Secret societies and subversive movementsWebster, Nesta Helen
History
Secret societies and subversive movements
Webster, Nesta Helen
Secret societies
On December 29, 1808, Pyron writes again: "By the words 'sect of B....'
I meant W...."; and on December 3, 1809, puts the matter quite plainly:
"The other word remaining at the end of my pen refers enigmatically to
Weis=pt."
So, as M. Fabre points out:
There is no longer any doubt that it is a question here of
Weishaupt, and yet one observes that his name is not yet written in
all its letters. It must be admitted here that Pyron took great
precautions when it was a matter of Weishaupt! And one is led to
ask what could be the extraordinary importance of the rôle played
at this moment in the Freemasonry of the First Empire by this
Weishaupt, who was supposed to have been outside the masonic
movement since Illuminism was brought to trial in 1786![644]
But the Marquis de Chefdebien entertained no illusions about Weishaupt,
whose intrigues he had always opposed, and in a letter dated May 12,
1806, to the Freemason Roettiers, who had referred to the danger of
isolated masonic lodges, he asks:
In good faith, very reverend brother, is it in isolated lodges that
the atrocious conspiracy of Philippe [the Duc d'Orléans] and
Robespierre was formed? Is it from isolated lodges that those
prominent men came forth, who, assembled at the Hôtel de Ville,
stirred up revolt, devastation, assassination? And is it not in the
lodges bound together, co-and sub-ordinated, that the monster
Weishaupt established his tests and had his horrible principles
prepared?[645]
If, then, as M. Gustave Bord asserts, the Marquis de Chefdebien had
himself belonged to the Illuminati before the Revolution, here is indeed
Illuminist evidence in support of Barruel! Yet disillusioned as the
"Eques a Capite Galeato" appears to have been with regard to Illuminism,
he still retained his allegiance to Freemasonry. This would tend to
prove that, however subversive the doctrines of the Grand Orient may
have been--and indeed undoubtedly were--it was not Freemasonry itself
but Illuminism which organized the movement of which the French
Revolution was the first manifestation. As Monsignor Dillon has
expressed it:
Had Weishaupt not lived, Masonry might have ceased to be a power
after the reaction consequent on the French Revolution. He gave it
a form and character which caused it to outlive that reaction, to
energize to the present day, and which will cause it to advance
until its final conflict with Christianity must determine whether
Christ or Satan shall reign on this earth to the end.[646]
If to the word Masonry we add Grand Orient--that is to say, the Masonry
not of Great Britain, but of the Continent--we shall be still nearer to
the truth.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account