papers, Keith papers
Abercairny MSS, GD24/1826, Mounsey letters
Aberdeen University Archive (AUA), Aberdeen
MS 3064/B 198, J. Keith papers MS 3064/B 146, J. Keith papers MS 3064/B 335, J. Keith papers
MS 2711/1-12, Correspondence, family and estate papers of Keith family (155078)
MS 2707 1/l1l and 1/l/2, Documents of A.W. Keith Falkoner
MS 3163, Documents of H. Godfrey
Ms 3295, Documents from Marischal Keith's Despatch [sic] Box
Archive and Library, Grand Lodge of Scotland, Edinburgh
Minutes of the Grand Lodge of Scotland (1770-1800)
Glasgow University Library, Glasgow
Ms Murray 503, ff. 5-6, William Poner, paniculars respecting Mr. Robison (1769-1774 )
Davis Weston, Slavica: an Exhibition of Books and Manuscripts from the University's Collections (1990)
Latvijas Valsts vestures arhivs (LVVA) [Latvia State Historical Archive, Riga] Fonda 4038,2 apraksts (1394), documents of the Lodge zur kleinen Welt.