A Short History of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem.

PART TWO. THE ORDER OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM SINCE 1798.


NOTES ON REFERENCES.
Where a work is cited a number of times, a shortened form of reference is given. Opt Cit. and Ibid. are deliberately omitted so as to aid researchers. The reference number plus this reference guide should quickly identify the work concerned.
(OS)
in the text refers to the Old Style Calendar current in Russia until 1918. The Old Style, or Julian Calendar is 13 days behind the New Style or Gregorian Calendar.
*1964 Constitution; Barthet, Gaston Tonna. Constitution of the Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, given by His Majesty King Peter II of Yugoslavia 19th March 1964, Progress Press, Russian Grand Priory, Malta, 1974.
*1968 OSJ Bulletin; Sovereign Order of Saint John of Jerusalem The Hospitallers, Knights of Malta. Bulletin Special Issue in Honor of the newly elected Lieutenant Grand master H.S.H. Prince Serge Belosselsky-Belozersky, Sovereign Order of Saint John of Jerusalem 475 Fifth Avenue, New York, USA 1968.
*1990 OSJ Deliberations; :Order of St. John of Jerusalem, Knights Hospitaller. Deliberations of the Sovereign Council of the Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem August 8-11, 1990. English Translation August 1990.
*Attwater; Attwater, Donald, The Penguin Dictionary of Saints, Penguin Books 1965.
*Billings; Billings, Malcolm. The Cross and the Crescent, BBC Publications, London 1987.
*Boisgelin; Boisgelin, Louis de. Ancient and Modern Malta, and the History of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, 3 Volumes bound together. G & J Robinson, London 1804.
*Bradford; Bradford, Ernle, The Knights of the Order, Dorset Press, New York, 1972.
*Brett-Crowther; Brett-Crowther M.Sc., Ph.D., D.I.C. S.Th. , Dr. Michael Richard. Orders of Chivalry under the Aegis of the Church. Lambeth Diploma of Student in Theology (S.Th.) Thesis, 1st December 1990.
*Gervers, Secunda Camera; Gervers, Michael (ed.), Records of Social and Economic History, New Series VI, The Cartulary of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem in England, Secunda Camera, Essex. The British Academy, Oxford University Press 1982.
*ICOC; Commission International Permanente D'Etudes Des Ordes De Chevalerie. Registre des Orders de Chevalerie, The International Commission for Orders of Chivalry, The Armorial, Edinburgh, 1978.
*King-Knights Hospitaller; King, Edwin J. The Knights Hospitaller in the Holy Land. Methuen & Co. Ltd. London 1931.
*King-Seals; King, Edwin, J. The Seals of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, Methuen & Co. Ltd. London 1932.
*King-Statutes; King, Edwin.J. The Rule, Statutes and Customs of the Hospitallers, Methuen & Co. Ltd. London 1931.
*Pierredon 1926; Pierredon, Count Marie Henri Thierry Michel de, Histoire Politique de l'Ordre Souverain des Hospitaliers de Saint-Jean de Jerusalem dit de Malte, Paris 1926.
*Pierredon 1963 Vol. 2; Pierredon, Count Marie Henri Thierry Michel de, Histoire Politique de l'Ordre Souverain de Saint-Jean de Jerusalem, Ordre de Malte, Paris 1963 Volume 2.
*Porter: Porter, Major Whitworth. A History of the Knights of Malta, Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans & Roberts, London 1858.
*Riley-Smith; Riley-Smith, Jonathan. The Knights in St. John of Jerusalem and Cyprus c. 1050-1310, Macmillan St. Martin's Press London 1967.
*Riley-Smith MVO; Riley-Smith Jonathan, The Order of St. John in England, 1827-1858, in; Baker, The Military Orders - Fighting for the Faith & Caring for the Sick, Variorum, Ashgak Publishing Ltd. Gower House, Croft Road, Aldershot 1994.
*Runciman; Runciman, Steven, A History of the Crusades (3 vols.), Penguin Books 4th Edition 1991.
*Sainty; Sainty, G.S. The Orders of Saint John, New York 1991.
*Seward; Seward, Desmond, The Monks of War, Eyre Methuen, 1972.
*Sire; Sire, H.J.A. The Knights of Malta, Yale University Press, New Haven, USA, 1994.
*Smith/Storace; Smith, Harrison, and Storace, Joseph E, Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, Second Edition, Akker Print, Delft, The Netherlands 1977.
*Southern; Southern, R.W. Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages, The Pelican History of the Church Volume 2, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth 1970.
*Tenison; Tenison. E. M. Short History of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem from its Earliest Foundation in AD1014 to the end of the Great War of AD1914-18, Banton 1991.
*Torr Athen; Torr, Cecil. The Hospitallers in England, Correspondence in The Athenæum - Journal of English and Foreign Literature, Science and the Fine Arts, Music and the Drama, John C. Francis, The Athenæum Press, 22 Took's Court, Cursitor Street, Chancery Lane London EC, Volume for 1890. No.s 3245 Jan 4th, page 16, 3248. Jan 25th, pages 117 and 118. 3267 June 7th, pages 737-739. 3268 June 14th, page 770.

THE RUSSIAN ORDER OF MALTA AND Emperor PAUL I.
The common popularist and unresearched view of Emperor Paul I, is that he was mad, that he had a mistress, that his fascination with, and subsequent adoption of the Order of St. John and his induction into the office of Grand Master, are seen in this context as indulging further his delusions, and that these eccentricities and his unpredictability led to his assassination. Such a portrait of Paul is a gift to those who seek to discount and ridicule any Russian tradition of St. John. Histories are often written by the victorious or dominant party to any conflict. In this context, how true is that picture of Paul?

Comparatively recent research has rehabilitated the character of Paul I. The popularist view of Paul was originally generated by his assassins in justification of their actions #1. It would be easy for authors writing about the history of the Order to follow the propaganda uncritically, ignoring new research which has been available for the last eighteen years. In the 1970s, two academic Panels provided the assessments of new research into Paul I. These were at Montreal in 1973 and St. Louis in 1976. Some of the findings were presented in a book edited by Hugh Ragsdale in 1979; Paul I: A reassessment of His Life and Reign #2. The reappraisal of Paul I has demonstrated his character as someone of high morals, who followed his conscience #3. Dismissed as unlikely is Paul's infidelity in having a mistress #4, and the involvement with the Order of St. John is understood against a background of his idealising their history as a lesson in high chivalric ideals, he wished the Russian Nobility would adopt #5. Paul saw in the Russian Nobles an element of degeneracy, and introducing the high ideals of the Knights of Malta, was Paul's method of reform #6.

THE POLISH PRIORY.
There had been established in Poland, a Priory consisting of six Commanderies. However the partitioning of Poland and the accession of land to Russia placed the priory into the Russian domain. Paul agreed to honour the income of the Polish Priory, but more than this to create from the Polish Priory, a Grand Priory of Russia with ten Commanderies.

The Polish Priory had been assigned to the Anglo-Bavarian Langue. The English Langue had lain dormant for over two hundred years with only a token membership. In 1782 the Langue was given a new lease of life, with the formation of the Grand Priory of Ebensburg in Bavaria, created from the revenues of the suppressed Jesuit Order in Bavaria. Whilst it may have made more sense geographically and culturally to have placed the Grand Priory of Ebensburg into the German Langue, this Langue was not receptive to a further Grand Priory #7. The English Langue existing in name only could not object. Not only did the Order gain the Pope's sanction, for the expansion of the English Langue, into the Anglo-Bavarian Langue, given on the 30th September, but the Order out of courtesy obtained the consent of King George III of England, 18th July 1783 #8.

The Polish Priory had been formed in 1775 as a sub-Priory of Bohemia, part of the German Langue. In 1785 the polish priory was transferred to the Anglo-Bavarian Langue, producing a Langue of England which was a curious hybrid. By 1793 the land owned by the Polish Priory was part of the territory partitioned by Russia. Already there had been military and political intercourse between Malta and Russia. Count Giulio Renato de Litta, a trusted member of Grand Master de Rohan's Council, had been well accepted at the Russian Court under the Empress Catherine, having served with distinction with the Russian Armed Forces. In 1796 de Litta undertook a mission to secure the revenues from the Polish Priory, affected by the Russian seizure of territory. The Order failed to gain any satisfaction with the Empress, but events proved providential when Catherine suffered a fatal stroke on the 5/16th November. This reversed the fortunes of the Knights as Emperor Paul I was in love with the Order and sought its well being. Paul's plan led to a Convention 4/15th January 1797, between the Order and the Emperor, which enlarged the Priory from six Commanderies to ten, and at the same time transferring its seat to St. Petersburg and renaming it, the Grand Priory of Russia #9.

THE CATHOLIC GRAND PRIORY IN RUSSIA.
In negotiating the Convention, Paul sought the fullest recognition for the Russian Knights of St. John by the creation of a Russian Langue, but Count de Litta stayed firm on this point, but left the question open for the future #10. In an additional separate Article to the Convention, the Grand Priory of Russia was consigned to the "ancient Language of England" #11. The Convention needed to be ratified by the Order in Malta, but the documents were intercepted by the French. A second copy finally arrived at Valletta on the 14th July 1797. Grand Master Rohan died on the previous day. His successor, Ferdinand Hompesch was elected on the 16th July, but the deliberations were delayed whilst the new incumbent took office. The Sacred Council approved of the Convention 7th August 1797.

PAUL AS PROTECTOR OF THE ORDER.
The Order welcomed the Convention enthusiastically, and in gratitude declared Paul I a Protector of the Order #12. This provided the Emperor with the same relationship with the Order as Francis II of Austria and the German Empire, who was also a designated Protector #13. This honour was bestowed from time to time on Monarchs. For example, Henry VII and Henry VIII were individually honoured in this way in 1505 and 1511 respectively #14. It was not a hereditary protectorship #15. There was of course, a protectorship by Monarchs over national groups of Knights, which by the very fact that monarchy was hereditary - so too, was such protectorship. So for example Article I of the 1797 Convention provided a form of hereditary protectorship by the Emperor, for the Order in Russia - "His imperial majesty the emperor of all the Russias, as an act of justice, and at the same time to prove, his sentiments of affection and high consideration for the illustrious order of Malta, approves, confirms, and ratifies, in his own name and that of his successors for ever, in the most ample and solemn manner, the establishment of the said order of Malta in his dominions." #16. Further discussions took place in November 1797 and additional articles were appended to the Convention 17/28th November 1797. A Report to the sacred Council provided not only the Cross of devotion as a gift to the Emperor, but also the Habit of the Order and the Grand Cross #17. The inauguration of the Grand Priory of Russia took place on the 29th November/10th December 1797. The generosity of the Emperor toward the Order exceeded that which the order had originally sought. Count de Litta became favoured in the Russian Court, and to cement this alliance between a Catholic Order and an Orthodox Court, by Papal dispensation he married Catherine Engelhardt, niece of Prince Gregory Potemkin and widow of Russian Minister to Naples Count Paul Martynovitch Skavronski (1757-1793) #18.

THE PROPOSED CREATION OF ORTHODOX COMMANDERIES.
Following the successful Convention, Paul sought membership for Orthodox Nobles, to improve their notions of chivalry. 10 Commanderies were but a modest example, and restricted to Catholics. The Emperor sought an Orthodox branch of what was a Catholic Order. Under a Treaty negotiated between the Emperor and the Order, the institution for Orthodox Nobles was to consist of 84 Commanderies dwarfing the Catholic Grand Priory. The language employed by the Treaty was ingenious. The Treaty drawn up and signed on the 1st June 1798 used the term "a new Establishment" of the Order of Malta....for the Nobility of the Greek Religion" #19.

The Report of the Order concerning the Treaty, concluded that the Treaty was entirely in keeping with the Order's Constitution. The central portion sums up the legerdemain;
"The Plan will clearly reveal to this Sacred Council, that our Constitution remains completely unaltered, even more so its Fundamental Maxims, and its perfect neutrality towards all Christian Sovereigns and States, our ancient system and Regime remains unchanged, and it can actually be truthfully said that this new establishment is in substance an aggregation of Crosses of Devotion, of which there are examples for the whole period that these have been awarded to Persons of Cults other than Ours, and in fact the Venerable Ambassador having communicated his Plan to Monsignor Archbishop of Thebes, His Holiness' Ambassador to His Imperial Majesty, who confirmed on receipt that it was compatible with our principles." #20.

To the Order the Orthodox Commanderies were "an aggregate of Crosses of Devotion". To Paul, due to the ambiguity of the term he could see the "new establishment" as being a sub Order, a Grand Priory, or even the Russian Langue he sought. As the "new establishment" was to be attached to the Catholic Grand Priory of Russia, the Protestant, Lutheran Bailiwick of Brandenburg may well have provided the model. From 1319 the Bailiwick, part of the Grand Priory of Germany, operated autonomously and elected their own Master, initially unilaterally and from 1382 with the agreement of the Grand Prior under the Treaty of Heimbach. From 1538, until 1577 the Bailiwick in stages became Protestant. Bound by the Treaty of Heimbach, the Bailiwick was tolerated by the Order and remained loosely connected with the Grand Priory of Germany. Before the Treaty between the Emperor and Order could be ratified, on the 11th June 1798, Malta had surrendered to Napoleon Bonaparte. Great financial incentives had been promised with the Order's ready agreement to accommodate Paul I. A further factor to consider in Paul's favour, is that his involvement with the Knights of the Order was certainly encouraged, as part of the Pope's rapprochement with an Orthodox Court. The Pope sought more freedom for the Latin rite in Russia, and was looking with optimism for the reunion of the Russian Orthodox with the Roman Catholic Church. Pope Pius VI was on good terms with the Emperor. Paul had in the past visited Rome, and a Papal representative was present at his coronation early 1797.

DETERIORATION OF RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE PAPAL AUTHORITIES.
By February 1798 the Pope exiled from Rome by Napoleon's Army, petitioned the Emperor from Siena, to provide the security of the Catholic Church by rescuing the him and restoring Rome to the Papacy #21. Pius VI had been moved to a Villa in Florentina late May, where news reached him on the 12th June about the ejection of the Knights from Malta. Whilst a warm friendship had developed between the Pope Pius VI and Emperor Paul I, the Emperor's ambitions concerning the Order were greater than for which the Pope had allowed. Following their expulsion from Malta, those Knights who sought to continue the life of the Order accepted the hospitality of the Emperor, under the leadership of de Litta. What remained of the life of the Order was based with its temporary headquarters in St. Petersburg #22. In late September 1798, the Order now based in St. Petersburg voted to depose Hompesch. The Pope signified he was happy for the Knights to appoint a Knight to act with the authority of the Grand Master as a deputy #23. Going further than the advice of the Pope, the Knights elected Emperor Paul I as their Grand Master on the 27th October, which Paul I accepted on the 13th November.

When news reached the Pope, he and such Cardinals as were in contact with him were vexed as to what action they should take. In the same month as the Emperor had accepted the Grand Mastership of the Order, he had restored the Catholic Church in Russia. Concerned about any rift with Emperor Paul, silence from the Papal Office ensued, only to be broken some four months later in March 1799, when the Pope was critically ill and Papal business left in the hands of others. The message that reached the Emperor, was that the Pope did not approve of his election as Grand Master. On the 27th March the Pope was carried off across the Alps incommunicado into France at Valence where he died on the 29th August. The forced pace in moving the Pope eluded the Russian Troops who sought to rescue the pope under Marshall Suvorou and Grand Duke Constantine Pavovitch. Paul was furious at the news of his rejection as Grand Master by the Papal Authoroities, and dismissed Count de Litta as Lieutenant Grand Master, replacing him with Soltikoff. de Litta was banished to his wife's estate in the country #24.

THE CREATION OF A RUSSIAN GRAND PRIORY.
Whilst the election of Paul I as Grand Master of the Order could be disputed, because there was not a genuine vacancy, under pressure from the Austrian Emperor, an ally of Russia, Hompesch abdicated on the 6th July 1799 leaving Paul I undisputed Grand Master. Even without Hompesch's abdication, a precedent for deposition had been established in 1319 when Foulques de Villaret was deposed, who had become a dictator to the Order and morally corrupt. By this it had been established that whilst the Office was for life, for sufficient a good cause, a Grand Master could be removed. The relics held by Hompesch (including the Hand of St. John the Baptist) were transferred to the Chapel of the Winter Palace in St. Petersburg.

After Emperor Paul's formal Investiture on the 29th November OS (10th December NS) 1798 at that time oblivious to any hint of Papal displeasure, and encouraged by the Papal Nuncio Lorenzo de Litta (brother of Count de Litta), the Emperor now Grand Master of the Order, resurrected a modified plan of creating Commanderies based on the agreement already reached on the 1st June between the Order and Paul I.
The Proclamation of the Emperor inaugurating the Commanderies continued the same ambiguous language of a "new establishment" to describe the Commanderies collectively. The new foundation was instituted by "imperial authority" #25 and Article XXVI of the proclamation stated "Lastly, we confirm in the most solemn manner, in our name and in that of our successors for ever, all and each of the articles of the present foundation; the said articles to have their full effect, and to be inviolably executed. Concluded at St. Petersburg, the 29th of November, in the year of our Lord 1798, and in the third of our reign." What had been created was a Russian Order, by Russian imperial authority. It still remains a fact, that this Imperial Proclamation was never abrogated by any successive Russian Emperor. The Proclamation differed from the original Treaty in the following modifications; a) "Nobility of Greek Religion" is simplified to "Nobility" thus extending membership to heterodox as well as Orthodox Christians. b) "Order of Malta" was amended to "Order of St. John". c) A Lieutenant Grand Master was to preside at the Assemblies of the new foundation #26. The Proclamation of 1798, in the same way as the Convention of 1797, establishing the Catholic Priory, provided for hereditary (or family) Commanderies, in line with the hereditary succession of titles of nobility and royalty.

The precedent for hereditary Commanders had already been established within the Order, before any involvement by Paul I. Two examples are the Priory of Bohemia and the Priory of Poland prior to its absorption into the Russian Priory. One early precedent is that of Grand Master Jean de Lascaris-Castellar (1636-1657) granting an hereditary knighthood to the Vicomte d'Arpajon for assisting in checking a Turkish attack on Malta #27.

The creation of non-Catholic Commanderies, was not entirely an autocratic decision of Paul I as Grand Master, but had concluded an agreement, already reached between the Order under Grand Master von Hompesch and Paul I as Emperor of Russia, and Protector of the Order in Russia #28.

Prince Cyril Toumanoff, the Historical Counsellor to the Papal Order quite rightly recognises that the term 'Orthodox Priory' is not used in connection with the foundation of Paul's institution for Russian Nobles #29. However he does not see what the significance of the terms used may mean. In contrast to the 10 Commanderies of the Catholic Grand Priory, the new establishment has 98 Commanderies, almost ten fold the size. Paul as Emperor, has grafted onto the original Order, of which he was then the Grand Master, a new Russian Order, akin to the Bailiwick of Brandenburg with its own Master. An Order within an Order, and large enough to include all those who were eligible. Some confirmation is given to this thesis, in that a Lieutenant Grand Master was to preside over the assemblies of the new institution, to represent the Grand Master. The first incumbent to this post was Count de Litta #30 later dismissed over Papal displeasure.

Historians often refer to the "new establishment" as the "Orthodox Grand Priory". The designation 'Orthodox' to the actual institution initiated by the Emperor, probably owes itself to the original Treaty of June 1st 1798, and is not to be found in the original historic documentation. The Proclamation of the Emperor 29th November 1798 provided for the Russian Nobles, without any ecclesiastical denomination cited, thus creating, in effect, an ecumenical Priory. The institution is referred to as a Grand Priory in a Declaration by Paul's son, Alexander I, appointing Soltikoff to continue his office as Lieutenant Grand Master. Alexander uses the term "our two Grand Russian and Catholic Priories" #31. This seems to have reflected an earlier status of the institution under Paul I. There is some suggestion in a number of authors that Alexander was the first Prior of the Russian Grand Priory.

Paul presented the Order with the Worontzoff Palace with its name changed to 'Palais de Malte' with a later designation of 'de St. Jean'. Two Chapels were added to the Palace, one for the Catholic Priory and one for the Russian Institution #32. Whilst it may be argued that the Russian Priories, and to some extent the Order, were subsumed into a monarchy and the members of court, that may have been true if the Order had continued on Malta. A pointer to this is that by the late eighteenth century, the Grand Master's position and that of the Order was that of a reigning monarch and his court albeit of a small Island.

THE VALIDITY OF PAUL I AS GRAND MASTER.
In considering the election of Paul I as Grand Master, was the Order at liberty to make its own choice?. It could be argued that the Order was only nominally a Sovereign Order and was in reality subject to the Pope, as the Superior to all religious orders. Various Popes had been consulted on questions of constitution. Popes had intervened in disputes on the succession of Grand Masters. In other words, one view is that the authority to alter the normal protocols, did not belong to the Knights. The reality, was that the Order's own view on its status tended towards true sovereignty. Since 1267 the Grand Master was elected by the Knights of Justice who were over 18 years of age and who were qualified by service in the Order. The electors were to assemble three days after the death of a Grand Master. The short delay was to eliminate plots, cabals, and Papal interference #33. One example found in the St. John Cartulary for Essex, demonstrated an election two days after the death of a Grand Master in 1513 #34. The subsequent confirmation by the Pope was one of spiritual allegiance to the head of the Catholic Church as superior to Religious Orders, of which the Order of St. John was a part. Within the Catholic world the Order inhabited, this confirmation provided legitimacy. Practically, it was also an alliance with an institution that had provided the Order exemption from secular control and which had been a power broker between the Catholic nations of Europe. Nations from which the Order drew revenues. However since the fifteenth century, that Catholic world was shrinking. Many nations and national Churches had overthrown the Papal yoke but still declared themselves Christian. As an ancient reality in the east, and now in the west, Christian institutions did not reside in tutelage to the Pope.

Whilst Catholic commentators argue that anyone not a Catholic could not be legally elected Grand Master, pertinent to the very question of the legitimacy of the Russian Emperor's involvement is the example of the JohanniterOrden of Germany (Prussia) which became a Protestant body in the fifteenth century and for a period was reconciled to the Order at Malta. To this we can add the ready agreement of the Order, to allow Orthodox membership, prior to the events of their ejection from Malta, and before the Emperor become Grand Master. Other examples of non-Catholic members are noted by researchers #35. In addition the the married Knights and Commanders of the JohaniterOrden, the vows of the Catholic Order had lapsed almost to lip service, and dispensations from celibacy for the Knights were not difficult to obtain. For example, Count de Litta under a dispensation remained a Knight after his marriage, and continued as an official of the Order. Marriage was not a bar to membership of the Order. Precedents for the Russian Emperor's circumstances abounded in the Order. On the 18th March 1782, Karl August Graf von und zu Bretzenheim, a legitimised son of Elector Carl Theodor of Bavaria on the wishes of his father became the Grand Prior of the Grand Priory of Bavaria and remained so until he resigned in 1799. In 1788 he got married but still remained Grand Prior. In 1798, the Russian Grand Priory became attached to the Anglo-Bavarian-Langue, which then became the Anglo-Bavarian-Russian Langue. It is doubtful that Paul I of Russia would have been unaware of the fact that the Bavarian Grand Priory had a married Grand Prior.

The Emperor as Grand Master, was happy to maintain the Order, as a Catholic Order. Perhaps more pertinent, was the fact that Paul was a Grand Cross of the Order, and could wear the Habit, in other words his status, was akin to that of a full member. Given these precedents, having save the Order from oblivion and his commitment to maintaining the Order, the Emperor fully expected the Pope's approval.

A further argument concerns the voting for the deposition of Hompesch. It has been considered by some, that there was not a true representation of the electoral college of Priories. However these were very extraordinary days for the Order. The loss of, and the expulsion from, Malta and the dismantling and suppression of the Order by the French revolutionary forces would have slowed down communications within the Order. Given the situation faced by the Order, it was probably difficult to have any strict adherence to the constitution that had existed until then. There would have been disgust for Hompesch by the Knights, and they would naturally look to anyone who might be able to deliver their home back to them. The Order had changed in the past, and this very dramatic change was forced by very dramatic circumstance.

If Paul I as Grand Master of the Order, had pretensions to Malta, they were thwarted. The British had blockaded Malta by late 1799, but lack of sufficient land troops prevented an invasion. The French had only left a garrison on Malta that succumbed to a Maltese rebellion aided by the British, who took possession of the Island 5th September 1800. The beginnings of hope, for the Order's return to Malta were started by Britain. Admiral Lord Nelson wrote to the Emperor, who was recognised as the Order's Grand Master (with a hint in the message that the Incumbent holds the Office irregularly) that Captain Ball was holding Malta until, "Your Majesty as Grand Master, appoints a person to the Office" #36. Paul I did not like Britain's 'trusteeship' of Malta, nor the fact that the British had refused Russian help in blockading the Island #37, but before the Emperor could wage war on Britain, on the 11th March 1801 (OS), he was murdered.

THE CONTINUATION OF THE ORDER AFTER PAUL I.
It was clear that the events of the turn of the Century had placed the Order into disarray. Pope Pius VI had died in exile August 1799, and the hands of his successor Pius VII, elected 14th March 1800, were tied whilst Paul I remained Grand Master. Events shifted with the death of Paul. The palace coup d'etat placed Paul's son, Alexander I on the throne, and he assumed the status as Protector of the Order. Future events were to reveal his disinterest in the Order, but at the beginning of the 19th Century, Malta had become a political pawn. The Emperor as Protector of the Order, had a vested territorial interest in its return to Malta. In line with the British suggestion to Paul I, Alexander began steps to regularise the affairs of the Order. On the 16th March 1801 (OS) the Emperor appointed Field Marshal General Bailiff Count Nicholas Soltikoff Lieutenant Grand Master to oversee the election of a Grand Master to "preside over the Order and reinstate it, to its previous state" #38.

Hompesch now residing in the Papal States, realised the vacuum of power in the Order, and on the 7th May 1801 wrote to several noble and influential Knights to enlist their support for his reinstatement. Pope Pius VII was mildly supportive of Hompesch's cause and indicated to Hompesch that if he could gain the support of Austria, he would provide definite support. Matters were complicated as Austria had been forced by a series of defeats at the hands of the French to conclude a peace treaty in February of that year. No support came from Austria. Hompesch also wrote to King George III of Britain, again to no avail #39.

Soltikoff organised a Sacred Council of the Order 20th July 1801 (OS) which sought to ask all the Priories that could be contacted to submit names for a list of candidates for the Office of Grand Master. Due to the difficulties of contact with, and an election involving, all other Langues and Priories, the Pope was to be petitioned, firstly to contact the Priories of Catholic Nations, and secondly, without prejudice to any future elections under normal circumstances, to designate one person from among the list as Grand Master. The words from the English translation of the Decree are "that this is only the case on this one occasion, and without derogating in any degree from the rights and privileges of the sovereign order." #40.

Whilst this process was going on a preliminary treaty between Britain and France had been concluded on the 1st October 1801. The Treaty of Amiens was finalised on the 27th March 1802. At Russian insistence, Article X provided for the restoration of Malta to the Order of St. John, and the election of a Grand Master. To prevent Britain and France from having any vested interest, the treaty held that the Order was not to be restored in both countries. It allowed for the creation of a Maltese Langue, with dispensation from proofs of nobility. Malta was to be perpetually neutral and her ports open to all nations at equal rates. The Treaty placed Malta under the protection of the various powers with an interest, and in addition to Britain and France as the main signatories, Austria, Russia, Prussia, and Spain also signed. The ratification of the Treaty took place on the 18th April 1802 #41.

All but Spain took part in the submission of names to St. Petersburg. Charles IV of Spain had annexed the Order to himself in his domains, granting himself the Office of Grand Master for the Spanish Order #42. The list compiled at St. Petersburg was transmitted to Rome in May 1802. It was not until 16th September that the Pope declared a name, that of Marquis-Prince Bailiff Bartolomeo Francesco Maria Ruspoli #43. Although it seemed that there was hope for the Order, it became clear that this hope was ill-founded. Many Priories had been suppressed by the French, and Napoleon sought to ensure that the Order's restoration was as Hospitallers only and not as Knights. It was doubted that the Order could be restored as a temporal power at the mercy of any great power that might seek to violate the Treaty. Britain was reluctant to leave Malta to that fate. Ruspoli declined his 'election' on the grounds of age and infirmity, but realistically any Grand Master would not be fighting the Infidel, but having to play a diplomatic role between two world powers, Britain and France. A further stumbling block to solving the issue of the return of the Order to Malta, was that the Emperor wished to have a greater status in his assumed position as 'Protector of the Order' and was against the inclusion of the Maltese as a Langue within the Order.

With Ruspoli declining an acceptance, the Pope consulted the "few fragments of the dispersed fraternity" #44 at Messina and appointed Giovanni Battista Tommasi di Cortona as Grand Master on the 9th February 1803. The Pope had acted under pressure from France, Britain, Austria and Naples to select another candidate from the existing list. The French Minister at Rome approved, as so did Emperor Alexander, and Lieutenant Grand Master Count Soltikoff, who said that the provisional Sacred Council at St. Petersburg would cease its function on the resumption of power by the new Grand Master #45.

THE APPOINTMENT OF A GRAND MASTER.
Tommasi accepting the Grand Mastership of the Order, organised a Sacred Council at Messina where he was based. Congratulations were sent to Tommasi from the Courts of Naples, Sardinia, Salzburg, Bavaria, Portugal, France, Germany, Denmark, Prussia and Russia. On the 1st March, Tommasi provided an envoy to Malta, to make preparations for the restoration of the Order. Captain Ball, holding the Island refused the envoy stating that the powers in the treaty had not yet guaranteed the neutrality of the Island #46. No agreement on the Island's future was resolved between the great powers and by 16th May 1803 Britain and France were again at war. By February 1804 the Seat of the Order had moved from Messina to Catania, and around this time the Council at St. Petersburg was dissolved #47. Demonstrating an affection for the very powerful Napoleon, in November 1804, Pius VII went to Paris to crown him Emperor. Pius VII had not only adjusted to the political realities of the day, he favoured the new spirit of the age. Prior to his election as Pope, Cardinal Lugi Barnabo Gregoria Chiarmonti had been the Bishop of Imola in the Papal States. When Napoleon invaded in 1798, he favoured the revolutionary ideas. The Bishop wrote 'Liberty and equality' on the top of his letters. He urged in one sermon "Be good Christians and you will be good democrats. The early Christians were full of the spirit of democracy" #48. Eager to reach a prompt compromise with Napoleon, Pius signed a Concordat in 1801, recognising the secularisation of the Church in France.

On the 12th May 1805 Hompesch had died after a retirement to a Convent at Montpellier in France, and not long afterward, Tommasi died on the 13th June. The dying Grand Master had appointed Innico-Maria Guevara-Suardo as Lieutenant, who held a General Assembly at Catania 17th June. Bailiff Giuseppe Caracciolo di Sant Eramo was elected by a majority of votes. The fact that Russia fully agreed with the new choice brought a rejection by Napoleon who placed pressure on the Pope to reject Caracciolo, who accordingly acquiesced. The events within the Order since 1801 with the initial help sought from the Pope, by the Sacred Council at St. Petersburg, had created what was an irregularity of 'election' by Pope's choice to become regular. Emperor Alexander's intention had been to normalise the affairs of the Order. In other words, restore its original traditions and protocols. In this he had been frustrated by Napoleon's designs to empty the Order of any power, and to reduce it to being nothing more than a ceremonial Order. In this Napoleon was ably aided by the Pope.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PAPACY AND THE ORDER.
The Papacy in becoming more dominant in the affairs of the Order had chosen to ignore those traditions built up over seven centuries, creating a papal institution, a world away from a truly sovereign Order. This view of the involvement of the Papacy, is not a view conjured up by the twentieth century 'pretending Orders' but part of the very ancient traditions of the Order itself, predating the controversies of the last two centuries. Illustrations abound throughout the Order's history. The Order always turned to the Papacy as a Court of appeal, to arbitrate over internal disputes. From time to time, and Pope to Pope, papal interference beyond the usual limits has occurred, but not in a regular or constitutional way.

In the Chronicles of the Deceased Master kept by the Order a comment on the Pope's rebuke to Odo des Pins (Grand Master 1294-6) records "...the Pope intervened in the affairs of our Religion, a thing which has never before been seen, for the Pope has never intervened in our affairs in the time of any other Master" #49. A practical example of the Pope's limited powers over the Order is an episode during the years of the Papal schism (1378-1417). The Order in common with the Kingdoms of France and Spain supported the rival Pope Clement VII at Avignon. In return Pope Urban VI declared Ricardo Caracciolo, Prior of Capua as Grand Master (1383-1395). The Convent remained loyal to Jean Ferandez de Heredia (1376-1396) who remained as Grand Master #50. Subsequent historians favourable to the Papacy included Ricardo Caracciolo in the list of Grand Masters to re-assert the notion of Papal authority over the Order! #51.

Chevalier Louis De Boisgelin, a Knight of Malta and a member of the Order prior to its break up into its nineteenth century factions, will be a more reliable witness to the Order's view on the Papacy than papist or other historians writing in the latter half of the twentieth century, after the Order had become a papal institution. He wrote in 1804 "The popes made frequent attempts to direct the election of the grand-masters, and to appoint to that dignified post: they even pretended to look upon it as a right, which neither they nor any other sovereign could possibly posses, without destroying the very essence of the order." Boisgelin then points out that the Grand Master was not simply a superior of a merely religious order, but a sovereign, possessing the prerogatives annexed to that dignity. In other words the matter was no longer about a simple issue of a religious order. The Order was also a sovereign nation state. He continues "the appropriation of the pope was always received at the election of a grand-master, but this was merely to fill up a canonical and regular form, and not as an acknowledgement that the pope had the right of either accepting or refusing."#52. Against this, Sainty, writing from a late twentieth century position and defending the papist position, reminds us that in 1634 Urban VIII conferred by a Papal Bull the right to nominate a Grand Master #53. Sadly this particular Pope is not the best supporter of truth.
Of Urban VIII, the Catholic Truth Society comments that he was addicted to nepotism #54. Only a year earlier in 1633, under this pontiff, Galileo suffered his threat of torture from the Inquisitor, into whose hand he had been placed by the Pope. A reward for having treated the Pope as a friend. Just having sighted the instruments of torture were sufficient for seventy year old Galileo to recant #55. The Order's experience of this Pope's reign was not exactly encouraging. Boisgelin writes "Urban VIII was less favourable to the order than any other sovereign pontiff. He constantly violated its rules." #56. The Bull was the nepotist's answer to the official complaints by the Order about his disposing of their Commanderies in favour of his relations #57. Urban's Bull was one way of looking at the relationship between the papacy and the Order. The Order saw the Pope's authority in a different light.

The test for the Pope's right of choice came under a succeeding Pope, Alexander VII. In 1657, the Pope interdicted the election of Martin de Redin as Grand Master. Even with this clear rejection by the Pope, de Redin assented to his candidacy and was elected, after which he wrote to the Pope, suggesting that if he were so odious to him, he would resign. Faced with de Redin's clear popularity, the Pope backed down #58. At the beginning of the 19th Century events had left such of the Order that remained, as demoralised, weak and threadbare. It was only under these circumstances that the papists could procure a firmer grip on the Order. It is easy to blame the Knights of the day for letting this happen, but they latched on to any external power that might provide some restoration of their fortunes, hence one group accepting help from the Emperor, hence another group of Knights acquiescing to Papal choice.

THE PAPAL REJECTION OF THE ELECTED GRAND MASTER.
By October 1805 Sweden, Austria, Britain and Russia were at war with France. By 1806 Napoleon had destroyed what remained of the Order in France and Italy, and had placed the Grand Priory of Germany under the King of Bavaria. He proposed that the Order become a mere ceremonial institution of Naples. Against this there were those who were being more positive towards the Order. Gustaf IV, the Lutheran King of Sweden had been made a Knight of the Order by Emperor Paul I and on the 13th July 1806 offered the Island of Gotland in the Baltic to Lieutenant Guevara-Suardo based at Catania, who refused it lest the acceptance jeopardised the Order's return to Malta #59. Caracciolo who was based at Messina styled himself 'Grand Master elect' and found support from French Knights and Russia. On the 15th November (OS) 1806, Emperor Alexander I and the Russian Priories who accepted Caracciolo as the legitimately elected Grand Master awarded him 12,000 roubles out of the Common Treasury of the Russian Grand Priories #60.

On the 21st October 1807 the Pope confirmed Guevara-Suardo to remain as the Lieutenant Grand Master finally rejecting Caracciolo, the legitimately elected Grand Master. Earlier in the year during summer Russia had deserted the Coalition against Napoleon, and concluded peace with France with the Treaty of Tilsit. Accordingly Russian policy towards the Order had shifted in agreement of Napoleon's position of denying the Order a Grand Master. Count Soltikoff, now the Imperial Minister of Foreign Affairs made it clear on the 10th February 1809 that the Russian Grand Priories recognised Guevara-Suardo as Lieutenant Grand Master withdrawing their support from Caracciolo #61. To regularise the Russian position, the Sacred Council of the Order on the 19th July 1809 validated Crosses of the Order awarded by Caracciolo to Russian members. In the same year the Emperor made deductions from the revenues of the Russian Grand Priories in favour of the Imperial Treasury, cash short due to the various wars. The Emperor's policy towards the Russian Priories had not, in that year been reversed. Despite the removal of monies he allowed additional Hereditary Commanders to be created #62.

SEQUESTRATION OF THE PROPERTY OF THE RUSSIAN KNIGHTS.
Having moved towards a policy of secularising the Order as had happened in Spain 1802, Bavaria 1806, and Prussia (JohanniterOrden) 1810/1811, the Emperor passed a number of Ukases, 26th February 1810 (OS), 22nd April, 20th November 1811 (OS) which expropriated the funds and property of the Russian Grand Priories #63, to assist with his war chest. Most of the monies in the first place had been awarded from the Treasury to the Order by his Father. It was for the same reason, the King of Prussia, had obtained the assets of the Protestant Order in his jurisdiction #64. In 1812, being faced with an invasion by Napoleon, Emperor Alexander rejoined the Alliance and signed a solemn treaty conceding Malta to Britain abandoning Russian claims. This further reduced the Emperor's interest in the Order. In the Spring of 1813 according to the scanty information received by the Order at Catania, the Roman Catholic Knights had survived in a better state than the Orthodox #65. Whilst the Commanderies had lost their incomes which had created them, this did not mean an end to the Order in Russia. Members of the Roman Catholic/Papal Order, Toumanoff and Sherbovitz-Wetzor have pointed out that the titles to vanished entities continued to be conferred, such as those of the Bailiffs of Capsis, Negroponte, Morea and Acre. This demonstrates that titles could persist honorifically in spite of the disappearance of the assets that had supported them #66. This fact became the pattern, not only for the Russian Priories, and the SMOM, as revealed in the examples cited, but for the JohanniterOrder, as the Order survived into the late nineteenth, and twentieth Centuries.

By March 1814 Napoleon was in full retreat and abdicated 11th April going into exile at Elba. The Allies restored the French throne to King Louis XVIII, Louis XVI having been executed 21st January 1793, and the captive boy King, Louis XVII having died in prison on June 8th 1795. On the 25th of April 1814, Lieutenant Grand Master, Guevara-Suardo died to be replaced by Andrea di Giovanni-Centelles. Independent of Sicilian assistance, the French Knights loyal to the Order formed a Commission of the French Langues, 26th May 1814. Whilst the defeat of Napoleon had allowed a revival of the Order, a disappointment to the Order was created by the Treaty of Paris, where on the 30th May, the Maltese accepted British protection and government. Whatever slight hope was held by the Order at Catania, and by the French Knights, which had both sent groups to the Peace Conference of Vienna in September 1814, this was dashed, as the Conference did not alter the Treaty of Paris in its granting of Malta to Britain.

By 1815, the Order had been deprived of its own homeland for seventeen years and as a result had devolved into separate national groups, the Spanish Order, the Prussian Order, the Russian Priories, the Roman Catholic Order at Catania, and the French Commission. Without a common homeland the fragmentation continued.

THE RUSSIAN GRAND PRIORY AND THE LAZAREFF JUDGEMENT.
In 1817 the Emperor's Committee of Ministers was approached on behalf of a member of the Army, Lazareff who had been admitted as a Knight to the Order by the Neapolitan Ambassador (i.e. the Roman Catholic/Papal Order based in Naples) to provide permission to wear the Order's Insignia. The applicant had stated that he had proved his ancient nobility according to the rules of the Russian Priory. The judgment, known as the 'Lazareff Deliberation', stated; "this Order being non-existent in Russia it is not possible to allow Lazareff to wear these badges, no more than for others who received them today" #67. Various arguments have been forwarded about the deliberation. The two main theses are (a) The Russian Priories no longer existed, and (b) the Roman Catholic-Neapolitan Order by then a separate Order was not recognised in Russia.

The weight of historical evidence cannot support the former interpretation. The decorations under discussion that could not be worn, were being awarded by the Roman Catholic Order not by the Russian Priories, and the Russian Priory is mentioned as existing (its rules were used to test admission to the Neapolitan Order), and despite the Government pronouncement in 1817, no decree for the Order's extinction had been issued in 1810/11, only that its temporalities be seized. There was never any edict issued that abolished the Order, or to curtail hereditary commanderies to the incumbents of the time. In terms of the Russian Priories, the Convention of 4th-5th January 1797 between Emperor Paul I and the Grand Master of the Order Emmanuel de Rohan-Polduc which founded the Grand Priory of Russia, was an international contractual act, and its terms were 'for ever'. No Imperial Ukase was ever issued abrogating Paul I's Proclamation which created a Russian Order of St. John. Whilst Emperor Alexander I through his disinterest had neglected his duties as Protector, the Order in Russia was maintained by its Commanders and Knights. For example, the prohibition to Lazareff was that he could not wear his decoration because of Government policy, never-the-less, he was still a Knight of the Neapolitan Order. Whilst the Russian Priories certainly existed throughout Alexander's reign they were deprived of support by the establishment, and were secularised independent institutions. This state of affairs seems to have shifted, either in Alexander's reign with a softening of attitude, or more certainly in the reign of succeeding Emperors.

Those who argue that the Russian Priories ended with either the Ukases of 1810/11 or the Deliberation of 1817, are probably being misled by a Russian publication of 1891 on Russian Orders issued 74 years after the Deliberation which provided a reworking of the original words to read "After the death of the Commanders of the Order of St. John, their heirs will not have the right to be Commanders of the Order and will not be allowed to wear the badges and decorations of the Order any longer because the latter does not exist any more in the Russian Empire" #68. One example is a book issued by the Roman Catholic Order in 1962 (The White Book) that seeks to discount any surviving branch of the Order but their own, which follows the wording of the 1891 publication and does not cross check the original 'Deliberation'. A more recent example which states that the Russian Priories came to an end with Alexander I, is a BBC publication, The Cross and the Crescent, in which three quotations will provide the style of invective the author uses; "distinctly tenuous links with the Knights of Malta... the erroneous assumption that the commanderies had been literally hereditary...spawned in emigre circles" #69.

THE SURVIVAL OF THE RUSSIAN TRADITION OF ST. JOHN.
In comparison to the those accepting the negative arguments concerning the survival of the Russian Tradition, Authors writing contemporary to the 1890s #70, and either before, or after that period, confirm the existence of the Russian Priories at the time relative to publication. Another book written from the papist perspective, points out that all the Emperors after Alexander I, held the Grand Cross of Honour and Devotion of the Roman Catholic Order with the Exception of Alexander III #71. Far from proving the suppression of the Order in Russia, demonstrates the continuing interest in the Order by these Emperors. Evidence that Emperor Alexander II was wearing a Cross of Malta, that was not a Roman Catholic decoration is easy to find #72. If a Russian Priory is discounted then academics are at a loss to explain the decoration.

Recent contact with the Russian authorities, in the late 1980s following perestroika and glasnosjt (restructuring and openness), normalising international relationships, has confirmed that no edict to suppress the Russian Priories ever existed #73. Any linguistic analysis of the Decrees cannot support the notion of suppression. What the Emperor needed was cash for his war chest. This is the context of the Decrees. Whilst some authors may argue that the Roman Catholic Order either counted the Russian Grand Priories as extinct, or by authority wound them up, this can only apply to the Roman Catholic Grand Priory, as the Grand Prior Paul I founded in 1798 was a Russian Institution and founded by Imperial Authority. The same case would apply to the British Order, and the Prussian JohanniterOrden, they are not amenable to Roman Catholic Authority, either via the Roman Catholic Order or via the Papacy.

Despite the very negative policies of the Emperor and the Russian Government towards the Order of St. John as a whole, there is evidence that Alexander's policy towards the Order became more conciliatory, ironically at about the same time as the Cabinet's Deliberation of 1817. His Foreign Minister, Count Nesselrode wrote to the Russian Minister in Paris informing him of the Emperor's warm feelings towards the Order in France; "His Imperial Majesty continues to regard the Order of St. John of Jerusalem with interest which is prompted by the noble and great services lately rendered to humanity (by the Order) and hopes that its restoration will be realised one day with no less healthy results" #74. This evidence would provide for speculation that there was a gap between the Cabinet and the Emperor concerning the Order. In the period 1810-1825 Russian Knights continue to appear in Court Almanacs including those who had received their Knighthood through the Roman Catholic/Papal Order in Naples. Further evidence of activity of the Knights in the reign of Alexander is provided by Poland. Russia had lost Poland to Napoleon (under the title of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw). The Congress of Vienna in 1815 had restored Poland as a Kingdom but under the Emperor of Russia. Poland was at least, technically a separate country and Knights within Poland sought their own Priory again. Correspondence exists in the years 1815-1819 from members of the Order petitioning the King of Poland (The Emperor) for the restoration of the Polish Priory #75.

THE ATTITUDE OF THE SUCCEEDING EmperorS TO THE RUSSIAN ORDER.
Whatever the arguments are about the suppression of, or the indifference to, the Order in Russia (both the Catholic and Russian Grand Priories) under Alexander I, succeeding Emperors accepted the presence of the Russian Priories and were more positive towards them. Nicholas I, brother to Alexander succeeded to the Imperial throne in 1825. He restored the two chapels of the Orthodox and Catholics in the Palace of Malta. Court Almanacs continued to reveal the presence of Knights at Court. Some who were Catholic may have been of the Roman Catholic Order, but many were Orthodox and of the Russian Priory. The relaxed attitude toward the Knights of Nicholas is documented in an essay written Baron F.I. Brunov in 1838, where a comment is provided by Emperor Nicholas I Note 1 page 234, indicating he understood his fathers ideas #76. Under the following Emperors, Alexander II (1855-1881) Alexander III (1881-1894) and Nicholas II (1894-1917) the Priories in Russia continued with a semi-official place in Court circles, as evidenced by the Court Almanacs.

EVIDENCE OF SURVIVAL, FOREIGN PUBLICATIONS.
In 1858 Sir Bernard Burke in his book on Orders of Knighthood lists the two Russian Priories as being under the Protection of the Emperor. Burke gained the details from a Belgic heraldic reference work of 1844 by Nicolas Loumyer #77. The details of the Russian Priories are so precise, that the source could have only been the Russian Priories in St. Petersburg. Loumyer was a classicist and historian, who had worked in the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs #78. The book was written with access to the sources which his position provided. In addition to Loumyer's book, a book on Orders of the Knights published in Brussels and Leipzig in 1848 #79 confirms the existence of the two Russian Priories with their hereditary commanderies, but acknowledges that their relationship with the Order at Rome was feeble. C. de Magney, Recueil Historique des Ordes de Chevalerie, Paris 1843 mentions the existence of an Indepedent Russian tradition. W. Maigne, Dictionnaire Encyclopédique des Ordres de Chevalerie, Paris 1861 stated that the Russian "institution maintains the appearance of its former organization and an independent Chapter votes on the candidates under the supreme direction of the Emperor". In 1897, L. de La Briere, a Knight of Malta, wrote in L'Ordre de Malte, le Passé, le Présent, Paris, 1897, p.232, dismissed the Russian Priories with the JohanniterOrden and the British Most Venerable Order of St.John as bogus orders of Malta and did not contest their existence.

EVIDENCE OF SURVIVAL, COURT ALMANACS.
Whilst it could be argued that Court Almanacs following the 1810/11 'dissolution' by the Emperor, continued to list the titles of Knights, even though the awarding Order no longer existed, this would only explain the matter for a single lifetime, to include the maturity of infants who were admitted to membership. Yet Court Almanacs continued to include non Catholic members of the Order of St. John, until the beginning of the upheavals of 1914-1917, a century well past its so-called abolition. Honorary Roman Catholic Order Knighthoods also, cannot account for all the titles on the lists. For example, the Court Almanacs for St. Petersburg 1910, 1911, 1912, and 1913-1914 have in their lists, Knightly titles that are pure Russian in origin, demonstrating clearly that the Russian Priories had not been suppressed but continued #80. With reference to honorary Roman Catholic Order titles in the Court Almanacs, what should not be discounted, is that they may have been awarded to regularise the fact, that the Catholic Priory had continued in some form or another, in the same way that the Orthodox Knights had continued.

In the creation of the Russian Grand Priory, Paul I allowed the creation of 'commanderies of family or jus patronat' known as hereditary commanderies #81. At least one of the Knights in the Court Almanacs for the years 1911, 1912, 1913/14 is described as an 'commandant héréditaire'.

It might be argued that the reference in the 1913/14 edition was not scrutinised and the claim checked, due to the distractions of the war, but this would not be true for the editions of 1911 and 1912. Critics who wish to dismiss out of hand, the survival of any Russian tradition, suggest that the whole notion of hereditary commanders is meaningless. The Order does not exist, it was suppressed in 1810, and so there is no Order to which these so-called Hereditary Commanders can belong. The very existence of those claiming the title, is dismissed as evidence! The claim to any hereditary title is dismissed as a misunderstanding of the term 'jus patronat'. In entertaining these assertions of the critics, what is important, is not what a Westerner in the 1990s believes about the term 'jus-patronat', but what the official accounts make of the term, contemporary to the events. N.N. Bantys-Kamenskij compiled a digest of official documents dealing with foreign relations up until 1800. This was completed in 1802. The work was not published until 1896 in Moscow. According to this official work the 'rodovye, or jus-patronatskie komandorstva' were founded in favour of the holder's descendants, with permission to extend the right of inheritance #82. Added to this reference is the 1785 Charter of Nobility of Catherine the Great, which reinforces the hereditary rights of Russian Nobility. Thus the jus-patronat commanderies, according to an official account complied under Emperor Alexander I, carried the notion of an hereditary principle.

From the evidence in the Almanacs, the Order was not counted as a State Order, and is not included in the list of the State Orders. It is also noticeable that the membership of the Order of St. John is listed after other titles of honour. However the very fact of the presence of knightly titles belonging to the Order, provides real evidence for a semi-official acceptance, and evidence of the Order's survival in Russia. There is a very real comparison with the British Order of today, which has the Queen as the Patron. It is not listed under the British Orders of Chivalry, but as a Decoration.

Of the Russian Orders of St. John, the 1829 Almanac lists 4 Grand Crosses, 12 Commanders and 19 Chevaliers - 35 members. The 1835 Almanac lists some 4 Grand Crosses, 14 Commanders, 32 Chevaliers and 1 Dame - 51 members a 46% increase #83. Whilst the lists of Knights in the Almanacs for both years, are not exhaustive of the Order's membership, the increased listing during the reign of Nicolas I may offer evidence of growth under a more relaxed attitude towards the Order. It is easily noticed that the 1914 Court Almanac's listings of Knights of the Order are a fraction of the lists of the mid 1800s (i.e. the 1913/14 list has only 2 names listed). It is expected that the interest in the Order as measured by the Almanacs, compared to State Orders which confer a greater dignity, will have reduced over the eighty year period.

EVIDENCE OF SURVIVAL, OTHER DOCUMENTARY SOURCES.
From the 18th century to World War II, Gotha was the seat of the geographical-cartographical publishing house of Justus Perthes (now the nationally owned Hermann Haack publishers), which first published in 1763, the Gothaische Hofkalender ("Gotha Almanac"), a widely used annual reference book. The Gotha Almanac shows hereditary commanders in 1867, 1885, 1889, 1908, 1914, 1925, 1928, 1934 and 1940. These references indicate that the hereditary titles had been more or less faithfully transmitted from generation to generation and that between 1810 and 1916 the Emperors had created eighteen additional hereditary commanders in the Russian Grand Priory #84. There is in addition Military Service Records. Documentary proof exists on the transmission of hereditary titles in the Russian Grand Priory, namely in the military service record of Prince A.V. Troubetzkoy. This document dated 1889 states: "In his quality of eldest son - Hereditary Commander of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, the insignia of which he wears under the sovereign's authorisation dated 19 October 1867..." #85 This establishes that an authorisation was granted in 1867 by Tsar Alexander II and confirmed by Alexander III in 1889, acts which imply the survival of the Order in Russia. It is very doubtful that this example is an isolated occurrence.

EVIDENCE OF SURVIVAL, STATE INSTUTIONS.
Also to be considered are the State institutions, which had been created or strengthened which were bound into the traditions of the Order of St. John, which ensured a continuation of those traditions in Russia. In 1785 Emperorina Catherine II founded a School for the Pages of Court (Corps de Pages) #86. Paul I modified and strengthened the institution based on the traditions of the Knights of St. John. The probability is that in the nineteenth century the Pages were trained by the Knights. In 1802 the School was further developed into a Military Academy by Alexander I who introduced a small, white, plain, Maltese Cross to be worn by the Pages on the left side of their tunic. Many of the Pages trained at the Academy became favoured officers in the Imperial Regiments. In 1810 under the secularising of the Russian Priories, the Palaise de Malte became part of the Academy, and in some ways provided a natural extension of use for the Palace. An exclusive Regiment of Guards was raised by Paul I, 'Chevaliers Gardes' which had a continuous existence from 1800 until 1917 when they were suppressed by the Communists #87. The ancient arms of Imperial Russia, with the Cross of Malta superimposed, became and remained the official seal of the Regiment. High officials who were officers in the Regiment are listed in the Almanach St. Petersbourg as late as the 1913-1914 edition. For example Prince Paul Alexandrovitch Deidoff (1869-1935) is listed as "ancien officer du rég. des chevaliers gardes; commandant hereditaire de l'Ordre de Malte" #88. When Paul I as Grand Master set up the Orthodox Priory, he was faithful to the Constitution of the Order, and military service was expected of the Knights, counting as their service in the caravans. This service could either be with the Order in Malta, or in the Russian army or navy #89. The establishment of the Chevaliers Gardes provided an elite means of service for the Russian Knights, with membership from the Russian Orthodox Priory evidenced up until the Gardes dismemberment by the Communists in 1917.

The examples of the Corps de Pages, the Chevaliers Gardes, and the associated duty of caravan service, brought the Russian Priories more into line with the Knights as they had existed in Malta, as a military Order, than was true of the Roman Catholic Order which in stages had moved into relative safety of Rome, despite the Roman Catholic Order's adoption of the title "Sovereign 'Military' Order of Malta"!

ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE.
Russian Knights held annual ceremonies every year to venerate the Holy Relics of the Order, with a special feast introduced into the Russian Orthodox Calendar as celebrated in St. Petersburg; 12th October (OS 23rd-NS) The Translation of the relics into Russia. These continued into the First World War. In 1915, the French Ambassador, Maurice Paleologue recalls that he was present at such a ceremony #90. There is also an indication that the Festivals of St. John the Baptist demonstrated a high regard for the Order. The Court Almanacs list August 29th (Martyrdom of St. John) as a Grande fête, and June 24th (Birth of St. John) was a Fête d'Eglise, providing the feasts with a reasonable priority.

Further evidence of the continued life of the Orthodox Priory emerged with an exilic group of Russian Nobles in Paris, where in 1928, a group of hereditary commanders met to re-establish in exile the activities of the Russian Orthodox Grand Priory. This chapter in the life of the Russian Orthodox Priory is taken up fully in the part three of this history.

THE END OF THE PRIORIES IN RUSSIA.
At the beginning of the First World War, Alfonso XIII of Spain was given the protection of all Russians abroad by Emperor Nicholas II #91. Some Russian historians see in this, a transfer of the Protection of the Russian Order (as far as Russian emigres are concerned). The War, with the German attack on Russia, allowed the revolutionary forces to be unhindered. By the 14th of March 1917, any effective Government was outside the control of the Emperor. On the 15th March, the Emperor abdicated in favour of his brother, Grand Duke Michael, who in turn abdicated the next day at a meeting of the Constituent Assembly. The Imperial Family was then placed under house arrest and murdered on the 16th July 1918, at Ekaterinburg. To save the relics of the Order of St. John in Russia from desecration and destruction by the Communists, they were taken by Father Bogoyavlenski in 1919 to Reval in Estonia. Later they were handed over to General Count Alexei Ignatiev for delivery to Copenhagen, Denmark, to be given to the Mother of Emperor Nicholas II, Dowager Emperorina Marie Feodorovna. They were kept at her villa in Hvioze. After the death of the Emperorina in 1928, her daughters, the Grand Duchesses, Xena and Olga delivered the relics under a deed of Trust to King Alexander I at Belgrade, to be kept in the private Chapel of the Royal Palace #92. King Alexander had trained at the Military Academy in St. Petersburg at the Corps de Pages #93, and was acquainted with the Orthodox tradition of the Order of St. John. Alexander died in 1934, and Regent, Prince Paul took his place. On the 27th March 1941, by a military coup d'etat Alexander's son, Peter became King. In April 1941, with the advance of the Germans the Relics were placed in Ostrog Monastery near Niksic in Montenegro, where one of the monks disclosed their location to the Axis forces who removed them. No information emerged after the War as to their location #94.

THE RUSSIAN TRADITION.
What is incontrovertible, is that a Russian tradition of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem existed in Russia, continuously from the time of Paul I until 1917. The transmission of that tradition was from generation to generation. These are the incontestable facts; (a) that Priories of the Order existed in Russia from 1798/9 until 1810/11 when their incomes are expropriated, (b) that Russian institutions bore witness to the tradition lasting up until the revolution, (c) that continual lists of Russian Nobles carrying the title of the Order, appeared in the Court Almanacs up until 1914, (d) that there were annual religious ceremonies venerating a relic of the Order, up until the last days of the Monarchy and (e) that a number of books published both from the middle of the 19th Century and throughout the 20th Century, gave witness to the existence of the Russian Priories. What is also well established and documented, is that the tradition continued in the west with the gathering of exiles at Paris in 1928. At least one signatory (Paul Alexandrovitch Demidoff) can prove that the gap between 1917 and 1928 is bridged, as his name appears both in the Court Almanacs of 1911 to 1914, and the document establishing the continuation of the Russian Priories activities in exile. Added to this testimony are the recollections of Russians going back to pre-Revolution days recalling a continued tradition.

THE FRENCH KNIGHTS OF ST. JOHN.
The French Commission which had the full title of 'Commission des Langues Françaises de l'Order Souverain de Malte' had the backing of the Government, but its relationship with the Roman Catholic/Papal Order was ambiguous. Various histories credit the French Knights with receiving a Papal Brief or Bull and the approval of the Order's Council to confirm their status. However this was not the case #95. The document dated the 10th August 1814 was no more than a letter from the Pope to the Grand Prior of Aquitaine, lacking any reference to the Commission. The correspondence with the Council of the Order was that the Prior had written on the 2nd August 1814, informing them that a Commission of the three Langues had been formed under his Presidency. In the reply of the 9th August 1814, the Lieutenant Grand Master, Guevara-Suardo Busca did not recognise the Commission as such, but offered further dialogue about the Order in France. The French Langues had been in times past, the backbone of the Order. The possibility of this obtaining again would have been real. Given this likelihood, there would be real apprehension on the part of Busca and the Council at Catania, as the balance of power would quickly shift to the French Knights. By 1821 the power of the Commission lay with its chancellor, Marquis Pierre-Hippolyte de Sainte-Croix-Molay. Under his leadership the French Commission sought to find a new homeland for the Order. The Commission was anxious to see a homeland restored to the Knights. They had made representation to the Congress of Vienna in 1814, via a note about the Order's history, having been thwarted from being allowed to sent a representative by the Council at Catania. Sainte-Croix had contact with the Spanish and Portuguese Knights of the Order, and with this contact sought representation at the Council of Verona in 1822. Of this representation, whilst a published Memorial signed on behalf of the five combined Langues may exist, #96, a record of their representation at the Congress cannot be confirmed #97.

The French Commission acted independently from the Council at Catania, and saw in the revolt of the Greek's against the Moslem Ottoman Empire an opportunity to restore Rhodes. In return the French Commission would provide troops and money. An attempt was made to raise £640,000 on the London Market with the sale of stock to be redeemed after 20 years. The loan was sought in the name of the Order, and not that of the French Commission. In December 1823, the Lieutenant Grand Master, Busca published a disavowal of the loan. Following this action, on March 27th 1824, in a Circular letter, Busca dissolved the French Commission. He sent a representative to France to reorganise the French Langues. The French Government was also approached to dissolve the 'rebel' group. The response was far more reaching than required, and Louis XVIII's Government issued an Ordinance on the 16th April, and an instruction on the 5th May 1824 to the effect that the Roman Catholic Order was no longer recognised in France. Despite French attempts to heal the schism, letters were sent to Busca but were unanswered. Undaunted and eager to restore the former glory of the Order, early in 1826, the French Knights reconstituted themselves as the "Conseil des Trois Langues de France" and endeavoured to renegotiate the English Loan, but by October 1827 the Greeks had gained their victory with British, French and Russian help #98.

Whilst Busca and his Council, may have had misgivings about the action of the French Knights, through its intransigence, the Roman Catholic/Papal Order had let a moment of history slip past. No discussion was entertained to regulate or to assist the French attempt at regaining a homeland for the Order. Busca might be compared to Hompesch. Hompesch had lost through inaction, the Order's home. Busca had ignored the chance of regaining a home #99. Under its Lieutenant Grand Master, Busca, the Roman Catholic/Papal Order seemed to have no interest in setting up as a truly sovereign state. Busca, however was to oversee a move of the Roman Catholic Convent. On the 21st May 1826, Pope Leo XII authorised Busca to move the Convent nearer to Rome in the Papal states in what had been the Duchy of Ferrara. On the 3rd June 1834, after the death of Busca, Pope Gregory XVI authorised the Order to move its Convent to Rome itself. Of this period in the history of the Roman Catholic/Papal Order, Ernle Bradford writes; "the Order in fact had largely become...an exclusive club of old Catholic noblemen living in the dead past" #100.

Whilst the Order came under Busca's leadership, the French Knights remained estranged from the Roman Catholic Order. As a domestic Order of Knighthood, the French Knights of St. John faced continual political upheaval, with Charles X of the Bourbon Monarchy being replaced by Louise-Philippe the Orleanist prince in 1830, followed by the Second Republic in 1848, the Second Empire of Napoleon III 1852-1870, and by the third, forth, and fifth republics, banishing monarchy from France altogether. After the loss of patronage with the disappearance of the monarchy in 1830, the Knights vainly sought to gain juridical recognition from Napoleon III via Empress Eugenie who had been made a Dame of the Order. A revival of the French Knights came about in 1881 through Duc de Sabran-Ponteveves who gained recognition from the Roman Catholic Order in 1891 for a French Association #101.

Towards the end of the nineteenth century the fortunes of the Order in all its guises had so diminished that it no longer commanded any attention in the affairs of the world, so much so that the English Historian, The Reverend John Green wrote in 1874 that the Knights of St. John had ceased to exist #102.

REFERENCES PART TWO.

#1 *Ragsdale & Others, Introduction page xiii.
#2 Ragsdale, Hugh, ed. Paul I: a reassessment of his life and reign. University Center for International Studies, University of Pittsburgh, 1979.
#3 *Ragsdale & Others, page 136.
#4 *Ragsdale & Others, Introduction page x.
#5 *Ragsdale & Others, pages 66 and 94.
#6 *Ragsdale & Others, page 61.
#7 *Mifsud, page 229.
#8 *Mifsud, pages 229-231. #9 *Ragsdale & Others, page 49.
#10 *Ragsdale & Others, page 49.
#11 *Boisgelin, Volume 3, Book 3, Appendix No XVII Convention between His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, and the Sovereign Order of Malta, Separate Article III.
#12 *Ragsdale & Others, page 50.
#13 *Ragsdale & Others, page 52.
#14 Mifsud, A. Knights Hospitallers of the Venerable Tongue of England in Malta, The Malta Herald, Valletta, Malta 1914, page 21.
#15 as is sometimes suggested by authors of this century, probably due to the fact, that in the vacuum of power left in the Order after Paul I assassination, Alexander his son, assumed a Protectorship over the Order see *Boisgelin, Volume 3, Book 3, Appendix No XX, Proclamation of His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias.
#16 *Boisgelin, Volume 3, Book 3, Appendix No XVII Convention between His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, and the Sovereign Order of Malta.
#17 Report to the Sacred Council, Order of St. John of Jerusalem in Malta, concerning the Treaty or Convention to establish a Grand Priory of Russia. Source: National Library, Malta. Arch 2196. November 1797, 4th paragraph.
#18 *Smith/Storace, pages 19, 105 and 106.
#19 A Treaty between Emperor PAUL I Emperor of All the Russias and Ferdinand von Hompesch, Grand-Master of the Order of St John, creating a new establishment of Orthodox Commanderies. Source: National Library, Malta. Arch 2196. Pages 87-105.
#20 Report to the Sacred Council, Order of St. John of Jerusalem in Malta, concerning the Treaty to establish Orthodox Commanderies. Source: National Library, Malta. Arch 2196. Pages 77-85, third paragraph.
#21 Pius's letter is in part reproduced in *Smith/Storace, page 107.
#22 The great bulk of the Knights went to Russia - Porter, Major Whitworth. Malta and its Knights, London 1871, page 329. Many of the Knights fled to Russia - Scicluna Hannibal Publius. The Church of St. John in Valletta, Rome 1955. Whole life of the Order at St. Petersburg - *Smith/Storace page 122. The more resolute Knights made their way to St. Petersburg - King, Edwin J. Revised by Luke, Harry. The Knights of St. John in the British Realm: Being the Official History of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem. Order of St. John, St. John's Gate, London, 1967, page 136.
#23*Ragsdale & others, page 56. *Smith/Storace, page 27.
#24 *Ragsdale & others, page 85. *Smith/Storace, page 27.
#25 Prologue of the Proclamation; *Boisgelin, Volume 3, Book 3, Appendix No XIX  
#26 Article XXV.
#27 The case that Hereditary Knighthoods existed within the Order has been well made by *Smith/Storace, Chapter V Role of Hereditary Knights pages 69-82.
#28 Copy of Treaty in the National Library Malta, Arch. 2196 pages 87-105.
#29 Toumanoff, Fra Cyrille. L'Order de Malte et L'Empire de Russie, Nouvelle Edition, Palazzo, Malta, 68 Via Condotti, Rome 1979, page 29.
#30 *Boisgelin, Book III, Appendix XIX, Article XXV page 290. Cf Article IX page 284.
#31 *Boisgelin, Book III, Appendix XX, page 292.
#32 *Smith/Storace, page 70.
#33 Godechot, Professor Jacques, Histoire de Malte, University Press, France 1952 page 39.
#34 Records published in *Gervers, Secunda Camera, page 570: "Frater Guido de Blancheford obiit tertio decimo die decembris, anno Domini millesimo quingentesimo tertio decimo" (Blancheford died 13th Dec. 1513), Frater Fabricius de Daretto factus et electus in magistrum quinto decimo die decembris, anno Domini millesimo quingentesimo tertio decimo" (Daretto was made and elected Grand Master 15th Dec. 1513).
#35 Engle, Dr. Claire E, Knights of Malta, London 1963 pages 38 and 46. Vella OP, Professor Andrew, Tribunal of the Inquisition in Malta, Valletta 1964 page 13.
#36 *Smith/Storace, page 30.
#37 *Porter Volume II, Page 462.
#38 *Smith/Storace, page 202.
#39 *Pierredon 1926, pages 15-18. See also *Smith/Storace, page 34.
#40 *Boisgelin, Volume 3, Appendix No. XXI, page 294. Also see *Smith/Storace, pages 203,204.
#41 *Smith/Storace, pages 34,35. For the text in English of Article X see *Boisgelin, Volume 3, Appendix XVI, pages 249-252.
#42 *Smith/Storace, page 35.
#43 *Smith/Storace, pages 36,38.
#44 Porter, Whitworth, Malta and its Knights, London 1871, page 349.
#45 *Smith/Storace, pages 40,41.
#46 *Smith/Storace, 41.
#47 *Smith/Storace, 42.
#48 Johnson, Paul. A History of Christianity, Penguin Books Ltd, Harmondsworth Middlesex 1980, page 364.
#49 *King-Statutes, page 11.
#50 *Seward page 227. This event demonstrates the growing European nationalism. The Convent was mainly French, and naturally followed France's lead. Priories loyal to the Papacy established at Rome were in schism with the Order. The English Priory, in common with the Capua Priory in Naples accepted the Rival Grand Master. In the list of Grand Masters provided by the Essex Cartulary, Caracciolo (Caratzolus) is included but Heredia's name is missing. See *Gervers, Secunda Camera, page 570.
#51 Counting from Gerard, Caracciolo is placed 33rd (Heredia being 32nd).
#52 *Boisgelin, Volume 1, Book 2, pages 190-192.
#53 *Sainty, page 20 sidenote 69.
#54 Dwyer, J.J. The Popes from St. Peter to Paul VI, Catholic Truth Society London 1963, page 24.
#55 Bronowski, J. The Ascent of Man, British Broadcasting Corporation, London, 1973, pages 205-218.
#56 *Boisgelin, Volume 2, Book 1, page 190.
#57 *Boisgelin, Volume 2, Book 1, pages 169-170.
#58 *Boisgelin, Volume 2, Book 1, pages 195-196.
#59 *Smith/Storace, page 43 and Chapter 12 pages 149-160.
#60 *Pierredon 1963 Vol. 2, page 120.
#61 *Smith/Storace, page 44.
#62 *Pierredon, 1963 Vol. 2, page 127.
#63 *Smith/Storace, pages 63, 123.
#64 *1990 OSJ Deliberations, page 9.
#65 *Smith/Storace, page 44.
#66 Algrant C.St.J, James J, The Russian Connection, http://caltrap.bbsnet.com/russian%20connection.htm
#67 *Pierredon 1963 Vol. 2, pages 348 and 349.
#68 Panov and Zamyslovsky, A Brief Historical Account of the Russian Orders and their Statutes, St. Petersburg 1891.
#69 *Billings, page 231. Billings stresses the lack of recognition the revived Russian Order has from the Roman Catholic, German and British Orders (whom he accepts as legitimate). In reference to Orders resulting from the Russian Orders, as a further indictment, he adds that some groups "exploit the ancient name by selling knighthoods", page 231. Even accepting this criticism, such acts do not of themselves invalidate any claim to legitimacy, in the same way, that the accusation that the Most Venerable Order (under the Sovereign Head, the Queen) was "trying to 'sell' honorary knighthoods in America to raise funds", does not invalidate their claim to legitimacy. See Article "Royal honours for sale in the US", The Sunday Telegraph, 14th April 1996 front page.
#70 such as Briere, Leon de la, L'Ordre de Malte, Le Passe, Le Present, Paris 1897.
#71 *Sire, Page 271, Footnote. Sire is wrong in this point and another scholar has tracked down the fact that Alexander III received a Grand Cross from the Roman Catholic Order, as recorded in the Roman Catholic Order's own archive! See Sherbowitz-Wetzor, Professor Olgerd, and Toumanoff, Professor Pr. Cyril, L'Ordre de Malte et l'Empire de Russie in Annales de l'Ordre Souverain et Militaire de Malte, Rome 1967, vol. XXV, Part IV pp. 129-130.
#72 *Smith/Storace, page 121.
#73 *1990 OSJ Deliberations, pages 9 and 10.
#74 *Pierredon 1926, page 123.
#75 *Smith/Storace, page 125.
#76 Aperçu des principals transactions du cabinet de Russie sous les règnes de Catherine II, Paul I, et Alexander I, Sbornic Imperatorskago Russkago Istoricheskago Obshestvya (IRIO), XXXI (1881).
#77 Loumyer, Jean Francis Nicholas. Histoire, Costumes et Decorations de tous les Ordres de Chevalerie et Marques d'Honneur, Brussels 1844.
#78 Biographie Nationale, publie par L'Academie Royale des Sciences, des Letters & des Beaux Arts, de Belgique: 1892-1893. Tome Douzieme, LES-LY, Bruxelles, Bruylant-Christophe & Cie, Imprimeurs Editeurs, successeur Emile Bruyland, Rue de al Regence 67, pp 507-509.
#79 Livre des Ordres de Chevaliers, Brussels and Leipzig 1848.
#80 Almanach de St-Pétersbourg for the years 1910-1914 British Library Ref: 2458 yaa.
1910:
Page 33. de Berchtold, Cte Leopold. Chevalier hon. de l'Order de Malte.
Page 38. Blucher de Wahlstatt, Pr. Gebhard. chev. hon. de l'Ordre de Malte.
Page 55. Buxhoeveden, Bn Alexandre Arthurovitch. chev. hon. de l'Ordre de St.-Jean.
Page 218. de Maydell, Bn Roman Carlovitch. Chevalier de droit de l'Ordre de St. Jean
Page 400. Trachenberg, Duchesse Natalie, Pcesse de Hatzfeld, Alt. Seren nee Ctesse de Benckendorff. Dame de l'Ordre de Malte.
1911:
Page 61; Demidow, (Demidoff), Paul Alexandrovitch. ancien officier du rég. des chevaliers-gardes; commandant héréditaire de l'Ordre de Malte.
Page 190; de Maydell, Bn Roman Carlovitch, * 5 aoû 1859; Chevalier de droit de l'Ordre de St. Jean.
1912
Page 158; BLÜCHER DE WAHLSTATT, Pr Gebhard. Alt. Sérén, * 1836; chev. hon. de l'Ordre de malte.
Page 175; BUXHOEVEDEN, Bn Alexandre Arthurovitch, * 21 avril 1856 chev. hon. de l'Ordre de St.-Jean.
Page 189; DEMÍDOV, (Demidoff), Paul Alexandrovitch. ancien officier du rég. des chevaliers-gardes; commandant héréditaire de l'Ordre de Malte.
Page 335; DE MAYDELL, Bn Roman Carlovitch, * 5 aoû 1859; Chevalier de droit de l'Ordre de St. Jean.
1913/1914
Page 141; BLÜCHER DE WAHLSTATT, Pr Gebhard. Alt. Sérén, * 1836; chev. hon. de l'Ordre de malte.
Page 178; DEMÍDOV, (Demidoff), Paul Alexandrovitch. ancien officier du rég. des chevaliers-gardes; commandant héréditaire de l'Ordre de Malte.
Cf. *Smith/Storace, pages 121,122.
#81 *Bosgelin Volume 3, Book 3, Appendix No XVIX, Articles XXII and XXIII.
#82 Bantys-Kamenskij, N.N. Obzor Vnesnix Snosenij Rossii, Moscow 1896. Copies of the relevant pages held by the Author, - pages 228 and 229.
#83 Alamanac for 1829 supplied by Chevalier Dr Paul Cardile, from the New York Public Library. The Almanac of 1835 is a copy of that held by the Order of St. John, Knights Hospitaller in Belgium.
#84 Algrant C.St.J, James J, The Russian Connection, http://caltrap.bbsnet.com/russian%20connection.htm
#85 *Smith/Storace, pages 179 and 217. Algrant C.St.J, James J, The Russian Connection, http://caltrap.bbsnet.com/russian%20connection.htm
#86 For source details on Corps de Pages see *Smith/Storace, pages 70,77,99,112.
#87 *Smith/Storace, pages 55,111.
#88 See ref. 52 above. Cf. *Smith/Storace, pages 75,111.
#89 *Boisgelin, Volume 3, Appendix No. XIX, page 284.
#90 Paleologue, Maurice, La Russie des Tsars Pendant La Grande Guerre, Paris 1921, P Con I., page 337,II, page 243, iii, page 301 and pages 319,320.
#91 *Smith/Storace, pages 82,115,116.
#92 King, Edwin J. Revised by Luke, Harry. The Knights of St. John in the British Realm: Being the Official History of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem. Order of St. John, St. John's Gate, London, 1967, footnote page 136.
#93 King Peter of Yugoslavia, A King's Heritage, London 1955, page 14.
#94 *Smith/Storace, Appendix VII pages 219-222 relates the tradition about the Hand of St. John the Baptist. See also pages 113,114.
#95 *Torr Athen, page 738 and *Riley-Smith MVO, page 122.
#96 Bisby, Dr. Robert. An Historical Memoir of the Langue, in; The Statues of the Sovereign and Illustrious Order of St. John of Jerusalem, Anglia, The Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem in Anglia, London 1864,
#97 *Torr Athen, page 738.
#98 For further details consult *Smith/Storace, pages 47-52.
#99 In any worthwhile history on the Order, even by Authors favourable to the Roman Catholic Order, it must prove difficult not to compare Busca to Hompesch, as indeed Sire does; *Sire, page 249.
#100 *Bradford, page 219.
#101 *Sire, page 253.
#102 Green, John Richard. A Short History of the English People, Macmillian & Co. Limited, London 1874. Revised edition 1907 page 837.

Author: The Reverend Michael Foster SSC MIWO
Date of Publication. First published 8th May 1998.

© The Reverend Michael John Foster SSC MIWO.
© The British Grand Priory, Order of St. John of Jerusalem Knights Hospitaller, Registered Charity at Law No. 1049553


Corrected 28th May 1998.
Back to History Menu

To Home Page